I. Introduction

The historical period discussed in this article began about 1400 B.C., when Israel invaded western Palestine under the leadership of Joshua, and closed with the destruction of Jerusalem in 586 B.C. The beginning of this period coincides with the beginning of the decline of Egyptian power in Asia. The strongest power in the north was that of the Hittite kingdom. This, however, disappeared under the onslaught of the Sea Peoples two centuries later. Afterward the Assyrians came to the forefront and by brute force formed an empire that eventually reached from the highlands of Iran to the southern border of the Egypt. Babylonia, which during all this time existed only as a shadow of its former illustrious self, finally threw off the shackles of the Assyrian yoke and took its place once more as a short-lived but glorious empire.

An understanding of the history of these and other nations is essential to a correct understanding of the ancient history of the people of God, who struggled for their existence among various local nations in Palestine first under tribal leaders, the judges, then under kings, who were able to build a respectable kingdom and hold it together for a little more than a century. This, however, broke up into two rival kingdoms, each of which was too weak to withstand the forces pressing for control over Palestine, the vital land bridge between the two most important regions and civilizations of antiquity, Egypt and Mesopotamia. The northern kingdom of Israel was finally swallowed up by the Assyrians and completely disappeared from history after the destruction of Samaria in 722 B.C. The southern kingdom of Judah held out for almost another century and a half, but finally succumbed to the Babylonians. However, the religious vigor of the Jews preserved their national unity even in exile, with the result that Judah emerged from captivity a strong and united people.

The purpose of this article is to study the historical background of this most important and interesting period; to view the rise, decline, and fall of kingdoms and empires; and to observe how the people of God were influenced by the events, cultures, and civilizations of their time. Also, a brief survey of the history of the people of Israel is presented, first, divided into tribal organizations under the leadership of judges, later as a united body under three successive kings, and finally as two separate and rival kingdoms.

Since the Bible writers who have provided the bulk of available source material for a reconstruction of the history of Israel were its religious leaders and reformers, they viewed the history of Israel in the light of the people's obedience or disobedience to God, and recorded it as such. This is the reason that for some periods, when the people went through special crises or possessed outstanding leaders, our sources are plentiful, whereas for others they are pitifully meager, and leave great gaps that our present knowledge is as yet unable to bridge. The reader must therefore be aware that a historical sketch of the people of God in the times of the Old Testament is sketchy in some parts and well rounded in others.

The same is also true in regard to the history of the other ancient nations, all periods of which are not equally well covered by reliable source material. In some cases the events of centuries are not yet known. The discovery of more original source material must be awaited before a reconstruction of ancient history in all its aspects becomes possible. The following survey represents the present state of knowledge, based (1) for the greater part on documentary evidence that has become available since the ancient languages written in various hieroglyphic or cuneiform scripts were resurrected, in the early 19th century, and (2) on the wealth of material preserved by the sand and debris of centuries and in recent decades brought to light by the scape of the excavator.

II. Egypt From the Amarna Age to the End of the Twentieth Dynasty (c. 1400-c. 1085 B.C.)

Chronology of the Period.--Although an unassailable chronology of Egypt prior to about 660 B.C. has not yet been established, with the exception of that pertaining to the Twelfth Dynasty, our dates for the empire period--dynasties Eighteen to Twenty--are approximately correct. Slight variations in the dates given by various historians and chronologers are found, but are never greater than a few years. In fact, the chronology of this period has hardly been changed since it was established during the last century--in contrast with the chronology of all previous periods, which has been decreased by centuries for some periods and by millenniums for others.

It is not possible to enter into the intricate problems of ancient chronology here, and it may suffice to state that the dates of the empire period of Egypt are based on astronomical texts dated to the reigns of certain kings, on historical, dated records extant from that time, and on lists of kings from various sources. The dates presented in this section are thus based on all available source material, and cannot be off by more than a few years from the true dates. The margin of error is certainly not greater than 25 years, and is probably smaller than 10 years. The given dates can therefore be considered as relatively correct and are presented as such.

Egypt in the Amarna Age (Eighteenth Dynasty).--Moses witnessed the rise of Egypt to become the strongest political power of his time. During his life the empire established by Thutmose III reached from the border of the Abyssinian highlands in the south to the river Euphrates in the north. The wealth of the Asia and Africa poured into the Nile country, where temples like those of Karnak, Luxor, Deir el-Bahri, and others were erected, so colossal that they have withstood the destructive power of both man and nature for millenniums, and have been the marvel of many generations of visitors.

When Israel was in the desert, from about 1445 to 1045 B.C. (see Vol. I, pp. 188-194), the Egyptian Empire was held together by the strong and ruthless hands of Amenhotep II (c. 1450-1425 B.C.) and of his son Thutmose IV (c. 1425-1412 B.C.). With the next king, Amenhotep III (c. 375 B.C.), a man came to the throne who enjoyed the full fruits of the empire his fathers had built, without expending much effort himself to hold it together. He had been a great hunter in early life and had led one military campaign to Nubia, but lived thereafter in magnificent luxury and leisure and spent his last days as a fat weakling with decayed teeth, as the abscesses in his mummy show. He married Tiy, who, as the daughter of commoners, was nevertheless a remarkable woman of whom Amenhotep was proud. Nevertheless, there was also a great influx of foreign blood into the royal family, for there were brought into the king's harem princesses from several foreign kingdoms, the most important being Gilukhepa, of the Mitanni. That northern Mesopotamian kingdom, ruled by Indo-European Hurrians, had formerly been the greatest rival to the power of the earlier kings of the Eighteenth Dynasty, but was now cultivating friendly relations with Egypt.

Amenhotep III apparently considered the wealth of Asia and Africa, regularly coming to him by way of tribute, as something that had always enriched Egypt, and would continue to do so without any further effort on his part. He did not notice the distant rumblings of the breakup of his Asiatic empire. The Hittites in the north, unruly local princes in Syria and Palestine, and the intruding Habiru in those same countries nibbled away at the edges of the empire, and must have occasioned a noticeable decrease in the revenue of Egypt. But the lazy Pharaoh did nothing to stem the tide of imperial decay.

Ikhnaton.--Near the close of his reign Amenhotep III made his son Amenhotep IV (Ikhnaton) coregent. His sole reign lasted from about 1375 to 1366 B.C. He is one of the most controversial personalities of history. While one scholar characterized him as the "first individual in history," "a very exceptional man" (Breasted), another described him as "half insane" (Budge). Two recent authors speak of him as "the most fascinating personality who ever sat on the throne of the Pharaohs" (Steindorff and Seele), and another describes him as effeminate, abnormal, and dominated by women (Pendlebury).

Amenhotep IV, or Ikhnaton, as the king called himself after his religious revolution, broke with the traditional Amen religion of Egypt, and elevated Aten, the sun disk, to be the supreme and only god of the realm. Himself a physical weakling, he was possessed of a strong will power, and made a vigorous attempt to stamp out the religion and cult of Amen. Since Thebes was too strongly connected with Amen, Amenhotep moved the capital to another site several hundred miles down the river, where he built a city called Akhetaton, and vowed never to leave that place. Here he was surrounded by his followers, courtiers, poets, architects, and artists. With his encouragement, these men developed the new, realistic form of art that had only recently been introduced in Egypt. Artists painted and modeled their objects, not according to the traditional idealistic style, as had been the custom, but as they appeared to the eye--beautiful or ugly. Up to this time, for example, every king, whether old or young, handsome or ugly, had been depicted as a youthful and vigorous man--the ideal god-ruler. This was all changed now. The king was sculptured and painted in all his ugliness with a protruding abdomen, an elongated skull, and a long chin. His aging father was depicted as having a fat, sacklike figure.

Emphasis was also placed on maÔat, which has been translated "truth," but which means also "order," "justice," and "right." Accordingly, things were to be seen as they are, not as they ought to be--really rather than ideally. In this principle the young king was far ahead of his time and could not be understood, and for this reason his revolution failed. However, his artists produced some of the masterpieces of all time, as, for example, the bust of Nefertiti, now in the Berlin Museum, and mural paintings of birds and plant life that have not been surpassed in beauty by painters of other periods, ancient or modern.

The king's new religion has been called monotheism--a belief in one universal god. It is, however, highly questionable whether this term can rightly be applied to the brand of religion Ikhnaton introduced. It is true that he never worshiped any other god than Aton after the revolution, but his subjects did not worship Aton. They continued to worship the king as their god, as they had before, and he not only tolerated but apparently required this continued worship of his person.

Either the king or some poet of his time composed a hymn to Aton, praising the sun disk as the creator-god. Since this hymn is in certain respects parallel in wording and composition to the 104th psalm, some scholars have thought the latter to be a Hebrew edition of the Aton hymn. There is, however, no valid evidence to support this assumption, since any poet, glorifying a certain god as the supreme god of creation, who produces and preserves life and well-being, will use terms and expressions that are somewhat similar to those found in the Aton hymn or the 104th psalm.

The king was married to beautiful Nefertiti, whose world-famous bust, found in a sculptor's studio at Amarna, is one of the masterpieces of ancient art. The royal couple had six daughters, but no sons. However, the family life seems to have been very happy and natural, as contemporary pictures reveal. Never before did an Egyptian king have himself and his family depicted as did this monarch, kissing one of his daughters, or caressing his wife.

While Ikhnaton built palaces and sun temples in his new capital, and sponsored a naturalistic art far advanced for his time, his henchmen went through the country trying to eradicate the old religion by chiseling from all monuments the names of all other gods but Aton. The temples were closed, and the priests lost their customary allowances. That this policy created a deep-seated enmity in conservative circles can easily be understood. This feeling of hatred against Ikhnaton was increased by the gradual decrease in foreign revenue, which resulted in greater tax burdens for the Egyptian citizens, and simultaneously impoverished the population. This situation resulted from the gradual breakup of the empire. The first signs of the weakening power of Egypt in Asia had been evident under Amenhotep III, but they became more manifest under the weak rule of Ikhnaton, who lived his new religion, chanted hymns to Aton, refused to leave his new capital, and apparently did not care that the foreign possessions built up by means of the numerous military expeditions of his illustrious ancestors were being lost, one after another.

The Amarna Letters.--The rich archive of cuneiform tablets found in the ruins of Ikhnaton's short-lived and ill-fated capital, Akhetaton, now called Tell el-ÔAmarna, contains much information concerning the contemporary political situation in Palestine and Syria. These hundreds of clay tablets, found in 1887 (see Vol. I, pp. 106, 126, 139, 168, 189), come from the official files of correspondence between the Palestinian and Syrian vassal princes and Pharaoh, as well as from the friendly kings of Mitanni, Assyria, and Babylonia. Few discoveries have shed more light on a limited period of the ancient world than have the Amarna Letters on the time of the kings Amenhotep III and Amenhotep IV (Ikhnaton).

These letters reveal clearly the waning influence of Egypt in Asia, as the powerful Hittites pressed against the Egyptian Empire and occupied a number of regions in northern Syria. Local Asiatic dynasties quarreled one with another, the more powerful overthrowing the weaker and thereby enlarging their own power and territory. The most notorious among these princes, who pretended to be vassals of Egypt but fought against Egyptian interests wherever they could, were Abd-Ashirta and later his son Aziru of Amurru. They extended their domain over a number of neighboring wealthy areas, such as Byblos, Beirut, and other Phoenician coastal cities.

In Palestine the situation was similar. A number of local rulers took advantage of Egypt's weakness to extend their own possessions. There were also the Habiru, who invaded the country during this time from the direction of Transjordan. One city after another fell into their hands, and those among the princes who tried to remain faithful to Egypt, like the king of Jerusalem, wrote one frantic letter after another to Pharaoh begging for military help against the invading Habiru. However, all the efforts of loyal princes and commissioners to stem the tide of rebellion and invasion were in vain. Official Egypt turned a deaf ear to all pleas and seemed to be indifferent to what happened in Syria or Palestine. This situation is vividly depicted in the Amarna Letters, which will be referred to again in the section dealing with the invasion of Canaan by the Hebrews. It is generally believed that the Habiru of the Amarna Letters were related to the Hebrews (see Gen. 10:21; 14:13).

Toward the end of his reign, Ikhnaton made Smenkhkare, his son-in-law, coregent. Ancient records give him four regnal years, but they probably fall entirely within the reign of his father-in-law. After Ikhnaton's death, another son-in-law came to the throne, the young Tutankhaton, meaning "the living form of Aton" (1366-1357 B.C.). He was not strong enough to withstand the pressure of the conservatives, and was forced to return to Thebes to restore the Amen cult and religion. He changed his name to Tutankhamen, abandoned the capital Akhetaton (Amarna), and tried to make amends for the "heresy" of his predecessors by repairing various temples, reinstating the Amen priests, and restoring the Amen cult to its former glory. When he died, after a reign of less than ten years, he received a magnificent burial in the Valley of the Kings in western Thebes, where all the pre-Amarna kings of the Eighteenth Dynasty had been buried. Since his is the only royal tomb to remain unmolested until its discovery in 1922, with its marvelous treasures, the name of Tutankhamen has become a modern household word. He is better known than any other Egyptian king, although he was only one of the insignificant and ephemeral rulers of Egypt's long history.

Tutankhamen left no children, and his widow turned to the Hittite king Shubbiluliuma, asking him in a letter for one of his sons to marry her and become king of Egypt. The Hittite king was at first baffled at this unusual request, and made an investigation as to the sincerity of the queen. Satisfied at last with regard thereto, he sent one of the Hittite princes to Egypt, who, however, was waylaid and murdered en route. This was probably arranged by Eye, one of the most influential courtiers of the previous Pharaohs. He forced Tutankhamen's widow to marry him and accordingly ruled Egypt for a few years (1357-1353 B.C.). He usurped not only the throne but also the mortuary temple and statutes of his predecessor.

When Eye in turn died, after a reign of about four years, the reins of government were taken over by the former army commander, Harmhab, who ruled for 34 years (1353-1320 B.C.). He is usually counted as the first king of the Nineteenth Dynasty. Harmhab seems to have been less tinged with the Amarna revolution than his two predecessors, and was therefore more acceptable to the priesthood and to the conservatives of the country. He began to count his regnal years from the death of Amenhotep III, as if he had been the legitimate ruler over Egypt during the time of Ikhnaton, Smenkhkare, Tutankhamen, and Eye. These four rulers were henceforth regarded as having been usurpers, "heretics," and are therefore not mentioned in later king lists. Thus, Amenhotep III was officially followed immediately by Harmhab.

The first task Harmhab set for himself was that of restoring internal order and security in Egypt, which seems to have been badly disrupted during the previous decades of weak rule. His edict, still extant, was issued "to establish order and truth, and expel deceit and lying." Priests were given special privileges in the judicial system, and severe and cruel punishments were threatened for abuses of power by officers of the realm. Since all his energy seems to have been needed for a restoration of order in the country, he had neither time nor power to regain the Asiatic possessions which by this time had completely been lost. Since the death of Thutmose IV in 1412 B.C. no Egyptian king had been seen in Syria or Palestine, with the result that the Pharaoh was no longer known or feared there. This situation was advantageous to the Hebrews, who probably began their invasion of Palestine in 1405, and were able in succeeding decades to establish themselves there without interference on the part of the kings of Egypt.

The Nineteenth Dynasty.--Dying childless, Harmhab was followed by his appointed successor, the general of the army, Ramses I. An old man, Ramses I died after a short reign (1320-1319 B.C.), and left the throne to his son, Seti I (1319-1299 B.C.). With him a new era began, and once more the power of Egypt was felt. He made determined and partly successful attempts to regain the Asiatic possessions. Records carved on Egyptian temple walls and on a great stone monument found in the excavation of Beth-shan, at the eastern end of the Valley of Esdraelon, in Palestine, disclose that the king invaded Palestine during his first year. His chief aim was to regain some of the important cities which, in times past, had been occupied by Egyptian garrisons, and to control once more the trade routes to the fertile and rich Hauran in northern Transjordan. With three divisions, he claims to have attacked and conquered the cities of Yano½am, Beth-shan, and Hamath (south of Beth-shan) simultaneously. His victory stele found in Beth-shan shows that he reoccupied the city and stationed an Egyptian garrison there. He then crossed the Jordan and occupied certain rich areas in the Hauran, according to another victory monument found at Tell esh-Shihaµb, about 22 mi. east of the Sea of Galilee.

After Seti I had reoccupied certain important cities in western Palestine and Transjordan, he turned to Syria and reconquered Kadesh on the Orontes, according to his official records carved on the temple walls at Karnak and from the fragment of a victory stele found at Kadesh itself. On a later campaign Seti I advanced even farther north, to punish the renegade kingdom of Amurru and to force the Hittites to recognize certain rights of Egypt over northern Syria. Once more, loot from Syria and cedarwood from the Lebanon came to Egypt, although not in the quantities of a century earlier. However, Egypt once more enjoyed the satisfaction of being the proud ruler of foreign regions and peoples in Asia, although the new empire was but a shadow of the former one.

During the reign of Seti I a freer interchange of culture began to take place between Egypt and Asia than even before. Canaanite deities, such as Baal, Resheph, Anath, Astarte, and others, were accepted into the Egyptian cult system. The Egyptian religion lost its isolation and some of its national peculiarities. From now on more emphasis was placed on magic, ritual, and oracles, with the gods Fortune and Fate taking a more important role in the religious life of the Egyptians.

Ramses II and the Hittites.--The policy of reconquering the Asiatic empire was continued by the next king, Ramses II (1299-1232 B.C.), whose reign was exceptionally long. The fact that he usurped many Egyptian monuments by exchanging his name for those of his royal predecessors, making it appear that these monuments had been erected by him, together with great building activity of his own, made Ramses II more famous than he deserved. The name of no other Pharaoh is found so often on ancient monuments as that of Ramses II. As a result, earlier Egyptologists attributed fame to him out of all proportion to his accomplishments.

When Ramses II came to the throne the Hittite king Mutallu advised a Syrian prince to hasten to Egypt and pay homage to the new king, perhaps as a precaution, since no one could know what the young Pharaoh might do. As time passed and there were no marked signs of determination on the part of Ramses to hold on to his Asiatic possessions, the Hittite king organized a confederacy of Anatolian and Syrian states, which not only proclaimed its own complete independence, but also annexed other Egyptian possessions in Syria. Its combined army of some 30,000 men was determined to keep northern Syria out of the Egyptian Empire.

Ramses logically felt that he must meet the challenge of the hour. With four divisions, bearing the names of the gods Amen, Ra, Ptah, and Set, probably equal in strength to the forces of the Hittite confederacy, he marched north. The Hittite army awaited the Egyptians at Kadesh on the Orontes, where the famous battle between Ramses and Mutallu took place. This struggle was described in word and picture on numerous monuments throughout Egypt.

The Hittites sprang a trap on Ramses. The latter had picked up a pretended Hittite deserter who reported that Mutallu had retreated and left Kadesh for better defensive positions in the north, while actually he was poised behind the city of Kadesh ready to attack. Suspecting no malice, Ramses therefore marched northward. Crossing the brook El-Mukadiyeh with the division of Amen, he pitched camp on the northern bank. When the next division, that of Ra, forded the same brook, Mutallu, with part of his army, slipped over the Orontes behind the Ra division and began to attack the surprised Egyptians simultaneously from both the south and the north. Ramses' two other divisions were still on the march seven or more miles to the south while the men of the Amen and Ra divisions were fighting for their lives.

The story of how Ramses saved his army by personal heroism is legendary and needs no repetition here. His claim to have turned the imminent defeat into a brilliant victory, proclaimed on many monuments, must also be taken with a grain of salt, because the Hittites claimed likewise to have won a complete victory over the Egyptians. It is probably true that Ramses was able to save the greater part of his army and so avoid a disaster, but he can hardly have been victorious, since the contested region of Syria was retained by the Hittites and permanently lost to Egypt. Hittite texts indicate, furthermore, that the Hittites penetrated the Lebanon and extended their power over Damascus, in southern Syria, which they would hardly have been able to do if they had been defeated as Ramses claims.

During the reigns of the two following Hittite rulers, Urkhi-Teshub and Hattushilish III, relations with Egypt gradually became more peaceful, and a treaty of friendship between the two kingdoms was finally concluded in the 21st year of Ramses II. Since an Egyptian copy of the text of the treaty may be seen today on the temple walls at Karnak, and a Hittite copy has come to light from the royal archives of the Hittite capital city Khattushash (Boghazköy), we are exceptionally well informed concerning it. The two documents contain a preamble explaining why the treaty was concluded and noting that diplomatic negotiations had preceded ratification of the pact. It contains, furthermore, a declaration of mutual nonaggression but, strangely, without defining the borders of their respective geographical spheres of influence. Their alliance included mutual assistance against external enemies and internal rebels, and an agreement on the part of each to surrender political refugees to the other. The two documents close with various divine sanctions against any king who might break the provisions of the treaty.

This treaty of friendship remained in force for the remainder of the existence of the Hittite kingdom. Thirteen years after its conclusion Ramses married a Hittite princess, and a rich correspondence between the two royal houses testifies to the friendly relations that existed between them. When a famine ravaged Anatolia during the reign of Merneptah, son of Ramses II, the latter sent grain to the Hittites to alleviate their plight. After this event nothing more is heard of the Hittites. The excavations at Boghazköy have shown that the city was destroyed about 1200 B.C. by the People of the Sea, who at that time brought to an end the Hittite empire.

Ramses II and the ½Apiru.--Many scholars have considered Ramses II to have been the Pharaoh of the oppression. This conclusion has been reached in the first place because Ex. 1:11 states that the store cities of "Raamses" and "Pithom" were built by the Hebrews. It is pointed out that Ramses II replaced the name Tanis with his own name when he embellished that city and made it his capital. He did not, however, completely abandon the city of Thebes, where he was later buried. In addition, his long reign, marked by great building activity throughout Egypt carried on by enormous numbers of slaves, among whom the ÔApiru (identified with the Habiru and Hebrews) are repeatedly mentioned, seems to many scholars to be weighty evidence for assigning the Egyptian slavery of the Israelites to the reign of Ramses II. To this is added some archeological evidence from Palestine, where the excavations of Tell Beit Mirsim, Bethel, and other places seem to indicate that these cities were destroyed in the 13th century b.c. and not in the 14th.

Against this theory there exist some weighty objections. Definite chronological statements made in the Bible, such as those of 1 Kings 6:1 and Judges 11:26, cannot be harmonized with an Exodus that took place in the late 13th century, but require a date for the Exodus that lies at least two centuries earlier. The period of the judges, from Joshua to Samuel, cannot be compressed into a period of some 150 years without doing violence to the Biblical narrative of that part of the history of Israel.

Furthermore, an inscription of King Merneptah, who is considered by the defenders of the 13th-century Exodus to be the Pharaoh of the Exodus, also testifies against this theory, for this inscription claims that the king encountered and defeated Israelites in Palestine. Merneptah reigned only a few years, and if the Exodus had taken place under his reign, the Israelites, who wandered in the wilderness for about 40 years, would have still been at Sinai when he died. Thus it would not have been possible for him to defeat them in Palestine. To accept Merneptah as Pharaoh of the Exodus requires, therefore, further corrections of the sacred records. Hence, it is assumed by the advocates of a 13th-century Exodus that not all the tribes of Israel had been in Egypt but that Merneptah met Israelites who had remained in Canaan.

Furthermore, evidence apparently favorable to an Exodus under Ramses II can be understood in such a way that it does not preclude the earlier Exodus recommended in this commentary. The names Rameses and Raamses in Genesis and Exodus, often pointed to as evidence of a 13th-century Exodus, probably represent a modernization of older names by later scribes (see on Gen. 47:11; Ex. 1:11). The ÔApiru mentioned in texts of Ramses II as slave laborers can be Habiru or Hebrews without assuming that they refer to the Israelites who were oppressed in Egypt before the Exodus, because Ramses II may have employed Hebrew slaves in his building activity while the Israelites were in Palestine. These slaves may have come into his hands through military activities in Palestine during the period of the judges. That the ruins of some Palestinian cities reveal no signs of destruction in the levels representing the 14th century b.c., but show them 150 years later, can also be satisfactorily accounted for. The destruction of some of the conquered cities in Joshua's time was not thorough, and the Israelites made no attempt to occupy them, but left them in the hands of the Canaanites (see on Judges 1:21, 27-33). It must also be remembered that not all identifications of ancient sites are certain. Tell Beit Mirsim, for example, has been identified with the city of Debir conquered by Othniel (Joshua 15:15-17), but no definite evidence came to light during the excavations that proved the correctness of an otherwise very plausible identification.

A Biblical chronology based on Solomon's beginning to build the Temple in the 480th year from the Exodus (see Vol. I, p. 191) requires a 15th-century Exodus (cf. GC v, 23; PP 204, 514, 627, 628, 703; PK 229, 230). Hence the 13th-century Exodus must be rejected, as well as the view held by many Biblical scholars, that Ramses II was the Pharaoh of the oppression and his son Merneptah the Pharaoh of the Exodus.

Merneptah.--When Merneptah, thirteenth son of Ramses, came to the throne in 1232 B.C. he was already an old man, and had to cope with a serious invasion attempted by the Libyans. He claims to have successfully resisted this attempt and to have made 9,000 prisoners, among whom were also more than a thousand Greeks. On his victory stele he also speaks of a campaign against several cities and peoples in Palestine, among whom are mentioned the Israelites. This important passage reads thus:

"Desolated is Tehenu [a Libyan tribe];

Hatti [the land of the Hittites] is pacified,

Conquered is the Canaan with every evil.

Carried off is Ascalon, seized is Gezer,

Yanoam is destroyed,

Israel is laid waste, it has no (more) seed.

Hurru [the land of the Horites] has become a widow for Egypt."

This famous passage, already mentioned, shows that Merneptah had encountered the Israelites in one of his Palestinian campaigns, as their name, in connection with Palestinian cities, shows. Israel's location between the cities Ascalon, Gezer, Yano½am, and the land of the Horites or Hurrians is an indication where the king had met them. The first-mentioned cities lay in southwestern Palestine, whereas the name Hurru may either stand for the inhabitants of the southeastern part of the country (Edom), or be a general term for Palestine, as frequently used in Egyptian inscriptions. It is most interesting that the name Israel received the hieroglyphic determinative for "people," and the other names have determinatives meaning "foreign country." This indicates that the Israelites they encountered at that time were not considered a settled people, which agrees with the situation during the period of the judges as described in the Bible. Since Merneptah's campaign occurred during the period, when the tribes of Israel were still struggling for a foothold in Canaan, they could only be described on an Egyptian monument as an unsettled people--not as a nation with a fixed habitat.

Also from the time of Merneptah come interesting records kept by officials guarding Egypt's northeastern frontier, officials who may be compared to modern immigration officers. These records contain the name and function of every person crossing the border, mostly couriers in Egypt's diplomatic service. Mention is also made of an Edomite tribe that was permitted to find temporary pasture for its flocks in the Nile Delta. These documents show that the frontier was well guarded, and that the crossing of the border was no easy matter for unauthorized individuals or groups, during the Nineteenth Dynasty.

The Twentieth Dynasty.--The death of Merneptah marked the beginning of a period of political chaos in Egypt which lasted for several years. A number of kings followed one another on the throne in rapid succession, one even being a Syrian. The land was eventually rescued from this sorry state of affairs by a man of unknown origin named Setnakht, who became the founder of the Twentieth Dynasty. When he left the throne to his son, who became Ramses III (1198-1167 B.C.), Egypt once more had a strong and energetic king who saved his country from grave peril.

During the time of Egyptian weakness preceding the reign of Ramses III the Libyans had infiltrated the fertile region of the Delta and formed an ever-increasing menace to the internal security of the country. Their mere presence was a continual threat, because in case of an invasion, they could be expected to make common cause with their compatriots living beyond the western border of Egypt. In the fifth year of his reign Ramses III went to war against the Libyans, and in a bloody battle defeated them decisively. He claims to have slain 12,535 of them and to have taken many thousands of captives.

The Peoples of the Sea.--After averting the danger from the west, Ramses had to meet another, even greater, danger from the northeast. The so-called Peoples of the Sea, from Crete, Greece, the Aegean Islands, and perhaps from Sardinia and Sicily, moved eastward. They overran and destroyed coastal cities of Asia Minor, such as Troy, then the Hittite kingdom, as well as a number of states in northern Syria, such as Ugarit, and marched down the coast of Phoenicia and Palestine in an effort to invade the greatest civilized country of their time, the fertile Nile valley. Among them were the Tjekker and the Philistines, the latter coming in ox-drawn carts with their families. Both tribes settled on the coast of Palestine after the migration of the Peoples of the Sea had ended. Realizing the seriousness of the situation, Ramses III met the enemy forces at the Palestinian border, in his eighth a serious defeat upon the would-be invaders, and destroyed their navy when it attempted a landing in one of the channels of the Nile. Although Ramses was thus able to save Egypt from invasion, he was not strong enough to drive the Tjekker and Philistines out of Palestine. Settling down, they controlled the rich coastal region for many centuries. In this they were probably assisted by certain Philistine tribes that had arrived prior to the movement of the Peoples of the Sea, which brought strong contingents of racially related peoples into the country.

In Medinet Habu, a temple built by Ramses III in western Thebes and today the best preserved of all pre-Hellenistic Egyptian temples, the king depicted his battles in monumental reliefs. These pictures are of great value, for they show the features of the different peoples with whom Ramses fought. The Philistines appear in their typical feather helmets, by which they can always be recognized. There are also other Peoples of the Sea, the Sherden (probably Sardinians), the Siculi (Sicilians), the Dardanians from western Asia Minor, the Achaeans from the Aegean Islands, and other peoples, all with their typical helmets or other characteristic marks. These reliefs, depicting the warfare of that time on land and sea, thus form important illustrative source material for a correct understanding of the racial movements that took place in the lands of the eastern Mediterranean during the period of the judges of Israel, but movements that did not affect the people of Israel themselves.

The Israelites lived in the hinterland of Palestine, and the main thoroughfares along the coast witnessed the decisive battles of the time. However, in the latter times of the judges the Philistines consolidated their hold on the coastal regions of Palestine and threatened the national existence of Israel. They extended their influence over the mountainous part of Palestine and subjugated Israel for decades. The struggle with the Philistines proved to be a long one, and the fight for liberty begun under Samson, continued under Samuel and Saul, and was completed only in the reign of David.

Ramses III not only succeeded in saving Egypt from external dangers but also promoted its internal security. One text remarks with satisfaction that once more "women could walk wherever they wanted without molestation." From the close of his reign comes the great Papyrus Harris, now in the British Museum, which contains a summary of all the gifts the king had made to the various temples and gods, and of the property the temples had possessed before him. This valuable document is a major source of information on Egypt's secular and ecclesiastical economy during that time. However, two main problems are posed by this manuscript: (1) Were the gifts of the king added to former holdings, or did they consist of a royal confirmation of old possessions? (2) In what relationship do these gifts and holdings stand to the economy of all Egypt? Hence, this document has been interpreted differently by various scholars. Breasted thinks that about 8 per cent of the population of Egypt stood in the service of the temple, and that about 15 per cent of the land was ecclesiastical property. Schaedel, however, holds that the figures should be 20 per cent and 30 per cent respectively. Whatever figures are right, it is evident that ecclesiastical leaders played an important role in Egypt at that time, and that no king had a chance of survival unless he supported them.

Egypt in Decline.--Ramses III apparently fell victim to a harem conspiracy, in which some of his concubines and at least one of his sons were involved, besides high state officials. Some of the judicial records dealing with the investigation of this case and the sentences imposed are available today. These documents throw interesting light on the judicial system of ancient Egypt, and indirectly on the case of the two courtiers who shared Joseph's prison during the time their cases were being investigated (see Gen. 40:1-3).

Ramses III was followed by a number of weak kings, every one of whom bore the name Ramses, numbered now as Ramses IV to XI (1167-1085 B.C.). During the period of their reign Egypt experienced a steady decline of royal power and an equivalent increase of priestly influence. The priesthood of Amen, forming the most influential and powerful portion of Egypt's ecclesiastical citizenry, finally overthrew the dynasty and made its own high priest king.

With the deterioration of political and economic strength Egypt's internal troubles became acute. Ramses III was the last king who held Beth-shan in the Valley of Esdraelon, which had been an Egyptian city for centuries. Although the base of a statute of Ramses VI was found during the excavation of Megiddo, there is not the slightest evidence that this king had any influence in Palestine. This bronze statuette may have been sent to Palestine as a gift. The last royal name mentioned in the inscriptions at the copper mines at Sinai is that of Ramses IV, showing that after him no more expeditions were sent to Sinai for mining purposes.

The loss of the last foreign holdings caused an increase of poverty and insecurity and caused inflation. A sack of barley rose in price from 2 to 8 deben. Spelt (a cheaper kind of wheat) rose from 1 to 4 deben during the reign of the kings Ramses VII to X, and later leveled off at 2 deben. As the cost of living rose the revenue of the government fell off, with the result that it could not pay its officers and workers. This in turn resulted in strikes of government workers, the first recorded strikes in history. Several serious situations thus arose in places where many men were occupied on public works, for example, in western Thebes, where the upkeep of the tremendous royal necropolis with all its temples required a great force.

Another cause of the difficult situation was widespread official corruption. As an example, the case of an official may be cited, who was responsible for the shipment of grain from Lower Egypt to the temple of Khnum at Elephantine in Upper Egypt. When he was later tried for embezzlement it was found that of 6,300 sacks of grain received in the course of 9 years he had delivered only 576 sacks, or about 9 per cent of the total. The other 91 per cent of the grain had been embezzled by him, in collaboration with certain of the scribes, controllers, and cultivators attached to Khnum's temple. The records of that time tell also of bands of roving and plundering soldiers who were a scourge on the population, and of continual cases of tomb robberies. Since the population suffered under the economic stress of the times, while everyone knew that untold treasures in gold and silver were hidden in the royal tombs in the valleys of the kings and queens in western Thebes, it is not surprising to read of attempts made to obtain some of those treasures. The available records of investigations of tomb robberies leave the impression that even officials were involved in the thefts. Such robberies occurred so frequently later on that every royal tomb, with the exception of that of Tutankhamen, was eventually looted. Little if anything remained for the archeologist.

By the close of the Twentieth Dynasty (1085 B.C.) Egypt had reached one of the lowest points in its long and checkered history. Nothing of its former wealth and glory was left. Its envoys were despised in foreign lands, as the Wenamon story and a satirical letter reveal--as will be seen in connection with the history of the judges of Israel. Egypt had become a "bruised reed," as an Assyrian officer mockingly called it several centuries later, in Hezekiah's time (2 Kings 18:21). This weakness, which began in the time of the judges, proved a blessing to the young nation of Israel, which was thus able to develop without being hindered by a strong neighboring power.

III. The Kingdom of Mitanni (c. 1600--c. 1350 B.C.)

The greatest rival of Egypt during the Eighteenth Dynasty was the kingdom of Mitanni in northern Mesopotamia. Although recent discoveries have thrown some light on the history of this obscure power, little is known of it. The site of its ancient capital, Washshukani, known from Hittite records, has not yet been discovered, although it is generally believed to have been in the upper Chabur region near Tell HalaÆf.

The ancient native population of the whole region consisted of Aramaeans speaking the Aramaic language, but the rulers were Hurrians, who had taken possession of the country in the 17th century b.c. "Hurrian" is the ethnic name of an Aryan branch of the great Indo-European family of nations, whereas Mitanni is the name of the state over which the Hurrians ruled. The names of their kings and high officials resemble Aryan names, and those of their gods are found in the Indian Veda: Mithras, Varuna, Indra, and Nasatya.

Although the beginning of the kingdom of Mitanni is obscure, it is known that Hurrians occupied this region about the 17th century, for the Hittites, under their king, Murshilish, fought the Hurrians on their return to Anatolia after the conquest and destruction of Babylon. However, it is not until the 15th century b.c. that the names of their kings appear in written source material, particularly in the Egyptian records of Thutmose III and Amenhotep II, with whom these kings had several encounters. However, toward the end of the 15th century friendly relations between the royal houses of Egypt and Mitanni were established, so that for several successive generations Egyptian kings took Mitanni princesses as wives. Artatama I of Mitanni gave his daughter to Thutmose IV; Shutarna II, his daughter Gilukhepa to Amenhotep III; and Tushratta, his daughter Tadu-khepa to Amenhotep IV. This is the time (14th century b.c.) of the Amarna Letters, which reveal, among other things, the friendly relations between Egypt and the Hurrians of Mitanni.

The reason for this change from hostility to friendship may have been the emergence of a new power in the northwest, the Hittites. As the Hittites gradually extended their influence over all eastern Asia Minor, and attempted to make their influence felt in Syria and northern Mesopotamia--at that time either Egyptian or Mitanni territory--the two former enemies became friends out of necessity. But their joint endeavors were not strong enough to hold the vigorous Hittites in check for long, and under the weak reign of Pharaoh Ikhnaton it was apparent in Syria that Egypt no longer played a decisive role in Asiatic affairs. Hence, about 1365 B.C. Mattiwaza of Mitanni concluded a treaty of friendship with Shubbiluliuma, the powerful Hittite king of that time, and recognized his sovereign influence in Syria. The northeastern Hurrians had in the meantime founded a separate kingdom under the name of Hurri. The names of two of its kings (a son and grandson of Shutarna of Mitanni) are known, both from the 14th century b.c.

After the middle of the 14th century all ancient sources are silent concerning the Mitanni kingdom, but the Assyrian records from about 1325 to 1250 B.C. speak of a kingdom of Hanigalbat lying in the same region as the former Mitanni. Since the kings of Hanigalbat had Aryan names like those of the former Mitanni kingdom, it seems that Hanigalbat was the successor of Mitanni. It was, however, a country with little power and influence, and small in extent, inasmuch as its western regions had become part of the Hittite empire, and its eastern ones part of Assyria. This kingdom probably came to its end in the 13th century and broke up into several small city states, which were later absorbed by Assyria during its period of expansion.

Although the history of the Hurrian kingdom of northern Mesopotamia is still rather obscure, the above sketch is given because the Hurrians played an important role in the movements of races in the second millennium b.c. They extended their influence over much of the ancient world, reaching even to southern Palestine, as we know from Egyptian records. In the Bible the Hurrians are called Horims or Horites (see Gen. 14:6; 36:20, 21; Deut. 2:12, 22). The importance of the Hurrians in Palestine can be seen from the fact that at certain periods the Egyptians called the whole land Kharu. It is possible that King Chushan-rishathaim of Mesopotamia, who oppressed Israel for eight years soon after Joshua's death and was finally defeated by Caleb's younger brother Othniel (Judges 3:8-10), was one of the Mitanni kings of the 14th century b.c. Because of the similarity of sound, Tushratta has been identified with Chushan-rishathaim, but it is thought the latter may have been one of the kings of the period after 1365 B.C. for which no records have been found so far.

IV. The Hittite Empire From c. 1400--c. 1200 B.C.

The old Hittite kingdom, which early in its history destroyed Babylon, has been discussed in Vol. I (pp. 129, 137, 138). Hittite history before 1400 B.C. is not well known, and even the succession of kings is a matter of discussion among scholars. However, after 1400 B.C. the Hittite kingdom enters into the full light of history.

Its capital, Khattushash, lay inside the great bend of the Halys in Asia Minor, near the village of Boghazköy, which is not far from the present Turkish capital, Ankara. Being an Indo-European people, the Hittites were racially related to the Hurrians, from whom they took much of their religion, as well as products of the Mesopotamian civilization and culture that the Hurrians had accepted from the Babylonians and Assyrians. In this way they took over the Babylonian cuneiform script, certain forms of art, literary products, such as epics and myths, and even gods and religious concepts. However, they by no means lost their own peculiar cultural values, such as their hieroglyphic script, which has only recently been deciphered.

The Hittites were a hardy and semibarbaric nation whose products of art did not reach to the high level the Egyptians had attained, nor did they build temples like some of the other nations, but their laws show that they were much more kindhearted and humane than most of the other ancient nations.

Rise of Hittite Power.--The first great king of the Hittites recognizable in history is Shubbiluliuma, who reigned from c. 1375 to c. 1335 B.C. A great catastrophe of a somewhat obscure nature had struck the nation a little before his accession to the throne. Although the records of this catastrophe are not clear, it seems that some subject nations of eastern Asia Minor had risen against their lords and destroyed the Hittite capital Khattushash. After Shubbiluliuma gained the throne, his first care was to rebuild the capital and to restore order in the kingdom. This was done through a number of campaigns. When the Hittite king once more was master over the different peoples of eastern Asia Minor, he turned against the rival kingdom of Mitanni. His first campaign seems to have been unsuccessful, because the Mitanni king Tushratta says in one of his letters to the Egyptian Pharaoh that he had gained a victory over the Hittites, but Shubbiluliuma must have had some success, as can be learned from another letter in the Amarna collection written by Rib-Addi of Byblos. Shubbiluliuma's second Syrian campaign was a complete success. He not only conquered the capital of the Mitanni kingdom but penetrated southern Syria to the Lebanon. When domestic troubles broke out in the family of Tushratta, with the result that he was killed, Shubbiluliuma placed Tushratta's son Mattiwaza, who had taken refuge with him, on the throne, and gave him his daughter as wife--thus binding the two royal houses together.

As already mentioned in the discussion of Egyptian history, it was at this time, when the Hittite king besieged the city of Carchemish on the Euphrates, that a request reached him from Tutankhamen's widow to send her one of his sons to become her husband and king of Egypt. The prince sent in response to this request was waylaid and murdered before reaching the country of the Nile. Upon receipt of the news of this crime Shubbiluliuma conducted a successful campaign against the Egyptians but was forced to retreat without being able to take advantage of his victory because of an outbreak of the plague, which ravaged the Hittite country for 20 years.

Four of Shubbiluliuma's sons became kings, two of them during their father's lifetime--one over Aleppo, another over Carchemish. A third son, Arnuwanda III, succeeded his father on the throne over the Hittite empire; and after his death, a younger brother, Murshilish II, gained the throne. A considerable number of contemporary documents provide ample information covering the reign of the last-mentioned king. He practically had to rebuild his father's empire because a number of revolts had broken out upon his father's death, and again when his brother Arnuwanda died. His life story is therefore filled with military campaigns against various peoples of Asia Minor, Syria, and Egyptian garrison forces.

The next king, Mutallu, also experienced a serious rebellion by a subject people, the Gashga, who succeeded in conquering and destroying the Hittite capital city of Khattushash, forcing the Hittite king to establish a temporary capital elsewhere. When, for some reason, the local kingdom of Amurru in northern Syria wanted to break its ties with the Hittites in favor of Egypt, to which it formerly belonged, Mutallu interfered, and with his allies forced Amurru to remain apart from the Egyptian Empire. It was at this moment that he met the Egyptian king Ramses II in the battle of Kadesh on the Orontes. Ramses had come to northern Syria to claim his old rights. The famous battle at Kadesh has already been described in connection with the history of the reign of Ramses II. Although Ramses II claimed to have won a victory, the battle ended in a draw, by which the Hittites gained some advantages. This conclusion is reached from the fact that after the battle of Kadesh the Hittites occupied Syrian territory that had not formerly been under their suzerainty.

Friendship With Egypt.--Urhi-Teshub, the next Hittite king, reigned uneventfully for seven years, when he was deposed and banished by his uncle, who made himself king as Hattushilish III. Relations with Egypt were still tense during the first years of his reign, as we know from a letter the Hittite king sent to the Babylonian king Kadashman-Turgu, in which he finds fault with Babylon for being too friendly toward Egypt. Later, however, he sought the friendship of Egypt and concluded a treaty with Ramses II in the latter's 21st year. This inaugurated a period of close cooperation between the two countries, strengthened by the marriage of Ramses II to Hattushilish's daughter 13 years later. The Hittites may have regarded the restlessness among the Aegean peoples as the harbinger of coming evil, and therefore desired friendly relations with their own eastern and southern neighbors--the Kassite rulers in Babylon and the Egyptians. These precautions were fruitless, however, since neither Egypt nor the Kassites of Babylon were strong enough to prevent the Hittites from falling prey to the irresistible advance of the Sea Peoples through Asia Minor, Syria, and Palestine.

The next three Hittite kings, Tuthaliya IV, Arnuwanda IV, and his successor, were comparatively weak rulers. Very few documents have survived to throw light on their reigns. One treaty with the vassal kingdom of Amurru in Syria provides for an embargo on Assyrian goods and prohibits Assyrian merchants from passing through their land. This shows that Assyria was now in the ascendancy and was considered an enemy. Merneptah of Egypt aided the Hittites during a severe famine in the reign of Tuthaliya IV by shipments of grain, but the power of the Hittites was now a thing of the past, and its downfall could not be delayed longer.

Fall of the Hittite Empire.--About 1200 B.C. a great catastrophe brought the Hittite empire to a sudden end. This is attested by the sudden cessation of all Hittite documentary material at that time, and by the Egyptian statement that "Hatti was wasted." No power proved able to resist the Peoples of the Sea, who now poured through the countries of the north like a torrent. Archeological evidence agrees with these observations, showing that the cities of Anatolia were burned at this time after being overrun by enemies.

Hittite culture and political influence completely disappeared from Asia Minor with the extinction of the Hittite empire, though the previously subject city states of northern Syria and Mesopotamia carried on the Hittite culture and tradition for several centuries, until they themselves were absorbed by the Assyrians in the 9th century. Cities like Hamath on the Orontes, Carchemish on the Euphrates, and Karatepe on the Ceyhan River show a well-balanced mixture of native Aramaic, or even Phoenician culture, along with that of the Hittites. These were the Hittite states with which Solomon carried on a flourishing trade (2 Chron. 1:17), and of whom the Syrians of Elisha's time were afraid when they lifted the siege of Samaria (2 Kings 7:6, 7). These city states are called Hittite kingdoms not only in the Bible but in the Assyrian records of their time also. In fact, the whole of Syria became known as Hittite country in Assyrian parlance of the empire period. When the cities of northern Syria were conquered and destroyed and their populations deported by the Assyrians in the 9th and 8th centuries b.c., all knowledge of the culture, language and script of the Hittites completely died out, and has been resurrected only recently from its sleep of more than two and a half millenniums.

V. The Rise and Growth of the Sea Peoples (c. 1400--c. 1200 B.C.)

The Peoples of the Sea mentioned in Egyptian sources of the times of Merneptah and Ramses III have been mentioned in connection with the history of those Egyptian kings and in the account of the destruction of the Hittite empire. However, our sources about these peoples are very limited, and consist only of legends preserved by Homer, of Egyptian references to them, some archeological evidence, and a few Bible statements.

In various Egyptian documents recovered by archeologists the name Peoples of the Sea appears as a collective name for the Lycians, Achaeans, Sardinians (Sherden), Sicilians (Siculi), Danaeans, Weshwesh, Teucrians (Tjekker), and Philistines (Peleshet).

Egypt had always had some connections with the peoples of Crete, the islands of the Aegean Sea, and the mainland of Greece, as is evident from the presence of Egyptian objects in those areas and of Aegean pottery in Egypt. Up to the time of Amenhotep III the pottery from Crete is found more frequently in Egypt than that of other Greek areas. Also, most of the Egyptian objects found in Europe up to this time appear on Crete. After Amenhotep III relations with Crete seem to have been interrupted, since Egyptian objects from that time on have been found in only two places in Crete, whereas they have come to light in seven places on the mainland of Greece and on other islands, showing that stronger connections were developing with those areas. The archeological evidence at Crete shows, furthermore, that the rich culture of Crete called by archeologists Minoan II ended with the destruction of the great palace at Cnossus, an event which must have taken place between 1400 and 1350 B.C. This destruction was followed by the more primitive culture of the invading peoples.

Homeric legends about the destruction or disappearance of the formidable sea power of Atlantis may refer to Crete, which fell to these unknown invaders, who destroyed its culture as well as the power by which it had dominated other Greek tribes. This event is also reflected in the legend about a Greek hero, Theseus, who liberated the Greeks from subjection to Minos of Crete, in whose labyrinth lived the Minotaur. We shall probably never know precisely what happened, but it is clear that the subject nations of the Aegean banded together, and with their long ships fought against the galleys of Minos, which had for so long monopolized the lucrative trade with Egypt and other lands. The destruction of the Cretan fleet resulted in the invasion of the rich island and the destruction of its culture. From that time on, the trade of the central Mediterranean lay in the hands of the peoples of the Aegean Sea, particularly those of coastal Asia Minor and mainland Greece.

Migration of the Sea Peoples.--But the migration of peoples did not stop with the destruction and occupation of Crete. By the 13th century the western coasts of Asia Minor were overrun and permanently occupied by Greek-speaking peoples, and in the last years of Ramses II the Peoples of the Sea and the Libyans entered the western Delta and extended their settlements almost to the gates of Memphis and Heliopolis. Merneptah, the son of Ramses II, had to face a mass invasion of these people, but was able to defeat them and save Egypt from this western menace. It was in his time that the great invasion of central Anatolia by the Peoples of the Sea took place. This marked the end of the Hittite empire and the destruction of rich, north Syrian cities like Ugarit (RaÆs Shamrah). Cyprus was also occupied by these western invaders. How the threat to Egypt was averted by Ramses III, who defeated these peoples in two decisive battles, has already been told (see p. 27).

The Philistines.--After these unsuccessful attempts to take possession of the Nile country, most of the invaders who escaped from the Egyptian massacres and were not captured seem to have returned to the west. The Tjekker and the Philistines, however, stayed in the country. The latter found some related tribes in the southern coastal region of Palestine who had evidently lived there for centuries (see Gen. 21:34; 26:1; Ex. 13:17, 18), and appreciably added to their military strength. As a result the Philistines, who had formerly been so weak that they sought treaties with Abraham and Isaac (Gen. 21:22-32; 26:26-33), and had been so unimportant that their names never appear in the records of Egypt prior to the 12th century, now became the gravest menace of the Israelites, who occupied the mountainous hinterland of Palestine.

That the Philistines apparently belonged to the peoples that invaded and destroyed the ancient culture of Crete, can be gathered from such texts as Jer. 47:4, where the Philistines are called "the remnant of the country of Caphtor [Crete]," or Amos 9:7, where God is said to have brought up "the Philistines from Caphtor." Other texts (1 Sam. 30:14; Eze. 25:16; Zeph. 2:5) bring the Cretes and Philistines together as occupying the same territory. David seems to have had a bodyguard of Cherethites and Pelethites, that is, Cretans and Philistines (2 Sam. 15:18; 1 Kings 1:38, 44), similar to the custom of Ramses III, who made captured Philistines, Sardinians, and other Peoples of the Sea soldiers in his army. These foreign mercenaries, with 600 Philistines from Gath (2 Sam. 15:18), were practically the only soldiers who remained faithful to David at the time of Absalom's rebellion.

VI. Israel Under the Judges (c. 1350--c. 1050 B.C.)

The history of Assyria and Babylonia during the second half of the second millennium b.c. will be discussed in connection with their later history, since these nations played no important role in Western Asia during that time. However, after a survey of the history of the nations who surrounded the people of Israel during the time of their conquest of Canaan, and the period when they were either ruled by judges or oppressed by enemy nations, it is in order now to study the history of the people of God with whom the Bible is mainly concerned. Whatever is known of the history of the lesser nations of Canaan during this period will be mentioned at appropriate points rather than in separate sections.

Chronology of the Period.--The time between the occupation of Canaan and the establishment of the Hebrew monarchy is known as the period of the judges. The chronology of this period hinges on the date of the death of Solomon. The working chronology adopted for this commentary (see pp. 124, 134, 143) puts Solomon's death in 931/30 B.C., that is, in the Hebrew year running from the fall of 931 to the fall of 930. Hence his beginning to build the Temple, in the spring month Zif of his fourth year (1 Kings 6:1), fell in 967/66, that is, in the spring of 966 (see Vol. 1, p. 191).

This was in the 480th year after the Exodus (1 Kings 6:1). Then Zif in the first year of the Exodus was 479 years earlier, in the spring of 1445 B.C., with the Exodus in the preceding month (Abib, 1445), and the crossing of the Jordan 40 years later (Joshua 5:6, 10) in 1405 B.C. Of the 480 years of 1 Kings 6:1, 40 are to be deducted for the reign of Saul (Acts 13:21), 40 for the reign of David (1 Kings 2:11), and 4 from the reign of Solomon. These 84 years deducted from the 480 years leave the coronation of Saul in the 396th year from the Exodus, or the 356th from the invasion of Canaan, giving us the years 1405-1051/50 B.C. for the period from Joshua to Samuel.

Another chronological peg is provided by a statement made by the judge Jephthah at the beginning of his term of office, that Israel had then "dwelt in Heshbon and her towns ... three hundred years" (Judges 11:26). These 300 years go back to the conquest of this area under the leadership of Moses, during the last year of his life (see Deut. 2:26-37). This statement requires that the conquest under Joshua and the elders, together with the judgeships of Othniel, Ehud, Shamgar, Deborah and Barak, Gideon, Tola, and Jair, as well as the intervening periods of oppression, be included within the 300 years between the conquest and the time of Jephthah.

To fit these periods into the 300 years does not present great difficulties, since it is reasonable to assume that some judges ruled contemporaneously--one perhaps in Transjordan and another in western Palestine, or one in the north and another in the south. It is also possible that some tribes in one part of the country enjoyed rest and security at a time when other tribes were oppressed. This is, for example, indicated in the oppression by the Canaanite king Jabin of Hazor, which was terminated by the victory of Deborah and Barak over Sisera, captain of Jabin's army (Judges 4). In Deborah's song of victory several tribes were rebuked for having failed to assist their brethren in the struggle for liberation from the tyranny of the oppressor (Judges 5:16, 17). These tribes probably saw no need for risking life so long as they themselves enjoyed a peaceful existence, as was the case for 80 years after Ehud liberated them from the oppression of the Moabites and Amalekites (Judges 3:30).

From Jephthah to Saul's coronation was 57 years, according to chronological statements of the Bible. While Jephthah ruled over the eastern tribes, ending an 18-year oppression of the Ammonites, the Philistines began oppressing those in the west. They captured the ark in Eli's time, after it had been at Shiloh for 300 years (PP 514). During the time of this Philistine oppression Samson harassed the pagan oppressor and began "to deliver Israel" (Judges 13:5). Samuel was probably also a contemporary of Samson, the latter operating in the southwest, the other in the mountains of central Palestine (1 Sam. 7:16, 17). Samuel was the last judge to guide Israel wisely. For a long time he was the sole leader of his people (PP 591) before the first king, Saul, was chosen.

The relatively fixed chronology of Egypt during this period, and several key dates in the Biblical chronology, permit an experimental reconstruction of the period of the judges that leads to the following chronological synchronisms:

Tentative Chronology of the Period of the Judges

^* It is not possible to assign exact dates for the various judgeships and for other events of this period. The dates here given are only suggestive. The dates given for Egyptian kings are approximately correct.

The Peoples of Canaan and Their Culture.--The earliest, aboriginal population of Palestine was non-Semitic, as is evident from the names of the oldest settlements, which are non-Semitic. Toward the end of the second millennium b.c. the Amorites invaded Canaan and for centuries formed its ruling class. The early Hittites, of whom only traces are recognizable in the texts coming from the time of their later empire period, also settled in certain parts of Palestine, as did the Hurrians, especially in the south. Of the 11 peoples called Canaanites in Gen. 10:15-19, the Hittites and Amorites have already been mentioned. Six of the others lived in Syria and Phoenicia; namely, the Sidonians and the Zemarites on the coast; the Arkites, with their capital Irqata, of the Amarna Letters, north of Tripoli; the Sinites, whose capital Siannu, mentioned in Assyrian records, is still unidentified; the Arvadites, with their capital Arvad in northern Phoenicia; and the Hamathites in inland Syria. Of the remaining three Canaanite tribes, the Jebusites, Grigasites, and Hivites, nothing is known from extra-Biblical sources.

All these peoples, living in a country situated between the two great civilizations of antiquity--Egypt in the south and Mesopotamia in the north--were strongly influenced by the cultures of those countries. Although Palestine and Syria had lived under the political 0dominion of Egypt for centuries by the time of the Hebrew invasion, the cultural influences of Mesopotamia were stronger than those of Egypt. The reason for this strange phenomenon may lie in ethnic ties. Since all these peoples spoke Semitic languages closely related to those spoken in Babylonia and Assyria, they may have been more attached to the eastern culture than to that of their political overlords. Hence we find that the Babylonian language and script were used in all correspondence between the different city rulers, and between them and the Egyptian court. The clay tablet served them as writing material, as it did their eastern neighbors. That the art of writing was extensively practiced is evident from the fact that cuneiform texts have been found in various Palestinian excavations, such as Shechem, Taanach, Tell el-H\eséµ, and Gezer, and from the hundreds of Amarna Letters which, although they were discovered in Egypt, originally came from Palestine and Syria.

Also, a new, alphabetic script, probably invented in the mining region of Sinai toward the end of the patriarchal period (see Vol. I, pp. 106, 586), was beginning to be used more extensively in the period under discussion. Short inscriptions written in alphabetic script have been found at Lachish, Beth-shemesh, Shechem, and elsewhere. They suggest that the people of that time were eager to write and were using the new script, because of its obvious advantages over the difficult and cumbersome cuneiform or hieroglyphic scripts with their many hundreds of characters.

The excavation of Palestinian cities dating from the period before the Israelites entered the country shows that the population had attained a high level of craftsmanship, especially in the building of city rock tunnels. The Jebusites, for example, dug a vertical shaft inside the city of Jerusalem, to a depth on a level with the spring Gihon, which was some distance outside the city in the Kidron Valley. From the bottom of this shaft they dug a horizontal passage to the spring, through which they were able to secure water from the spring in a time of emergency without leaving the city.

A magnificent water tunnel was also excavated at Gezer, consisting of a gigantic staircase about 219 ft. long cut out of solid rock. This tunnel is 23 ft. high at the entrance and about 13 ft. wide, but diminishes greatly toward the end. The roof is barrel shaped, and follows the slope of the steps. It ends at a large spring 94 1/2 ft. underneath the rock surface, and 130 ft. below the present surface level. The toolmarks show that the work was done with flint tools, and the contents of the debris reveal that the tunnel fell into disuse not long after the Hebrew invasion. How the ancient citizens of Gezer knew that they would strike a powerful spring at the end of their tunnel is still a mystery.

These engineering feats, which demonstrate the high level of material culture of the Canaanites at the time of the Hebrew invasion, are examples of many Canaanite accomplishments recently come to light.

The Religion and Cult Practices of the Canaanites.--Though it is true that the pre-Israelite population of Palestine had already attained a high cultural level by the time of the conquest, their religious concepts and practices were most degrading. The excavation of Canaanite temples and sacred places has brought to light many cult objects of Canaanite origin. At Ras Shamrah, ancient Ugarit, many Canaanite texts of a mythological nature have been found. Written in an alphabetic cuneiform script, they have shed much light on the language, poetry, and religion of the Canaanites of the middle of the second millennium b.c. They constitute our main source of information on the religion of the land Israel invaded and conquered.

Palestine seems to have had a great number of open-air sanctuaries, called bamoth, "high places," in the Bible. The Israelites were so attracted by these "high places" that they took them over and dedicated them to God, in spite of His explicit command that He be worshiped at one place only, the place where the sanctuary was situated (Deut. 12:5, 11). Various prophets denounced these pagan places of worship (Jer. 7:31; 19:13; 32:35; Hosea 4:12, 13, 15; Amos 2:8; 4:4, 5), but it was most difficult to wean the people away from them. Even some of the best kings--Amaziah, Uzziah, and Jotham, for example--did not destroy them (2 Kings 14:3, 4; 15:4, 34, 35).

One of the best-preserved high places excavated in Palestine was found at Gezer, about halfway between Jerusalem and the coast. It was an open place, without any traces of building activity. However, it contained several caves, of which some were filled with ash and bones, probably the remains of sacrifices, since the bones were of men, women, children, infants, cattle, sheep, goats, and deer. Two of the caves were connected by a narrow winding tunnel, so that one of them could be used as a sacred place where the inquiring worshiper might consult an oracle. Every whispered word spoken in the smaller cave can be heard clearly in the larger one. It is not impossible that a cult object, perhaps an idol, once stood in front of the hole in the wall that connected the two caves, and that the worshipers imagined they received answers to their prayers in this place. Similar oracle places are known to have existed in Greece and Mesopotamia. In the middle of the main cave was a large block of stone, on which lay the skeleton of an infant, perhaps the remains of the last child sacrificed in this place.

Aboveground a row of 10 stone pillars was found. The tallest of these pillars is almost 11 ft. high, the shortest, 5 1/2 ft. In Hebrew such a stone pillar is called mas\s\ebah, "image" (see Lev. 26:1; Deut. 16:22; Micah 5:13), more correctly, "pillar" (RSV). It is not certain whether these pillars were connected with sun worship, or whether they were symbols of fertility representative of the "sacred" phallus erectus. Several altars were also connected with the high place, and on the rock floor were many cup-shaped holes probably used for the reception of libations, or "drink offerings."

Another well-preserved high place has been found on one of the mountains near Petra, the capital of the Edomites. Although this sacred place is of a much later date (1st century b.c.), it probably differed little from similar places of earlier times. A great altar was cut out of the virgin rock. A stairway of six steps leads up to its fire hearth. In front of the altar is a great rectangular court, with an elevated platform in the middle, where the slaughtering of the sacrifice took place. A nearly square water tank has been hewn out of the rock, for use in connection with ablution rituals. This high place also has characteristic cups for pouring out libation offerings, and nearby there are obelisk-shaped standing pillars without which a high place apparently would have been incomplete.

Canaanite temples have also been excavated in Palestinian cities, such as Megiddo and Beth-shan. These sacred structures usually contain two rooms; the inner with a raised platform on which the cult image originally had stood served as the main sanctuary. However, the Canaanite cult was not limited to temples and high places. Numerous small stone altars found in Palestine show that the people had private shrines where sacrifices were offered. These stone altars were usually hewn out of one block of stone. The hearth was on the upper part, with four horns at the corners. Cult images have been found in great numbers in every Palestinian excavation. Most of these are little figurines representing a nude goddess with the sex features accentuated, showing that they were connected with the fertility cult, around which much of the Canaanite worship centered.

Canaanite Deities.--At the head of the Canaanite pantheon stood El, called "the father of years," also "the father of men," who was symbolized by a bull. In spite of his being the highest titular god, he was thought to be old and tired, and hence weak and feeble. According to a later Phoenician scholar, Philo of Byblos, El had three wives, Astarte, Asherah, and Baaltis (probably Anath), who were at the same time his sisters. Also in the Ugaritic texts Asherah is attested as El's wife.

As patron of the sea Asherah is commonly called "Asherah of the Sea," but also "creatress of the gods," and "Holiness," in both Canaan and Egypt. She was usually represented in pictures and on reliefs as a beautiful nude prostitute standing on a lion and holding a lily in one hand and a serpent in the other. She seems to have been worshiped under the symbol of a tree trunk, "groves" in the KJV (2 Kings 17:10). She found ready acceptance among the Israelites, who seem to have worshiped cult symbols dedicated to Asherah almost continuously during the pre-exilic period, for they were in a deplorable state of apostasy most of the time.

Another important Canaanite goddess was Astarte, Heb. ÔAshtoreth, "the great goddess who conceives but does not bear." She is depicted as a nude woman astride a galloping horse, brandishing shield and lance in her hands. The Phoenicians attributed to her two sons, named according to Philo of Byblos, Pothos, "sexual desire," and Eros, "sexual love." Astarte plaques of a crude form are numerous in Palestinian sites excavated, but it is significant that they have not been discovered in any early Israelite level. This is true of the excavations carried on at Bethel, Gibeah, Tell en-Nas\beh, and Shiloh, showing that the early Israelites shunned the idols of the Canaanites.

Anath, the third major goddess of the Canaanites, was the most immoral and bloodthirsty of all deities. Her rape by her brother Baal formed a standing theme in Canaanite mythology, finding entrance even into the literature of the Egyptians. Nevertheless, she is always called "the virgin," a curious comment on the debased Canaanite concept of virginity. Her thirst for blood was insatiable, and her warlike exploits are described in a number of texts. It is claimed that she smote the peoples of the east and the west, that she lopped off heads like sheaves, and hands so that they flew around like locusts. She is then described as binding the heads to her back, the hands to her girdle, exulting while plunging knee deep into the blood of knights, and hip deep into the gore of heroes. In doing this she found so much delight that her liver swelled with laughter. Moreover, she enjoyed killing not only human beings but also gods. For example, the death of the god Mot is attributed to her. He was cleft by her with a sword, winnowed with a fan, burned in the fire, ground up in a hand mill, and finally sown in the fields.

Baal, although not the chief god, played a most important role in the Canaanite pantheon. He was considered to be the son of El, the chief god, and a brother of Anath. Being held responsible for lightning, thunder, and rain, he was thought to bring fertility to the land of Canaan, which was entirely dependent on rain for agricultural purposes. At the beginning of the dry season, his devotees supposed, Baal was murdered by the evil god Mot, and the annual feast of his resurrection, probably at the time of the first rain, was an occasion of great rejoicing and festivity. Baal is the chief figure of all the mythological poetry of Ugarit, in fact, of all religious literature. When, in Elijah's time, Israel had turned to Baal worship, his impotence was clearly demonstrated by the withholding of rain for three years. God designed His people to learn that the introduction of Baal worship would not increase the fertility of their land, but would actually bring famine. At Mt. Carmel, Elijah gave a conclusive demonstration that Baal was helpless as a rain god, indeed, that he was nonexistent.

Besides the gods named, there was a host of other deities with minor functions, but space makes it impossible to give more than a cursory survey of the complex religion of the Canaanites, the various exploits of the Canaanite gods, their lust for blood, their vices and immoral acts. However, it may suffice to say that the Canaanite religion was simply a reflection of the morals of the people. A people cannot stand on a higher moral level than their gods. If the gods commit incest, adultery, and fornication, if they exult in bloodshed and senseless murders, their worshipers will not act differently. It is therefore not astonishing to learn that ritual prostitution of both sexes was practiced in the temples, that in these "sacred" houses homosexuals formed recognized guilds, and that on feast days the most immoral orgies imaginable were held in the temples and high places. We also find that infants were sacrificed on altars or buried alive to appease an angry god, that snake worship was widespread, and that the Canaanites wounded and mutilated themselves in times of grief and mourning, a practice that was prohibited among the Israelites (Lev. 19:28; Deut. 14:1).

Effects of Canaanite Religion.--How their religious thinking influenced the Canaanites' way of life is well illustrated by the story of Naboth's death at the hand of Jezebel for refusing to give up his vineyard to Ahab (1 Kings 21). When Ahab's request was rejected by Naboth, the king was deeply offended and grieved, but he saw no reason for doing anything against Naboth. His wife, however, a Phoenician princess and passionate worshiper of Canaanite gods and goddesses like Baal and Asherah, immediately proposed a way to have Naboth killed and his property impounded.

In Ugaritic literature a similar story is found. The goddess Anath desired to possess a beautiful bow belonging to Aqhat. She requested him to give the bow to her in return for gold and silver. When Aqhat refused to part with his bow and advised her to have one made for herself, she tried to change his mind by promising him eternal life. This being to no avail, she plotted his destruction and secured possession of the coveted bow. We do not know whether Jezebel knew this story, and whether she was influenced by it or not, but it is not strange that a woman who was educated in an environment where such stories were told about the gods would have no scruples about applying similar means to achieve her purpose.

Because of the depravity of the Canaanites, Israel was commanded to destroy them. An understanding of the religion and immorality connected with Canaanite worship explains God's severity toward the people who practiced it.

The Crossing of the Jordan River.--Bible critics declare that the story of Israel's crossing the Jordan is an incredible myth, that it would be utterly impossible that the river should cease its flow for the space of time required for so vast a multitude to pass over. The fact is, history records at least two instances during the past 700 years when the Jordan suddenly ceased flowing and many miles of the river bed remained dry for a number of hours. As the result of an earthquake, on the night preceding December 8, a.d. 1267, a large section of the west bank opposite Damieh fell into the river, completely damming its flow for 16 hours. This is the very location where, according to the Bible record, "the waters which came down from above stood and rose up upon an heap" (see on Joshua 3:16). Near Tell ed-DaÆmiyeh, the Biblical city of Adam, not far from where the Jabbok flows into the Jordan, the river valley narrows into a gorge that makes such an occurrence as the complete blocking of the river a comparatively simple matter.

On July 11, 1927, the river ran dry again. A landslide near the ford at Tell ed-DaÆmiyeh, caused by a severe earthquake, carried away part of the west bank of the river, thus blocking its flow for 21 hours and flooding much of the plain around Tell ed-DaÆmiyeh. Eventually, these waters forced their way back into the usual channel. For historical data on these two instances see John Garstang and J. B. E. Garstang, The Story of Jericho [1940], p. 136, 137; D. H. Kallner-Amiram, Israel Exploration Journal, Vol. I [1950-1951], pp. 229, 236.

In the light of this evidence critics, reversing themselves, will no doubt now wish to dismiss the Jordan miracle of Joshua's day as simply a natural phenomenon, the result of an earthquake. Any explanation, no matter how incredible, seems better to some men than admitting that God performs miracles We would ask: How could Joshua know a day ahead that an earthquake would block the river 20 mi. upstream? Even more incredible, how could he know the exact moment of the earthquake, in order to direct the priests bearing the ark to march forward so that their feet would reach the riverbank just when the water ceased to flow (see Joshua 3)? Are these Bible critics able to produce earthquakes? Or can they even predict the hour or the day when one will occur and regulate its effects so as to accomplish their objectives? The answer is No And this resounding No wipes out forever their foolish objections to the simple Bible statement that a miracle occurred. Whether or not God caused an earthquake upon this occasion, we know not; we do know that He shakes the earth and makes it tremble (Ps. 60:2; Isa. 2:19, 21) and that the elements fulfill His will (Ps. 148:8). But the very shaking of the earth, though described by men as an earthquake, is in this case of the Jordan truly a miracle.

The Invasion of Canaan Under Joshua.--Jericho was the first city that blocked the way of the invading Hebrews. The Jericho of Joshua's time has since the Middle Ages been identified with the mound Tell es-Sult\aÆn, which is situated close to modern Jericho and not far from the river Jordan. In excavating the ancient ruins of the city Prof. John Garstang found the remains of city walls that showed signs of destruction he attributed to an earthquake. Various reasons led him to the conclusion that he had found the ruins of Joshua's Jericho. But further excavations, in the 1950's, under the direction of Dr. Kathleen M. Kenyon, yielded evidence that would assign those walls to an earlier century and uncovered no remains that could be assigned to Joshua's time except a portion of a house and some pottery in the tombs outside the city indicating burials there in the 14th century. Unfortunately, the top levels of that mound have been so badly destroyed, particularly by erosion, that the later remains have been virtually obliterated. It is questioned whether the site will ever provide archeological evidence that will shed light on the Bible story of the fall of Jericho (Joshua 6).

From the Bible, however, we know that this city, the first one conquered by the Israelites, fell as the result of a divine act of judgment that the Canaanites had brought upon themselves. The strongly fortified city was suddenly destroyed and its contents and population--with the exception of Rahab and her family--were given to the flames.

The next city taken after the fall of Jericho was the little town of Ai (Joshua 8). Archeologists have identified Ai with the ruins of et-Tell, excavated during three seasons under Mme. Judith Marquet-Krause, from 1933 to 1935. However, this identification cannot be correct, since the city uncovered was one of the largest of ancient Palestine, whereas the Bible speaks of Ai as a place much smaller than Jericho (see Joshua 7:3). Furthermore, excavation has shown that et-Tell was destroyed several centuries before the Israelite conquest, and had been in ruins for hundreds of years when Jericho fell to the Israelites. However, as Vincent has proposed, it is possible that the city ruins served as a habitation for a small population in the time of Joshua, because the name Ai means "ruin." This view may be correct, or the real location of the town may yet be discovered.

The Conquest of Central Canaan.--With the fall of Jericho and Ai the central part of Canaan lay open before the invaders. When the Israelites proceeded inland they found to their consternation that they had been deceived by the inhabitants of Gibeon and other cities, with whom they had but a short time previously concluded an alliance of mutual assistance, not knowing that their new allies were inhabitants of Canaan. Hence, the Israelites could not take their cities, and were even obliged to assist them when they were attacked by neighboring city kings who resented the Gibeonite alliance with Israel (Joshua 9).

To fulfill a command previously given by Moses, the Israelites went to Shechem, built an altar, and inscribed the law on a plastered stone monument (see Deut. 11:29-32; Deut. 27:1-8; Joshua 8:32-35). Half of the people stood on Mt. Ebal and the other half on Mt. Gerizim, while the blessings and curses prescribed by Moses were read to them. The Bible does not explain how it was possible for the Israelites to take possession of the region of Shechem, in the central part of the country. The impression, however, is gained that no hostilities preceded their taking possession of this section of the land. Although the Bible is silent concerning events that led to the surrender of Shechem, an Amarna Letter (No. 289) written a few years later by the king of Jerusalem to Pharaoh probably contains information as to how the Israelites gained possession of the Shechem region. In this letter the king of Jerusalem complains that the Habiru (Hebrews) had become so strong that there was danger that he and other kings who still withstood them would have to surrender their own cities as Shechem had been surrendered. The significant passage reads, "To us the same thing will happen, after Labaja and the land of Sakmi [Shechem] have given [all] to the Habiru [Hebrew]." There is therefore reason to conclude that the king of Shechem followed the example of the Gibeonites and surrendered without a fight.

In order to punish those cities that had voluntarily surrendered to the Israelites, the Amorite king of Jerusalem made an alliance with four other princes of southern Palestine and threatened to take Gibeon. Responding to an urgent Gibeonite plea for help, Joshua marched against the five kings and defeated their armies in the memorable battle of Azekah and Makkedah, for which the day was lengthened in response to Joshua's prayer. The five kings fell into Joshua's hands and were killed, and in the ensuing campaign a number of Canaanite cities in the south were taken. However, no attempt was made either to annihilate the defeated populations or to occupy their cities. On the contrary, the Israelites, after taking Canaanite cities, apparently returned them to their inhabitants, and retreated to their camp at Gilgal on the Jordan (Joshua 10).

Later, a campaign against a hostile alliance under the leadership of the king of Hazor, in the north, was undertaken. In the resulting battle of Merom (Lake Huleh) the Israelites were once more victorious. Although they destroyed Hazor completely and pursued their fleeing enemies, they made no attempt at permanent occupation of this part of the country, but left it to their defeated foes as they had the southland (Joshua 11).

The only other military campaigns carried out during the period of the conquest were those of Caleb against Hebron, of his brother Othniel against Debir (Joshua 14:6-15; Joshua 15:13-19; Judges 1:10-15), and of the tribes of Judah and Simeon against Jerusalem (Judges 1:3-8). However, many of the cities taken during the several campaigns were not occupied, as, for example, Jerusalem (see Judges 1:8); cf. v. 21 and 2 Sam. 5:6-9, Taanach (see Joshua 12:21; cf. Judges 1:27), Megiddo (see Joshua 12:21; cf. Judges 1:27), Gezer (see Joshua 12:12; cf. 1 Kings 9:16), and others. The Biblical records tell also that whole regions, such as Philistia, Phoenicia, and northern and southern Syria (Joshua 13:2-6), remained unoccupied.

The Conquest of Canaan a Gradual Process.--The conclusion derived from these different statements is that during the period of the conquest an attempt was made only to gain a foothold. Various local kings and coalitions were defeated, because they contested the right of the Hebrews to settle in western Canaan. However, no serious attempts seems to have been made by the Israelites to dislocate all the Canaanites from their cities and strongholds, although a few cities were definitely taken into possession at that time. Having spent the last 40 years in the desert as nomads, the Hebrews seem to have been satisfied to settle down as tent dwellers in Canaan. As long as they found pastures for their cattle and were not molested by the native inhabitants, they had no desire to live in fortified cities like the Canaanites. Though Joshua divided the country among the 12 tribes, this division was largely in anticipation of their occupying fully the respective areas. This can clearly be seen from a study of the lists given in Joshua 15 to 21, in which numerous cities are mentioned that were not possessed until centuries later. However, as the Hebrews became stronger, they made the Canaanites tributary (Judges 1:28) and eventually dispossessed them.

This process was gradual and took centuries, not being complete before the time of David and Solomon. It is possible that in Acts 13:19, Paul refers to this long period of conquest, from Joshua to Solomon. According to the earliest New Testament manuscripts, this text reads, "When he had destroyed seven nations in the land of Canaan, he gave them their land as an inheritance, for about four hundred and fifty years" (RSV), meaning that it took them about 450 years before the whole land was actually taken into possession as an inheritance.

This picture of a gradual conquest of Canaan by the Hebrews, from piecing together all the Scriptural evidence, is supported by historical evidence, as can be learned from the Amarna Letters and other extra-Biblical sources of that period and the ensuing centuries. The Amarna Letters, all written during the first half of the 14th century b.c., give us a good picture of what happened during that time. Many of these letters originated in Palestine and testify vividly to the chaotic conditions existing in the country, according to Canaanite views.

Most instructive are the letters of Abdu-Kheba, the king of Jerusalem, who complained bitterly that the king of Egypt turned a deaf ear to his petitions for assistance, since the Habiru--probably the Hebrews (see on Gen. 10:21; Gen. 14:13)--gaining power in the country, while he and other local rulers of the land were fighting a losing battle against them. In one letter (No. 271) he wrote: "Let the king, may Lord, protect his land from the hand of the Habiru, and if not, then let the king, my Lord, send chariots to fetch us, lest our servants smite us." Venting his chagrin over the fact that all his pleas had been unsuccessful, and that he had received neither weapons nor forces, he asked in all earnestness: "Why do you like the Habiru, and dislike the [faithful] governors?" (No. 286). He warned the Pharaoh in the same letter: The "Habiru plunder all the lands of the king. If there are archers [sent to assist him in his fight] in this year the lands of the king, my Lord, will remain [intact], but if there are [sent] no archers, the lands of the king, my Lord, will be lost." He then added a few personal words to the scribe who would read the letter to the Pharaoh, asking him to present the matter in eloquent words to the king, since all the Palestinian lands of the Pharaoh were being lost.

These few quotations from the letters of Abdu-Kheba of Jerusalem, which could be multiplied many times, may suffice to show how the Canaanites themselves viewed the political conditions of their country during the time of the conquest and immediately after the period described in the book of Joshua. These letters reveal that many Canaanite princes, like those of Jerusalem, Gezer, Megiddo, Accho, Lachish, and others, were still in possession of their city states decades after the Hebrews had crossed the Jordan, but that they were in mortal fear that their days were numbered, and that the hated Habiru would take their thrones and possessions.

This picture agrees well with that gained from a study of the Biblical records. However, the names of the kings of the Amarna Letters are not the same as those mentioned in the Bible as rulers of the same cities. The king of Jerusalem is called Adoni-zedec in Joshua 10:1, but Abdu-Kheba in the Amarna Letters. Gezer's king was Horam, according to Joshua 10:33, but Yapahu, according to the Amarna Letters, etc. This difference is easily accounted for if the time element is taken into consideration. The Canaanite kings mentioned in Joshua were defeated and killed by the Hebrews very soon after the invasion of the country began in 1405 B.C., whereas the kings mentioned in the Amarna Letters lived several years later, when the Hebrews had settled down in the country, and taken possession of several regions.

That some of the cities already mentioned, like Jerusalem, Gezer, Megiddo, and others, remained in the hand of native princes or Egyptian governors for centuries after the invasion of the Hebrews is attested not only in the Bible but also by other records. The important Canaanite fortress of Beth-shan, for example, is mentioned in Judges 1:27 as an unconquered city among those allotted to Manasseh by Joshua. This fact is corroborated by a notice in an Amarna Letter (No. 289) that the ruler of Gath had a garrison in Beth-shan, which means that the Israelites could not have possessed the city at that time. Toward the end of the 14th century Seti I of Egypt occupied the city, during his first Asiatic campaign, and erected victory steles in its temples. The presence of a similar stele of Ramses II and other Egyptian monuments of the 13th century b.c. excavated in recent years in the ruins of Beth-shan, prove, furthermore, that this city remained in Egyptian hands for a long time while the Hebrews occupied great parts of the land. The same is true of Megiddo and some other cities.

The period of the Judges.--This period of approximately 300 years (see pp. 127, 128) has been well characterized in the closing words of the book of Judges (ch. 21:25) as a time when "every man did that which was right in his own eyes." It was a period of alternating strength and weakness, politically and religiously. Having gained a foothold in the mountainous parts of Canaan, the people of Israel lived among the nations of the country. They established their sanctuary at Shiloh, where it remained for the greater part of the period. Most of the people lived like nomads in tents, and possessed few of the cities of the country. They were split up into tribal units and lacked national unity, which would have given them strength to withstand the many foes about them on all sides. The song of Deborah shows clearly that even in times of crisis and dire need some tribes remained aloof from their afflicted brethren, if they themselves were not affected by the oppressors.

Living thus among the Canaanites the Hebrews were brought into close contact with the religion of the country and its cult system. This seemed so attractive to many that great sections of the people accepted the Canaanite religion. The repeated periods of apostasy were always followed by periods of moral weakness, a situation that provided their more powerful enemies an opportunity to oppress them. In such periods of distress a strong political leader invariably arose and, driven by the Spirit of God, led His people--in whole or in part--through repentance back to God. Being usually a military leader at the same time, he will rallied one or more tribes around himself and liberated those that were oppressed. Each of these great leaders was called a "judge," shophet in Hebrew. This title included more power and authority than the English word suggests. They provided spiritual and political leadership, as well as judicial and military functions.

The Early Judges.--The first of these judges was Caleb's younger brother Othniel, who liberated his nation from an eight-year oppression by the king Chushan-rishathaim of Mesopotamia, probably one of the Mitami princes whose name has not yet been found outside the Bible--which is not at all strange in view of the fact that Mitanni source material is fragmentary. This period probably coincided with the last years of the Eighteenth Dynasty of Egypt--the reigns of Smenkhkare, Tutankhamen, Eye, and Harmhab--when one king followed another in rapid succession.

It was probably about this time that Seti I, the first strong Pharaoh of Egypt in many years, invaded Palestine and crushed a Canaanite rebellion in the eastern part of the Valley of Esdraelon. That Canaanite cities were restored to Egyptian suzerainty did not affect the Israelites, who probably had not taken part in the rebellion, and possessed no cities the Egyptians could claim as their own. However, it is possible that Seti I had an encounter with some Hebrews of the northern tribe of Issachar, because he mentions on a poorly preserved monument found at Beth-shan, that the "Hebrews [ÔApiru] of mount Jarmuth, with the Tayaru, were engaged in attacking the nomads of Ruhma." Although Tayaru and Ruhma have not yet been identified, Jarmuth was one of the cities that Joshua allocated to the Levites in the territory of Issachar (Joshua 21:29). Seti I may thus have fought against some Hebrews of the tribe of Issachar, perhaps punishing them for attacking his allies, but the consequences for the Hebrews seem not to have been far reaching, or the Biblical records would have so indicated. However, it should never be forgotten that the book of Judges, reporting the history of Israel during almost 300 years, contains only a fragmentary record of all that happened during this long period.

Ehud, the second judge, liberated the southern tribes from an 80-year oppression by Moabites, Ammonites, and Amalekites by killing Moabite king Eglon. The 80 years of rest that the southern tribes enjoyed after Ehud's heroic act coincided in part with the long reign of Ramses II of Egypt. This Pharaoh marched through Palestine along the coastal road, which was not in Israelite hands, to meet the Hittite king at Kadesh on the Orontes at the famous battle of Kadesh. Here, both Ramses and the Hittites claimed victory. Otherwise, Ramses seems not to have been seriously concerned about his Asiatic possessions. He kept garrisons in the Palestinian cities of Beth-shan and Megiddo, which lay in the Valley of Esdraelon, and probably also in certain strategic coastal cities. So long as the Israelites did not contest his possession of these cities, their settlement in the mountainous parts of Palestine was of no concern to the Pharaoh.

In several inscriptions Ramses II does mention that Hebrew (ÔApiru) slaves were engaged in his various building activities in Egypt; hence we conclude that Hebrews occasionally fell into the hands of his army commanders in Palestine. It is also possible that these Israelites were made slaves by the Canaanite king Jabin of Hazor, when for 20 years during the reign of Ramses II he oppressed the Hebrews. The heroic leadership of Deborah and Barak put an end to this unhappy situation.

Gideon's Judgeship.--The 80 years of rest that had followed Ehud's liberation of Israel from Moabite oppression in the south was broken by a Midianite oppression lasting 7 years. It was probably during this period also that Merneptah, son of Ramses II, made the raid into Palestine of which he boasts in the famous Israel Stele. Here he claims to have destroyed Israel, so that it had no "seed" left. His record obviously reflects the usual Egyptian tendency to exaggerate, and his claim to have utterly destroyed Israel is therefore not to be taken seriously. Nevertheless, it seems certain from his remarks that he encountered Israelites somewhere in Palestine upon this occasion.

Gideon, one of the outstanding judges, liberated his people from Midianite oppression, smiting a great foreign army with a small band of faithful, alert, and daring Israelite warriors. The story of his exploits and judgeship reveals also that intertribal strife flared up from time to time, and that the people had a strong desire for a unified leadership, expressed in their offer of kingship to Gideon--an honor he wisely declined.

Momentous events took place during the 40 years of Gideon's peaceful judgeship. While Israel lived in the mountainous part of Palestine, the Peoples of the Sea moved along the coastal regions, during the reign of Ramses III, in their unsuccessful attempt to invade Egypt. Bloody battles on land and sea were fought during this time. The Egyptian victories over these invaders eventually turned the tide of this great migration of peoples and saved Egypt from one of the gravest perils that ever threatened its national existence, prior to the Assyrian invasion. Some of the defeated tribes again turned northward toward Asia Minor, whence they had come. Others, however, settled in fertile coastal regions of Palestine. Among these were the Tjekker, in the vicinity of Dor, to the south of Mt. Carmel in the lovely Plain of Sharon, and the Philistines, who strengthened related tribes that had occupied some coastal cities of southern Palestine for a long time. The Israelites, who may have followed with great anxiety the momentous events that took place so close to their habitations, did not vet realize that these Philistines would soon become their most bitter foes.

When Gideon died after a judgeship of 40 years, his son Abimelech, with the help of the people of Shechem, usurped the rulership by killing all his brothers and proclaiming himself king. His rule, however, lasted only three years, and ended, as it had begun, in bloodshed. It is questionable whether his so-called kingdom extended its power beyond the vicinity of Shechem.

The Later Judges.--After him came the judges, Tola of Issachar (23 years) and Jair of Gilead (22 years). No important events are recorded of their time, a fact that seems to indicate that the 45 years of their rulership were rather uneventful.

After Jair's death two oppressions began at approximately the same time, one in the east by the Ammonites, which lasted for 18 years and was ended by the freebooter general, Jephthah, and one in the west of 40 years' duration by the Philistines. This Philistine oppression had more disastrous effects on the Hebrews than any of the previous times of distress.

As already noted, Jephthah made an important chronological statement (Judges 11:26) at the time he began his war of liberation against the Ammonites. He claims that by that time Israel had lived for 300 years in Heshbon and nearby cities which had been taken from the Amorite king Sihon under the leadership of Moses, and that the Ammonites had no right to contest Israel's possession of these cities. Jephthah's six years of judgeship must therefore have begun approximately 300 years after the end of the 40 years of desert sojourning, and hence about 1106 B.C.

While the eastern tribes were afflicted by the Ammonites those in the west endured the fury of the Philistines. Having consolidated their position in the coastal region of southern Palestine, where they were not molested by the extremely weak successors of Ramses III of Egypt, the Philistines turned their attention toward the hinterland and subjugated the neighboring Israelite tribes, especially Dan, Judah, and Simeon. This oppression began at the time when Eli was high priest, in whose household Samuel grew up as a boy. Soon after the beginning of this oppression Samson was born, and upon reaching manhood he harassed the oppressors of his nation for 20 years, until they took him captive. Endowed with supernatural strength, Samson caused the Philistines much harm. If his character had been disciplined, he might have become the liberator of Israel instead of dying an ignominious death. It may have been during those years that the Philistines won the battle at Aphek and captured the ark, killing also the two sons of the high priest Eli. This battle marked the lowest point in the history of Israel during the period of the judges, some 300 years after the tabernacle had been moved by Joshua to Shiloh (PP 514). Hence, the date for this event is about 1100 B.C.

After the disastrous battle of Aphek, Samuel began his work as spiritual leader of Israel. However, he was not immediately ready to wage a successful war against the Philistines, with their superior strength and war techniques. The oppression went on for another 20 years, but ended with the victory of the Israelites under Samuel at the battle of Ebenezer (1 Sam 7:13; PP 591). After Ebenezer, Samuel began a peaceful and highly successful judgeship over Israel. This must have continued for about 30 years, until he bowed to the popular demand for a king. Samuel's sons, whom he had appointed as his successors, proved unfit as leaders and were rejected by the people.

With Saul's coronation as king of the entire nation the heroic age ended and a new era began. Prior to this time Israel's form of government was a theocracy, since the rulers were, presumably, appointed by God Himself and led by Him in the performance of their task. The new form of government began as a kingship with the ruler appointed by God, but soon developed into a hereditary monarchy. (The theocracy formally ended at the cross. DA 737.)

Conditions During the Time of the Judges.--The sorry conditions prevailing in Palestine during most of the time of the judges are also reflected in two literary documents from Egypt. These are so interesting and enlightening that a short description of their contents must be given here. The first is a satirical letter in which the journey of a mahar (an Egyptian envoy) through Syria and Palestine is described. The document comes from the second half of the 13th century b.c., and may have been contemporary with the Midianite oppression to which Gideon put an end.

The document describes the Palestinian roads as overgrown with cypresses, oaks, and cedars that "reached to the heavens," making travel difficult. It is stated that lions and leopards were numerous, a detail reminiscent of Samson's and David's experiences (Judges 14:5); (1 Sam. 17:34). Twice, thieves were encountered by the envoy. One night they stole his horse and clothing; on another occasion, his bow, sheath knife, and quiver. Also, he met Bedouins, of whom he says that "their hearts were not mild." Shuddering seized him and his hair stood up, while his soul "lay in his hand." However, not being himself a model of morality, he was caught in an escapade with a native girl at Joppa, and paid for his freedom only by selling his shirt of fine Egyptian linen.

This story, written in the form of a letter, whether true or fictitious, shows a remarkable knowledge of Palestinian topography and geography. Among many other well-known places it mentions Megiddo, Beth-shan, Accho, Shechem, Achshaph, and Sarepta. The story vividly illustrates the state of insecurity found in the country, where bad roads, robbers, and fierce-looking Bedouins were common. The description of the sad conditions met in Palestine reminds one of the experiences of the traveling Levite described in Judges 19, and the statement that "every man did that which was right in his own eyes" (Judges 21:25).

The second story written in the first half of the 11th century b.c., at the height of the Philistine oppression after the ark was taken in the battle of Aphek, describes the journey of Wenamon, an Egyptian royal agent, to the Phoenician port city of Byblos to purchase cedarwood for the bark of Amen. Wenamon was sent by the priest-king, Heri-Hor of Thebes, and had been given a divine statue of the god Amen to protect him on the way and give him success in his mission. However, he was given only about 1 1/4 lb. of gold and 7 3/4 lb. of silver as money to purchase the desired cedarwood.

Wenamon left Egypt by ship, but when he reached the Palestinian port city of Dor, which was in the hands of the Tjekker, his gold and silver were stolen from him. He lodged a complaint with the local king, who refused to take any responsibility for the theft. After Wenamon had spent 9 days in Dor without finding either his stolen money or the thief, he stole about 7 1/2 lb. of silver himself, and then sailed for Byblos. However, the king of Byblos refused for 29 days to see him, and ordered him out of his city. On the 29th day after his arrival one of the king's pages had a visionary frenzy in the name of Amen and advised the king to grant Wenamon an interview. During this interview the king was extremely impolite, and asked for official credentials, telling Wenamon that for a previous shipment of cedars 250 lb. of silver had been paid. He made it clear that he was the master of the Lebanon, that he had no obligations toward Egypt, although he admitted that his people owed much to the culture of the Nile country.

The king of Byblos finally agreed to send a shipment of cedar to Egypt, and received a shipload of hides, papyrus scrolls, royal linen, gold, silver, etc., from Egypt in payment. The desired cedars were then cut and loaded, at which time the Phoenician king reminded Wenamon that a previous emissary had waited 17 years at Byblos and finally died there without getting his cedar. This was intended to point out to Wenamon that in Asia the prestige of Egypt had dwindled to nothing, and that its ambassadors no longer deserved the respect they had formerly been accustomed to receive.

When Wenamon was finally ready to leave the harbor of Byblos and set sail for Egypt, he found the Tjekker waiting with their ships to catch him and his load of cedarwood. He managed, however, to flee with his ship to Cyprus, where he barely escaped death by the hands of unfriendly natives. Unfortunately, the papyrus breaks off at this point of the narrative, and the rest of the story is therefore not known. It must, however, have had a happy ending, or the Egyptians would not have written and preserved it.

The story of Wenamon's mission is also instructive in that it highlights the chaotic political conditions of Palestine during the period of the judges. It shows that Egypt had lost all authority in Syria, and that an Egyptian envoy, whose arrival in former ages would have spread awe, could now be treated with contempt and disdain. We see, furthermore, that traveling was insecure, that people robbed and were robbed, and that no one was ever sure of his life.

VII. Egypt in Decline--Dynasties Twenty-one to Twenty-five (c. 1085--663 B.C.)

The period under discussion shows Egypt at a very low level. Source material is scarce, and great gaps exist in our historical knowledge of this period. Also, Egyptian chronology for this period is uncertain, and depends on brief Bible references and Mesopotamian records. Since but a few of the Egyptian kings of this period are mentioned either in the Bible or in cuneiform sources, all dates preceding 663 B.C. are only approximately correct.

Priest-Kings of the Twenty-first Dynasty (c. 1085--c. 950 B.C.).--The Twentieth Dynasty, the weak Ramessides, ended about 1085 B.C. Tanis, in the eastern Delta, remained the political center. There, Smendes, whose origin is obscure, managed to become king, while Heri-Hor, the high priest of Amen, proclaimed himself king of Thebes, the earlier Upper Egyptian capital. The two rival kings had little political power, and the cultural level of Egypt fell rapidly. Although a grandson of Heri-Hor married a daughter of a king of Tanis, political unity was not achieved. The low ebb of Egypt's political power during this period is apparent from the treatment Wenamon received on his mission to Byblos, as already noted. One of the last kings of this dynasty was probably Solomon's Egyptian father-in-law (1 Kings 3:1).

The Libyan Twenty-second and Twenty-third Dynasties (c. 950--c. 750 B.C.).--It is unknown how the change from the Twenty-first to the Twenty-second Dynasty occurred. The first king of the new dynasty, Sheshonk, the Biblical Shishak, was a Libyan army commander, and may have usurped the throne about 950 B.C. During the late Nineteenth and early Twentieth Dynasties Libyans had been brought to Egypt in great numbers as prisoners of war. Many were then used as soldiers in the wars of Ramses III against the Peoples of the Sea. They served a number of kings as mercenaries. Some achieved honor and office, as, for instance, a family in Heracleopolis in the northern part of Upper Egypt, of whom several members served as officers in the army and others became governors of Egyptian cities and districts.

When Sheshonk came to the throne he was able to do away with the priestly dynasty at Thebes. Making one of his own sons high priest of Amen, he once more bound Thebes, the religious center, to the monarchy and achieved political unity in Egypt. The new king was engaged for several years in restoring orderly conditions in the county, and was successful to a certain degree.

As soon as he had a free hand in Egypt, Sheshonk turned his attention to Asia, where he made a determined effort to reconstitute the former empire. In this attempt he was favored by the death of King Solomon and the splitting up of the kingdom of Israel into two rival states. Sheshonk's Palestinian campaign in Rehoboam's fifth year is briefly described in 1 Kings 14:25, 26, and 2 Chron. 12:2-4. The Egyptians invested and spoiled many Judean and Israelite cities, among them the rich city of Jerusalem, whence Solomon's treasures were removed to Egypt. Sheshonk erected victory steles in Palestine. A fragment of one of these has been found at Megiddo, and a statute of the king was unearthed in the excavations of Byblos. When Sheshonk returned to Egypt he celebrated his triumph and had a list of conquered cities engraved on one of the walls of the great Amen temple at Karnak, where about 100 names of Palestinian cities have escaped the destructive forces of nature and man during the past three millenniums. Among these we discover such well-known names as Taanach, Megiddo, Beth-shan, Mahanaim, Gibeon, Beth-horon, Ajalon, and others. Although the campaign was a temporary success, Sheshonk was not able to hold Asia and permanently force his will upon it. The attempt to reorganize the Asian empire was a failure. Egypt lacked its former strength, and had definitely become a second-rate power.

The location of the tombs of the kings of the Twenty-first to Twenty-third Dynasty was unknown until Prof. P. Montet, the French excavator of the ruins of Tanis, discovered some royal tombs of the Twenty-first and Twenty-second Dynasties in that city. Some of the tombs were unspoiled. However, they did not contain such fabulous treasures as the tomb of Tutankhamen, although some beautiful gold and silver objects came to light in these tombs. A very fine golden bracelet from the tomb of Sheshonk's grandson bears and inscription stating that it had been given to him by his grandfather. It may actually have been made of gold and came into Sheshonk's possession from the treasures of King Solomon. The tomb of Sheshonk I has not yet been discovered. It may contain valuable information concerning his Asiatic campaign.

Sheshonk's successors of the Twenty-second as well as the Twenty-third Dynasty, probably all Libyans, were weak kings. The 15 kings of the 2 dynasties reigned for about 200 years (c. 950-750 B.C.), but Egypt was merely a shadow of its former self. It neither played a role in world politics nor produced any works of architecture or art comparable to the products of earlier ages. Its real condition is fittingly characterized a little later by Rab-shakeh, the Assyrian army commander of Sennacherib who said, literally, to the men of Hezekiah, "You are relying now in Egypt, that broken reed of a staff, which will pierce the hand of any man who leans on it. Such is Pharaoh king of Egypt to all who rely on him" (2 Kings 18:21). Though his remarks actually referred to Egypt of the Twenty-fourth Dynasty, no words could better describe the political weakness of the Libyan dynasties.

The Twenty-fourth Dynasty, of Saïs (c. 750--c. 715 B.C.).--It is unknown how the Libyan rule of Tanis ended, or how it was replaced by the short-lived Twenty-fourth Dynasty of native Egyptian princes, but about 750 B.C. Lower Egypt found itself in the hands of Tefnakht of Saïs, in the western Delta. Of this king it is known only that he attempted to conquer Upper Egypt, which, with the important city of Thebes, was held by the Ethiopians.

Of Tefnakht's son Bocchoris, as the Greeks called him--his Egyptian name was Bakenrenef--we have hardly any contemporary information, but later Greek authors tell many stories about him. He was, according to these sources, a wise king and a great lawgiver. After a short reign of five years (720-715 B.C.) he was deposed by the first king of the Ethiopian Dynasty and burned to death.

It is necessary to point out in this connection that we have only a very fragmentary knowledge concerning conditions in Egypt during this time. It is possible that several kinglets in addition to Tefnakht and Bocchoris ruled over sections of Lower Egypt. In 2 Kings 17:4, "So king of Egypt" is mentioned as having induced Hoshea to revolt against Assyria. Although one Egyptian monument (in the Berlin Museum) contains the hieroglyphic royal name "So," and the Assyrian sources mention him under the name of Sib'u, we have no further information about this king who probably ruled over a small area of the Delta.

The Ethiopian Kings of the Twenty-fifth Dynasty (c. 715--663 B.C.)--Nubia, today partly in Egypt, partly in Sudan, was generally called Ethiopia by classical authors. Hence, the Ethiopian kings of ancient times were Nubians and did not come from the Abyssinian highland, as the term Ethiopian might indicate.

Nubia belonged to Egypt during most of its historical period up to the Twenty-first Dynasty. Although Egyptian kings occasionally had to subdue rebellions, Nubia usually had been rather quiet and had caused little trouble. However, the time of Egyptian rule ended in the 10th century b.c. during the time of the weak rulers of the Twenty-first Dynasty, when Nubia shook off the Egyptian yoke and founded an independent kingdom with its capital at Napata, near Mt. Barkal and the Fourth Cataract of the Nile. The Egyptian religion, which had been introduced to Nubia during the many centuries of Egyptian rule, was retained, and the Amen cult was practiced in a more conservative style than in Egypt itself.

In his excavation of Napata the American Egyptologist G. A. Reisner uncovered pyramids, temples, and palaces. He was able to reconstruct the history of Nubia from the 10th century to about 300 B.C. and to give us the list of kings who ruled in Napata in unbroken sequence until the capital was moved for some unknown reason to Meroë (about 130 mi. [209 km.] north of Khartoum), where the Meroïtic kingdom existed until a.d. 355 and in turn gave way to the Abyssinian power of Axum.

After Nubia gained its independence in the 10th century b.c. and thereafter remained in isolation for about 200 years, it looked with envious eyes toward Egypt, whose political feebleness obvious to everyone. About 750 B.C. the Nubian king Kashta marched north and took all of southern Egypt, including Thebes, the most famous and glorious of all Egyptian cities. The highest ecclesiastical power of the Amen temple at Thebes was Shepenupet II, the daughter of King Osorkon III of the Twenty-third Dynasty, called the "god's wife." The office of high priestess had already existed for a long time, and was usually held by a princess of royal blood, by way of securing the loyalty of the priesthood of Amen to the ruling house of Egypt. Kashta forced the officiating "god's wife" to adopt his own daughter as her successor, and thus bound the priesthood of Amen and the tremendous possessions of that god to his dynasty.

Piankhi, the son and successor of Kashta, felt that his rule over Upper Egypt was threatened by Tefnakht of Saïs, for which reason he marched north and conquered the remaining part of Egypt. His campaign is described on a great stele, containing one of the most detailed and interesting historical texts that has come down to us. Although all Egypt was conquered by Piankhi, he withdrew from the Delta again and left Tefnakht in possession of it. Shabaka, however, the next Ethiopian king, put an end to the Twenty-fourth Dynasty by defeating and killing Bocchoris in 715 B.C., as has already been related.

Piankhi, having conquered all of Egypt, made Thebes his capital. It was the last time that the old and venerated city became the center of Egyptian life and culture. Once more great building activities were carried on, as in the best days of the Eighteenth Dynasty. However, the new glory lasted only a little a little more than 50 years (715-663 B.C.), and came then to an inglorius end, as the Assyrians invaded Egypt and destroyed Thebes.

Egypt in Decline.--Piankhi's successors were Shabakak, Shabataka, Taharka, and Tanutamon. According to recently published documents Taharka came to the throne about 690 B.C., at the age of 20, as coregent with his brother Shabataka. This coregency continued till the death of the latter six years later. From then on Taharka was sole ruler until 664 B.C., when his nephew Tanutamon ascended the throne. Taharka is known from the Bible under the name of Tirhakah (2 Kings 19:9). We are told there that Sennacherib, when besieging Libnah in Judea, probably after 690 B.C., heard that Taharka was approaching with his army to aid Hezekiah and save Judah from impending annihilation. However, there is no evidence that Taharka really intervened actively in Hezekiah's favor. The rumor may not have been true. It is actually with reference to the Ethiopian Dynasty that the statement of Rabshakeh (2 Kings 18:21) was made, a statement that was true not only at that time, but also later, in the time of Nebuchadnezzar.

Difficulties in other parts of the Assyrian Empire which required Sennacherib's full attention elsewhere, and the catastrophe Sennacherib's army suffered in Palestine, save Egypt temporarily and postponed the end that was evidently soon to come to the proud but feeble kingdom on the Nile.

Esarhaddon, the next Assyrian king, conquered Egypt in 670 B.C. for seven years made it an Assyrian province. We have recovered the famous victory stele of Esarhaddon set up in the north Syrian site of Zenjirli. It depicts the kings of Tyre and Egypt (Taharka) as prisoners of the king of Assyria, the former being depicted as a larger figure than the latter, since the king of Tyre was considered more important than the king of miserable Egypt.

On a stele found in Napata, Tanutamon, the last Ethiopian king who ruled over Upper Egypt, tells that a dream led him to attempt the conquest of Egypt anew. He succeeded in winning most of Upper Egypt and even took Memphis, the Lower Egyptian capital, but could not expel the Assyrian garrisons from the Delta. His success was short-lived, however, and he had to retreat when Assurbanipal marched against him and conquered Thebes. This city, the most beautiful of all ancient Egyptian cities, was completely destroyed. Two of its tall obelisks were transported to Assyria to demonstrate to the Assyrians and the world that a new day had come, and that the Egyptian power had been broken forever. The words of the prophet Nahum reflect the tremendous impression that the destruction of Thebes, the queen of all ancient cities, made on contemporaries (Nahum 3:8).

For the ensuing history of Egypt see Section XIII, "Egypt in the Saïte Period."

VIII. The Assyrian Empire (933--612 B.C.)

The Assyrian Empire period is only an episode in the long history of this world, but to the student of the Bible it is of great importance because of the decisive role Assyria played in the history of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah. This importance can be seen from the fact that Assyria and its people are mentioned some 150 times in Scripture. Six illustrious Assyrian kings are mentioned by name in the Bible, and the names of 10 Hebrews kings--6 of Israel and 4 of Judah--appear in the royal Assyrian inscriptions. Furthermore, the fact that the kingdom of Israel came to its sad end at the cruel hands of the Assyrians, and that Judah almost shared Israel's fate, should be reason enough for a careful study of Assyrian history. This enumeration of contacts between sacred and profane history at the time of the Assyrian Empire period shows clearly how important is a knowledge of the history of that nation for a correct understanding of the events that took place during the period of the Hebrew kings.

The homeland of Assyria was situated on the upper Tigris, north of the Little Zab, one of the eastern tributaries of the Tigris. Thence, Assyria extended in a northwesterly direction for about 80 mi. along the river Tigris. The Assyrians moved their capital from one place to another several times during their history. Assur, the most ancient capital, was not far from the Little Zab, and on the west bank of the Tigris. A short distance north was Kar-Tukulti-Ninurta, founded by the king whose name it bore, Tukulti-Ninurta. At the confluence of the Great Zab and the Tigris lay Calah, now called Nimrud, and farther to the north Nineveh, the largest and most famous of Assyrian cities. This capital, about 50 mi. from Assur, was oblong in shape, with walls of an approximate total length of 8 mi. and with 15 gates. A few miles to the north of Nineveh lay the capital of Sargon II, Dur Sharrukin, now called Khorsabad.

The Assyrians were Semitic Akkadians, closely related to the Babylonians as far as race, language, and civilization go. They were numerically a small nation, but distinguished themselves as ambitious merchants, daring and courageous warriors, and prudent though ruthless political leaders and statesmen.

Assyria was stony, and lay near mountains where good stone could be quarried. Hence, much stone was used for the building of monumental and public edifices such as palaces and temples. The Assyrians became masters in the handling of stone, as the many huge slabs lining their palace and temple walls show. However, this art is particularly apparent from the winged, human-headed bulls or lions that flanked the city and palace gates. Each was hewn out of one block of stone and weighed about 40 tons. The art of cutting stone was practiced not only in the handling of monumental reliefs and sculptures but also in the engraving of smaller objects such as cylinder seals. These exhibit skilled craftsmanship.

Assyrian Religion.--The religion of the Assyrians was similar to that of the racially related Babylonians; in fact, many Babylonian deities were adopted and worshiped, as, for instance, Marduk, Ishtar, Tammuz, and others. The chief god was Ashur, the ancient local god of the city that carried his name. He was depicted as a winged sun that protected and guided the king, his principal servant, but was worshiped also under the symbol of a tree representative of fertility. The influence of other nations was also apparent on Assyrian religion. In this way some peoples, such as the Amorites, gained power over the Assyrians during the first half of the second millennium. Thus the gods Dagan and Adad gained recognition. Other conquerors of Assyria, like the Indo-European Hurrians of Mitanni, left behind them their religious concepts. Hence, we find in Assyrian religion little that was purely national and much that had been borrowed from other cultures.

In Assyria the king was neither a god, like Pharaoh in Egypt, nor the representative of the god, as in Sumeria. He was Ashur's chief priest and general, who carried out his god's desires and military campaigns, periodically giving account of the faithful fulfillment of his duties through "letters to the god," of which some have been preserved to the present day.

Assyrian Chronology.--The Assyrians invented a method of designating years that, in a modified form, was later followed by the Greeks and the Romans. High officials, including the king, were appointed once during life to serve for one year as limmu, an honorary office requiring the performance of no duties except that of giving his name to the year in which he was limmu. The Greek equivalent of the Assyrian limmu is the word eponym; hence the chronological lists containing the names of limmu are called Eponym Canons. These lists are of great value in reconstructing the chronology of Assyria, particularly that of the period to 900 to 650 B.C. (see p. 155).

Assyria Before Tiglath-pileser I (to c. 1112 B.C.).--The princes of Assur had been vassals of the ruling dynasties of southern Mesopotamia when Illushuma (c. 1850 B.C.), in the time of the dynasties of Isin and Larsa (see Vol. I, p. 136), made himself independent and succeeded in extending his power over great areas that previously belonged to his overloads. His son Erishum (c. 1825 B.C.), and more so his great-grandson Sargon I (c. 1780 B.C.), seem to have played with the idea of world dominion. This can be gathered from the name Sargon bore, in imitation of the great hero and founder of the empire of Akkad, and also from his program of political expansion. Successful military campaigns strengthened the young independent nation and extended its territory. Business relations were opened with foreign countries, and trading colonies and outposts were established. The Through the achieves of colonies in Asia Minor (the so-called Capadocian tablets) much information concerning the extent of Assyrian commercial activities has become available.

However, the short period of Assyrian independence ended soon after the death of Sargon I. Commercial connections with Asia Minor were broken, and Assyria itself became a bone of contention between two emerging powers, the Elamites and the Amorites. The Amorites Shamshi-Adad I (c. 1749-1717 B.C.), who claimed that his father Ilukapkapu had been king of Assur, succeeded in making himself king of Assyria. Like his great contemporary, Hammurabi, the Amorite king of Babylon, Shamshi-Adad planned to become sole under of Mesopotamia, as his title reveal, "King of the Universe" being the most significant one. He conquered the great city of Mari on the Euphrates and made his son its king. A victory stele found in the Syrian city of Mardin reveals, furthermore, that he also extended his power over northern Syria. When he died, the strongest opponent of Hammurabi was gone. His son and later descendants were not able to continue his policies, and Assyria degenerated once more into a second-rate power. It is not certain that Hammurabi and his successors ever exercised sovereignty over Assyria.

Next came the Hurrians of Mitanni, who overran Assyria and made it part of their empire. The Assyrian kings mentioned in the king lists for this period cannot have been more than vassals. It was Eriba-Adad (c. 1390-1364 B.C.) who began his reign as Mitanni's vassal and referred to himself as priestly prince of Assur. Upon the death of Tushratta and the collapse of Mitanni he once more became a free and independent king.

In Ashur-ubalit I (1364-1328 B.C.), Eriba-Adad's son, we find once more an Assyrian ruler who sought to advance the power of his country. He was a contemporary of the Egyptian revolutionary king Ikhnaton; in fact, two of Ashur-ubalit#'s letters to that Pharaoh have been found in the Amarna collection. In the first he calls himself merely king of the land Assur, but in the second he designates himself as brother of the Pharaoh. By this he claims to be great king, having taken the place in world politics formerly held by the king of Mitanni. Ashur-ubalit was an energetic ruler and knew how to achieve his aims. He occupied Upper Mesopotamia as far as Carchemish, and forced Kassite Babylonia to recognize his supremacy over southern Mesopotamia.

It was necessary, however, for the work of Ashur-uballit# to be repeated several times by his successors before Assyria's power over all Mesopotamia was recognized even to a limited degree. Hence we read in the royal annals that successive kings led repeated military campaigns against Hanigalbat, the name by which the land of Mitanni was known in later times. They fought also against the more powerful Hittites to the west. The fortunes of war were not always on Assyria's side, and territories that had been gained by painful campaigns were often lost. However, these continual wars seem to have strengthened the martial spirit of the numerically small people of Assyria, and gained for it the respect of other great nations. As a result, the kings of the Hittites, Egypt, and Babylon were finally forced to recognized the little king of Assur as "brother," in acknowledgment of his claim to be a great king. Thus the 13th century saw three great Assyrian kings, Adadnirari I. Shalmaneser I, and Tukulti-Ninurta I.

Adadnirari I (c. 1306-1274 B.C.), of whom long inscriptions are known, was a great conqueror. He defeated Babylonia and established a new southern frontier of Assyria that incorporated the region of Kirkuk. He fought against the Guti and Lullupi in the Zagros Mts., and overran all Hanigalbat, destroying its capital and building and Assyrian palace there.

Shalmaneser I (c. 1274-1244 B.C.) practically repeated the campaigns of his father, and also defeated eight allied kings of the land of Urarti (later Urartu), the American region around Lake Van, in later times one of the most formidable enemies of Assyria. Adadnirari founded the city of Calah and moved the capital from Assur to the new city.

The next king, Tukulti-Ninurta I (c. 1244-1207 B.C.), who again moved the capital to a new location, Kar-Tukulti-Ninurta, was extremely temperamental and fanatical. He became the first Assyrian warrior-king whose ruthless methods of warfare are also well known from the later empire period. Elaborate historical records report his campaigns against Subartu in northern Mesopotamia, the Nairi lands of Urartu, where he claims to have defeated 43 local kings, the Guti and Elamites in the eastern mountains, the Ahlamu (Aramaeans) of the desert, and the Babylonian. He captured the Babylonian king and brought the sacred Marduk statute of Babylon to Assur. However, his rule over Babylon was of only short duration, because the Babylonians, supported by the Elamites, shook off the Assyrian yoke soon after the capture of their city.

Tukulti-Ninurta's end marks the conclusion of the first period of Assyrian conquests, which had now lasted for about a century. Assyria then declined under a series of insignificant kings. There are no indications that the Sea Peoples, which at this time subdued the Hittite empire and invaded Syria, had anything to do with this period of Assyrian weakness, mostly during the 12 century b.c.

Tiglath-pileser I and Later (1113--933 B.C.).--The Assyrian ideal of world dominion found a worthy champion in the person of Tiglath-pileser I (1113-1074 B.C.). The Assyrians apparently never lost sight of this ideal, which from the 14th century to the 7th was pursued consistently whenever circumstances were favorable. During the first years of his reign Tiglath-pileser began to reestablish the earlier empire of Tukulti-Ninurta I. He reported his accomplishments in the now-famous documents he deposited in the foundation of the Anu and Adad temple at Assur, and which were used in 1857 to prove that the young science of Assyriology had come of age. Copies of these texts were then given to four scholars who, independently and correctly, translated each of them, thus proving that the riddle of cuneiform script had been solved (see Vol. I, p. 111).

The king carried out campaigns in the northern Nairi lands, then went against the Mushki, who had recently pushed east from Asia Minor. Eventually, he reached the Black Sea, and also forced Malatia in Hanigalbat to pay tribute. After the completion of his northern campaigns he turned southward, took the Babylonian cities Dur-Kurigalzu, Sippar, Babylon, and Opis, but allowed the defeated Babylonians to retain a certain amount of independence.

When Tiglath-pileser marched into Syria to cut cedars of Lebanon for his buildings, the Syrian and Phoenician princes, among them those of Sidon and Byblos, paid tribute. However, Tyre, trusting in its island impregnability, refused. Arvad invited the king to a trip on the Mediterranean, where he hunted a sea monster. Even the Pharaoh of Egypt cautiously sent gifts to the powerful Assyrian monarch, among them a crocodile, which the king publicly exhibited in Assur. However, Tiglath-pileser found it difficult to keep back the pressure of the Aramaeans, who came against him in wave after wave.

This Assyrian king was a true empire builder, and his kingdom was at least equal in importance to those of the Hittites of Egyptians of former ages. But there was one great difference between the former empires and the new one. By those earlier empires vassals had been considered as human beings, and a certain generosity was frequently shown toward defeated enemies. The Assyrians, however, had but one aim--to subject every nation to the might of their god Ashur. Accordingly, they left their foes the choice between unconditional subjection and annihilation.

The Aramaeans, whom Tiglath-pileser's military genius held in check, proved too strong for his successors. The Aramaeans met no resistance in Babylonia, and infiltrated more and more into the areas that the Assyrians had claimed as their own. For almost a century and a half after Tiglath-pileser's death Assyria was pressed back to its home country on the Tigris and played the role of a secondary power, while the Aramaeans pressed their conquest of Syria and northern Mesopotamia and founded numerous city states. The Aramaean tribes of the south, better known as Chaldeans, in the meantime took over Babylonia and formed a dynasty which, though frequently interrupted by the Assyrians during the centuries that followed, nevertheless remained unbroken until the middle of the 6th century b.c.

The Resurrection of Assyria From Ashur-dan II to Shalmaneser III (933--824 B.C.).--Another strong Assyrian king rose up in the person of Ashur-dan II (933-910 B.C.). As a worthy descendant to Tiglath-pileser I, he reorganized, first of all, Assyria's military and economic forces, and then began the reconquest of the Aramaean parts of Mesopotamia. The royal annals tell of how the Assyrian kings annually led their armies to the north and northwest. The five kings following Ashur-dan II, Adadnirari II (910-889 B.C.), Tukulti-Ninurta II (889-884 B.C.), Ashurnasirpal II (884-859 B.C.), and Shalmaneser III (859-824 B.C.), each the son of his predecessor, seem to have been possessed by only one desire--the defeat of the Aramaeans and the reconquest of their territory.

Perhaps no other century of antiquity saw so much bloodshed as the 9th and nowhere else were so many lives sacrificed as in northern Mesopotamia and Syria during the reigns of the five aforementioned kings. Hardly ever have treaties been concluded and broken so frequently as in this period. The people of the subject nations, who repeatedly witnessed the murder of their loved ones and the destruction of their homes and fields, seem to have considered the frequent Assyrian expeditions to be divinely ordained plagues (see Isa. 10:5), whereas the Assyrian kings on their part seem to have felt it a sacred duty to avenge with fire and sword the continual rebellions of their subjects.

Adadnirari II, having conquered the land of Hanigalbat, including its capital, Nisibis, broke with the custom of requiring annual tribute and made the land an Assyrian province. When Ashurnasirpal II reconquered this country following another revolt, he did it with such inhuman cruelty that a revolt in this region never again proved possible. He was successful in extending the Assyrian Empire once more to its approximately size of the time of Tiglath-pileser I. But there was one important difference--Assyria was now ruled with an iron hand, and mercy was unknown wherever Ashurnasirpal held sway. The empire was divided into provinces ruled by Assyrian governors. The provinces consisted of organized districts with cities as centers. The populations of these provinces were pressed by the Assyrian tax collectors to the point that they lived for only one purpose, to pour out tribute to satisfy the insatiable thirst of the Assyrian monarch.

Shalmaneser III, who came to the throne at an advanced age in 859 B.C., not only knew how to keep his father's empire intact but was successful in extending it into new areas. He was the first Assyrian king to have contact with the little kingdom of Israel. Israel had developed into a respectably large kingdom during the reign of David and Solomon, when Assyria and Egypt were too weak to interfere. However, the breakup of the Hebrew kingdom into two states after Solomon's death (931/30 B.C.) coincided with the resurrection of Assyrian power when Ashur-dan II came to the throne in 933 B.C., and Assyrian eyes again turned greedily toward the west. Yet, as long as the battle was waged only against the states in northern Mesopotamia, Israel had not much to fear from the powerful state on the Tigris; but when the danger of being overrun came nearer and nearer with every new king and each new expansion of the Assyrian Empire, the kings of Israel have felt increasing alarm. Finally they were drawn into this conflict, as Judah was also eventually.

Whether Ahab, who is mentioned as one of the allies fighting against Shalmaneser III at Qarqar in 853 B.C., took part in the anti-Assyrian alliance of his own volition or whether he was forced to do so by Damascus (Syria) is uncertain. This will be discussed in the section on the history of the divided kingdom of Israel and Judah. From now on, royal Assyrian inscriptions mention Israelite kings rather frequently. During the next 130 years there were many clashes of interest between the two powers, until the kingdom of Israel followed the example of other Syrian and Palestinian states in becoming an Assyrian province.

It would lead too far afield to follow Shalmaneser III on his numerous campaigns, of which good records in word and picture are extant; nevertheless a short outline of his military accomplishments is necessary in order to understand the political situation in Western Asia during the time of the prophets Elijah and Elisha. The Assyrian king conquered, first, Til-Barsip, capital of the powerful Aramaean state of Bit-Adini on the upper Euphrates. The population was deported to Assyria, and Assyrian colonists were moved into the area. Til-Barsip was rebuilt and called "Shalmaneser's castle." Henceforth this city became the headquarters and point of departure for several campaigns against city states in Cilicia and Syria, whose conquest opened the silver mines of the Taurus Mts. and the forests of the Amanus Mts. to the land-hungry Assyrians.

In Syria 12 allied princes, including Ahab of Israel, met Shalmaneser at Qarqar in 853 B.C. Adadidri of Damascus (the second of three Ben-hadads mentioned in the Bible) was the leader. Although Shalmaneser claimed in high-sounding words to have won a brilliant victory, he could not hide the fact that his first encounter with the Syrian opponents had ended at best in a draw, perhaps even victory, for the allies. However, Shalmaneser did not forget his objective, and in 848 made a second attempt against practically the same coalition. Again the allies withstood him successfully, and even his third campaign was not a full success. When Hazael followed Adadidri on the throne of Damascus, the Assyrian king marched up to Hazael's capital and destroyed its palm gardens, but was not able to conquer the city. Jehu of Israel, who had usurped the throne and was not ready for a fight, thought it wise to pay tribute. This fact is depicted on the famous Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser, which was found in Calah and is now in the British Museum. The Assyrian king reached the Mediterranean at the Dog River near Beirut, farther south than any of his predecessors. There he had his picture cut in relief on rock.

Shalmaneser III also gained some territory in the north and reached the sources of the Tigris, where he offered sacrifices. He did not, however, attack the strong kingdom of Urartu, which, under Sardur I, was determined to remain independent. Shalmaneser later entered Babylonian politics, upon an occasion when two brothers contested the throne. He allowed Babylonian politics, upon an occasion when two brothers contested the throne. He allowed Babylonia to retain its independence, but exhibited Assyrian power to the people of Lower Mesopotamia by marching down to the Persian Gulf, on the way accepting tribute in gold, ivory, and elephant hides from the region to the south of Babylonia, including the important Aramaean state of Bit-Jakin. The fame and awe of Assyria had become so great that all gates were opened to the king. Very seldom was so great success gained with so little effort.

During the greater part of his reign, which lasted for more than 30 years, Shalmaneser enjoyed the faithful assistance of his commander in chief (turtan), Daian-ashur. During his last years, however, a serious revolt of the governors broke out and destroyed his lifework. From now on till his death in 824 B.C. he was scarcely able to maintain his position at Calah. The reasons for this revolt, led by one of Shalmaneser's sons, are not clear, and lay either in the discontent with the old king's decision concerning his successor or in his foreign or domestic policy.

Period of Imperial Dissolution (824--746 B.C.).--Although the power of the empire declined during the last years of Shalmaneser III, there was no complete breakup of authority over the conquered areas. The next king, Shamshi-Adad V (824-810 B.C.), succeeded, in three campaigns, in restoring Assyrian prestige, and in this he was supported by the Babylonian king Marduk-zakir-shum.

At this time begins a leaning toward Babylonia and its culture, which the Assyrians always unconsciously recognized as superior to their own. Shamshi-Adad took a Babylonian princess, Sammu-ramat, as wife and used the Babylonian language for royal inscriptions. Although he and his son both found it necessary to conquer Babylonia repeatedly to punish acts of enmity, these two Assyrian kings never dared to incorporate, as a province, that famous land, considered the mother of Assyrian culture.

When Shamshi-Adad V died in 810 B.C., his son Adad-nirari III (810-782 B.C.) was too young for the kingship, and therefore his wife, Sammu-ramat, reigned a number of years for her son as regent. Her superior personality and the fact that she is the only woman ever to rule over Assyria made such a deep impression on her contemporaries and on later generations that under the name of Semiramis she became the central figure of numerous legends of antiquity that live on in Iraq to the present day. Several ancient works, such as aqueducts and monumental buildings, are attributed to her.

A strange religious revolution took place in the time of Adad-nirari III, which can be compared with that of the Egyptian Pharaoh Ikhnaton. For an unknown reason Nabu (Nebo), the god of Borsippa, seems to have been proclaimed sole god, or at least the principal god, of the empire. A Nabu temple was erected in 787 B.C. at Calah, and on a Nabu statue one of the governors dedicated to the king appear the significant words, "Trust in Nabu, do not trust in any other god" The favorite place accorded Nabu in the religious life of Assyria is revealed by the fact that no other god appears so often in personal names. This monotheistic revolution had as short a life as the Aton revolution in Egypt. The worshipers of the Assyrian national deities quickly recovered from their impotence, reoccupied their privileged places, and suppressed Nabu. This is the reason that so little is known concerning the events during the time of the monotheistic revolution. Biblical chronology places Jonah's ministry in the time of Jeroboam II, of Israel, who reigned from 793 to 753 B.C. Hence, Jonah's mission to Nineveh may have occurred in the reign of Adad-nirari III, and may have had something to do with his decision to abandon the old gods and serve only one deity. This explanation can, however, be given only as a possibility, because source material for that period is so scanty and fragmentary that a complete reconstruction of the political and religious history of Assyria during the time under consideration is not yet possible.

Adad-nirari III's successors conducted several military campaigns westward, but they were not able to suppress the subject nations permanently, nor to keep back the growing power of Urartu, which took over more and more areas formerly belonging to the Assyrian Empire. A revolt in Assur in 763 B.C., and the inactivity of some kings, brought Assyria to the point of collapse. If a strong ruler--Tiglath-pileser III--had not come to the throne, Assyria might have vanished from history more than a century earlier than it did.

The Formation of the New Assyrian Empire by Tiglath-pileser III (745--727 B.C.).--Tiglath-pileser III came into power as a usurper during a palace revolt at Calah in 746, but he did not actually take the throne until the second month in 745. That he chose for his ruling name that of a great former empire builder reveals his ambitions and plans. Like the great Tiglath-pileser I, he systematically and consistently pursued the plan to re-establish the Assyrian Empire.

The new king found himself face to face with three main problems of foreign policy which had to be solved in order to re-establish Assyrian power: (1) relations had to be clarified with Babylonia, which had fallen prey to the southern Aramaeans (Chaldeans); (2) Assyrian dominion over the Syro-Palestinian areas had to be re-established; (3) the power of Urartu, the great northern rival of Assyria, had to be curtailed. The way in which he solved these problems gives him the right to be called one of the greatest of Assyrian rulers.

The first task was a solution of the Babylonian question, which Tiglath-pileser carried out in two states. In the year of his accession he went to Babylonia, defeated the Aramaean tribes that occupied great parts of the country, and deported them to other parts of his empire. The weak Babylonian king Nabonassar, whose power hardly reached beyond his city walls, was, for the time being, left unmolested. Two short-lived kings were tolerated on Babylon's throne after Nabonassar's death in 734 B.C., since Tiglath-pileser was engaged elsewhere and did not have time for Babylonia. As soon as he had his hands free, however, he set out to restore order to the chaotic political situation in Babylon, where Aramaean sheiks were the real rulers. He turned against them, decisively defeated them, and, in an act without precedent for an Assyrian king, "took the hands" of the god Marduk in token of accepting the kingship of Babylon--under the ruling name Pulu. Recognizing that Assyria would never be able to rule Babylonia, because of its own inferiority complex with respect to the superior Babylonian culture, he conceived a novel solution that consisted of uniting the two states as equals under the rulership of one king--who was thus monarch of both Assyria and Babylonia.

Tiglath-pileser's second task, the reconquest of Syria, was accomplished during the process of a number of military campaigns. He encountered strong opposition, especially at the cities of Arpad (now Tell ErfaÆd), north of Aleppo, and Samal (now Zenjirli), whose conquest was time consuming and costly. Other city states surrendered only after bloody defeats. However, after three long campaigns the majority of the Syrian states once more belonged to the Assyrian Empire. Finally Damascus and Israel were also defeated. The state of Damascus (Syria) was made into an Assyrian province, as were the northern and eastern parts of Israel and the coastal area of Palestine. Samaria, Israel's capital, was left with the southern part of the country as a semi-independent vassal state.

Hence, we read in the Bible and in royal Assyrian annals that Menahem, of Israel, paid tribute to Tiglath-pileser (Pul; 2 Kings 15:19), and of the replacement of Pekah by Hoshea. The king of Judah, who had sought Tiglath-pileser's help against Samaria and Damascus, and who went to Damascus to be received as Assyria's vassal (2 Kings 16:10), is also mentioned in the Assyrian records. It is therefore not astonishing that the first Assyrian king mentioned by name in the Bible is Tiglath-pileser. He appears there under his Assyrian as well as under his Babylonian name, Pul (2 Kings 16:7, 10; 2 Chron. 28:20; 2 Kings 15:19; and 1 Chron 5:26, where the Hebrew text should be translated, "And the God of Israel stirred up the spirit of Pul king of Assyria, even the spirit of Tilgath-pileser king of Assyria").

Tilgath-pileser's third task was the subjugation of Urartu, which he began by conquering the states allied with its king, Sardur II. By overrunning the northern Mesopotamian and Syrian city states, much of Sardur's strength was broken. The decisive battle, however, was fought at Kummuh, west of the Euphrates, where Sardur was badly defeated but was able to escape to his capital Tushpa (now Toprakkale) at Lake Van. Although Tiglath-pileser's subsequent siege of Tushpa was unsuccessful, Urartu's power was broken, and the Assyrians occupied the greater part of Urartu, making of it the province Ulluba.

After each conquest the Assyrian king transplanted the native populations to other parts of the empire. This policy resulted in a large-scale forced migration of peoples. Tiglath-pileser planned and succeeded in breaking the nationalistic spirit of the various nations, by tearing them away from their motherland and the soil they loved. This exchange of nations was intended to create an empire whose people would no longer consider themselves citizens of Urartu, Israel, Babylonia, or Damascus, but as citizens of Assyria. This singularly successful king thus initiated a policy followed by his Assyrian successors and later by the Babylonians. This policy came to have a decisive effect on the later history of the Near East.

Shalmaneser V (727--722 B.C.).--Shalmaneser V, son of Tiglath-pileser, followed the policies of his father as closely as he could. Hence, as soon as he had come to the throne, he had himself crowned also as king of Babylon, where he bore the name Ululai. Unrest in the west forced him to turn his attention to Palestine soon after his accession to the throne, in order to keep that region within the empire. Hanno of Gaza, who had escaped to Egypt in Tiglath-pileser's time, on hearing of Shalmaneser's accession to the throne, returned and formed a coalition with Assyria's vassal prince, Hoshea of Israel, with a usurper in Hamath, and with the rulers of the cities of Arpad, Damascus, and Simyra. Trusting in the help of Egypt, these several princes refused the payment of tribute to Assyria, and Shalmaneser was obliged to restore his authority in the usual Assyrian way. Part of this campaign was directed against the semi-independent but politically unreliable state of Israel, which the king planned to annihilate. He besieged Samaria for three years inclusive (see on p. 136), and probably took the city near the end of his reign.

Although Sargon II, the following king, claimed to have conquered Samaria, there is evidence that his claim is unjustified and that he attributed to himself what Shalmaneser V had accomplished near the close of his reign. As Shalmaneser's army commander, Sargon may, however, have played an important role in the conquest of Samaria. As had by now become a custom, he deported the remnant of the kingdom of Israel to northern Mesopotamia (Habor and Gozan), to the motherland of Assyria (Halah), and to Median cities in the northeastern provinces (2 Kings 18:11). On the other hand, Babylonians from Babylon and Cuthah, and Syrians from Hamath and Sepharvaim were transplanted to repopulate the land of Israel (2 Kings 17:24).

Sargon II (722-705 B.C.).--The new king was a usurper, and probably the murderer of his predecessor. Whatever the differences between Sargon and Shalmaneser may have been in domestic matters, in the field of external policies no change was contemplated or carried out, and Sargon closely followed the pattern set by Tiglath-pileser. His problems were similar to those of Tiglath-pileser's reign, with the difference that the former king had come to the throne at a time of national weakness and had built up an empire from practically nothing, while Sargon had only to hold what he inherited. Sargon did have one additional problem, however, that of meeting a threat of invasion from Indo-European tribes pushing southward through the Caucasus and eastward from Anatolia. King Mita of the Mushki, the Phrygian Midas of Greek writers, was his chief opponent. By inducing Carchemish to revolt, Mita forced a showdown with Sargon. This obliged the latter to take that famous city on the Euphrates (717 B.C.) and deport its population, which had until now kept Hittite culture alive and had made use of Hittite hieroglyphs in writing.

The Urartaean kingdom under Rusa I was sorely pressed by the Cimmerians and the Medes, a welcome situation to Sargon in that it made that much easier the conquest of this traditional enemy country to the north. Sargon's Urartaean campaign, carried out in his eighth year, is described in such detail on a famous tablet now in the Louvre in Paris that we are able to follow the royal army almost daily on its march and during its battles. While the conquest of Urartu and its subsequent weakness seemed to have advantages for the time being, the elimination of a strong northern buffer state had also undeniable disadvantages. It brought Assyria face to face with new barbaric tribes that a hundred years later were primarily responsible for the death of Assyria.

About that time Babylonia received an extremely able ruler in the person of Marduk-apal-iddina, the Merodach-baladan of the Bible (Isa. 39:1). He was an Aramaean of Bit-Jakin, against whom Sargon was powerless as the result of a grievous defeat at the hands of the Elamites, who supported Marduk-apaliddina. For 12 years Sargon was compelled to campaign in the west and north before he felt strong enough to turn once more against Babylonia. In 709 B.C., however, he succeeded in driving Marduk-apal-iddina out of Babylonia and making himself its king, as his two predecessors on the throne of Assyria had done. One year later he destroyed Dur-Jakin near the Persian Gulf, seat of the Chaldean state of Bit-Jakin, and made Marduk-apal-iddina's home country an Assyrian province.

Sargon had little trouble in Palestine, which, with the exception of Ashdod, a coastal city of Philistia, remained quiet. In the hope of receiving Egyptian, Edomite, and Judean assistance, its ruler tried to shake off the Assyrian yoke. As Isaiah predicted, the revolt was unsuccessful and the city was taken by Sargon's turtan, "commander in chief" ("Tartan" in Isa. 20:1). It may be mentioned in passing that Sargon's name was completely unknown from secular sources prior to the deciphering of cuneiform inscriptions, and that his very existence, and thus the accuracy of Isaiah, had been doubted by higher critics. However, Sargon's name was one of the first discovered in Assyrian records. This was the earliest discoveries concerning Assyria were made in Sargon's own capital Dur Sharrukin, now Khorsabad, where immense quantities of sculptures and inscribed royal records were brought to light.

Sargon's last years are wrapped in mystery. But on one of his eastern campaigns his army suffered a serious defeat, and he seems to have lost his life on that occasion.

Sennacherib (705--681 B.C.).--When Sennacherib came to the throne he was already trained in the art of ruling people, having been governor of the northern province of Amid during his father's reign. His character differed from that of Sargon II. He took a keen interest in the technical improvement of war equipment and in new building methods that made Nineveh the most glorious capital of the Assyrian period. In politics he showed a severity that knew no compromise, a weakness that made it difficult to rule successfully over a great empire and to keep together what he had inherited. The two outstanding events of his life to impress the memory of later generations--his senseless destruction of Babylon and his unsuccessful siege of Jerusalem--are, in the light of history, both considered political failures.

When Sennacherib came to the throne a revolt broke out among Syrian and Palestinian princes, who trusted in the help of Egypt. Sennacherib therefore marched to the west (701 B.C.) and was able to restore the former status in most places to which he came. When, after a long campaign, he finally camped at Lachish to make preparations for the siege of Jerusalem, he received tribute from Hezekiah of Judah, who in this way tried to appease the heartless king of Assyria. But Sennacherib would be satisfied with nothing less than the unconditional surrender of Jerusalem. The demand, however, was rejected by Hezekiah, and Sennacherib, whose presence was apparently required elsewhere, seems to have broken off the campaign. At least, he claims no more in his victory inscriptions than having shut Hezekiah in Jerusalem like a bird in a cage. He did not claim to have taken the city or its king. Judah was saved for the time being, and not threatened again until toward the end of Hezekiah's reign (see PK 339).

Hezekiah, encouraged by Sennacherib's failure to take Jerusalem in 701 B.C., continued to participate in anti-Assyrian coalitions, which eventually brought the Assyrian armies back to Judea. For this second campaign of Sennacherib, made after Taharka's accession to the throne of Egypt (690 B.C.), no cuneiform sources are available. A new demand for surrender made by the Assyrian king to Hezekiah was rejected, with the encouragement and support of the prophet Isaiah. Although Isaiah had advised Hezekiah against participation in the coalition against Assyria, he was now, once the mistake had been made, on the side of the king and assured him that Sennacherib would "not come into this city, nor shoot an arrow there, nor come before it with shields, nor cast a bank against it" (Isa. 37:33). It was not an Egyptian army that saved Jerusalem upon this occasion, but a miracle. "Then the angel of the Lord went forth, and smote in the camp of the Assyrians a hundred and fourscore and five thousand: and when they arose early in the morning, behold, they were all dead corpses" (v. 36).

Even more troublesome than the west was Babylonia. Immediately after Sennacherib's accession to the throne Marduk-apal-iddina returned from Elam, and with the help of the Elamite king Shutrup-nachunde occupied the throne of Babylon for almost a year. However, Sennacherib marched against Babylonia in 703 B.C., defeated Marduk-apal-iddina, and installed as ruler Bel-ibni, a native Babylonian who had been educated in Assyria.

Shortly after Sennacherib's disastrous campaign in the west, Babylonia revolted again. Thereupon Sennacherib conducted another expedition against the Babylonians, in which great parts of the country were devastated. Taking Bel-ibni prisoner, Sennacherib made his own son, Ashur-nadin-shumi, king of Babylon. However, the Elamites took Babylon in 694 B.C. and put Nergal-ushezib on the throne, but this king was captured a year later by Sennacherib. After further upheavals the Chaldean Mushezib-Marduk ascended the throne in 692 B.C., and, according to the Babylonian Chronicle, defeated the Assyrian army sent against him. However, Sennacherib now became so impatient at the continual state of unrest in Babylonia that he determined to eliminate it as a trouble spot from his empire. Hence, when he captured the city in 689 B.C., he did what none of his predecessors had dared to do--he destroyed the Babylonian metropolis thoroughly and systematically, throwing the debris of temples and palaces into the river, so forcing it to change its course. Minor gods were smashed and the major ones taken to Assyria. This deed the Babylonian neither forgave nor forgot, and for it they took a terrible revenge about 77 years later, when they destroyed Nineveh.

Sennacherib's life was taken by his own sons, according to the Bible, the Babylonian Chronicle, and an inscription of Esarhaddon. Each of these records adds something to our fragmentary information on this heinous murder.

Esarhaddon (681--669 B.C.).--Esarhaddon, whose mother was an Aramaean, reversed his father's anti-Babylonian policies upon coming to the throne. Apparently belonging to a party that favored Babylon, he started out to rebuild the ruined city, although the Marduk statue was not returned until Ashurbanipal's reign. Once more the power of Marduk over Assur was demonstrated to an astonished world.

With the conquest of Egypt of Esarhaddon the outward might of the Assyrian Empire reached its greatest height and remained so until its final decline began during the reign of Ashurbanipal. Esarhaddon's first attempt to take Egypt in 673 B.C. was unsuccessful, and ended indefeat. But Taharka, an Ethiopian king of Egypt, surrendered two years later, and when Memphis fell almost without a battle the whole country lay open before the Assyrians, and the wealth of the Nile country streamed into Assyria. Esarhaddon installed 22 local princes as rulers over the country, and gave them Assyrian governors as supervisors. Returning from Egypt, the king had a relief of himself cut in the rocks at the Dog River near Beirut, where he found one left by his great predecessor, Shalmaneser III, and also had victory steles set up in several Syrian cities. One of these was found at Zenjirli, in which the king is shown leading the kings of Tyre and Egypt by a cord as if they were wild animals. Heretofore no human being had ever possessed as great power as Esarhaddon. Neither Sargon of Agade (Akkad) nor Hammurabi had ruled over so many countries or peoples; but the signs of impending danger, already visible, troubled Esarhaddon. Barbaric nations such as the Scythians in the northwest, the Cimmerians in eastern Asia Minor and Armenia, and the Medes in the east continued to gain strength. Anticipating trouble, Esarhaddon asked the sun-god whether these people would be successful or whether they could be kept back. Trying to remove one evil through another, he concluded a treaty with the Scythians against the Cimmerians and Medes and gave his daughter to the Scythian chieftain Bartatua, whom Herodotus calls Protothyas.

In 672 B.C. Ashurbanipal was proclaimed crown prince of Assyria, and became virtually coregent with his father. Two years later, Shamash-shum-ukin, the older son of Esarhaddon, received the same dignity with respect to Babylon.

Esarhaddon's reign ended under a cloud. Egypt revolted, when Taharka of Ethiopia once more appeared on the scene, making it necessary for Esarhaddon to set out for the Nile to punish the rebels and restore order. He died in 669 B.C. on his way to Egypt.

Ashurbanipal (669--627? B.C.).--Led now by Esarhaddon's turtan, Sha-Nabu-shu, the Egyptian campaign was brought to a successful end. Necho, one of the rebellious princes who was brought to Nineveh as captive to receive punishment won the king's favor and was sent back to Egypt as an Assyrian vassal. His son Psamtik took the Assyrian name Nabu-shezibanni. Another attempt was made to liberate Egypt from the Assyrian yoke, by Taharka's successor Tanutamon, but it was likewise unsuccessful. Ashurbanipal took Thebes and thoroughly destroyed that beautiful city. A few years later Psamtik was able to shake off the Assyrian yoke and to restore Egypt's independence. To hold Egypt in subjection proved to be so costly for Assyria at a time when it needed all its reserves to meet dangers from the west, north, and east that the Nile country had to be given up.

Ashurbanipal also had trouble in Babylon, where his own brother Shamash-shum-ukin revolted. The revolt failed, however, Babylon was taken, and Shamash-shum-ukin died in the flames of his palace. Ashurbanipal then crowned himself king of Babylon. He also waged several successful wars against Elam, which had supported Shamash-shum-ukin, and against Arabia, Syria, and Palestine. He was thus able to keep his shaky empire together. He even had the rare satisfaction of seeing most of his enemies perish before he left the scene of action. Gyges of Lydia, who had supported Psamtik in his revolt, lost throne and life in his war with the Cimmerians. Another rebel, the Chaldean prince Nabu-bel-shumati, committed suicide in order not to fall into Ashurbanipal's hands, and in Elam a number of minor kings lost their lives in the several wars with Assyria that finally crushed the proud kingdom of Elam and leveled its capital city, Susa.

The passing glory of Assyria and the wealth that poured into the royal coffers could not hide the fact that the days of that proud empire were numbered. So long as a strong man held the reins of government in his hands the coming catastrophe was postponed, but a careful observer could already see that a different situation would arise whenever a weak ruler should come to the throne.

Ashurbanipal is especially well known as the collector of many books and the founder of the great library of Nineveh, which was discovered in the ruins of Nineveh in the middle of the 19th century. From this library, now in the British Museum, was derived much of our early information concerning Assyrian and Babylonian history and religion. Later other great cuneiform collections found in the ruined sites of Mesopotamia have provided additional valuable information. As a prince, originally destined to become a priest, he received a careful scholarly and priestly training, and for this reason took an interest in collecting the literary wealth of his time. He preserved for later ages copies of many valuable texts, the originals of which have long since disappeared.

The circumstances and date of his death are unknown. The year 626 B.C. was formerly given as the year of his death, and some thought that it was 631. Others say probably about 627. But since no Eponym Canon for his last years is known, the chronology of this period is somewhat uncertain.

The End of the Assyrian Empire.--Ashur-etil-ilani, a younger son of Ashurbanipal who owed his throne to Sin-shum-lishir, one of his father's generals, ruled for the next five years or so. The new king held southern Babylonia, but could not prevent Nabopolassar, a Chaldean army commander, from taking Babylon and making himself king. Although he thus lost Babylon permanently, Ashur-etil-ilani had a happier experience in his fight against the Medes, whose king, Phraortes, fell in battle. It is uncertain how and in what year Ashur-etil-ilani was succeeded by Sin-shar-ishkun, generally held to be his brother. (Some scholars even consider the two names as belonging to one king.)

Sin-shar-ishkun seems to have enjoyed a measure of success for a time. He campaigned against Babylonia, and even conquered Sippar. Also, the Medes under Phraortes' son Cyaxares were beaten. It is a curious fact that now, having lost its former strength, Assyria received help from former enemies such as the Scythians and Egyptians, who feared that its fall might give birth to other powers even more dangerous than Assyria had been.

Realizing Assyria's weakness, and following the principle that attack is the best defense, Nabopolassar of Babylon went on the offensive soon after he had become an independent king. He had some military successes, but also several setbacks, as revealed in the Babylonian Chronicle that covers his first three regnal years. Lack of extant records leaves us in the dark about his successes and defeats during the next seven years. In 616 B.C., the year for which chronicles are again available, Nabopolassar was on the offensive and conquered Assyrian and Aramaean towns on the middle Euphrates, but proved unable to withstand an Assyro-Egyptian army, which drove him back to Babylon. The following year Nabopolassar made an unsuccessful attempt to take the old city of Assur. This campaign also failed. He was not yet strong enough to defeat Assyria singlehanded. However, the Medes captured Tarbisu and Assur in 614 B.C. and the Median king Cyaxares concluded an alliance with Nabopolassar that was sealed by the marriage of the Babylonian crown prince Nebuchadnezzar to a Median princess. This political alliance decided the fate of Assyria, and after a siege of three months Nineveh fell to the united Medes and Babylonians, in 612 B.C. Sin-shar-ishkun died with his family in the flames of his palace. Like Calah, Nineveh was destroyed so thoroughly that later generations did not even know of its location. The empire of Assyria was divided between Cyaxares and Nabopolassar, the former taking all the northern provinces, along with Assyria's claims to Asia Minor, and the latter receiving nominal control of Mesopotamia, Syria, and Palestine. Actual control, however, could be won only through a show of power, and not simply by an understanding between the two victors.

With Egyptian help, an Assyrian prince by the name of Ashur-uballit essayed to re-establish the Assyrian state, with Haran as its capital, but was soon evicted by the Medes and Chaldeans. Assyria, the scourge of the nations for many centuries, ceased to exist, and its citizens experienced the same cruel treatment their rulers had meted out to many other peoples in the past. The words of Nahum, like those of other Hebrew prophets who had predicted the fall of the Assyrian Empire, were literally fulfilled:

"O king of Assyria:

thy nobles shall dwell in the dust:

thy people is scattered upon the mountains,

and no man gathereth them.

There is no healing of thy bruise;

thy wound is grievous" (Nahum 3:18, 19).

IX. Phoenicia From the Earliest Times to Nebuchadnezzar II

Phoenicia, though not mentioned under this name in the Old Testament, had many contacts with the Hebrews, and the history of this country is of some importance to the student of the Bible, who finds frequent mention of Phoenician cities such as Tyre, Sidon, Zarephath (Sarepta), Gebal (Byblos), and Arvad (Aradus).

The land of Phoenicia covered the narrow coastal strip of Syria north of the Bay of Acre and between the Lebanon mountain range and the Mediterranean, which consists of a number of small plains where the mountains recede from the sea, each of which was dominated by a maritime city. The coastal plain varies in width from 1/2 mi. to 3 mi. (.8 to 4.8 km.). In some places, as at the Nahr el-Kelb, the Dog river north of Beirut, the mountains drop precipitously to the sea, so that the road must be blasted out of the rocks. Anciently, the cities were built either on rocky islands off the coast--like Tyre and Arvad--or on the shore where land jutting out into the sea forms small bays in what is, for the most part, a straight coast line--as with Tripoli and Byblos. The country was well watered by a number of rivers from the Lebanon Mts., which in ancient times were heavily forested with cedars and other coniferous trees. Phoenicia was rich in grain, fruit, and wine, and as the principal exporter of cedarwood from the mountains and the products of the Syrian hinterland, it became the commercial clearing house of the ancient world.

The Greek name for the land, Phoenicia, is related to one of its principal exports, a purple-colored dye material called phoinix, "purple," or "crimson." However, they called themselves KenaÔani, that is, Canaanites, and their country Canaan, which agrees with Gen. 10:15-19, where the inhabitants of several Phoenician cities are listed as descendants of Canaan.

There is not sufficient source material available for a complete history of Phoenicia, and its earliest history is completely shrouded in obscurity. One of the Phoenician cities, however--Byblos--appears in Egyptian records of the third millennium as an important city for the export of cedarwood. Excavations carried out in Byblos have shown strong Egyptian influence during the time of the Old (Egyptian) Kingdom. The later Tyrians claimed a tradition that their city had been founded about 2750 B.C., and the Sidonians claimed an even greater age for their city. The earliest mention of these important port cities of southern Phoenicia is found in the records of the Eighteenth Dynasty of Egypt, when all of Phoenicia was dominated by the rulers of the Nile valley. However, the fact that the Phoenicians had to pay tribute to Egypt and tolerate Egyptian garrisons in their cities did not materially affect their economic strength. Their foreign trade seems to have flourished, and their agents were found in Cyprus, on the coasts of Asia Minor, and in the Aegean Sea. Toward the end of the second millennium they extended their economic sphere of influence and sent ships to Sicily, Sardinia, North Africa, and Spain. Later, permanent colonies were founded in distant lands. Of these colonies Carthage became the most famous. It grew so strong, in fact, that in course of time it dared to challenge the expansionism of Rome. Tartessus, in Spain, the westernmost point of Phoenician influence, was one of several places named "Tarshish," or "smeltery," to which sailed "ships of Tarshish" (Ps. 48:7; see on 1 Kings 10:22).

Until the close of the second millennium b.c. Sidon had held the most important place among the Phoenician port cities, but during the first millennium Tyre took the lead and kept it for many centuries. It seems that Phoenicia never developed a unified government controlling the whole country, but that each large city had its own ruler and that its control extended to smaller communities adjacent to it.

A number of rulers of Byblos are known from inscriptions found during the excavations of that city, but after the middle of the second millennium b.c. the political role of Byblos seems to have been at most a minor one. Hiram was the first ruler of Tyre whose name is known. He was contemporary with David and Solomon and assisted in the building of the Temple at Jerusalem. Also, his sailors participated with those of Solomon in expeditions to Ophir.

One of Hiram's later successors was Ethbaal, father of Ahab's infamous wife, Jezebel. He had been a priest of Astarte before becoming king of Tyre, which may explain his daughter's zeal for the religion of her native land, even when she became queen of Israel. During Ethbaal's reign the struggle with Assyria began in earnest, that country which from the 9th century b.c. onward sought to subjugate piecemeal all lands to the west. Hence, at the battle of Qarqar in 853, we find the king of the Phoenician city of Arvad, with 200 soldiers, in the coalition against Shalmaneser III. However, most of the other Phoenician cities agreed to pay tribute. Thus for a time they maintained comparative independence and continued their lucrative overseas trade unmolested.

An important episode in Phoenician history was the fight of Tyre against Shalmaneser V and Sargon II in the time of king Hezekiah of Judah. Tyre was besieged for five years and sorely hurt. It seems that the city was finally forced to surrender and once more made tributary. But Tyre rebelled again in Sennacherib's time, and was unsuccessfully besieged. Yet, when Sidon followed Tyre's example and rebelled against Esarhaddon, it was taken and destroyed (678 B.C.). Tyre remained independent a few years longer, but was finally forced back into the Assyrian fold by Ashurbanipal.

When the tottering Assyrian Empire was replaced by the Neo-Babylonian, Tyre took advantage of the political difficulties of the transitional period, declared itself independent, and refused to send tribute to Babylonia. As a result Nebuchadnezzar moved against the city. He took mainland Tyre but besieged the island city for 13 years without success. He allowed the king to remain on the throne, but appointed a Babylonian high commissioner to safeguard Babylonian interests.

X. The Syrian States

The name Syria is a geographical term designating an area that has varied in size from time to time. Present-day Syria does not include everything known as Syria in ancient times, and extends to areas that had never before been considered a part of it. In Roman times all the land from the Euphrates in the north to the Red Sea in the south was designated as Syria. At other times Palestine was thought of separately, and parts of northern and central Mesopotamia were included. Generally speaking, however, the geographical term Syria designates an area bordered on the east by the great Syrian Desert, in the west by the Mediterranean, in the north by the Taurus Mts., and in the south by Palestine, with the line between Syria and Palestine running approximately straight from the sea north of Acre to the Jordan north of the now-drained Lake Huleh.

The region thus marked out is intersected by two north-south mountain ranges. The western range is marked in the north by the Jebel Akra (5,241 ft.; 1,597 m.) and in the south by the Lebanon, which rises to more than 10,000 ft. (3,048 m.). The eastern range of mountains, called the Anti-Lebanon, ends in the south with Mt. Hermon (9,232 ft., or 2,814 m.). Between the two ranges lies a 12-mi.-wide (19.3 km.) highland valley, now called BeqaÔ, "the split," with its two rivers, the Litani, flowing south, and the Orontes, north. Both rivers eventually turn west and empty their waters into the Mediterranean. Several streams flow eastward from the Anti-Lebanon range and irrigate various oases of the Syrian Desert, of which Damascus, with its surrounding garden area, is the richest and largest.

Since the coastal region of Phoenicia was isolated by mountains from the rest of Syria, it experienced a history somewhat different from that of the hinterland, and has been treated separately in the preceding section. Thus, politically, Syria consisted essentially of city states that flourished around oases such as those of Damascus and Aleppo and others such as Kadesh, Qatna, Hamath, or Alalakh (Tell ÔAtshaÆnah) on the banks of inland rivers. The latter all lay in close proximity along the Orontes. The typical Syrian culture of later times is also found in Upper Mesopotamia, in the area which in the second millennium was known as the kingdom of Mitanni.

As in the case of Phoenicia, little is known of the history of this area prior to the middle of the second millennium. Egyptian and Babylonian texts of the first half of that millennium b.c., however, occasionally mention the rulers of the cities of Syria, and from their names we learn that they were Amorites, as were most of the rulers of Western Asia from 2200-1500 B.C. The Hyksos, who swept down to Egypt in the 18th century, passed through Syria on their way to the Nile valley and took possession of certain important cities, for instance Qat#na, fortifying them in typical Hyksos manner with massive earth ramparts.

In the 16th century all Syria was conquered by Thutmose III and remained under Egyptian control for almost a century. However, during the reign of Amenhotep III and Ikhnaton, some of the subject native rulers took advantage of Egypt's weakness and made themselves independent. The strongest of these rebellious states was Amurru, of which we learn much from the Amarna Letters and the Hittite records of the period. During the time of the Nineteenth Dynasty a new rival for the possession of Syria arose, the Hittites, with the result that Syria frequently became a battlefield where the two opposing powers met. With the appearance of the Peoples of the Sea toward the end of the 13th century b.c., the Hittites vanished from history as a nation, but their remnants retained possession of some Syrian cities such as Hamath and Carchemish, and preserved Hittite culture for several centuries more.

At that time the Aramaeans, who had lived in the plains of northern Mesopotamia for many centuries, moved south and either founded or took over a number of strong city states, of which Damascus and Zobah (north of Damascus) became the most powerful. It is for this reason that, from the time of David, these two states are frequently mentioned in contemporary Biblical records. David was able to hold them in subjection, but they regained their independence either during the reign of Solomon or immediately after his death. From that time on the Syrian states were enemies of the kingdom of Israel, with the result that Israel fought numerous wars against the Syrians, especially against Damascus. For the history of those wars see pp. 81-85.

From the 9th century onward, the Syrian states shared the fate of other nations of Western Asia, upon whom the kings of Assyria cast greedy eyes. For two centuries one Assyrian campaign after another was directed against one or more of these Aramaean states of Syria, to ensure a constant flow of tribute, until Tiglath-pileser III inaugurated the policy of transplanting conquered nations to remote districts of the empire in the effort to replace national consciousness with loyalty to the Assyrian Empire. Hence, one Syrian city state after another vanished under the relentless onslaught of the Assyrian war machine. Finally in 732 B.C. as one of the last, Damascus fell and became a province of Assyria.

The fall of Damascus marked the disappearance of the characteristics Syrian culture from that area, which, in a somewhat changed form, was perpetuated for a time as a world culture. The Aramaic language spread with the dispersion of Syria's population, and within two centuries after the fall of Damascus became a medium of communication, spoken or at least understood, from the southern border of Egypt throughout the lands of the Fertile Crescent and Persia, and even as far as the western border of India. Although the Syrians had never constituted a political unit, and had never been able to extend their control over extensive parts of the world, their language conquered the world in somewhat the same way as Greek did some centuries later.

XI. The United Kingdom of Israel (c. 1050-931 B.C.)

Previous sections of this article have covered the history of Egypt and Mesopotamia to the 7th century b.c. This section deals with the 120 years of Israel's history under its first three kings, each of whom ruled approximately 40 years (2 Sam. 5:4; 1 Kings 11:42; Acts 13:21). Sections XII and XV will take up the history of the separate kingdoms of Judah and Israel.

Since their invasion of Canaan the Hebrews had slowly grown in strength and taken root through continual struggle with the nations living in and around Palestine. They had lived in the land for about three and a half centuries when they felt the need of a unified government. Hitherto they had been guided by Spirit-led men called judges, without assurance that competent leadership would continue after the death of each judge. From a strictly human, political point of view the popular desire for a hereditary kingship expressed in the time of Samuel (1 Sam. 8:5) was only natural. If Israel was to achieve its aim, it must remain in permanent possession of the country; and in order to do so it needed unity, continuity of leadership, and stable government. This eventuality had been foreseen by Moses, who laid down the principles according to which kings should rule (Deut. 17:14-20).

While under Saul the kingdom remained weak, owing to the young king's inexperience and immaturity of character, under David, an indefatigable warrior and an able politician, it was built up into a formidable empire. It was not comparable with the empires on the Nile and the Euphrates, but was nevertheless impressive, controlling as it did most of the nations of Palestine and Syria. Built by David's genius under the blessing of God, assisted by the weakness of the other great nations of his time, the empire of Israel remained intact for about half a century. Weaknesses became apparent even under Solomon's generally peaceful rule, and his kingdom broke to pieces when death removed his strong hand.

Of permanent value, however, aside from the memory of a glorious past under two great kings, was the establishment of Jerusalem as a religious and political center for the nation. Its very name, "city of peace," has exerted a magic influence on the minds of Hebrew people of all generations. Inasmuch as promises of the coming of Messiah were connected by Inspiration with the royal house of David, the idea of a God-appointed and God-guided kingship was never lost sight of.

Saul (c. 1050-1011 B.C.).--Saul, the son of the Benjamite, Kish, a man chosen by God for his deeply religious nature 1 Sam. 10:7, 10, 11; 14:37), his humility (1 Sam. 10:22), and a tendency to be generous 1 Sam. 11:13), was first secretly anointed by Samuel (1 Sam. 10:1), proclaimed king at Mizpeh (1 Sam. 10:17-24), and confirmed in office at Gilgal after his successful rescue of Jabesh-gilead from the Ammonites 1 Sam. 11). His kingdom consisted of a rather loose union of tribes, who followed him as king in times of emergency, but who otherwise decided their own affairs without interference from a central government. Early in his reign his office differed little from that of a judge. Among other things he still took care of his own cattle, even after he had been proclaimed king.

Nevertheless, the idea of a real kingship was gradually developing. Saul planned that his kingship should be hereditary. He erected a castle on the site of his capital, "Gibeah of Saul," now Tell el-FuÆl, 4 mi. (6.4 km.) north of Jerusalem. His two-story citadel, measuring 170 by 114 ft. (51.8 by 34.7 m.), with outer walls 6 to 7 ft. (1.8 to 2.1 m.) thick, has been excavated by W. F. Albright. With its fortified walls and corner towers, it represents typical Hebrew construction of the time. The largest hall, probably the audience chamber where David played his lyre before the king, was 7 by 25 ft. (2.1 by 7.6 m.).

Furthermore, Saul created the first, though small, standing army maintained by Israel. It consisted of 3,000 men, situated in 3 garrison cities (1 Sam. 13:2), with his uncle, or perhaps cousin, Abner, as commander in chief (1 Sam. 14:50).

On the throne during the difficult period when the Philistines, by virtue of their superior weapons and military experience, tried to subjugate the Hebrews, the new king often found himself fighting against them, as well as against other nations. The first proof of his generalship was given in his rescue of the Transjordan city of Jabesh-gilead from the Ammonites (1 Sam. 11:1-11). Successful wars were also fought against the Amalekites (1 Sam. 15:4-8) and the Edomites in the south, the Moabites in the east, and the Aramaeans of the Syrian state of Zobah (1 Sam. 14:47).

The lifelong threat to Israel's existence, however, came from Philistia (1 Sam. 14:52), which maintained garrisons in various Hebrew cities, even in some close to Saul's capital. The Philistines had a monopoly on the manufacture and sharpening of weapons and tools, so that at one time in all Israel only Saul and Jonathan possessed iron weapons (1 Sam. 13:19-22). They terrorized the Hebrews so much that the latter were habitually forced to seek refuge in caves and inaccessible mountain retreats (v. 6).

The first great Israelite victory over the Philistines, one that resulted in their expulsion from the eastern hill country, was more a military episode than a real battle. When the Philistines had occupied the hills of Benjamin and taken Michmash, the Israelites retreated in disorder (vs. 5-11). Michmash lies 7 mi. (11.5 km.) north of Jerusalem at an altitude of about 2,000 ft. (610 m.), overlooking the deep gorge of the Wadi es\-S\uwenéÆt\ to the south, which formed the pass of Michmash. While Saul was camped with 600 men at Geba, separated from the Philistines by the Wadi es\-S\uwenéÆt\, Jonathan and his armor-bearer climbed down the Rock Seneh on which Geba was built, crossed the wadi, and then climbed the steep Rock Bozez, on which the Philistines were encamped at Michmash (1 Sam. 13:15, 23; 14:4, 5). In the Philistine camp Jonathan's surprise attack created confusion which was increased by the Hebrews who came to Jonathan's aid, with the result that the Philistines fled in panic (1 Sam. 14:11-23).

The first major encounter between the Hebrews and the Philistines during Saul's reign took place in the western hill country between Shochoh and Azekah, about halfway between Jerusalem and Ashkelon. David's victory over Goliath on this occasion marked the beginning of a great series of victories over the hated Philistines. The chief results were increased liberty for the Hebrews and considerable wealth realized from the loot of the Philistines (1 Sam. 17).

Unfortunately for the nation and the royal house, Saul possessed an undisciplined character that became overbearing as a result of his successes. Because of his violation of the Levitical law and of divine orders he lost both the kingship and his own sanity. His last years--we know not how many--were spent under the shadow of insanity, which in turn led to the persistent attempt to kill David, who he knew was destined to be his successor. Having lost the friendship and guiding hand of his old counselor Samuel (1 Sam. 15:17-23, 35, he committed some of the most foolish and atrocious crimes, such as slaughtering the innocent priests of Nob (1 Sam. 22:11-21) and attempting to kill his own son Jonathan (1 Sam. 20:30-33). Known for his zeal in uprooting spiritism, he finally appealed to a witch for counsel the day before his death (1 Sam. 28:3-25).

At a battle fought in the mountains of Gilboa, at the eastern end of the plain of Esdraelon, Saul and his sons lost their lives fighting against the Philistines (1 Sam. 31:1-6. This battle was so disastrous that all the gains of Saul's long reign were lost to the Philistines, who once more occupied the cities of Israel and drove the panic-stricken inhabitants to their former mountain retreats (v. 7).

David (1011-971 B.C.).--After Saul's death, David was crowned king over Judah at Hebron (2 Sam. 2:3, 4). He had in times past been a captain in Saul's army, and was at one time Saul's son-in-law (1 Sam. 18:27), but had lived as an outcast in the forests and mountain caves of southern Judah, and in a Philistine city during the last years of Saul's reign (1 Sam. 19 to 29). David, who had been anointed secretly by the prophet Samuel soon after Saul's rejection as king, was exceptionally gifted as a warrior, poet, and musician (1 Sam. 17; 2 Sam. 1:17-27; 1 Sam. 16:14-23). He was also deeply religious, and although he fell into gross sin, he knew how to repent and regain divine favor (see Ps. 51). Hence, kingship was confirmed in perpetuity to him and his posterity, to culminate in the eternal kingship of the Messiah, who was a descendant of David after the flesh (Rom. 1:3).

The first seven years of David's reign were confined to Judah, while Ish-bosheth, Saul's fourth son, ruled over the remainder of the tribes from his capital, Mahanaim, in Transjordan. Relations between the two rival kings were bitter, and exploded in strife and bloodshed (2 Sam. 2:12-32). Saul's army commander, Abner, was the real power behind the throne of Ish-bosheth, a weakling who fell victim to assassins immediately after the withdrawal of Abner's support (2 Sam. 3 and 4). His real name seems to have been Esh-baal, "man of Baal" (1 Chron. 8:33; 9:39), which suggests that when he was born Saul had departed so far from God that he worshiped Baal. For the inspired writer of 2 Samuel this name was so shameful that he never used it, consistently choosing, rather, to call Esh-baal, "man of Baal," Ish-bosheth, "man of shame."

David had made Hebron his capital and was there crowned king over all Israel after Ish-bosheth's death, which marked the end of Saul's brief dynasty. After David had reigned for seven and a half years he set out to establish a new capital. He demonstrated remarkable political wisdom by selecting as a capital a city that had thus far belonged to no tribe, and hence would be acceptable to all. By conquering the Jebusite fortress of Jerusalem, on the border between Judah and Benjamin, and by establishing the political and religious center of the kingdom in a central location, yet off the main international highways running through the country, David showed commendable political foresight. Ever since that time Jerusalem has been an important city, and has played a distinctive role in the history of the world.

David's reign is distinguished by an unbroken chain of military victories. He defeated the Philistines repeatedly (2 Sam. 5:17-25; 21:15-22; 23:13-17) and was able to free Israel completely from their influence. He limited them to the coastal area surrounding the cities of Gaza, Ashkelon, Ashdod, Gath, and Ekron. He also subjugated the Moabites, Ammonites, and Edomites (2 Sam. 8:2, 14; 10:6 to 11:1; 12:26-31; 1 Chron. 18:2, 11-13; 19:1 to 20:3), and made the Aramaeans of Damascus and Zobah tributary (2 Sam. 8:3-13; 1 Chron. 18:5-10). Other nations sought his friendship by sending gifts--such as the king of Hamath(2 Sam. 8:9, 10)--or by signing treaties--such as the Phoenician king of Tyre (2 Sam. 5:11). In this way David was able to rule over all western and eastern Palestine, with the exception of the coastal region, and indirectly over great parts of Syria as well. Practically all the territory between the Euphrates and Egypt either was administered by David's governors or was friendly or tributary to him.

David's domestic policies were not always so successful as his foreign policies. For tax purposes or for an assessment of the potential man power of his kingdom, he had a census taken that Joab, his general--as well as God--resented (2 Sam. 24; 1 Chron. 21 and 22 David, as some other strong political rulers before and after him, also occasionally fell victim to his lusts--see for example the Bathsheba episode (2 Sam. 11:2 to 12:25)--and as a polygamist shared the unfortunate results of this custom. One of his sons committed incest (2 Sam. 13), another, Absalom, became a fratricide and later revolted against his own father but died in the ensuing battle (2 Sam. 13 to 19). The rebellion of the Benjamite Sheba also caused serious trouble and bloodshed (2 Sam. 20); and shortly before David's death Adonijah, one of his sons, made an unsuccessful attempt to gain the throne by a palace revolution (1 Kings 1). The strong personality of David, together with the unflinching support of those who were loyal to him, managed to overcome all divisive forces. The kingdom was transferred to Solomon as a strong unit.

David's fundamental loyalty to God and his willingness to repent and accept punishment for sin gained for him the respect of the prophets Nathan and Gad, and brought divine promises and blessings of a singular nature. One of his great desires, to build a temple to the God he loved, was not realized. However, he was promised that his son, who hands were not bloodstained as his were, would build the Temple. Hence, David bought the land for it, had a design made, and collected the funds, by way of assisting Solomon in carrying out the plan (2 Sam. 7; 1 Chron. 21:18 to 22:5).

Solomon (971-931 B.C.).--Solomon, the third ruler of the united kingdom of Israel, whose name was also Jedidiah, "beloved of Jehovah" (2 Sam. 12:24, 25, seems to have followed the Oriental custom of taking a throne name, Solomon, "peaceable." His reign made this title not only appropriate but popular.

For reasons not stated God chose Solomon to be David's successor and David proclaimed him king during the course of a palace revolution aimed at placing his older son Adonijah on the throne (1 Kings 1:15-49). Although Solomon at first seemed to show clemency toward Adonijah, he did not forget the incident. Usually the slightest mistake Solomon's opponents made cost them their lives. Hence, Joab, instigator of the plot, and Adonijah were both eventually executed, while Abiathar, the high priest, was deposed (1 Kings 2).

Demonstrating unusual piety in early life, Solomon asked God for wisdom in the difficult task of ruling the new empire, the extent of whose political problems he seemed to realize. His wisdom, of which examples occur in Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Canticles, exceeded that of all other famous sages of antiquity (1 Kings 3:4 to 4:34). This fame attracted intellectuals of various nations to Solomon's court, of whose visits that of the Arabian queen of Sheba seems to have made the greatest impression on contemporaries (1 Kings 4:34; 10:1-10).

The kingdom Solomon inherited from his father extended from the Gulf of Aqabah in the south almost to the Euphrates in the north. Never before or after was Israelite territory so extensive. Since Assyria and Egypt were both very weak at this time, Solomon met no real opposition from his neighbors; and taking advantage of this situation, he ventured forth on great trading enterprises by land and sea that brought him wealth never before seen by his people. Hence, the splendor of his reign became legendary, as Matt. 6:28, 29 testifies.

Since the Phoenicians already controlled Mediterranean trade, Solomon turned southward and developed commercial enterprises with Arabia and East Africa, carrying out his maritime expeditions with the help of Tyrian sailors (1 Kings 9:26-28). The city of Ezion-geber at the head of the Gulf of Aqabah served not only as home port for these expeditions but also, apparently, as a commercial center for copper mined in the Wadi Arabah (the area between the Dead Sea and Ezion-geber). Since Solomon also controlled numerous overland trading routes, Israel became the great clearing house for Egyptian chariots and linen, Cilician horses, and the various products of Arabia. Practically nothing entered Egypt from the east, or Mesopotamia from the southwest, without enriching Solomon's coffers (1 Kings 4:21; 10:28, 29).

The king was also engaged in vast building enterprises. On Mt. Moriah, north of old Jerusalem, he built an acropolis comprising the magnificent Temple, erected in 7 years (1 Kings 6:37, 38), and his own palace, which was 13 years in building (1 Kings 7:1). He also built the millo', or "filling," thought by some to have been between Zion and Moriah, and repaired the wall of Jerusalem (1 Kings 9:15, 24). A chain of chariot cities was built throughout the country to guarantee its safety, and this required a large standing army and many horses and chariots--both costly items in the national budget (1 Kings 4:26; 9:15-19; 2 Chron. 9:28). Excavations at Gezer and Megiddo have thrown light on these Biblical records.

For his manifold enterprises the king depended on forced labor (1 Kings 5:13-18; 9:19-23), and on Phoenicians for skilled workmen and mariners (1 Kings 7:13; 9:27). The magnificent building projects and the vast requirements of the army put such a strain on Israelite economy that even Solomon's immense revenue proved insufficient to finance the program, with the result that at one time he had to cede 20 Galilean towns to Phoenicia in payment for needed timber and gold 1 Kings 9:10-14).

Following the custom of Oriental monarchs, Solomon had a large harem, and attempted to foster international good will by marrying princesses from most of the surrounding nations, including the Egyptians, and by permitting shrines dedicated to foreign deities (1 Kings 11:1-8 to be built in Jerusalem. The Egyptian princess, who brought as her dowry the city of Gezer, which her father had conquered from the Canaanites, seems to have been his favored queen inasmuch as he built her a separate palace 1 Kings 3:1; 9:16, 24).

But the outward glory of the kingdom, the sumptuous court ceremonial, the strong new fortresses throughout the country, the powerful army, and the great trading enterprises could not hide the evident fact that Solomon's empire was ready to fall apart. There was unrest among the Israelites, because of high taxes and forced labor requirements, and among the subjugated nations, which were only waiting for a sign of weakness to break loose from Jerusalem. Although only three rebels are mentioned by name in the Bible, Hadad the Edomite, Rezon the son of Eliadah, and the Ephraimite Jeroboam (1 Kings 11:14-40), who came out openly in opposition to Solomon, events that occurred immediately upon Solomon's death imply that there must have been considerable unrest even during his lifetime.

Bible writers, who were more concerned with the religious life of their heroes, give as the main reason for the decline of Solomon's power and the breakup of his empire, the king's departure from the straight path of religious duty. Although he had built the Temple of Jehovah and at its dedication offered a prayer that reflected deep spiritual experience (1 Kings 8:22-61), he nevertheless fell into unprecedented polygamy and idolatry (1 Kings 11:9-11) that led to the adoption of foolish policies and so hastened the fall of his kingdom.

No sooner had Solomon closed his eyes than the tribes of Israel broke into two factions and several of the subject nations proclaimed their independence.

XII. The Kingdom of Judah 931--609 B.C. and of Israel 931--722 B.C.

[For a discussion of the principles on which the chronology of this period is based, see pp. 135-151; see also p. 94. For a table of dates, see next page.]

The Kings of Judah; Rehoboam (931-913 B.C.).--With Rehoboam, Solomon's rash son, the united Hebrew kingdom came to a close, never to be revived. When Rehoboam went to Shechem for the coronation he learned of deep-seated grievances among his subjects over the excessive tax burdens and the forced labor his father had introduced. Rejecting the advice of experienced counselors to accede to the reasonable demands of the people, he threatened to increase their burdens and thereby provoked an open revolt of his northern and eastern subjects under the leadership of Jeroboam, who, on hearing of Solomon's death, had returned from exile (1 Kings 12:1-20).

Although he heeded the counsel of the prophet Shemaiah, not to fight his brothers at the time of the separation of the ten tribes, Rehoboam apparently fought several bloody wars with Jeroboam at a later time (1 Kings 12:24; 14:30). Also, in his fifth year he experienced the historic attack of Sheshonk (Shishak) I of Egypt (1 Kings 14:25-28), concerning which Sheshonk's victory relief on the temple wall at Karnak still bears witness. This attack may account for the fact that the king of Judah strengthened the fortifications of a number of towns which guarded the roads leading to Jerusalem (2 Chron. 11:5-12).

Being, probably, the son of an Ammonite woman, Rehoboam followed his father in having a large harem and in promoting the worship of pagan gods, with all their abominable rites (1 Kings 14:22-24; 2 Chron. 11:21).

Tentative Chronology of the Divided Kingdoms of Israel and Judah

* ^* Except for Pekah, the earlier years of these reigns that coincide with the closing years of the preceding reigns represent coregencies. Pekah's years have been reckoned from 752 B.C. although he took over actual control of the kingdom only after murdering Menahem's son Pekahiah.

Note.--The dates of Assyrian kings are generally accepted today as fixed with reasonable certainty within a spring-to-spring year; Ashur-dan II, for example, began to reign at some time between the spring of 933 and the spring of 932; few are more exact than that (on Tiglath-pileser III see p. 60). The dates for Nebuchadnezzar's reign are astronomically fixed. Regnal dates for Egyptian kings of the Twenty-second to the Twenty-fifth Dynasty are unknown, and the dates here given for the various dynasties are only approximate. The first kings of the Twenty-third Dynasty were contemporary with those of the Twenty-second. For the basis of the tentative dating of the reigns of Israel and Judah see p. 135. On Tibni see p. 80; for the names Jehoram and Joram see footnote on p. 78. Regnal years, even those well established, are not given in exact form (as 931/30, etc. see p. 35); hence allow the b.c. year to vary plus or minus 1, unless the

Abijam and Asa (913-869 B.C.).--The next king, Abijam, reigned but briefly (913-911 B.C.), had a war with Jeroboam I, and followed his father in all his vices (1 Kings 15:1-8).

With Asa, Abijam's son, a good king again came to the throne (911-869 B.C.). He removed from influence his grandmother, who had erected an image for Asherah, and banished the male prostitutes as well as idol worship (vs. 10-13). After the first peaceful years of his reign, which he devoted to religious reforms, Asa was attacked by the Ethiopians under Zerah, probably Cushites from the eastern shore of the Red Sea (2 Chron. 14:9-15). When Baasha of Israel occupied part of northern Judah, probably in the 36th year after the division of the kingdom (2 Chron. 16:1), Asa did not dare to meet the northern army with his own inferior forces, but induced Benhadad of Syria to attack and weaken Israel. For this lack of faith in Jehovah's help Asa was severely rebuked by Hanani the prophet (vs. 1-10).

Asa's last years were marked by poor health (v. 12), and accordingly he appointed his son Jehoshaphat as coruler, as the chronological data indicate.

Jehoshaphat to Ahaziah (872-841 B.C.).--Jehoshaphat (872-848 B.C.) continued the religious reforms of his good father. Although he failed to remove all the high places, he is credited with having the Levites and priests travel through the country and preach the law (1 Kings 22:43; 2 Chron. 17:7-9). He terminated the long feud between Judah and Israel by allying himself with the dynasty of Omri, and married crown prince Jehoram of Judah to Ahab's daughter Athaliah (2 Kings 8:18, 26), a union that unfortunately opened the door to Baal worship in Judah. Jehoshaphat also assisted the northern kings in their military campaigns. With Ahab he went against Ramoth-gilead (2 Chron. 18:28), and with Joram, king of Israel, against Moab (Kings 3:4-27). He also fought a strong confederacy of Edomites, Moabites, and Ammonites (2 Chron. 20:1-30). Some nations, however, such as the Philistines and Arabians, were so impressed with Jehoshaphat's accomplishments that they sought his friendship. His attempt to revive Solomon's Ophir expeditions failed when his ships were wrecked at Ezion-geber (vs. 35-37).

Jehoram (854-841 B.C.), not to be confused with his contemporary, Joram of Israel, was associated on the throne with his father, Jehoshaphat. Nothing good is said of Jehoram. Influenced by his wicked and idolatrous wife, he encouraged Baal worship in Judah (2 Kings 8:18), fought unsuccessful wars with the Philistines and Arabians (2 Chron. 21:16, 17; 22:1), and died of an incurable disease as Elijah had predicted (2 Chron. 21:12-19).

Ahaziah (841 B.C.) followed the corrupt ways of his parents, joined his uncle Joram of Israel in an unsuccessful war against the Syrians (2 Kings 8:26-29), and was mortally wounded in Jehu's plot against Joram of Israel. He died at Megiddo, where he had fled for recovery (2 Kings 9:14-28).

The Kings of Israel; Jeroboam I (931-910 B.C.).--Upon seceding from the dynasty of David, all the tribes except Judah, Benjamin, and Levi summoned Jeroboam, a political exile recently returned from Egypt, whither he had fled from Solomon (1 Kings 12:19, 20). Jeroboam was an Ephraimite chief who had served Solomon as foreman over a gang of workers engaged in building Millo. Resenting Solomon's domestic policies, he had revolted. Encouraged by the prophet Ahijah of Shiloh, he apparently grew bold in his opposition, was probably denounced to Solomon, and consequently fled to Egypt to save his life (1 Kings 11:26-40).

Jeroboam I reigned over the northern kingdom as its first king for 22 years (931-910 B.C.). He made Shechem his first capital, but later transferred it to Tirzah. Tirzah has not as yet been definitely identified, but may have been at the present Tell el-FaÆrÔah, about 7 mi. (11 km.) northeast of Nablus. Excavations have recently been carried out at this mound, which is larger than that of Megiddo, but definite clues as to its identification have not yet been found.

Jeroboam had to fight continual wars with his dissatisfied southern neighbors, first against Rehoboam and then against Abijam (1 Kings 14:30; 15:7). His land seems also to have been devastated during Sheshonk's campaign, although the Bible mentions only Judah and Jerusalem as the victims of attack. However, the evidence shows clearly that Sheshonk also invaded the northern kingdom as well, for he inscribed the names of many northern cities on his Karnak relief. Also a fragment of a victory stele of Sheshonk was discovered in the ruins of Jeroboam's city of Megiddo. Jeroboam may not have kept his promises to Sheshonk and thus have invited this military action that was undertaken against him. Otherwise it is not clear why Sheshonk, who had given asylum to Jeroboam as a political refugee, so quickly turned against him once he had become king.

For political reasons Jeroboam introduced religious rites and practices that represented a departure from the pure worship of Jehovah. At Bethel and Dan he built temples and made young bulls to represent Jehovah in visible form (1 Kings 12:27-31). For two centuries the worship of these golden calves became known as the "sin of Jeroboam." Of all but three of his successors on the throne of Israel, it is said that they followed him in this apostasy. An inscribed potsherd found at Samaria throws a curious light on this calf worship. It contains the personal name of a man called Egeljau, meaning "Jehovah is a calf," showing that the Israelites worshiped Jehovah under the form of a young bull, just as the Canaanites thought their god El to be a bull.

Jeroboam also changed the principal festival month, the seventh of the Hebrew ecclesiastical calendar, to the eighth (vs. 32, 33). From a study of Israelite chronology it would also seem that a civil calendar was introduced at this time, which began in the spring, in contrast to the one in use in the southern kingdom, where the civil year began in the autumn. Since the southern kings used the accession-year system in reckoning their regnal years, Jeroboam introduced the Egyptian nonaccession-year system, probably for no other reason than to be different.

Jeroboam, who began his reign as a rebel against Rehoboam, and also revolted against God and His ordained mode of worship, built his kingdom on the weakest possible foundation. This was true in a political as well as a spiritual sense. Neither his dynasty, which came to an end with the death of his son, nor any of the succeeding dynasties lasted for more than a few years. The kingdom of Israel had 10 dynasties and 20 kings in the 208 years of its existence. Moreover, the nation never escaped from the religious impasse into which Jeroboam had led it. Sinking deeper and deeper into the mire of idolatry and pagan immorality, it was chewed up piecemeal by its enemies, Syria and Assyria, and eventually vanished.

Nadab to Zimri (910-885 B.C.).--The wicked reign of Nadab, Jeroboam's son (910-909 B.C.), was cut short when he was murdered by Baasha in the Philistine town of Gibbethon. Thus ended the first dynasty (1 Kings 15:25-29). This fearful precedent was repeated again and again, until ten different dynasties had reigned over Israel. Baasha (909-886 B.C.) continued to harass Judah, but lost the territory he acquired when he was attacked by Benhadad of Damascus, upon receipt of a bribe from Asa, king of Judah (1 Kings 15:16 to 16:7). Baasha's dynasty ended like the preceding one. His son Elah (886-885 B.C.) was murdered by Zimri, one of his generals, in his capital Tirzah after a reign of less than two years (1 Kings 16:8-10). Zimri made use of his short reign of only seven days by killing all the relatives and friends of Baasha. Then Omri, another general of Elah who was proclaimed king by the Israelite army then engaged in a campaign against the Philistines, marched against Tirzah and took the city. Realizing that resistance was futile, Zimri refused to surrender to Omri, but set fire to the palace and perished in its flames (vs. 11-18).

Omri (885-874 B.C.).--Omri became the founder of a dynasty, four kings of which occupied the throne over a period of 44 years (885-841 B.C.). At first Omri had to fight another contender for the throne, Tibni, who had a considerable following among the people. It was only after four years of internal strife that Omri was able to exterminate Tibni and his followers (vs. 21-23). This is apparent from the chronological statements in vs. 15, 23, which assign the 7 days of Zimri's reign to Asa's 27th year, and Omri's accession to the throne--as sole ruler--in Asa's 31st year.

Omri's reign of 12 years was politically more important than the Bible records indicate. By selecting a strategic site for his capital, Samaria, he did for Israel what David had done in the selection of Jerusalem. This hill, 400 ft. high, was situated in a cuplike plain and could easily be defended. It was apparently never taken by force of arms, and surrendered only for lack of water or food. Excavation has verified the fact intimated in the Biblical records that the site had been uninhabited before the time of Omri. Transferring his capital to this site, he began building extensive defenses that were completed by his son Ahab.

Whether Omri personally had encounters with the Assyrians is unknown, but for the next 100 years the Assyrian records refer to Israel as "the land of the house of Omri," even long after Omri's dynasty had vanished. His personality, political success, or business enterprises must have made him famous in the eyes of contemporaries and later generations.

Omri established cordial relations with his Phoenician neighbors, and married his son Ahab to Jezebel, daughter of the king of Tyre. This alliance introduced the worship of Baal and Asherah into Israel to an extent previously unknown (1 Kings 16:25). He also granted economic concessions to Damascus and allowed Syrian traders to have shops in Samaria's bazaars (1 Kings 20:34). Since Israel received similar privileges in Damascus only after a military victory over the Syrians, it seems that Omri was defeated by the Syrians and ceded them certain territory and the economic concessions referred to.

Omri was, however, successful in subduing Moab, as the lengthy inscription on the famous Moabite Stone admits, where Mesha, king of Moab, says, "Omri king of Israel, he afflicted Moab many days, because Chemosh was angry with his land" (see Vol. I, p. 120). How valuable the possession of Moab was for Israel can be seen from the tribute paid by Moab to Omri's son Ahab. It is said to have amounted--probably annually--to "an hundred thousand lambs, and an hundred thousand rams, with the wool" (2 Kings 3:4).

Ahab (874-853 B.C.).--With Ahab, the next king, a weak ruler came to the throne of Israel. He had no strength to resist his strong-willed Phoenician wife, who was determined to make her own religion supreme. By bringing from her homeland to the royal table hundreds of priests and prophets of Baal and Astarte, by introducing the immoral rites of the Canaanite cult system, and by persecuting and killing the worshipers of the true God, Jezebel caused a religious crisis of the first magnitude (1 Kings 18:4, 19). Because of this crisis and because of the fact that some of the greatest spiritual leaders of Old Testament times, Elijah and Elisha, lived and worked in Israel at that time, the Bible devotes much space to Ahab.

Elijah was called of God to fight for the survival of true religion. A long drought of three and a half years, predicted by the prophet as a judgment of Jehovah, saw Ahab's land brought close to economic ruin. The drought came to an end with Elijah's victory over the Baal priests at Mt. Carmel, where a contest between the power of Jehovah and that of Baal was held (vs. 17-40). But so long as Ahab ruled, the pagan cult of Baal flourished. It is remarkable that Ahab did not dare give Baal names to his children--all their known names, Ahaziah, Joram, and Athaliah, contain the abbreviated form of Jehovah. His subjects, however, had few scruples in this matter. Numerous personal names of that and subsequent periods were connected with Baal--Abibaal, Baala, Baalzamar, Baalzakar, and others--as the inscribed potsherds found during the excavation of Samaria show.

Ahab became famous for the "ivory house" he built (1 Kings 22:39; Amos 3:15). Numerous beautifully carved ivory plaques found in the excavation of Samaria reveal that the interior of his palace was probably decorated with ivory. The designs are similar to those found in ivory decorations of Syria and Assyria.

As a warrior Ahab was moderately successful. Twice he defeated the Syrians. Loot from these two victorious wars enriched him tremendously, and won for him economic concessions in Damascus (1 Kings 20:21, 34). Hence, for a time, he became one of the most powerful rulers west of Assyria. When Shalmaneser III advanced into Syria, Ahab joined his former enemies to make common cause against the Assyrians, and mustered the greatest number of chariots of any of the allies. This fact is revealed in Shalmaneser's list of his opponents in the battle at Qarqar, which is preserved on a historic rock inscription on the upper Tigris. The inscription states that of the 3,940 chariots fighting against the Assyrians 2,000 belonged to Ahab, whereas the other allies had mustered altogether only 1,940. Of the 52,900 foot soldiers Ahab furnished 10,000. When the battle at Qarqar had checked Shalmaneser's advance, Ahab, conscious of his strength, immediately turned against Damascus to regain possession of the Transjordan city of Ramoth-gilead, but lost his life in that battle (1 Kings 22).

Ahaziah and Joram (853-841 B.C.).--During the short reign of Ahab's son Ahaziah (853-852 B.C.), who was fully as corrupt as his father before him, nothing important happened except perhaps the abortive expedition to Ophir made in cooperation with Jehoshaphat of Judah (2 Chron. 20:35-37). Since he left no son, Ahaziah was succeeded on the throne by his brother Jehoram (852-841 B.C.). In his time Mesha of Moab revolted. Although a military expedition was undertaken in cooperation with Jehoshaphat of Judah, with disastrous results for Moab, Israel was nevertheless not able to re-establish control of that country, as the Bible record hints (2 Kings 3:4-27) and the inscription of the Moabite Stone claims.

Joram fought several wars against the Syrians. Through the intervention of the prophet Elisha near disasters were twice averted (2 Kings 6 and 7), but Joram's attempt to regain Ramoth-gilead from the Syrians was as much a failure as that experienced by his father, Ahab. Wounded by Hazael of Syria, he went to well-watered Jezreel to recuperate, where he was murdered by his army commander Jehu. The latter proceeded to wipe out the whole family of Omri, including Jezebel, and then usurped the throne himself (2 Kings 8:28, 29; 9:24 to 10:17).

The Dynasty of Jehu (841-752 B.C.).--Jehu (841-814 B.C.), who had been anointed by a messenger of Elisha at Ramoth-gilead, not only put an end to the idolatrous dynasty of Omri but eradicated Baal worship as thoroughly as possible. For his righteous zeal in this respect he was commended by the prophet, and a promise was made that his descendants would sit on Israel's throne to the fourth generation (2 Kings 10:30). Accordingly, his dynasty reigned over the country for about 90 years, nearly half the time of the nation's existence. However, Jehu did not break with Jeroboam's calf worship, and his reform was, as a result, incomplete.

Breaking with the policies of his predecessors, Jehu voluntarily became a vassal of Shalmaneser III and paid tribute immediately upon coming to the throne. This event is depicted on the four sides of Shalmaneser's Black Obelisk, now in the British Museum. The Hebrew king--the first of whom a contemporary representation exists--is shown kneeling before Shalmaneser, while his attendants carry as tribute "silver, gold, a golden saplu-bowl, a golden vase with pointed bottom, golden tumblers, golden buckets, tin, a staff for a king, [and] wooden puruhtu." (The meaning of the words in italics is still unknown.) Probably Israel reversed its policy toward Assyria in order to secure Assyrian help against Israel's chief enemy, Hazael of Syria.

The 17 years of Jehoahaz' reign (814-798 B.C.) were marked by continual wars against the Syrians, who oppressed Israel first under Hazael and later under his son Benhadad III (2 Kings 13:1-3). The result was that Israel lost much of its territory and its army, so that there remained only 10 chariots, 50 horsemen, and 10,000 foot soldiers (v. 7). A comparison of the 10 chariots of Jehoahaz with the 2,000 of Ahab reveals the great loss of power the kingdom had suffered in 50 years. It is not known who rescued Israel from its sad plight, because the "saviour" of v. 5 is not identified. Either his son Jehoash (see v. 25), or a king of Assyria, or some other person is meant (see on v. 5).

The next king of Israel, Jehoash (798-782 B.C.), was more successful in his wars against the Syrians than his father had been, and in defeating them three times recovered all the territory lost by Jehoahaz (v. 25). Challenged by Amaziah of Judah, he was forced against his will to fight the southern kingdom--the first war in 100 years between the two brother nations. He worsted Judah's army at the battle of Beth-shemesh, captured the king, and victoriously entered Jerusalem. He broke down part of the city's defenses, and carried vessels from the Temple, royal treasures, and some hostages to Samaria (2 Kings 14:8-14).

The chronological data require a coregency between Jehoash and his son, Jeroboam II, for about 12 years, the only coregency in Israel for which there is evidence. Political prudence on the part of Jehoash may have led to this measure. Knowing the danger a state experiences when a sudden vacancy on the throne occurs, he probably appointed his son Jeroboam as coruler and successor when he began his wars of liberation against Syria. In this way continuity of the dynasty was assured even if the king should lose his life during one of his campaigns.

Jeroboam's recorded reign of 41 years (793-753 B.C.) includes 12 years of coregency with his father, Jehoash. Unfortunately, little is known of his apparently successful reign. The Bible devotes only seven verses to his life (vs. 23-29), but they indicate that he regained so much lost territory that his kingdom almost equaled the empire of David and Solomon in extent. With the exception of the territory held by the kingdom of Judah, the extent of his rule was practically the same as that of those great kings. He restored Israelite rule over the coastal and inland regions of Syria, conquered Damascus and Hamath, and occupied Transjordan south to the Dead Sea, which probably means that he made Ammon and Moab tributary to Israel. These tremendous gains were possible only because Assyria was suffering a period of political weakness and was unable to interfere.

Jeroboam II was apparently a strong ruler, but lacked the prudence and foresight of his father. Hence, he made no provision to guarantee continuity of rule, and his kingdom broke up almost immediately after his death. His son, Zachariah, reigned for only six months (753-752 B.C.), and fell victim to the murderous plot of Shallum (2 Kings 15:8-12). Thus ended Jehu's dynasty, and thereupon the kingdom returned quickly to the political impotence that had characterized it during most of its short history.

The Kingdom of Judah From 841 to 750 B.C., Athaliah to Azariah (Uzziah).--The period under discussion covers the history of Judah during the time of the Jehu dynasty in Israel. The end of Azariah's (Uzziah's) reign did not come in 750 B.C., but this date marks the approximate beginning of the new Assyrian Empire, when Israel and Judah became fatally involved in the expanding Assyrian conquests. Since Jotham, Azariah's son, was appointed coruler with his father in 750 B.C., this date is a convenient boundary for this survey of the history of the kingdom of Judah.

When Ahaziah of Judah was slain by Jehu, in 841 B.C., Ahaziah's mother, Athaliah, seized the throne for six years (841-835 B.C.). A daughter of the cruel and unscrupulous Ahab of Israel, she had "all the seed royal" exterminated in order that her own rule might be assured. However, her henchmen missed the young prince Joash, who was rescued by the high priest Jehoiada and his wife Jehosheba, a sister of the late king (2 Kings 11:1-3).

Joash (835-796 B.C.), having been educated in the home of Jehoiada, was placed on the throne at the age of seven, and Athaliah's government was overthrown and the wicked queen killed (2 Kings 11:4-21). As long as the young king allowed Jehoiada to guide his affairs he acted prudently and piously, removing Baal worship and promoting extensive Temple repairs (2 Kings 12:1-16; 2 Chron. 24:1-14). After Jehoiada's death, however, he waxed indifferent, and even had his benefactor's son Zechariah stoned to death for reproving him because of his evil deeds (2 Chron. 24:15-22). When Hazael of Damascus marched against him, he bought himself and his country off with some of the Temple treasures. This act of cowardliness, together with his murder of Zechariah and domestic and religious grievances, apparently resulted in deep-seated opposition to him. He was assassinated by his own servants and buried in the city of David, not in the royal sepulchers (2 Kings 12:17-21; 2 Chron. 24:25).

His son, Amaziah (796-767 B.C.), first of all disposed of the murderers of his father and consolidated his own position. Planning the reconquest of Edom, which had formerly belonged to Judah, he hired 100,000 mercenaries, but later discharged them at the direction of a man of God. With his own Judean forces he gained a victory over the Edomites and conquered the Edomite capital, Sela, probably Petra. Meanwhile the discharged mercenaries plundered the cities of northern Judah. As a result of his victory over the Edomites, Amaziah became overbearing and challenged Jehoash of Israel to fight against him. This unwise move had disastrous results, for Judah practically became a vassal of Israel. Having also turned away from the true God, he lost the confidence of his people. He was assassinated at Lachish (2 Chron. 25:1-28).

Amaziah was succeeded on the throne by his son, Azariah, whose second name--probably a throne name--was Uzziah (790-739 B.C.). His reign is described as upright, successful, and prosperous. He promoted the economic development of the country (2 Chron. 26:10) and raised a large and well-equipped army (2 Chron. 26:11-15). This enabled him to campaign against the Philistines and Arabians (v. 7), and to recover Elath (probably a tell in modern Aqaba) on the Gulf of Aqabah (2 Kings 14:22), as well, probably, as Edomite territory lying between Judah and the gulf. The Ammonites deemed it wise to buy themselves off with gifts (2 Chron. 26:8). During his reign a severe earthquake must have occurred, one that was remembered for centuries as an outstanding event (Amos 1:1; Zech. 14:5).

The political weakness of Egypt and Assyria, which had assisted Jeroboam II in making Israel once more a prosperous and powerful nation, had likewise favored Uzziah, with the result that the two kingdoms, combined, possessed approximately the same area in 750 B.C. as that over which David and Solomon had ruled. This was the last period of Hebrew prosperity. The accession of Tiglath-pileser in 745 B.C. and the consequent rebirth of the Assyrian Empire marked the beginning of a rapid decline in power for both Israel and Judah.

The Last Years of the Kingdom of Israel (752-722 B.C.), Shallum to Hoshea.--After the assassination of Zachariah of Israel, last king of the powerful and long-lived dynasty of Jehu, a 30-year period of anarchy and political decline followed, bringing the rapid breakup and eventual extinction of the kingdom. Shallum, the murderer of Zachariah, followed his predecessor in death after a reign of only one month (752 B.C.). He was in turn assassinated by Menahem (2 Kings 15:8-15). Menahem (752-742 B.C.) was a cruel ruler who put down all opposition to his rule by extremely severe measures (v. 16). That the enormous Syrian territories that Jeroboam II once controlled had by this time been definitely lost is certain, although the fact is not mentioned in the Bible. Recognizing the power of Assyria as something he would not be able to resist, Menahem followed the wisest procedure possible under the circumstances, voluntarily paying enormous sums of tribute in order that he might be left in peace by Tiglath-pileser III. The latter was at that time restoring Assyrian rule to large sections of Syrian territory. Menahem's tribute, levied from the population by a special tax, is mentioned both in the Bible (vs. 19, 20) and in Assyrian records.

Pekahiah, Menahem's son, was able to hold the throne for only two years (742-740 B.C.), when he was assassinated, like so many of Israel's kings before him. His murderer, Pekah, who counted his regnal years from the time of Menahem's accession to the throne, as the chronological data indicate, may have been related either to Jehu's dynasty or to King Shallum, and therefore ignored the two last rulers by including their 12 years of reign as part of his own. Another possible explanation of the problems posed by Pekah's chronological data may be that he ruled over an insignificant part of the country and did not recognize Menahem and Pekahiah as legitimate rulers. Whatever his reasons for usurping their regnal years may have been, it is quite certain that he enjoyed a sole reign of only about eight years (740-732 B.C.).

Pekah discontinued the pro-Assyrian policy of his predecessors and concluded an anti-Assyrian alliance with Rezin II of Damascus and other Syrian rulers. He next moved against Judah to enforce its participation in the anti-Assyrian league. This campaign is known as the Syro-Ephraimite war. Although the confederates did great damage to Judah and annexed some of its territory, they failed to reach their aim. Ahaz of Judah asked and received the assistance of Tiglath-pileser of Assyria, who moved into Pekah's kingdom, occupied the greater part of Galilee and Gilead, and deported the inhabitants of these regions to the east (2 Kings 16:5-9; 15:27-29). He also took the seacoast as far as Philistia. The Assyrian invasion broke the unnatural alliance between Israel and Syria. Tiglath-pileser attacked Syria, conquered Damascus, and captured King Rezin II (732 B.C.). Syria and the conquered parts of Israel were made Assyrian provinces and henceforth were administered by Assyrian governors.

Hoshea (732-722 B.C.).--Pekah's unhappy reign ended in disaster at the hand of an assassin, Hoshea, who ascended Israel's throne as its 20th and last king (732-722 B.C.). Tiglath-pileser III claims to have set Hoshea on the throne, and indicates that Pekah's rule was overthrown by his subjects as a result of his disastrous policies. Hoshea paid heavy tribute to Tiglath-pileser in exchange for the right of being tolerated as a vassal king of Assyria. The amount of annual tribute must have been an almost unbearable burden for the little state, which now consisted of but an insignificant portion of the former kingdom, and for this reason Israel revolted. Desperation may have been Hoshea's chief motive in forming a hopeless alliance against Assyria with So, a weak king of the Twenty-fourth Dynasty of Egypt who ruled over part of that land at the time. Shalmaneser V, who had in the meantime succeeded his father, Tiglath-pileser III, on the throne of Assyria, laid siege to Samaria and took that strongly fortified city after three years (2 Kings 18:10). The fall of the city probably occurred in the last year of Shalmaneser V (723-722 B.C.). Sargon II, who claims in much later inscriptions to have captured Samaria during the first year of his reign, probably had no right to this claim, at least as king. He was apparently Shalmaneser's army commander and may have actually carried out the conquest of the city and the deportation of the 27,290 Israelite captives.

The fall of Samaria marked the end of the northern kingdom of Israel after a tragic history of little more than two centuries. Conceived and born in the spirit of rebellion, it had no chance of survival. Twenty kings with an average rule of 10 1/2 years had sat upon the throne, 7 of them as murderers of their predecessors. The first king had introduced a corrupted worship, setting up idolatrous representations of Jehovah, and all succeeding rulers followed him in this "sin," some adding to it the worship of Baal and Astarte. Had it not been for the tireless ministry of such reformers as Elijah, Elisha, and other prophets, the kingdom of Israel might not have endured as long as it did.

The Kingdom of Judah From 750-731 B.C., Azariah (Uzziah) to Jotham.--After a long and successful reign Uzziah contracted leprosy, which came to him as a punishment for having entered the Temple to offer incense (2 Chron. 26:16-20). His son, Jotham, was then appointed coregent (2 Kings 15:5), a wise move to guarantee the continuity of the dynasty. The policy of appointing the crown prince as coregent was followed for more than a century, from Amaziah to Manasseh.

The record of Uzziah's leprosy shows that quarantine was imposed on a victim who contracted that disease, and that even a king was required to submit to enforced isolation during life and was given a separate burial when he died. In 1931 a tablet was found in the collection of the Russian Archeological Museum on the Mount of Olives at Jerusalem, which contains the following inscription in Aramaic, "Hither were brought the bones of Uzziah, king of Judah--do not disturb" The form of the script shows that the tablet was cut about the time of Christ or a little earlier, probably at a time when Uzziah's bones, for some unknown reason, had been moved to a new resting place.

Jotham (750-731 B.C.), after having ruled for his leprous father for 12 years, in his 16th year appointed his son Ahaz as ruler. Jotham lived but four years longer (see 2 Kings 15:33 cf. v. 30). Like his father, Jotham was a comparatively upright ruler. The three contemporary Hebrew prophets, Isaiah, Hosea, and Micah, probably exerted a good influence upon him. He witnessed the abortive invasion by Rezin of Syria and Pekah of Israel (v. 37), which was probably his reason for appointing Ahaz as coregent, but the major threat to Judah's existence came after this time.

Ahaz (735--715 B.C.).--Jotham's son Ahaz remained impassive to the influence of the prophets and worshiped idols. He caused "his son to pass through the fire. ... And he sacrificed and burnt incense in the high places, and on the hills, and under every green tree" (2 Kings 16:3, 4). Distrusting and rejecting divine help in the Syro-Ephraimite war (Isa. 7:3-13), he turned to Tiglath-pileser III and bought his aid with treasures taken from the Temple and the palace (2 Kings 16:7, 8). When Tiglath-pileser conquered Damascus, Ahaz appeared in his entourage. In Damascus he became acquainted with the Assyrian mode of worship and proceeded immediately to introduce it into his own kingdom. Hence, he sent from Damascus instructions to Jerusalem to have an Assyrian altar made, like one he had seen there. This new altar replaced the one Solomon had set up for burnt offerings, and was kept in use for some time (vs. 10-16).

Ahaz, like his predecessors, seems to have appointed his son Hezekiah (729-686 B.C.) as coregent when he saw that the kingdom of Judah would probably become involved in trouble with Assyria. For Hezekiah's reign considerable information is available both in the Bible and from secular sources. The events described in 2 Kings 18 to 20 are paralleled in Isa. 36 to 39 and 2 Chron. 29 to 32. Other information is given in Jer. 26:17-19 concerning messages of the prophet Micah in Hezekiah's time, and the inscriptions of Sargon II and Sennacherib serve as extra-Biblical source material for the two Assyrian campaigns of that period.

Hezekiah (729-686 B.C.).--Hezekiah was a good ruler and initiated a series of religious reforms, probably after the death of his wicked father in 715 B.C. For these he was highly commended by the Bible writer (2 Kings 18:3, 4). He also established control over areas of Philistia, strengthened the national defense system, and encouraged trade and agriculture by building warehouses and sheepfolds (2 Kings 18:8; 2 Chron. 32:28, 29). A remarkable technical accomplishment of his reign was the boring of a 1,749-ft. (6,533 m.) tunnel from the well of Gihon in the Kidron Valley to a lower pool inside the city of Jerusalem (2 Chron. 32:4, 30; 2 Kings 20:20). In this way he assured Jerusalem of a continuous supply of water. Even now, after more than 2,500 years, the waters of Gihon still flow through this tunnel into the Pool of Siloam.

In 1880 boys wading through the tunnel accidentally discovered a Hebrew inscription, now in the Archeological Museum at Istanbul, which had been cut into the rock after the completion of the tunnel. It reads as follows:

"[The tunnel] was bored. And this was the manner in which it was cut. While [the workmen were] still [lifting up] axes, each toward his neighbor, and while three cubits remained to be cut through, [there was heard] the voice one calling the other, since there was a crevice in the rock on the right side [and on the left]. And when the tunnel was bored, the stonecutters struck, each to meet his fellow, ax against ax; and the water flowed from the spring to the pool for 1,200 cubits, and the height of the rock above the heads of the stonecutters was 100 cubits."

Hezekiah, however, is best known for his faith in Jehovah at the time of one of Sennacherib's invasions of Judah, which resulted in the miraculous destruction of a vast Assyrian army. Hezekiah had inherited the Assyrian vassalship from his father, but while the Assyrian kings were busily engaged in Mesopotamia, Hezekiah strengthened his defenses in the hope of shaking off the Assyrian yoke, with the help of the Ethiopian kings of the Twenty-fifth Egyptian Dynasty. The prophet Isaiah was vehemently opposed to such a policy (Isa. 18:1-5; 30:1-5; 31:1-3), but proved unable to change Hezekiah's mind. The king was determined to break with Assyria whatever the results might be, and accordingly severed his connections with the empire. As a result he experienced several Assyrian invasions.

The first invasion of Palestine, by Sargon II, was not accompanied by serious results, however. Judah lost nothing more than its coastal region. Isaiah in the meantime walked the streets of Jerusalem and solemnly but unsuccessfully proclaimed his prophecies against Egypt and all her allies (Isa. 20). The first great blow came in 701 B.C., when Sennacherib invaded Palestine. His army went through the land like a steam roller, leaving in its path only destruction and ruin. Too late, Hezekiah reversed his policy and sent tribute to Sennacherib at Lachish. Sennacherib, however, demanded the unconditional surrender of Jerusalem. That he did not take the city is attested by his own words, which claim no more than that he laid siege to it. Events elsewhere in his vast domain apparently became more pressing, with the result that he lifted the siege and returned to Assyria.

The sickness of Hezekiah, described in 2 Kings 20, must have occurred about the same time as the Assyrian invasion of his 14th year, 15 years before his death (2 Kings 18:13; 20:6; 18:2). That Isaiah, when promising Hezekiah healing, assured him also that the city would not be taken (2 Kings 20:6) implies that the sickness came shortly before Sennacherib's campaign. This explains also why Hezekiah was so friendly to the messengers of Merodach-baladan (Marduk-apal-iddina), the exiled king of Babylon, who, as a sworn enemy of Assyria, Hezekiah probably considered a welcome potential ally in his struggle for independence. Isaiah, however, who had warned against an alliance with Egypt, was as much opposed to one with Babylon's king in exile.

About ten years later, when Taharka of Egypt had come to the throne, Sennacherib returned to Palestine to force a showdown with the defiant Hezekiah. Sennacherib first dispatched a letter calling upon Hezekiah to surrender. The king of Judah, encouraged by Isaiah, refused this demand and saw his faith in Isaiah's sure promise of divine intervention rewarded. The great Assyrian army met with dreadful disaster before the gates of Jerusalem (2 Kings 18 and 2 Kings 19).

Manasseh to Josiah (697--609 B.C.).--The last 15 years of Hezekiah's life were probably occupied in rebuilding his devastated country. Some 10 years before his death he made his son Manasseh coregent as the chronological data indicate. Manasseh's long reign of 55 years (697-642 B.C.) was filled with wickedness. He rebuilt the altars to Baal, served Astarte, used witchcraft, sacrificed little children, and "worshipped all the host of heaven" (2 Chron. 33:1-10). The Assyrian kings Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal mention Manasseh as their vassal. At some time during his reign he must have rebelled, for one of these two Assyrian kings "bound him with fetters, and carried him to Babylon" (v. 11). Although it seems somewhat strange that he was taken to Babylon instead of to Nineveh, it should be remembered that the Assyrian kings of this time considered Babylon their second capital. Manasseh's offense cannot have been very serious, for he was pardoned and restored to his former position (vs. 12, 13). Assyrian officials had in the meantime administered the country and probably looted it thoroughly. That Manasseh, upon his return from Babylon to Judah, found an extremely impoverished country, is apparent from a document of that time wherein it is noted that the country of Ammon paid a tribute of 2 minas of gold, Moab, 1 mina of gold, while poor Judah paid only 10 minas of silver. The troubles Manasseh experienced at least had the advantage of bringing him to the point of conversion (vs. 12-20).

His son Amon (642-640 B.C.) was fully as wicked as Manasseh had been before his conversion, with the result that his servants killed him after a brief reign of two years (2 Kings 21:19-26; 2 Chron. 33:21-25).

Amon's young son, Josiah (640-609 B.C.), ascended the throne upon the assassination of his father. Being religiously inclined, he introduced a number of reforms, beginning at the young age of 15 or 16 years to abolish high places, sacred pagan pillars, and Baal altars (2 Chron. 34:3). During repair work on the Temple in Josiah's 18th regnal year (623-622 B.C.) the "book of the law" (see PK 392) was found. Becoming familiar with its precepts, he inaugurated a thorough purge of paganism and idolatry throughout the kingdom of Judah and in adjacent areas of the former kingdom of Israel (2 Kings 22 and 23; 2 Chron. 34:6, 7). This indicates that he had established some kind of political control over territory that had, since 722 B.C., been an Assyrian province. Through the impotence of Assyria after Ashurbanipal's death in 627 (?) b.c., and the rapid disintegration of the Assyrian Empire, the former territory of the ten tribes seems to have fallen into Josiah's lap like an overripe apple. He applied his power and influence to secure religious reforms throughout Palestine, and might have succeeded except for his untimely death. In view of the fact that the last years of Josiah's life coincided with the emergence of the Neo-Babylonian Empire, they will be sketched in Section XV of this article.

This short survey of Judah's history during the time of the new Assyrian Empire, from Azariah's last years to Josiah, reveals a sad picture. Although Judah was spared the tragic fate that befell the northern kingdom, the country was bled white of all its resources by Assyria's heavy demands for tribute. In Hezekiah's time a glorious and miraculous deliverance was experienced, but even then a terrible price was paid for previous political blunders, and Judah found itself devastated from one end to the other. Only Jerusalem had escaped destruction. The writers of the Bible, who viewed the political history of their nation in the light of faithfulness or disobedience to God, show how the many misfortunes that came to Judah were the result of apostasy. Since half the number of kings reigning during this period were unfaithful to God, it is not surprising that the nation did not fare well.

XIII. Egypt in the Saïte Period, Twenty-sixth Dynasty (663-525 B.C.)

This period deals with a political revival of Egypt that continued for nearly one and a half centuries. In contrast to the previous period, when it was ruled by foreigners from the south, Egypt found itself once more independent, governed by Egyptians from the north. Since this dynasty originated in Saïs, it is usually called the Saïte Dynasty.

The history of this period is based to a great extent on Herodotus' account, and therefore lacks exactness in many details. For example, the battle of Carchemish, in which Necho II was severely defeated by Nebuchadnezzar--attested in the Bible and by archeology--is not even mentioned. The reasons for the defects in Herodotus' history lie in the fact that he based his work, not on written records, but on oral information secured during a visit to Egypt about 445 B.C., when the events described lay 80 or more years in the past. Nevertheless, much correct information may be gained from a careful study of Herodotus' reports, which, when sifted and compared with more nearly contemporary sources and with information given in the Bible, permit an approximately reliable reconstruction of the history of the period.

Necho I, a city prince of Saïs, perhaps a descendent of Tefnakht of the Twenty-fourth Dynasty, had been given the title of king by Esarhaddon for taking part in a rebellion against the Assyrians during Taharka's time he was sent to Assyria as a prisoner, but succeeded in regaining the confidence of Ashurbanipal and was restored to his office and throne at Saïs.

Psamtik I (663--610 B.C.).--After Necho I had been killed by Tanutamon, his energetic son Psamtik I turned to the Assyrians for help. When the Ethiopian Dynasty was expelled from Egypt by the Assyrians, Psamtik received the kingship of Memphis as a reward for valuable services rendered during the campaign, and other parts of the country were put under the rulership of various local princes. However, when Ashurbanipal was busily engaged in settling the Babylonian revolt led by his own brother, Psamtik managed through clever moves and without great difficulty to rid himself of Assyrian control. With the help of Gyges of Lydia he took Thebes in 655 B.C., and in 14 years all Egypt was in his hands.

Psamtik established and maintained his rule with the help of mercenary forces. Greeks from the Ionian Islands, Jews from Palestine, Carians from Asia Minor, and others served in his army and manned his fortresses. He favored Greek colonists, and received an income tax of 20 per cent from the population, but left priests and soldiers tax exempt in order to retain the loyalty of these two most important classes, whose good will an Egyptian king needed. The culture of the time represented an imitation or revival of the classical period. Pyramids of the old kingdom were repaired, ancient titularies were revived, mortuary inscriptions of the pyramids were again copied and carved into tomb walls, and statues and reliefs were executed in the ancient style.

After reuniting Egypt and re-establishing its political independence, Psamtik seems to have played with the plan of rebuilding the Egyptian Asiatic empire of the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Dynasties. In 640 B.C. he marched into Palestine, where he besieged the Philistine city of Ashdod for years; but the Scythian invasion of that time put an end to his dreams of empire. He was able to buy himself off by a heavy tribute and thereby avoided an invasion of Egypt. Having already overextended their lines of communication, the Scythians seem also to have welcomed Psamtik's conciliatory advances, and were apparently happy to call off the intended invasion without losing face. From Babylonian records it is evident that Egypt assisted Assyria for several years during its last struggle against the Medes and Babylonians. Psamtik apparently wanted to keep Assyria alive as a buffer state against the new powers of the east.

Necho II (610--595 B.C.).--When Necho II, Psamtik's son, came to the throne, he pursued his father's policies. He marched north in the spring or summer of 609 B.C. to aid the weak Assyrian forces of Ashur-uballit against the Medes and Babylonians. King Josiah of Judah, apparently an ally of the Babylonians, withstood him near Megiddo and died of wounds received there in battle. Necho's march to the north failed to stave off the end of the Assyrian kingdom, as is implied by the Babylonian Chronicle. However, Necho's army apparently did not suffer a defeat, because three months after the battle of Megiddo he was able from his temporary headquarters at Riblah in Syria to impose a heavy tribute on Judah and to remove Josiah's anti-Egyptian son, Jehoahaz, who was replaced by Jehoiakim, his more pro-Egyptian brother (2 Chron. 35:20-24; 36:1-4). A stele of Necho found at Sidon is also proof that he exercised some degree of control over Phoenicia during those years, while the Babylonian Chronicle records two Egyptian victories over Babylonian garrisons in the year 606/5 B.C.

Having successfully eliminated Assyria, the Babylonians felt they must curtail Egyptian power. The aged and ailing Nabopolassar therefore sent Nebuchadnezzar, the crown prince, against the Egyptian army at Carchemish. In the ensuing battle, fought in the spring or early summer of 605 B.C., the Egyptians were twice beaten, first at Carchemish, and a little later near Hamath. In August, 605 B.C., when Nebuchadnezzar was the unchallenged master of all Syria and perhaps also of Palestine, he was ready to invade Egypt. At that time he received the report of his father's death, and immediately returned to Babylonia. This saved Necho and Egypt. Although the Egyptian army, after the defeat at Carchemish, probably never saw the Euphrates again, it remained strong enough to inflict heavy losses on Nebuchadnezzar's army once more in 601 B.C.

Necho is credited with having begun a canal between the Nile and the Red Sea, in which project 120,000 men are said to have perished. He abandoned the work before completion, however, when his engineers convinced him that the Red Sea level was higher than the Mediterranean Sea, and that Lower Egypt would be flooded as soon as the waters of the Red Sea should pour into the finished canal. Recognizing this mistake, Darius I had this canal completed some 80 years later. It was in use for many centuries, the forerunner of the present Suez Canal. Herodotus tells us that in Necho's time Phoenician sailors accomplished, in three years, the first circumnavigation of Africa.

Psamtik II (595--589B.C.).--Of Psamtik II, Necho's son, not much more is known than that he attempted to reconquer Nubia and that he once visited Palestine (John Rylands Demotic Papyrus, No. IX), probably to organize anti-Babylonian resistance. Jer. 27:3 may refer to the time of this activity, when envoys of different nations were gathered at Jerusalem, only to be warned by Jeremiah of the disastrous results of a revolt against the king of Babylonia.

Apries (589--570 B.C.).--Apries, the Biblical Hophra (Jer. 44:30), continued his father's work and actively plotted against Babylon. It was he who encouraged Zedekiah, king of Judah, in his rebellion against Nebuchadnezzar. He won a naval battle against Tyre and Cyprus, and occupied Sidon. All Phoenicia became subject to him for a short time. Egyptian antiquities found at Arvad, Tyre, and Sidon show how great his influence was throughout the coastal region of Syria. This success made such an impression on the lesser states of Palestine that they put their trust in Egyptian arms and revolted against Babylon. Hophra actually made an attempt to relieve Jerusalem when it was besieged by Nebuchadnezzar's army, but was not able to do more than draw the besieging forces away from Jerusalem temporarily (Jer. 37:5-11).

An Aramaic letter probably written during the reign of Nebuchadnezzar by King Adon of Ashkelon (?) was found a few years ago in Egypt. In this letter Adon told Pharaoh that the Babylonian army was marching along the coast of Palestine toward the south and that it had advanced as far as Aphek. He requested immediate help from Egypt in order to resist.

The pathetic plea of a Palestinian ruler, who, like King Zedekiah, had listened to the false inducements of Egypt and rebelled against the Babylonian overlord, helps us to understand the terrible disappointment the people of Jeremiah's time must have felt when all their hopes were shattered by the inactivity of the Egyptian army, or by the inadequate help it provided them in their fight against the Babylonians. This letter demonstrates how truly were being fulfilled Jeremiah's prophecies, in which he had exhorted the nations surrounding Judah to serve Nebuchadnezzar faithfully and warned them of the terrible consequences if they rebelled against him (Jer. 27:2-11).

During the course of a military revolt the army commander Ahmose was proclaimed king of Egypt by the soldiers. Apries, with the loyal section of his army, then fought against Ahmose, but was defeated, taken prisoner, and forced to recognize Ahmose as coregent. Two years later a quarrel broke out between the two rulers, which resulted in another bloody battle and the death of Apries, whom Ahmose greatheartedly gave a royal burial.

In 568 B.C., not long after Apries' death, Amasis (Ahmose) seems to have been confronted with a serious threat in the form of a military campaign led by Nebuchadnezzar. Unfortunately, the only document recording this event is so badly preserved that we know nothing more than that Nebuchadnezzar marched against Egypt in his 37th regnal year. About three years earlier Ezekiel had prophesied that the Lord would give Egypt to Nebuchadnezzar as "wages" for his siege of Tyre. Although the result of the campaign of 568 B.C. against Egypt is unknown, it seems certain that Amasis suffered defeat (see Eze. 29:17-20).

For the most part, however, the reign of Amasis (570-526 B.C.) seems to have been peaceful. He was a friend of the Greeks; and Naucratis, the Egyptian city where most of the Greeks resident in Egypt lived, became the chief trading center of the country. With his navy, this Pharaoh held Cyprus, and also concluded treaties with Croesus of Lydia, the Spartans, and, in 547 B.C., with Nabonidus of Babylon against Cyrus of Persia.

After Ahmose' long reign his son Psamtik III (526-525 B.C.) reigned for only a year. In 525 B.C. Cambyses, second king of the Persian Empire, conquered Egypt and deposed Psamtik. The country was then made a Persian satrapy.

XIV. The Neo-Babylonian Empire From 626 to 586 B.C.

Babylonia had enjoyed a long and illustrious history before the Assyrians became masters of the Mesopotamian valley. The empire of Sargon of Akkad and that of the Amorite king Hammurabi had given a luster to Babylonia that survived the long centuries of political impotence during which the Assyrians ruled over this part of the ancient world. Babylonian language and script, its literature and culture, were considered the classical patterns; and for one reason or another Marduk, the god of the Babylonians, held a magic spell over all Mesopotamian peoples. The Assyrians conquered and occupied Babylonia repeatedly during the centuries of their supreme rule over Mesopotamia, but usually treated that country with respect. It was therefore never completely incorporated into the Assyrian Empire, and always enjoyed a status different from that of other subject nations. Sennacherib dared to destroy the city, but his contemporaries and even many Assyrians considered this such a sacrilegious and blasphemous crime that his son Esarhaddon rebuilt the city as soon as he came to the throne.

This ancient and apparently immortal glory that surrounded Babylon made it possible for the Neo-Babylonian Empire to establish itself quickly in the minds of men after the downfall of the Assyrian kingdom, and gave its memory a luster that long survived its brief life of less than a century.

The establishment of the new Babylonian kingdom by Nabopolassar and his campaigns against Assyria have been discussed on pp. 66, 67, in connection with the breakup of the Assyrian Empire. Since this article deals with ancient history only to 586 B.C., the year of Jerusalem's destruction, the events of the last 45 years of the Babylonian Empire will be discussed in Vol. III of this commentary.

Sources.--For reasons not yet entirely clear, few contemporary historical inscriptions of the Neo-Babylonian Empire period are known. Many economic texts shed some light on the period, and building inscriptions provide information on the extensive construction activities of the Babylonian monarchs. But no royal annals or display inscriptions yet found have been equal in any way to those of the Assyrian emperors. The deplorable absence of historical inscriptions and the scarcity of chronicles, earlier attributed to Babylonian reluctance to record political or military events, are more likely due to the accidents of preservation and discovery. The Babylonian Chronicle was long known and published in parts. In 1923 and 1956 collections of those from the Neo-Babylonian period were issued (including several hitherto unpublished portions found among the cuneiform tablets of the British Museum). This provides a year-by-year account of political events from Nabopolassar's accession year to the year 11 of Nebuchadnezzar except for a break of seven years in Nabopolassar's reign. The so-called Nabonidus Chronicle, although broken, gives an account of the happenings of a number of years during the reign of the last Babylonian king.

On the whole, however, there are extremely few cuneiform records available for a reconstruction of the history of the new Babylonian period. It is therefore a matter of satisfaction that the Bible contains more detailed records of this period than of any other period of Bible history. The information provided in the books of Kings, Chronicles, Jeremiah, and Daniel, added to that found in Josephus' works and that of the available cuneiform records, makes it possible to piece together a fairly clear picture of what happened in this significant period of the ancient world that marked the end of the kingdom of Judah.

Chronology.--The chronology of the Neo-Babylonian Empire is fixed. A tablet in the Berlin Museum contains the records of numerous astronomical observations made during the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign. When these records were checked by astronomers it became apparent that the phenomena described occurred in the Babylonian calendar year equivalent to 568/567 B.C., spring to spring. Since it is possible in this way to determine the 37th regnal year of Nebuchadnezzar to the exact day, in terms of b.c. dates, it is easy with the help of the tens of thousands of dated business documents of that time to reconstruct the complete reign of this monarch and of the other kings of the Neo-Babylonian Empire. Since the chronology secured in this manner agrees perfectly with the list of Babylonian kings contained in the Canon of Ptolemy, there is no doubt that the chronology of the new empire period is based on solid facts.

Nabopolassar (626-605 B.C.).--Events exceptionally favored Nabopolassar, who had been an independent monarch over Babylonia under the last shadow kings of Assyria. He gained all for which Marduk-apal-iddina (Merodachbaladan) had fought hard for many years. He not only established a Babylonian empire under a Chaldean monarchy but also had the joy of seeing Assyria, his greatest enemy, fall in the dust. When Nineveh was destroyed by the Medes and Babylonians in 612 B.C., Cyaxares and Nabopolassar divided between themselves the territory of the fallen Assyrian colossus. Thus there fell to the Babylonian king an empire that, nominally at least, reached from the Persian Gulf through Mesopotamia, Syria, and Palestine, to the borders of Egypt. The Medes were satisfied to receive the northern and Anatolian provinces of the former Assyrian Empire. Furthermore, relations between the two new powers remained cordial and were never disturbed--as far as our incomplete knowledge of that period goes. Their mutual friendship was sealed by a marriage between Nebuchadnezzar, Nabopolassar's son and heir, and the Median princess Amuhia (Amyhia).

The years after the fall of Nineveh were used to consolidate the newly acquired territory and to crush the remnants of the Assyrian kingdom that fought for existence under their king Ashur-uballit II in the region of Haran, aided by Egyptian forces. For several years the Babylonian king gained no decisive victory, though Assyrian strength must have been weakened. By 609 B.C. the Assyrian forces seem to have been completely eliminated, and from that time on are not mentioned any more as military opponents, but King Necho of Egypt had, through his victory over Josiah, come into possession of Judea, and had also occupied Syria and parts of northern Mesopotamia. Since Nabopolassar considered himself the heir to the territories that had belonged to the Assyrian Empire, he could not permit Egypt to remain in possession of the Asiatic territories occupied by Necho. By the end of 606 B.C. Nabopolassar had pacified his Mesopotamian possessions and could pay more attention to the Egyptian menace in the west, where the Babylonian garrison forces were sorely pressed. Since the aged king was ailing, the crown prince, Nebuchadnezzar, was entrusted with the campaign against the Egyptians. Decisive victories over the Egyptian army were gained first at Carchemish on the Euphrates, and a few weeks later near Hamath in Syria. In the summer of 605 B.C. Nebuchadnezzar was ready for the invasion of Egypt when news reached him of his father's death on the 8th of Ab (approximately August 15, 605). This led to his immediate return to Babylon and his accession to the throne on Elul 1 (approximately September 7).

Nebuchadnezzar II (605-562 B.C.).--In Nebuchadnezzar II, Nabopolassar had a worthy successor, and Babylon a successful and illustrious king. He carried out many military campaigns, especially against Judah, as we know from the Bible and from the recently discovered Babylonian Chronicle, and was able to pacify the countries belonging to his empire. Yet, he devoted most of his energies and resources to works of peace. His chief ambition was to make his capital the most glorious metropolis of the world. Tremendous sums of money were spent in building palaces, temples, and fortifications; Nebuchadnezzar could say, "Is not this great Babylon, that I have built?" (Dan. 4:30). A description of the city he built is given in the Additional Note on Daniel 4.

XV. The Kingdom of Judah From 609 to 586 B.C.

Chronology. --Fortunately, the chronology of Egypt and Babylonia is well established for the period from Josiah to Zedekiah. Certain Judean regnal dates synchronize with Babylonian dates based on astronomical records (see p. 160); thus the b.c. dating of the kings of Judah (see p. 77) can be established with a high degree of accuracy. The most recently published portion of the Babylonian Chronicle (see p. 99, note) moves five kings of Judah (Manasseh to Jehoiakim) a year earlier than dated in previous printings, but it confirms several key events and yields precise dates for the accessions of Jehoiachin and Zedekiah.

Josiah's Death, and Jehoahaz.--In Section XII the history of Judah was traced as far as King Josiah's time. A major part of his reign fell in the years of the disintegration of the Assyrian Empire, when the Assyrians were not strong enough to control their western possessions effectively and Babylonia had not yet taken over these possessions. Josiah took advantage of the situation to extend his influence, perhaps even political control, over considerable parts of the territory that had formerly belonged to the kingdom of Israel, and that had more recently been administered as an Assyrian province.

For a time Josiah profited from the Mesopotamian situation. However, he watched with some apprehension the rebirth of Egyptian power. In view of the fact that Egypt was committed to the policy of preventing the complete collapse of Assyria, Egyptian forces must have traversed Palestine several times during Josiah's reign. Josiah may have felt that Pharaoh had other plans than merely to keep Assyria alive--aspirations of rebuilding the former Egyptian Empire in Asia--and that he proposed to exchange military help with Assyria for political concessions in Syria and Palestine. It is unknown whether Josiah had actually made an agreement with Nabopolassar of Babylon and resisted Necho II in order to aid his Babylonian ally, or whether he took his stand merely on the basis of his conviction that if the Egyptians and Assyrians should defeat the Babylonians, Judah would be forced to submit either to Egypt or to Assyria. One or the other reason must have prompted his unfortunate decision to meet Necho and prevent him from marching north to assist the Assyrians.

The battle took place at Megiddo, in 609 B.C. The date is based on the Babylonian Chronicle (see p. 99, note), which mentions the Egyptians as aiding the Assyrians at Haran in that year. Josiah was mortally wounded (see on 2 Chron. 35:20-24), and defeated Judah had to submit to Egypt. However, at that time Necho hurried on to the north without following up his victory over Josiah. He was more concerned with a decision against Babylonia, since a victory there would give him a free hand in Palestine.

In the meantime Jehoahaz, a 23-year-old son of Josiah, was crowned in Jerusalem by popular demand, though he was not the oldest (2 Kings 23:30, 31). He seems to have been known as one who would follow his father's policies, being probably pro-Babylonian as his father had been, which to Pharaoh-Necho meant that he was anti-Egyptian. After consolidating his position in northern Mesopotamia and Syria, Necho decided to punish Judah for interfering with his plans, and accordingly summoned Jehoahaz before him at Riblah, in Syria. This demand and the fact that Jehoahaz obeyed show clearly that Judah must have suffered heavy losses in the battle of Megiddo, and that the country was powerless to resist Necho, who must by now have considered himself the unquestioned lord of Palestine. Necho took the young king, after he had reigned only three months, and sent him a prisoner to Egypt. In his stead Necho appointed Eliakim, an older brother of Jehoahaz, under the name of Jehoiakim. The new king was apparently known for pro-Egyptian sympathies. A tribute of 100 talents of silver and 1 talent of gold was imposed, and this he exacted from the people (2 Kings 23:32-35).

Jehoiakim (609--598 B.C.).--Jehoiakim's 11 years as king (609-598 B.C.) were marked by gross idolatry and wickedness, which hastened Judah's final downfall. The exact opposite of his pious father, he distinguished himself by various godless acts, even murdering a prophet (2 Kings 23:37; Jer. 26:20-23).

Jehoiakim was probably an Egyptian vassal until his third regnal year. In 605 B.C., according to the recently discovered Babylonian Chronicle, Nebuchadnezzar, crown prince of Babylon, was dispatched by his father to fight against the Egyptians in northern Mesopotamia. In two battles, at Carchemish and near Hamath, he decisively defeated the Egyptians, and was able to conquer Syria and Palestine. It must have been while following the defeated Egyptians toward their homeland that Nebuchadnezzar besieged Jerusalem and forced Jehoiakim to become a vassal of Babylon, taking a part of the Temple treasure and certain princes as hostages--among them Daniel and his friends (Dan. 1:1-6). News of his father's death sent Nebuchadnezzar back to Babylon by the shortest possible route to take the throne, leaving in the hands of his generals the prisoners already taken during the campaign, with orders to retreat to Mesopotamia (Josephus Contra Apion i. 19). When a king died there was always danger of a revolt at home or of a usurper's attempt to seize the throne. For this reason Nebuchadnezzar did not want his army fighting in faraway Egypt at a time when it might be urgently needed in Babylonia.

Since Nebuchadnezzar found no opposition at home he could immediately return to the task of bringing under full control the western territories that, as the result of the battles at Carchemish and near Hamath, had fallen into his lap. Hence, we find him campaigning in "Hatti-land," as the Babylonians called Syria and Palestine, during each of the following three years. Resistance must have been light, because the only military action mentioned is the capture and destruction of Ashkelon. His campaigns may have served chiefly to organize the territory and collect the annual tributes.

During these three years of comparative quiet, it would appear that Jehoiakim of Judah remained a loyal vassal of Nebuchadnezzar (2 Kings 24:1). However, since the annual tribute to Babylon rested heavily upon the land, he felt a strong urge to switch his allegiance to Egypt, which was regaining strength. This directed Nebuchadnezzar's attention toward Egypt, the chief cause of the troubles with his vassals. A battle fought with the Egyptian army in Kislev (Nov.-Dec.), 601 B.C., seems to have ended in a draw, with heavy losses, because the Babylonians withdrew. The records tell us that Nebuchadnezzar remained at home during the following year and built up a new army before venturing out on a new campaign toward the end of 599 B.C. Yet in the meantime he allowed several of his western vassal nations, aided by some of his own troops, to raid and harass Judah (2 Kings 24:2). At that time 3,023 Jews were deported to Babylon (Jer. 52:28). In December, 598, Chaldean troops probably were able to take Jerusalem. Once more Temple treasures were taken to Babylon (2 Chron. 36:7). The king was placed in fetters, to be taken to Babylon (2 Chron. 36:6) and punished for his rebellion. But this plan was apparently not carried out. Jehoiakim seems to have died before he could be deported, either from rough treatment at the hands of the Chaldeans or from natural causes. His body was cast outside the city gates and lay there exposed to heat and cold for several days before it received a disgraceful burial--like that "of an ass" (Jer. 22:18, 19; see also 2 Kings 24:6; 2 Chron. 36:6; Jer. 36:30; Josephus Antiquities x. 6. 3).

Jehoiachin (598/97 B.C.).--Jehoiakim was succeeded by his 18-year-old son, Jehoiachin, who reigned only three months (598/97 B.C.). It is not known why Nebuchadnezzar proceeded to Jerusalem to take the new king prisoner. In any case the records inform us that Nebuchadnezzar's army, shortly after Jehoiachin's accession, began another western campaign. When Nebuchadnezzar arrived at Jerusalem, Jehoiachin surrendered himself, his mother, and his whole staff on Adar 2 (approximately March 16), 597, a specific date established by the Babylonian Chronicle. Nebuchadnezzar took Jehoiachin to Babylon as hostage and made his uncle, Zedekiah, king in his stead. Also he now transported to Babylonia all the remaining vessels of the Temple treasure, 7,000 soldiers, and all the skilled craftsmen he found. The latter would be useful in his extensive building enterprises. (See 2 Kings 24:8-16.)

Jehoiachin, still considered the king of Judah, was more or less only a hostage in Babylon. This conclusion is based on the fact that there was agitation in Judah and among the captives in Babylon, who expected Jehoiachin to be returned to the throne and the sacred vessels to be brought back (Jer. 28:3, 4; and 29). Since the Jews in Babylon could not date events according to the regnal years of Jehoiachin without offending the Babylonians, they apparently labeled such events--as Ezekiel did--by the years of his captivity (Eze. 1:2; 40:1).

These conclusions find some confirmation in archeological discoveries. Three clay jar handles unearthed at Beth-shemesh and Tell Beit Mirsim (probably Debir) all bear the imprint of the same stamp seal, "Belonging to Eliakim, steward of Jehoiachin." These finds seem to indicate that Jehoiachin's property had not been confiscated, but that it was administered in his absence by his steward. Furthermore, several tablets found in the ruins of Babylon, dated in the year 592 B.C.-- five years after Jehoiachin's surrender--contain lists of food-stuff provided by the royal storehouse for certain persons who were fed by the king. Among them Jehoiachin is repeatedly mentioned as "king of Judah," together with five of his sons and their tutor Kenaiah. These facts--that Jehoiachin is called king, that he received 20 times as much ration as any other person mentioned in these records, and that any reference to his imprisonment is lacking--seem to indicate that he was held by Nebuchadnezzar for the time, in anticipation of the day when he should be restored to his throne, if and when conditions in Judah might make such a course of action advisable.

At a later time, either in connection with the incidents described in Jer. 29 or at the time of Zedekiah's rebellion, Jehoiachin was definitely imprisoned. This imprisonment continued until the 37th year of his captivity, when Nebuchadnezzar's son, Amel-Marduk, the Biblical Evil-merodach, released and exonerated him (2 Kings 25:27-30). This event, however, falls in the period of the Exile and is therefore not within the limits of this article.

Zedekiah (597-586 B.C.).--When Nebuchadnezzar put Jehoiachin's uncle on the throne of Judah, he changed his name from Mattaniah, "gift of Jehovah," to Zedekiah, "righteousness of Jehovah." He probably did this so that this name might be a continual reminder to the king of his solemn oath of loyalty to Nebuchadnezzar, by his own God Jehovah (2 Chron. 36:13; Eze. 17:15-19). Zedekiah, however, was a weak character; and although he was sometimes inclined to do right, he allowed himself to be swayed from the right path by popular demands, as the history of his reign clearly shows.

For a number of years--according to Josephus, for eight years (Antiquities x. 7. 3)--Zedekiah remained loyal to Babylonia. Once he sent an embassy to Nebuchadnezzar to assure him of his fidelity (Jer. 29:3-7). In his fourth year (594/593 B.C.) he made a journey to Babylon (Jer. 51:59), being perhaps summoned to renew his oath of loyalty or possibly to take part in the ceremonies described in Dan. 3. Later on, being under the constant pressure of his subjects, particularly the princes, who urged him to seek the aid of Egypt against Babylon, Zedekiah made an alliance with the Egyptians (see Jer. 37:6-10; 38:14-28). In doing so he completely disregarded the strong warnings of the prophet Jeremiah. This alliance was probably made after Psamtik II had personally appeared in Palestine 590 B.C. and given all kinds of assurances and promises of help.

Nebuchadnezzar, who had prudently refrained from attacking Egypt, was, nevertheless, not willing to lose any of his western possessions to Egypt. He therefore marched against Judah as soon as Zedekiah's perfidy became apparent. Taking all cities of the country, he practically repeated what Sennacherib had done a century earlier, systematically devastating the whole land. From this unhappy period come the famous Lachish Letters (see on Jer. 34:7) recently found in the excavations of that city. These letters, written in ink on broken bits of pottery, were sent by an officer in charge of an outpost between Azekah and Lachish to the commandant of the latter fortress. They vividly illustrate the deplorable conditions prevailing in the country at that time, and in many details corroborate statements made by Jeremiah, who lived in Jerusalem then.

The siege of Jerusalem began in earnest on Jan. 15, 588 B.C. (2 Kings 25:1), and lasted until July 19, 586 B.C. (2 Kings 25:2; Jer. 39:2), when the Chaldean army finally broke through the walls into the city, where unspeakable famine conditions prevailed. Once the 30-month-long siege was interrupted briefly by the unsuccessful attempt of the Egyptian army to defeat the Babylonians (Jer. 37:5). When the breakthrough came Zedekiah made an attempt to escape. In the confused fighting that followed the breakthrough he managed to leave the city and reach the plain of Jericho, but was overtaken there. Carried to Nebuchadnezzar's headquarters at Riblah, Zedekiah saw his sons killed; then his eyes were put out and he was sent to Babylon in chains. His chief ministers were executed and all others carried away (2 Kings 25:4-7, 19-21; Jer. 52:10).

Jerusalem was systematically looted and then destroyed. The walls were torn down, and the Temple, the palaces, and all other houses were burned to the ground. The fire may have raged for three days in the unhappy city--August 15-18, 586 B.C.--as the two dates of 2 Kings 25:82 and Jer. 52:12, 13, seem to indicate. Most of the Jews were carried as captives to Babylonia, but some of the poorest of the country were left behind. Nebuchadnezzar appointed over them as governor a Jew, Gedaliah, at Mizpah (2 Kings 25:22; 2 Chron. 36:20).

Gedaliah as Governor (586 B.C.).--Gedaliah seems to have served as governor for only a short time, although the lack of a year date in 2 Kings 25:25 leaves it uncertain how long after the fall of Jerusalem he was assassinated. Jeremiah, who had been a prisoner in Jerusalem at the fall of the city, was released by Nebuchadnezzar's army commander and joined Gedaliah at Mizpah. Also, several Jewish field commanders who had escaped from the debacle found their way to Mizpah. One of them, Ishmael, a relative of Zedekiah, a fanatical royalist, killed Gedaliah, his staff, and the Chaldean garrison of Mizpah, and tried to join the Ammonites, probably planning to continue the fight against Nebuchadnezzar with their help. This plan was thwarted by Johanan, another general of Zedekiah, who intercepted Ishmael and liberated his captives. Ishmael escaped with eight men to the Ammonites, but Johanan and the remnants of the army that were with him, fearing Nebuchadnezzar, went to Egypt and forced Jeremiah and Baruch to join them. Thus ends Judah's pre-exilic history.

Bibliography

For brief suggestive bibliographies on works dealing with ancient history and archeology, see Vol. I, pp. 131 and 148. The follwoing additional books, though not necessarily agreeing with the views set forth in this commentary, are useful, at least in part, for reference on phases of the period discussed in this article. Babylonian Chronicle. See entry under Wiseman.

Bright, John. A History of Israel. 2d ed. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1972. Written by a moderately conservative scholar; it varies on some points from the interpretation of history presented in this commentary, such as the Exodus date or the time sequence of Ezra's and Nehemiah's ministries.

The Cambridge Ancient History. Vols. I, II, 3d ed.; Vol. III, original ed. See entry on page 163.

Noth, Martin. The History of Israel. 2d ed.; New York: Harper and Row, 1960. 479 pp. Written by a liberal scholar, it differs in many respects from Bright's views and from those presented in this commentary, but is today the most widely used work on the history of Israel.

Olmstead, A. T. History of Assyria. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1923. 695 pp. This history is badly out of date, since much newly found material has added much to our knowledge of Assyrian history and especially its chronology, but no more recent book has yet replaced it in the English language._______. History of Palestine and Syria to the Macedonian Conquest. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1931. 664 pp. Reprint: Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1972. The book is of merit because its author describes the Hebrews as part of the ancient world and does not treat them as if they had lived in isolation. Yet, the author, a higher critic, has dealt very liberally with his Biblical source material.

Parker, Richard A., and Dubberstein, W. H. Babylonian Chronology, 626 B.C.-A.D. 75. Providence, R.I.: Brown University Press, 1956. 47 pp. This book reconstructs from source material the Babylonian chronological system, which was adopted by the Persians and Seleucids. Calendrical tables at the end make it easy to convert any Babylonian date into its b.c. equivalent with fairly high accuracy.

Smith, Sidney. Early History of Assyria to 1000 B.C. London: Chatto & Windus, 1928. 418 pp. A good survey, though its chronology is out of date, since new discoveries have altered the placement of many earlier kings. For 1500 B.C. and after--the period chiefly discussed in this article--Smith's presentation is acceptable.

Thiele, Edwin R. The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings. Rev. ed., Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1965. 232 pp. This work by a Seventh-day Adventist scholar deals with Hebrew chronology for the period of the kings of Judah and Israel, from Solomon's death to the fall of Jerusalem. It is significant chiefly for the chronological aspects of the history of the period.

Wiseman, D. J., ed. Chronicles of Chaldaean Kings (626-556 B.C.) in the British Museum. London: The Trustees of the British Museum, 1961. 99 pp., 21 pl. Text and translation of cuneiform tablets (first printed in 1956) adding hitherto unknown parts of the series of annalistic records that are called the Babylonian Chronicle (see Additional Note below; also p. 163). These texts are of utmost importance for a period of Neo-Babylonian history for which little historical source material was hitherto available--the early and late years of Nabopolassar and the first eleven years of Nebuchadnezzar.

additional note

The new portions of the Babylonian Chronicle (see entry under Wiseman, above) throw additional light on an important period of Biblical history, in which there are many synchronism between Biblical and Babylonian events. This has required in the present work a one-year shift (see p. 94) in some events and regnal dates, especially for Judah and Egypt. Other dates have been confirmed. For example, the year given in this commentary for Jehoiachin's capture, 597 B.C., is confirmed by the new evidence (which establishes the date as Adar 2, approximately March 16, 597 B.C.), thus settling a scholarly argument as to whether it was 598 or 597 B.C. On the other hand, the first printing of this volume dated the battle of Carchemish in 604 B.C.; it is now known to have occurred in the spring or early summer of 605 B.C. Further, these new tablets, by mentioning an Egyptian campaign in 609 and none in 608, confirm the date of 609 for the battle of Megiddo, instead of 608 as formerly held. Because of this and other later findings a number of minor changes have been made, particularly in this article. Jehoiakim's death date and the dates of the last reigns of Judah remain the same.

I. Origin of the Hebrew Calendar

Those who have Jewish neighbors know that they celebrate their New Year's Day, which they call Rosh Hashana, in the autumn. If we ask a rabbi the date of Rosh Hashana, he will explain that it is the first of the Jewish month Tishri, but that it falls on different dates in our September or October in successive years, since it comes approximately at the new moon. The reason for this is that the Jews have a lunar calendar, now modified in form but originally reckoned by the moon. In ancient times the appearance of the new crescent after sunset, following several moonless nights, marked the beginning of the first day of each new month. The rabbi may explain further that the New Year season lasts through Yom Kippur (the Day of Atonement), on the 10th of the month, the most solemn day of the whole year, when Jews attend special synagogue services.

If we consult the Bible on these points, we find that New Year's Day (called the Blowing of Trumpets) and the Day of Atonement are the 1st and 10th of the 7th month (Lev. 23:24-32), not of the 1st month; and that the Passover, which always comes in the spring, is in the 1st month (Lev. 23:5). We find the answer to this puzzling situation, and to other problems, by a study of the origin and nature of the Jewish calendar as set forth in the Bible and other ancient records.

The early Hebrew calendar as given in the Bible was admirably adapted to the needs of an ancient people who had no clocks, no printed calendars, and, as far as we know, no astronomy. It was based on simple principles--the day beginning with sunset, the week counted by sevens continuously, the month beginning with the crescent moon, the year regulated by the harvest season.

Of course such a calendar must be adjusted to keep the year in step with the seasons, but so also must our solar calendar, used in most of the world today. The difference is that our year is only about a fourth of a day less than the true year of the seasons, determined by the sun, whereas the common lunar year of 12 "moon" months is 10 or 11 days shorter than the true solar year. We adjust our solar-calendar year by letting the error run for 4 years, until a whole day is accumulated, which we add as the 29th of February. In the lunar calendar the larger error of 10 or 11 days is allowed to run until a month is accumulated; by adding a 13th month every 2 or 3 years (7 times in 19 years) this difference is compensated for.

The Israelites did not possess the advanced astronomical knowledge required for the development of the modern solar calendar with its leap-year adjustments, but God instituted at the Exodus a simple yet efficient method of keeping the calendar year from moving permanently out of step with the seasons of the natural year.

The Hebrews inherited the elements of the calendar from their Semitic ancestors, who from time immemorial had reckoned their months by the moon. To Abram, presumably, as to his Mesopotamian neighbors in Ur, each new month, and consequently the first day of the month, began with the evening of the visible crescent moon, and his descendants would have no reason to change the practice. Even when they were in Egypt there was no need of their abandoning their evening-to-evening day and their lunar month for the 365-day Egyptian solar calendar, for these bearded Semitic shepherds, who were an abomination to the Egyptians, lived apart in Goshen and followed their own customs.

Though they largely disregarded the Sabbath (PP 258) they undoubtedly preserved the knowledge of this weekly holy day and of the lunar month--for even a slave brickmaker can count seven days and can keep track of the return of the crescent. But it is quite possible that they became confused as to which new moon was to mark the beginning of the calendar year. If they had retained the method of adding a month periodically, as was done in Mesopotamia by the Babylonians and Assyrians, we have no record of it. Indeed, there is no mention of the practice in the Bible, although it is evident that the Mosaic calendar implies it.

Either because they had lost track of the year, or because God wished to cut them off from the heathen worship associated with the Canaanite year that began in the autumn, God definitely pointed out the spring month from which they were to reckon the year. Shortly before the Exodus He instructed Moses that "this month shall be unto you the beginning of months: it shall be the first month of the year to you" (Ex. 12:2). There was no systematic code of calendar rules, but the civil and ceremonial laws given through Moses contain incidental references to the elements of the calendar.

II. The Elements of the Hebrew Calendar

The Day From Evening to Evening.--The day began for the Hebrew in the evening, as we know from the rule that the 10th day of the 7th month was to begin on the evening of the 9th (Lev. 23:32), that is, when the sun set at the close of the 9th day. The fact that the day ended at sunset is shown in the directions for purification: One who was ceremonially unclean 7 days went through certain purifying ceremonies on the 7th and was clean again "at even" (Num. 19:16, 19); and one who was unclean until even was said to become clean "when the sun is down" (Lev. 22:6, 7). Obviously then, if the 7th day of a period ends at sunset, then all the days of the period must end at sunset.

The Week Marked Off by the Sabbath.--The week was divinely marked out, even before the giving of the law, by the double portion of manna on the 6th day and the withholding of it on the 7th (Ex. 16). It was the only element of the calendar enshrined in the Decalogue, for the Sabbath has a moral aspect that is not connected with mere dates and calendars. It is a sign of allegiance to the Creator, and it was revealed to Israel as part of the moral law, and as a symbol of sanctification (Ex. 31:13), not only of Gods power to create, but also of His power to re-create. Therefore the week is independent of all calendars. Its purpose is not to reckon dates. Indeed, it is incommensurate with any calendar month or year.

The Month Regulated by the Moon.--The two Hebrew words for "month" are (1) yerach, related to yareach, "moon," and (2) chodesh, literally "new one," referring to the "new moon," the "day of the new moon," and thus a lunar "month," from the root chadash, "to renew." Yareach is used infrequently, the common word being chodesh. The month in which the Israelites left Egypt was set as the first of the year. This was called Abib, the "month of ears" of grain. It was the spring month of the opening Palestinian harvest, later called Nisan, as it is known to the present day (see Ex. 23:15; 34:18; Deut. 16:1; Esther 3:7). This was evidently a lunar month to which the Hebrews were already accustomed, because nothing is said of instituting a new kind of month. If the change had been from a solar to a lunar type, some sort of instructions as to how to reckon the new month would have been necessary. The innovation was merely that "this month" was to be the first, as it had presumably not been before.

The first of the month was considered a special day, celebrated by the blowing of trumpets and by extra sacrifices (Num. 10:10; 28:11-14). New moons are frequently mentioned along with Sabbaths and festivals (2 Kings 4:23; Isa. 1:13, 14; 66:23, etc.).

That the month began with the new moon is shown by an incident in the time of David. After Saul had sought his life, David tested the king's attitude toward him by absenting himself from the royal table on a new moon feast. Saul said nothing on the new moon, but his wrath burst forth when David's place was empty again "on the morrow, which was the second day of the month" (1 Sam. 20:24-27). Obviously, then, the first day of the month, as would be expected in a lunar calendar, was the new moon (the visible crescent, not the astronomical new moon; the difference is explained on pp. 115, 116).

Pre-Exilic Names of the Months.--We have very little information about the Jewish months before the Babylonian Exile. There were 12 months (1 Kings 4:7), but we do not even know their names, except for the 1st month Abib (Ex. 13:4; 23:15; 34:18; Deut. 16:1), the 2d month Zif (1 Kings 6:1), the 7th month Ethanim (1 Kings 8:2), and the 8th month Bul (1 Kings 6:38). These were evidently Canaanite names; Phoenician inscriptions have been found that mention Ethanim and Bul. This is not surprising, since the Hebrew and Canaanite languages were closely related. More often the Bible refers to the months by number, previous to the Exile, rather than by name (Ex. 12:2; 16:1; 19:1; 1 Kings 12:32; Jer. 28:1; 39:2).

Length of the Month.--Nothing is said of the number of days in a month. In later times the lengths of the months and the intervals between the 13-month years were calculated by astronomical rules and fixed in a systematized calendar. But in the beginning the months must have been determined by the direct observation of the moon. Since the phases of the moon repeat themselves every 29 1/2 days, approximately, the crescent would reappear in the evening at the close of the 29th or 30th of the month. Ordinarily the months would alternate 30 and 29 days, but this was not always true. There are not only minor variations in the motion of the moon that affect the uniformity of the intervals, but also weather conditions that sometimes prevent the visibility of the crescent. We are told in later Jewish writings that it was the custom to look for the moon at the close of the 29th. If it was visible in the evening sky after sunset, the day then beginning was reckoned as the first of the new month; if it was not yet visible, or was obscured by clouds, that day was the 30th. The day following the 30th always began the new month, even if the moon was still obscured by clouds. Thus there could be two or even three 30-day months in succession, although this was not usual.

The Moslems of the present day count their months by the observed moon (except that they use the Gregorian calendar also in their contacts with the Western world), and thus in isolated districts the lunar date may be one day behind or ahead of the date in a neighboring village. But the Jews, living in a relatively small area, seem to have had a centralized system controlled by the priests at Jerusalem. There are traditional accounts of witnesses reporting the appearance of the crescent, and of fire signals heralding the beginning of the new month from hilltop to hilltop throughout the land, so that all Israel could begin the month together.

In later times, certainly in the revised form of the calendar instituted some centuries after the time of Christ, the 6 months from Nisan through Elul ran 30 and 29 days alternately, and any adjustments required by the moon's variation were made in the other part of the year, so as to leave the intervals between the festivals always the same. Such adjustments would not have been made while the beginning of each month still depended on the observation of the crescent. David's remark that "to morrow is the new moon" (1 Sam. 20:5) does not necessarily indicate that the months were fixed in advance by calculation. David could have estimated it from the preceding month without being more than one day off, and he may have been speaking on the 30th, which would necessarily be the last day of the month. We have no way of knowing when any system of regular calculation came in, but it was probably a late development. The dates on clay-tablet documents from Babylonia, written many centuries after David, show no fixed sequence of 30-day and 29-day months, and Babylonian computations made in advance for a specific month often left a days uncertainty.

Lunisolar Year.--The number of months in a year was not specifically mentioned in the Law (for a later period, see 1 Kings 4:7), though that was probably taken for granted from the beginning, for both Egypt and Mesopotamia had 12 months. The 13th lunar month was always one of the 12 doubled. But 12 lunar months end approximately 11 days earlier than a complete solar year reckoned from the same starting point. Hence it would have become evident very early that in a series of uncorrected lunar years (such as the Moslems use to this day), the calendar would move gradually earlier in relation to the seasonal year, at the rate of about 11 days annually. Eventually it would make a complete circuit of the seasons and count an extra year in about 33 solar years, or about 3 years extra in a century. The effect on chronology is obvious. But no known Semitic calendar of ancient times was allowed to run uncorrected. The adjustment was made in Babylonia by the periodic intercalation, or insertion, of an intercalary month every few years--that is, by repeating either the 6th or the 12th month--at first in a rather irregular fashion, later in a 19-year cycle.

Such a lunar calendar, of 12 and 13 months, adjusted in this manner to the solar year, is sometimes called a lunisolar year. It varies within a month in relation to exact dates in the solar calendar. That is why Easter, dated originally from the Passover, and still calculated by a lunar-calendar system, wanders over different dates in our calendar, within the range of about a month. Yet the lunisolar calendar, such as that of the Mesopotamians and the Jews, was nearer correct in a long series of years than the Egyptian solar calendar, which was reckoned as 365 days continuously without a leap year (see Vol. I, p. 176). It is true that a single Egyptian year of 365 days was nearer the true year than a Jewish or Babylonian year of 354 or perhaps 384 days, but the Egyptian calendar never corrected its smaller error, and therefore wandered off a day every 4 years, and accumulated this difference. On the other hand, the lunisolar calendar, with a larger variation each year, periodically corrected itself, so that a given number of Jewish years equaled the number of true solar years in the same period. There could never be an extra Hebrew year in 33 seasonal years, for every Jewish year had a Passover, held in connection with a harvest, and there can be only 33 harvest seasons in 33 years.

The Year Regulated by the Festivals.--The Hebrews needed no astronomical cycles to correct their calendar year so long as they kept the Passover as it was prescribed in the Law. Since God wished to give the Israelites a system of annual festivals to teach religious lessons in connection with seasonal events, He provided for a calendar system that would enable them to know in advance the regular times for these gatherings and to observe these feasts at the proper season. This lunar system, similar to that long used in Mesopotamia, was easy enough to follow by observing the moon. Even the needed periodical correction could be determined in a simple fashion. Upon leaving Egypt, the Israelites had not accumulated a body of astronomical knowledge on which to base a dating system, and God did not give Moses elaborate technical instructions for regulating the calendar. He indicated the "month of ears" as the first month (Abib, or Nisan), and from it the simple directions for the spring festivals provided a rule for an accurate calendar.

The clue to the correction of the lunar year to harmonize with the seasonal year was to be found in the rules that linked the Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread with Abib, the "month of ears" (Deut. 16:1; Ex. 23:15; 34:18), and with the opening of the harvest. A sheaf of ripe grain was to be offered as first fruits during the Feast of Unleavened Bread (Lev. 23:10-14), after which the new crop of barley could be eaten. Thus the middle of Abib must not be too early for the beginning of barley harvest, the earliest grain that ripened in Palestine. And further, it must not be too late for the Feast of Weeks to come during the wheat harvest, seven weeks later, for the latter feast was called "the firstfruits of wheat harvest" (Ex. 34:22; cf. Lev. 23:15-17; Deut. 16:9, 10). Less specific are the references to the time of the Feast of Ingathering (or Tabernacles), in the 7th month as coming at the end of the harvest after the vintage (see Ex. 23:16; Lev. 23:34, 39). But the emphasis is unmistakably placed on the exact timing of the month of Abib in the spring, the month from which all the others are numbered.

The Barley Harvest the Key.--In order to keep Abib in alignment with the barley harvest, it was occasionally necessary to insert a 13th month, as often as the error had accumulated (during two or three years) sufficiently to move the 1st month too early for the grain to be ripe at the Passover season. A hypothetical example will illustrate this. The Israelites crossed the Jordan and observed their first Passover in Canaan in the time of harvest (Joshua 4:19; 5:10-12). The next year the feast would have shifted about 11 days earlier in relation to ripening time, and by the third year about 22 days earlier. By the third (certainly by the fourth) year Abib 16 would have moved out of range of the barley harvest, so that a sheaf of ripe grain could not be offered. Thus in that year the month that would have begun the new year would be a 13th month instead, later called Veadar (Heb. wa'adar, literally, "and-Adar"), a second Adar; then the following new moon would begin Nisan late enough for ripe barley on the 16th. There is no proof of the use of the 13th month as early as Joshua's day, but something like that must have happened if the Israelites followed the wave-sheaf rule literally.

Later Jewish tradition tells us that the priests responsible for the decision examined the crop in the 12th month, and that whenever it appeared that the barley would not be ripe by the 16th of the following month, they announced that the next month would be called Veadar, and that the month after this second Adar would be Nisan, the 1st month.

Many authorities hold that throughout the Biblical period the Jewish month was based on direct observation of the moon, and that the insertion of the second Adar was determined by the Judean barley harvest. Others find evidence in the postexilic period for the method of arbitrary calculation, such as a regular scheme of 30-day and 29-day months, and the 19-year cycle. Whenever computation was introduced it was probably checked and regulated by observation for a long time afterward.

Thus the years instituted at the Exodus began with Abib, or Nisan, which was evidently to be kept in step with the barley harvest by the insertion of a 13th month every two or three years (see table, p. 108).

III. The Religious Festivals

Passover.--The series of religious festivals (see on Lev. 23) at the basis of the Jewish calendar began in the first month with the Passover (see on Ex. 12:1-11; Lev. 23:5; Deut. 16:1-7). On the 10th of the month a lamb was selected for each family or group, and penned up until its slaughter on the 14th. Preceding the 14th all traces of leaven were removed from the houses, preparatory to the Feast of Unleavened Bread. Then on the afternoon of the 14th, literally, "between the two evenings" (Deut. 16:6), the Passover lambs were slain. With the establishment of the Temple all sacrifices, including the Passover lamb, were required to be offered there (Deut. 16:5, 6). Every male Jew over 12 years of age was required to attend, and many women and children came voluntarily. Thousands of pilgrims gathered at Jerusalem annually for the Passover and the seven-day Feast of Unleavened Bread that followed. (The term "Passover" was often used of the whole period.) See also Vol. I, pp. 705, 709.

Feast of Unleavened Bread.--The 15th of the 1st month was the first of the 7 days of unleavened bread (Ex. 23:15; 34:18; Lev. 23:6-14; Deut. 16:3-8), sometimes called the first day of the Passover (Eze. 45:21). It was a festival sabbath, on which no work was to be done (Lev. 23:6, 7; for the term "sabbath," cf. vs. 24, 32). This was not a weekly Sabbath, falling on the 7th day of the week; rather, it fell on a fixed day of the month, the 15th of Nisan, and consequently on a different day of the week each year. It was the first of seven ceremonial sabbaths connected with the annual round of festivals (see italic dates in the table on p. 108), which were distinctly specified to be "beside the sabbaths of the Lord" (Lev. 23:38). These rest days were part of the ceremonial law; hence, unlike the 7th-day memorial of creation, were "a shadow of things to come" (Col. 2:17), types to be fulfilled in Christ.

On "the morrow after the sabbath"--the festival sabbath after the Passover--that is, the 16th of Nisan, came the ceremony of the wave sheaf, the first fruits of the barley crop. Until this ceremony was performed it was unlawful to eat of the new grain. The Feast of Unleavened Bread ended on the 21st with another festival sabbath (Lev. 23:8; see also Vol. I, p. 709).

Pentecost, or the Feast of Weeks.--Seven weeks from the day of the wave sheaf, early in the 3d month (later called Sivan), came the Feast of Weeks, celebrating the wheat harvest by the presentation of loaves in the Temple (see Lev. 23:15-21; Deut. 16:9-12). This was later called Pentecost, because it came 50 days (inclusive) after the offering of the wave sheaf (Lev. 23:16). This was another ceremonial sabbath, and a feast that required the attendance of every male Hebrew (Deut. 16:16). It is generally reckoned as occurring on the 6th day of the 3d month (Sivan), for that was the 50th day (inclusive) from Nisan 16 whenever the first 2 months had 30 and 29 days respectively, as was probably most often the case, and always the case after the number of days in each month became fixed. See also Vol. I, p. 709, and on Ex. 23:16; Lev. 23:16.

Blowing of Trumpets: the New Year (Modern Rosh Hashana).--Six months after the Passover the series of autumn festivals began with the Blowing of Trumpets on the 1st of the 7th month (Tishri). The day, later called Rosh Hashana, the "beginning of the year," was a festival sabbath (Lev. 23:24, 25; Num. 29:1). It celebrated the beginning of the civil year. This New Year's Day was marked not only by the blowing of the trumpets but also by special sacrifices, almost double in number compared with the regular new-moon sacrifices (Num. 29:1-6; cf. ch. 28:11-15; see also on Ex. 23:16; Num. 29:1).

Yet the months always continued to be numbered from Nisan, in accordance with the command of God at the Exodus, for the alignment of the year with the seasons depended on the Nisan new moon as located in relation to the barley harvest. But the civil and agricultural year, and the sabbatical and jubilee years as well (see p. 111), began by the older reckoning, with Tishri, the 7th month.

If it seems strange that the year should be in any way considered as beginning with the 7th month, it should be remembered that in modern times we have the custom of beginning a fiscal year in some other month than January--often with July, our 7th month, and we date such a year as opening, for example, on "7/1/1954." So the Jews to this day celebrate their New Year's Day on Tishri 1, at the beginning of the 7th month. See also Vol. I, p. 709.

Day of Atonement.--The 10th day of the 7th month, the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur), was and still is the most solemn day of the year. It was not only a ceremonial sabbath but also a strict fast day (Lev. 23:27-32). According to the Babylonian Talmud, Tishri 1 (New Year's Day) symbolizes the judgment:

"Mishnah. At four seasons [Divine] judgment is passed on the world: at Passover in respect of produce; at Pentecost in respect of fruit; at New Year all creatures pass before him [God] like children of Maron. ...

"Gemara. ... It has been taught: ½All are judged on New Year and their doom is sealed on the Day of Atonement. ...'

"R. Kruspedai said in the name of R. Johanan: Three books are opened [in heaven] on New Year, one for the thoroughly wicked, one for the thoroughly righteous, and one for the intermediate. The thoroughly righteous are forthwith inscribed definitively in the book of life; the thoroughly wicked are forthwith inscribed definitively in the book of death; the doom of the intermediate is suspended from New Year till the Day of Atonement; if they deserve well, they are inscribed in the book of life; if they do not deserve well, they are inscribed in the book of death" (The Babylonian Talmud, Soncion English translation, tractate Rosh Hashanah, 16a, pp. 57, 58; brackets in the original.)

The Jews still regard the first ten days of the year, ending with the Day of Atonement, as somewhat a continuation of the New Year observance, an extra period of grace in which the sins of the preceding year can still be forgiven, a sort of extension of the deadline for closing one's account with heaven. Even in our time the Day of Atonement is considered the day of judgment, since it offers the final opportunity for repentance. In the ancient ceremony of the 10th day, the sanctuary was cleansed of all the sins of the preceding year, which were thus symbolically removed forever from the congregation (Lev. 16), and on this days the last opportunity was given for repentance. Anyone who was not right with God on that day was cut off forever (see also Vol. I, pp. 705, 710, and on Ex. 30:10; Lev. 16; 23:27, 29).

On the Day of Atonement the trumpets blew to usher in the 50th year, or the jubilee (Lev. 25:9, 10), and presumably the sabbatical years also (see p. 111).

Feast of Ingathering, or Tabernacles.--Then came the joyous Feast of Ingathering, or Tabernacles, celebrating the completion of the agricultural cycle with the vintage and olive harvest. During this festival the people lived in "tabernacles," or booths, of green branches in commemoration if their earlier wanderings as nomadic tent dwellers (Lev. 23:34-43, Deut. 16:13-15). This feast began with a ceremonial sabbath on the 15th of Tishri, and lasted 7 days; it was followed by another such sabbath, a "holy convocation," on the 22d (it might be called the octave of Tabernacles). The Feast of Ingathering was the third of the annual feasts at which all the males of Israel were required to gather at Jerusalem (see Ex. 23:16, 17; Ex. 34:22, 23).

The tabulation on the next page gives for each month the time of its beginning, the dates of the feasts, and the principal seasonal events. For example, the first month, Abib (postexilic Nisan), begins at the new moon of March or April; on the 1st, 10th, 14th, etc., of that lunar month, respectively, occur the new moon, the selection of the lamb, the Passover, etc. and that month marks, approximately, the season of the latter rains, the barley harvest, etc.

Hebrew Months, Festivals, and Seasons

* ^* The first day of Abib always came in our March or April, and coincided with the new moon. Similarly, the month of Zif began in April or May. The other months of the Hebrew calendar follow the same pattern.

† ^† Annual ceremonial sabbaths (cf. Col. 2:16, 17) in italics.

IV. Year Reckonings

Spring and Autumn Beginnings of the Year.--The Canaanite calendar begin in the autumn, as did the Jewish civil year; therefore we may assume either that the patriarchs used it while in Canaan, before Jacob and his family went to Egypt, or that the Israelites adopted it from their neighbors after the Exodus. The first alternative seems more likely, since Moses himself refers to an autumn reckoning in the book of Exodus, as will be seen. The Hebrews combined the numbering of the months from the spring, as instituted at the Exodus, with the year beginning in the fall, and thus had a double reckoning, the "sacred" year beginning with the first month and the civil year beginning with the 7th month.

Josephus says that the ancient reckoning was from the fall, but "Moses, however, appointed Nisan, that is to say Xanthicus [the corresponding Macedonian month name], as the first month for the festivals, because it was in this month that he brought the Hebrews out of Egypt; he also reckoned this month as the selling and buying and other ordinary affairs he preserved the ancient order" (Antiquities i 3. 3. Loeb ed.).

"The End of the Year" in the Autumn.--Even in the book of Exodus, which designates the spring month of Abib as the first month of the ("sacred") year, there are evidences for the beginning of the older and more familiar year in the autumn. These are references to its "end" in that season. The difference, however, is not great, since any year begins at the same point at which the preceding one ends. The Feast of Ingathering, or Tabernacles, in the 7th month (Tishri) is said to come "at the year's end" (Ex. 34:22). Again it is referred to as "the feast of ingathering, which is in the end of the year, when thou hast gathered in thy labours out of the field" (Ex. 23:16). Since it celebrated the bounties of the agricultural year that had just closed, it was identified as coming near the end of the year, although it actually began 15 days after the end, in the early days of the civil year that began on Tishri 1.

Agricultural Year.--In Palestine and neighboring lands the agricultural year has always begun in the autumn. After the spring grass has been parched and the soil baked by the long, rainless summer, the autumn rains moisten the soil for planting. This is the early rain, beginning perhaps in October and increasing in November. The wet season lasts through the winter ending with the "latter rain" of spring, which matures the grain (see Deut. 11:14; Jer. 5:24; Hosea 6:3; Joel 2:23). The barley harvest in Palestine begins in the middle or end of April, and that of wheat comes in the next month, followed by summer fruits, then grapes and olives in the late summer and fall. Note that from April/May to October there is dry weather for the successive harvests, as is shown by the following tabulation from Ellsworth Huntington, Palestine and its Transformation (London: Constable and Company, Ltd., 1911), page 34.

The minute fractions of an inch listed between May and October show that the scant showers thus represented by these averages come so infrequently that these months may be considered actually dry.

Average Rainfall at Jerusalem, in Inches

The only actual calendar document that comes from the pre-exilic period of Israel is a stone plaque from the century in which Solomon lived. It was found in Gezer, a city that the king of Egypt took from the Canaanites and presented to his daughter, Solomon's wife. Written on this bit of limestone is a summary of an agricultural calendar, beginning in the fall. This "Gezer calendar" does not give month names, but lists the main activities of the farmer's year month by m

Civil Year Reckoned From Tishri.--Since the whole seasonal cycle of nature was regarded as beginning anew in the autumn with the return of the life giving rains, the basic idea of the new year seems to have centered in the fall. This made it inevitable that the civil year was thought of as beginning with Tishri, even though the months were always numbered from Nisan. The significance of Nisan stems from the fact that the whole alignment of the calendar year with the seasons was determined by the placing of the first month at the time of the barley harvest. It was logical to number as first, the month that followed the inserted 13th month, for in that way the sequence of numbers would never be interrupted. But the emphasis given the 1st of Tishri as the principal beginning of the year is evidenced by the blowing of trumpets, by the special sacrifices, surpassing those of Nisan 1, and by the connection of that day with the day of judgment.

Regnal Years of Kings Reckoned From the Fall.--In the time of the Hebrew kings the customary method of designating the years for dating purposes was to number them in series through each king's reign. The formula for a date line was: "on the ---- of the ---- month of the ---- year of King ----." There is evidence that these regnal years were reckoned from the autumn, presumably Tishri 1, in the united Hebrew kingdom (in the reign of Solomon), and afterward in the southern kingdom of Judah, in the time of Josiah; on the other hand, the spring year appears to have been employed in the northern kingdom of Israel (see pp. 134, 146). The usage of Israel is not indicated directly in the Bible narrative, but it seems to be a reasonable deduction from the synchronism between the successive reigns of the two kingdoms as recorded in the books of Kings.

Immediately after the captivity, there is rather inconclusive evidence for a spring reckoning of regnal years after the Babylonian fashion, but in the time of the re-establishment of the Jewish commonwealth and the revival of a national spirit under Ezra and Nehemiah, we find direct evidence of the autumn beginning of the regnal year (see article on chronology in Vol. III). The regnal years used in dating were reckoned as they had been under the kingdom of Judah, but in the name of the Persian kings, whose subjects the Jews now were For an explanation of the differing methods of numbering calendar years by the reigns of kings, see pp. 138, 139.

Sabbatical and Jubilee Years.--One of the distinctive features of the Hebrew laws was the provision for letting the land rest, that is, lie fallow, every 7th year. Just as the 7th day was the weekly Sabbath for man, the 7th year, at the end of a "week" of years, was a sabbath of rest to the land, when there was to be no sowing or reaping (Lev. 25:2-7, 20-22). The 7th year was also the "year of release," for the remission of debts (Deut. 15:1-15). Then, after 7 "weeks" of years, the 50th year was the jubilee, when not only were all Israelite slaves to be released, but all lands sold during the period (with certain exceptions) were to revert to the original owners of their heirs (Lev. 25:8-17, 23-34, 47-55). The purpose of this was to keep the family inheritances intact, so that the rich could never buy up the land and leave a landless class. Authorities differ as to whether the 50th year was added to the and leave a landless class. Authorities differ as to whether the 50th year was added to the 50th year was added to the 49, or whether it was, by inclusive count, also the 1st year of the next cycle.

The 50th year was specifically mentioned as beginning in the autumn. The 7th year, though not so specified, was obviously similar, not only because it was in the same series as the 50th, but because a year in which there was no sowing or reaping must necessarily coincide with the agricultural year. The trumpets were blown to announce the jubilee on the Day of Atonement, the 10th of the 7th month (Lev. 25:9). Since there is no logical connection between the jubilee year and the Day of Atonement ritual, it is probable that the later rabbis were right in saying that these years coincided with the civil calendar year, beginning on the 1st of Tishri. The provisions of the jubilee, involving the restoration of property and slaves, went into operation at the end of the 10th of Tishri instead of the 1st, because the first 10 days of the year were given over to New Year observances. That is, the jubilee began when the regular business of the civil year opened, on the day that began with the evening at the close of the Day of Atonement, the 10th of Tishri.

Varying Lengths of the Lunar Years.-It is to be noted that in all these various methods of reckoning years the basic unit of measure was evidently the lunar-calendar year of 12 months, corrected periodically to the solar or seasonal year by the 13th month. The common year of 12 months consisted of 354 days, but the adjustment to the moon sometimes required a 355-day year; and the periodic correction to the solar year required the addition of another month, and the lengthening of certain years to 383 or 384 days. This correction, if consistently applied as indicated by the barley harvest, never allowed the year to shift more than a month from its seasonal alignment. For this reason the number of Jewish calendar years over a long period, as has been pointed out (p. 104) always equaled the number of seasonal or solar years.

The 360-Day Year Not Literal but Symbolic.--It should be explained, for it is subject to misunderstanding, that the Bible gives no evidence whatever that the 360-day prophetic year of twelve 30-day months has anything to do with the Hebrew calendar year. There are a few ancient traditions that the year earlier contained 360 days. It is not clear whether these are a mere reflection of the Egyptian solar year, disregarding the 5 extra days at the end, or whether they refer to a genuine 360-day year, which would have remained perennially out of step with both the moon and the seasons. But there are no solid facts on which to base such a method of reckoning, and certainly nothing to connect it with the Hebrews, who began the month with the crescent moon (see p. 102).

The mention of a 150--day period during the Flood, which seems to be equated with 5 months, does not necessarily mean that the antediluvian calendar known to Noah had uniform months of 30 days each. The period has been interpreted also as indicating an unusual lunar year or a 365-day solar year (see Vol. I, p. 183). Whatever it was, it has no bearing on the lunar calendar used long afterward by the Hebrews. It is impossible to harmonize a 360-day year of 30-day months with months measured by the moon. In the very nature of the case a prophetic month or year, where the year-day principle is involved, must contain a fixed number of symbolic days if the length of the period is to be certainly known. Such a prophetic period cannot be based on a lunar calendar, whose months and years are variable. A reckoning by theoretical months of 30 days each would be understandable, and quite logical, for the idea that a month ought to have 30 days was implied in the later Jewish expressions used of the two types of months; a 30-day month was a "full" month, and a 29-day month was "hollow," or deficient. It is possible, though there is no evidence, that the Hebrews used a theoretical 30-day month for business purposes, as did the Babylonians. Even today we compute interest by a month of 30 days, although everyone knows that the months are not uniformly 30 days in length.

The lengths of the prophetic month and year are not directly given in the Bible, but can be derived from several prophetic periods that are obviously equivalent. Since in these prophecies 3 1/2 "times" are 1260 days (Rev. 12:6, 14), and 42 months are 1260 days (Rev. 11:2, 3), they must be equal. Since 42 months are 3 1/2 years, then 3 1/2 times must be 3 1/2 years. Further, since 3 1/2 years and 42 months are each equivalent to 1260 days, one year of this type is obviously 360 days, and one month 30 days (for the prophetic interpretation of the 360-day year, see on Dan. 7:25). A century and a half ago many writers on the prophecies thought that the 360-day prophetic year was the Jewish calendar year, but they did not understand the nature of the lunar calendar used by the Hebrews. Such outmoded authorities should not be quoted; the prophetic month and year can be based on the Bible itself.

V. New Calendar Problems After the Exile.

The Jews and the Babylonian Calendar.-When the Jews returned to Palestine after the Babylonian exile, they brought with them the Babylonian month names in modified form. For example, Abib became Nisan, from Nisanu, the first month of the Babylonian year. Some authorities think that until after the Exile the Hebrews did not insert a second Adar--a 13th month--to correct the calendar. But the Passover had to be synchronized with the barley harvest; therefore the Jews, from earliest times, must have had a 13th month or its equivalent. It is clear that the Israelites were not faithful in observing the Levitical law, but there is no reason to suppose that they never observed the Passover throughout the centuries.

Some think that the returning Hebrew exiles adopted the Babylonian calendar outright, including their 19-year cycle, and their exact system of inserting extra months. There is documentary evidence that the Jews after the captivity used the equivalent of the 19-year cycle, that is, the insertion of 7 extra months in 19 years, but there is no proof that they adopted the Babylonian custom of inserting a second Elul (the 6th month) at times instead of a second Adar. Jewish authorities have always held that only the second Adar was used, and other authorities agree that in this they differed from the Babylonians. The reason for this was probably the fact that doubling the 6th month, Elul, instead of the 12th, Adar, would introduce an irregular interval between the spring and fall festivals, and thus cause confusion in attending the autumn feasts.

The Bible gives no direct evidence on the question, but the command to keep the Passover in the 1st month, the "month of ears," and to observe three feasts in the 7th month, strongly implies that the autumn feasts were intended to come 6 months after the month of ears, and therefore that there was no irregularity in the interval from Nisan through Tishri.

In fact, a second Elul would have no significance in the Hebrew calendar, for the necessity for inserting the 13th month arose only from the requirement of keeping Nisan in line with the barley harvest. This could best be accomplished by adding a second Adar, just preceding Nisan. Placing the extra month 6 months earlier--if indeed the need for it could be predicted that far ahead--would have been of no advantage, and would have involved the disadvantage of interrupting the normal sequence of the festival months.

The Nineteen-Year Cycle.--The adoption of a 19-year cycle would have been very helpful in fixing in advance the time of the Passover. As long as the insertion of the 13th month could not be announced until the barley crop was examined in Adar, the month of the Passover could not always be known far enough ahead to avoid inconvenience to those who had to make their plans to attend. But a 19-year cycle would have enabled them to space 7 extra months in every 19 years in a regular sequence of 2-year and 3-year intervals, and to keep the Passover date within the known season of ripening barley. The calendar would be regulated systematically and the 13-month years, recurring at predetermined intervals in each cycle, would always be known in advance.

This 19-year cycle can be explained as an expression of the relationship between solar and lunar years; namely, that 235 lunar months almost exactly (within an hour or two) equal 19 solar years. But 19 lunar years of 12 months each would total not 235 but 228 months; therefore if an extra lunar month is inserted 7 times in every 19 years, the 19th lunar and solar years will end together. If, for example, the spring equinox fell on Nisan 1 in any given year, it would come on Nisan 1 again 19 years later.

The Babylonians developed such a cycle experimentally. By the early 4th century b.c. they inserted the extra month always in the same years of each 19-year cycle: a second Addaru (Adar) in what we call the 3d, 6th, 8th, 11th, 14th, and 19th years, and a second Ululu (Elul) in the 17th. (It is known which years had 13 months but not which years the Babylonians called the "year 1" of each cycle; hence these numerals are arbitrary.) The Jews, however, seem never to have employed a second Elul, but only the second Adar. The question of when the Jews adopted the 19-year cycle is not settled. Since that cycle was known in Babylonia along before the Christian Era, and many Jews lived there from the 6th century b.c., it would seem hardly probable that the Jewish rabbis who were in charge of the calendar would remain ignorant of the principles of calendrical calculation until the fixed calendar was introduced, long after Christ's day. It is probable that such principles were known long before the traditional methods were abandoned. Up to the time of the destruction of the Temple, the barley harvest was the major factor, but after that, and especially after the Jews were driven away from Jerusalem, it was less relevant to the problem that the convenience of uniform calculation in widely scattered areas.

Although the Bible nowhere hints of any 19-year cycle, the barley harvest rule would automatically result in an average of 7 extra months in every 19 years. Thus the laws of the festivals, without specifying any calendrical rules as such, served to regulate the Palestinian calendar naturally and simply.

Calculation of the Months Versus Observation.--The question of the 13th month arose only once in two or three years, but the question of the beginning of the month was ever present. Especially after the captivity, when the majority of Jews remained in Babylonia, it was a very real problem to keep all the faithful observing the new moons and festivals together. The mere difference in the dating of documents was a minor matter, but the prospect of some Jews profaning sacred days while others were observing them was abhorrent to the pious.

The sanctity of the Temple and the prestige of the priesthood kept the Babylonian Jews looking toward Palestine for authority in this matter. Thus the postexilic calendar, even as followed by those Jews who remained for centuries in Babylonia, was regulated in Jerusalem. The first day of the month--at least after each 29-day month--was announced by fire signals repeated from mountaintop to mountaintop to the outlying districts of Palestine, and even on to Babylonia. Eventually, however, false beacons, lighted a day early by the Samaritans, misled the distant Jews into beginning a new month after 29 days when the outgoing month should have had 30 days. Consequently the fire signals were replaced by messages sent by runners.

In Egypt, where fire signals could not be used, and afterward in all countries outside Palestine, the Jews came to observe new moons and festivals on two successive days, in order to be sure of having the right day. Even a month that followed a 29-day month could not be assumed to have 30 days; this doubt as to the first of the new month led to the observance of both the 30th and the day following. This custom was well known in Rome. Horace referred in his Satires (i. 9. 67-70) to the Jewish "tricesima sabbata," or "30th-day sabbath":

"Horace: ½Certainly I do not know why you wish to speak secretly with me,

you were saying.'

"Fuscus: ½I remember well, but in a better time let me speak: today is tricesima

sabbata: do you wish to offend the circumcised Jews?'"

After the lengths of the months became a matter of calculation, they could be known in advance without depending on direct observation. Unfortunately we do not know when the change was made from observation to a regular sequence of 30-day and 29-day months. We have considerable direct evidence of postexilic calendar practice from dated Jewish documents found in Egypt, but the evidence from these sources has given rise to differences of opinion on the question of calculation versus observation.

It is likely that the calendar officials employed methods of calculation while still retaining the practice of summoning witnesses to report the appearance of the crescent every month, or at least for the month of Nisan. Such traditional procedures would naturally be retained long after they had become unnecessary.

During the period when the month depended on the observation of the crescent, or on confirmation by witnesses, there was uncertainty in distant places as to the correct day of the month, for, on account of certain variable factors, the actual appearance of the crescent could not be predicted. The failure to see a crescent on the evening after the 29th of the month might mean that the month should have 30 days, but it might also mean that atmospheric conditions unfavorable to visibility might delay its being seen in some places later than in Jerusalem. And the difference in longitude between Palestine and Babylonia could sometimes mean that the crescent became visible in Jerusalem after it had already set for Babylonia (see next section). These elements of uncertainty operated even after the astronomical new moon, called "the moon in conjunction," could be computed.

The Moon and the Observed Lunar Month.--The interval between the astronomical new moon and the visible new moon (or crescent), with which the ancient Semites began each month of their observed lunar calendar, is variable. As the earth moves in one year round the sun, the moon circles the earth 12 times and a fraction. During each revolution of the moon (which marks a lunar month), that body passes between the earth and the sun, and also passes the point on the opposite side of the earth from the sun. When we see it opposite the sun, with its face completely illuminated by sunlight, we say that the moon is "full." When it passes between us and the sun, we do not see it at all because the side toward us is unlighted. When it emerges from between the earth and the sun and becomes visible to us in crescent form--that is, we see the edge of its lighted portion--we say that it is "new."

In order to understand this better, let us visualize an imaginary line connecting the center of the earth and the center of the sun. As the moon circles our globe its path lies in a variable plane tilted at an angle in relation to that of the earth; therefore it is sometimes above and sometimes below the plane of the earth's orbit as each month it passes between us and the sun and crosses the earth-sun line. If, as happens occasionally, the moon intersects this line, so that its shadow falls directly on our globe, observers within that shadow see its black disk darkening part or all of the sun in a solar eclipse. Most of the time, when it crosses above or below the imaginary line, it does not obscure the sun, but remains invisible, and therefore the exact time of the crossing (which astronomers call conjunction) cannot be observed. The time of conjunction (the astronomical new moon) is given in almanacs and on some calendars, where it is symbolized by a solid black disk.

But it is not often that the crescent becomes visible in the evening sky on the day marked "New Moon" in the almanac. When the moon passes conjunction during the day, it is too nearly in line with the sun to be seen that evening after sunset. Only after an interval--averaging about a day and a half--does it move far enough past the sun to bring its lighted side toward the earth sufficiently to appear as a crescent. When the crescent becomes visible, it may be seen on one part of the earth just after sunset, but observers on other parts of the globe farther east, for whom the moon will have already set, cannot see the crescent until the next evening. That is why the lunar month, starting with the observation of the crescent, could sometimes begin a day earlier in Egypt or Jerusalem, for example, than it would in Babylon.

The interval between conjunction and the visible crescent varies not only with the hour of conjunction and the locality, but also with the speed and angle of the moon's course, which are variable. When it is slower, the moon takes longer--perhaps two or three days--to move far enough from the sun to be seen. Further, atmospheric conditions affect visibility, and in certain seasons the crescent may be entirely obscured by clouds on the first evening, and so a 29-day lunar month might be given 30 days and the new month delayed one day.

The Postexilic Month Names.--After the return from Exile, the Babylonian month names were adopted, in slightly changed spelling, as has been mentioned. As for the beginning of the year, both fall and spring reckoning seem to be used in the postexilic books of the Bible. It is to be kept in mind that regardless of whether the year is reckoned from the autumn or from the spring, Nisan is always numbered as the 1st month, Tishri the 7th, and Adar the 12th. Thus the civil year begins with the 7th month and ends with the 6th. This alignment of the months, and the approximate equivalents in our calendar, is made clear by the following tabulation:

The Jewish Calendar

(With postexilic month names derived from Babylonia)

^* Month names not mentioned in the Bible.

^† In leap years a second Adar follows Adar, preceding Nisan.

The Postexilic Year in the Bible.--Ezekiel does not make it clear whether the years of his era, beginning with the exile of Jehoiachin, were reckoned from Nisan or from Tishri, or were counted by anniversaries from the date of the king's captivity. But if Ezekiel, as is generally held, reckoned the year from the spring, he may have done so because he lived in Babylonia and used the official Babylonian calendar, which began the year with Nisanu (Nisan). Thus his usage would have no bearing on Jewish calendar practice. Haggai, and presumably his contemporary and colleague, Zechariah (although the latter is inconclusive), are generally believed to have used the spring year, for if the events of Haggai 1:1 and 2:1, 10 are related in chronological order, the 7th and 9th months followed the 6th month in the 2d year of Darius, as could not have occurred if the 7th month had begun a new year. The book of Esther, which identifies Nisan as the 1st month, Sivan as the 3d, and Adar as the 12th, sheds no light on how the Jews reckoned the beginning of the year, since the dates in this book are given in connection with official acts of leaders in the Persian government. These events would presumably be dated in the Babylonian calendar, which the Persian rulers adopted from the time that Cyrus conquered Babylonia.

In the time of Ezra and Nehemiah (Ezra-Nehemiah was originally one book), there is proof that the returned Jews counted the years of the king from the fall, presumably by the civil year beginning with Tishri (see article on chronology in Vol. III). Nehemiah mentions Chisleu (Kislev, the 9th month) as preceding Nisan (the 1st month) in the 20th year of Artaxerxes (Neh. 1:1; 2:1). Evidently he was thinking in terms of the old regnal year of Judah and reckoning from the 7th month, Tishri, rather than the Persian new year in Nisan. Although the events mentioned in these two months occurred in the Persian king's palace, the book was not written until after Nehemiah had gone to Jerusalem and engaged in the rebuilding of the Jewish community there. In such a situation--under the restoration of a Jewish administration at the ancient capital of Judah--it was natural that there should be a resurgence of patriotism, and a return to the old calendar and regnal year of Judah. Further, a document from a Jewish colony in Egypt, written in the same century with Ezra and Nehemiah, shows that these Jews in Egypt also used a Jewish calendar year beginning in the fall.

VI. Archeology and the Postexilic Calendar

Jewish Documents From Egypt.--This last-mentioned document is one of over 100, written in Aramaic on papyrus, that have been found been found on the island of Elephantine in the Nile River, in the ruins of a border garrison town settled by Jewish mercenaries and their families. These Aramaic papyri from Elephantine (sometimes inaccurately referred to as the Assuan Papyri) form one of the most interesting collections of ancient documents. They are wills, deeds, contracts, letters, and other documents, coming from the 5th century b.c., the century of Ezra and Nehemiah. In these papers we find not only references to the public and private affairs of the local Jews but also mention of such intriguing items as the Jews in Palestine, the Passover, an official mentioned in the Bible, and a Jewish temple on Elephantine built by the colonists. These papyri, some of which were found still rolled up and sealed, show us the exact form of the language used by the Jews after the Exile--Aramaic, a language closely akin to Hebrew, used internationally in Babylonia and throughout the Persian Empire. They also show us the very spelling and handwriting, the ink and "paper," of the sort used in the time of the returning exiles, and the legal phraseology of a royal decree of a kind similar to those quoted from the Persian archives in the book of Ezra--the Aramaic passages that were regarded by critics as proving the unhistorical character of the book.

Indeed, these ancient papyri from Elephantine stirred up much difference of opinion, and were even regarded as forgeries in some quarters because of the unusual form of the date lines many of them bore--double dates in two calendars with sometimes apparently conflicting regnal-year numbers. But these double dates proved to be excellent evidence of their genuineness, for they synchronize the Egyptian and Jewish calendar dates in a way that enables us to calculate the very days on which they were written. These dates corroborate the chronology of the reigns of that period as reckoned in Ptolemy's Canon.

The Jewish colonists of Elephantine had been in Egypt before Cyrus' successor, Cambyses, conquered the country and made it part of the Persian Empire. Whether they first arrived as exiles after the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, as did the group who took the prophet Jeremiah with them, we do not know; but the references to religion in these papers reveal the same conditions that Jeremiah deplored--the mingling of paganism with the worship of Jehovah. In the Jewish temple at Elephantine Jehovah was worshiped along with pagan deities.

Not only are the dates and contents of these Jewish documents interesting; their date lines furnish information about the Jewish calendar of the period.

Local Calendars Retained Under Persian Rule.--When Cyrus the Persian conquered Babylon, he did not incorporate Babylonia into Persia under a provincial government; rather he annexed the kingdom to his earlier domain and took the title of king of Babylon in addition to his title of king of Media and Persia. In Babylonia the Persians adopted the language and culture of the country and took over the Babylonian calendar. In fact the Babylonian priests, the custodians of the accumulated astronomical knowledge of centuries, and of the calendar system, flourished under Persian protection and made further advance in the regulation of the calendar.

Similarly, when Cyrus' son Cambyses added Egypt to the Persian Empire, he continued the machinery of Egyptian government, but had himself crowned king of Egypt. Then he ruled the country through a governor who was nominally the viceroy of the Persian "Pharaoh," retaining the local legal system and the Egyptian calendar. In later times the Romans were to follow the similar policy of allowing the use of various older local calendars in the eastern provinces, although eventually throughout the empire these calendars were adjusted to the Julian year of 365 1/4 days, that is, the local month names were retained but the lengths were adjusted to 30 and 31 days, etc., like the Roman months.

Under Persian rule in Egypt it seems that legal papers were drawn up in accordance with the local laws and dated by the native calendar; these papyrus documents from Elephantine, with a few exceptions, bore date lines carrying the Egyptian month and day, and the regnal year of the Persian king reckoned by the Egyptian solar calendar (beginning with the month Thoth). This was a sensible procedure, for two ordinary citizens signing a contract in Egypt could not be expected to know when their payments should fall due or the contract expire if the date were given in terms of a foreign calendar.

But these particular documents were drawn up by Jews living in a Jewish community, using their own calendar, differing from that of Egypt. Therefore many of these papyri bore double dates, not only in the official Egyptian calendar, but also in the Jewish calendar. For example, one was dated "on the 18th of Elul, that is, the 28th day of Pachons, year 15 of King Xerxes." This means that the document was signed on a day that was the 18th of the Jewish lunar month of Elul and was also the 28th of the Egyptian month Pachons in the 15th year of the reign of the Persian king Xerxes. Another reads, "on the 24th of Shebat, year 13, that is the 9th day of Athyr, year 14 of Darius [II] the king." This gives two year numbers. The date was in year 13 in the Jewish calendar, but in the Egyptian calendar another year had already begun; hence this same date was in the Jewish year 13 and the Egyptian year 14 of Darius II.

These double dates show that the various peoples of the Persian Empire used their own calendars. Although under Persian rule, the Egyptians retained their solar calendar (indeed, they always retained it, and bequeathed the 365-day year to Rome and, through Rome, to us). Further, the Jews, as a minority in Egypt, were free to use their own calendar, although it was different from that of Egypt. The legal dating for these documents seems to have been the Egyptian form, for if only one date was given, it was generally in the Egyptian formula, with the king's year reckoned by the Egyptian calendar. Many of them, however, bore double dates, both Egyptian and Jewish.

The Problem of Reconstructing an Ancient Calendar.--Since the Egyptian calendar for this period is known, the Julian equivalent of the Egyptian date can be located. Even if the year is unknown it can be derived from the synchronism of the lunar with the solar date, for the lunar date, moving at least 10 days in one year, can agree with the Egyptian solar date only once in about 25 years. Thus these double-dated papyri can be dated in the Julian b.c. scale. By the use of these established dates as check points, a tabulation of the Jewish calendar as used in Egypt can be reconstructed for a large part of the 5th century with a greater degree of accuracy than can be done for that of Babylon, although the Babylonian calendar can be outlined, approximately, for a much longer period. For the Egyptian and Julian calendars, see Vol. I, pp. 176, 177.

Since the dates of many of these papyri can be determined within the range of a day, in each case the dates of that whole month are known with the same precision. There is a possibility of a discrepancy of one day, sometimes two, in the exact dating of the other months of that year if the beginning of the month still depended on the observation of the moon. The time of the astronomical new moon (conjunction) for each of these months can be computed almost exactly from modern lunar tables (see p. 123, note); but the interval between the invisible conjunction and the visible crescent is variable. If we wish to find the dates of ancient Jewish months, we can compute from astronomical tables the approximate times of conjunction for any year in antiquity, and can estimate the first of the new month by taking into account the hour of conjunction by Jerusalem local time, and the speed and angle of the moon. But we can never be certain of complete accuracy in reconstructing that ancient calendar year as it actually operated, for we cannot be sure that we know all the variable factors in the observation of the crescent (see pp. 115, 116), nor do we know whether the year was reckoned by calculation or observation during the period covered by the Aramaic papyri from Elephantine.

R. A. Parker and W. H. Dubberstein have reconstructed an outline of Babylonian chronology, beginning in 626 B.C. In this monograph they have published Babylonian calendar tables covering a number of centuries, based on certain fixed dates and on certain 13th months attested from ancient records, and elsewhere on computed dates. These tables are very useful as an approximation. The user must allow for an uncertainty in some cases as to where the 13th months were inserted, and allow for an error of plus or minus one day in some of the months. And this is reasonable accuracy for reconstructing an ancient lunar calendar.

Since so many variable elements are involved in locating the first day of the month, the location of the remaining days in each month is similarly uncertain; consequently, the full moon (which can be fixed approximately by astronomical computation) does not always come on the same day of the lunar month. In the period of these papyri it varied from the 13th to the 15th.

Even at points where an ancient record fixes beyond question a lunar date or series of dates, the calendar cannot be reconstructed beyond that particular year without the occasional possibility of being a month off if the location of the 13th month is unknown. Not until the early 4th century b.c. did the Babylonians insert their 7 extra months always in the same years of each 19-year cycle, and we do not know that the Jews had a similarly regular cycle.

However, when there are ancient source documents, we can be fairly certain. If we have Babylonian tablets indicating that a particular year had 13 months, the calendar months of that Babylonian year can be identified with reasonable certainty; and if we have a synchronism identifying a day of a given lunar month with a day of a known calendar, as in the Jewish double-dated papyri from Egypt, even the days of that month can be known. That is why, for a considerable period in the 5th century b.c., the Jewish calendar as used by the writers of these papyri can be reconstructed with approximate accuracy. Such a calendar has been reconstructed by Lynn H. Wood and Siegfried H. Horn, giving the first day of each Jewish month from 472 to 400 B.C. (For this calendar, see Vol. III, pp. 108, 109.)

Jewish Calendar in Egypt.--A study of this tabulation and of the 14 double-dated papyri on which it is based makes clear the following 12 characteristics of the postexilic Jewish calendar:

1. These Jews dated by their own Jewish calendar, differing slightly from the Babylonian system.

2. Unlike the Persians, but like the Jewish repatriates at Jerusalem (Neh. 1:1; 2:1; see p. 117), they reckoned the years of the king's reign from the autumn rather than from the spring.

3. Unlike the Egyptians, but after the old custom of Judah, they regarded the interval from the accession of the king until the next New Year's Day as the "accession year" (see p. 138), after which the "first year" of the reign began.

4. They had adopted, in Aramaic spelling, the Babylonian month names, all 12 of which appear in these papyri.

5. Although there is no mention of a second Adar, the intervals between the dates of certain papyri indicate the use of a 13th month at various times.

6. If they did not know a fixed 19-year cycle as such, they evidently used its equivalent in that the intervals between these double-dated papyri imply an average of seven 13-month years in every 19 years.

7. These Jewish 13th months probably fell most often in the same years as in the Babylonian calendar. In the aforementioned Horn-Wood tabulation (see Vol. III, pp. 108, 109) they are the same months as those in Parker and Dubberstein's tables (Babylonian Chronology, 1956 ed.) with a very few exceptions, such as when the Babylonians inserted a second Elul instead of a second Adar in the 17th year of their cycle (as they came to do regularly--and, in later times, invariably--after the Babylonian cycle became fixed).

8. These Jews seem not to have used the second Elul. Of three papyri dated in 17th years, where we should expect it, two do not prove the practice, and one proves definitely that they did not reckon a second Elul in that year.

9. The evidence is not at present fully conclusive that the calendar was based on computation rather than observation of the moon, for the relation of the calendar dates to the moon have been interpreted in either way because of variable factors. But there are indications that it was computed to some degree.

10. Although there is no conclusive proof of computation of the lengths of the months at this period (No. 9), it is interesting to note that a possible fixed sequence of 30-day and 29-day months from Nisan to Tishri, which would have allowed the same number of days between Passover and Tabernacles, is compatible with the dates of these papyri. A reconstructed calendar based on this sequence is reasonably consistent with the actual motions of the moon.

11. The 1st of Nisan seems to have been kept, so far as the years represented by these papyri are concerned, from moving earlier than the vernal equinox. That is, if the month following Adar began before the equinox, it was made the 2d Adar, and Nisan was postponed until the next month. (This contradicts the later opinion of the rabbis that in the postexilic period the Passover came at the first full moon after the vernal equinox.)

12. There is no indication of the practice of adjusting the length of the year to prevent certain feasts from falling on certain days of the week, as was done in the later, fixed calendar published long after the time of Christ.

The Jewish colonists in Egypt who wrote these papyri were in correspondence with their returned brethren in Palestine, but we do not know whether they were in close enough contact to enable them to keep the insertion of the 13th month in exact synchronism with the reckoning followed at Jerusalem.

It is remarkable that these double-dated papyri, which could not have survived at Jerusalem, but which have been preserved in the drier climate of a distant Jewish outpost in Egypt, have now come forth to give us a glimpse of the postexilic calendar in operation. These documents show the Jews (1) holding to their own way of reckoning, which was independent of that of their Egyptian neighbors; (2) differing from the Babylonian system of their Persian overlords, which many scholars have assumed that they slavishly adopted. Nor do these Jews seem to know anything of certain rules attributed to them by the much later traditions of the Mishnah and Gemara (see p. 107, note 2) in the early centuries of the Christian Era.

VII. Different From Later Rabbinical Calendar

The Jewish calendar and sectarian variants in the intertestamental and New Testament periods lie beyond the range of this article. But in the Mishnah, and then the Gemara, written in the early Christian centuries, we find a few bits of information concerning the Jewish calendar at the end of the 2d century a.d. and later, most of it in the form of traditions of earlier practices. It is in the Mishnah that we find accounts of the examination of witnesses before the Sanhedrin as to the appearance of the crescent, and the announcement of the new month to outlying regions by means of fire signals. The questions asked regarding the exact form of the crescent would seem to indicate that the first barely visible crescent was probably not counted; some say the "horned" phase, indicating that a longer interval might have been reckoned from conjunction to crescent. Other questions seem to indicate that the examiners were less interested in seeking information than in eliciting confirmation of knowledge that they already had by calculation, and that the formal procedure of visibly noting the new moon was carried on from precedent long after the principles to calculate its appearance were known.

In the Talmudic arguments, some doubtless dating from as late as the 5th century a.d., later concepts are sometimes applied erroneously to earlier times; therefore these conflicting traditional authorities must be used with caution. For example, the belief that the 16th of Nisan could move back almost to the spring equinox is opposed to the facts of the barley harvest and to the evidence of the source documents from the postexilic period. Traditional references to the full moon of the Passover may indicate efforts to stabilize the month in relation to the full moon, at least in Nisan, but the 5th-century b.c. papyri give no hint of this. It is quite likely that in the period of the second Temple the months were at least partly regulated by something more than simple observation from month to month, but we cannot be sure from the available sources how early and to what extent computation was employed.

Eventually, after the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans and the dispersion and persecution of the Jews by later emperors, the practice of regulating the calendar from Jerusalem was necessarily abandoned, and an arbitrary scheme was substituted, so that Jews in all lands could reckon the dates of the sacred feasts uniformly. Thenceforth the Jews in Babylonia or anywhere else could regulate the calendar by artificial means, regardless of the barley harvest in Judea or the appearance of the moon at Jerusalem.

It was once thought that the calendar as revised, supposedly in the 4th century, had come down unchanged to the present day, but most authorities now think that the reform was a gradual growth, taking several centuries, incorporating earlier traditions and later developments. Some of the medieval disputes between the rabbinical advocates of the fixed calendar and the Karaites, who attempted to retain observation and the barley harvest rule, indicate that the question of the calendar was still a live issue. The present sequence of the seven 13-month years in each 19-year cycle, and the numbering of years consecutively from a supposed era of creation, were not adopted by the Jews until the Middle Ages.

Bibliography

Most of the treatises on the Jewish calendar in reference books are, on the whole, unsatisfactory, being either out of date, or concerned mostly with the post-Biblical form of the calendar rather than that of Bible times, or based on theories of a supposed late date for the Mosaic law or the purely Babylonian character of the postexilic calendar. The nontechnical reader, however, does not wish to be directed to scattered bits of source material. Therefore this list is short.

The Babylonian Talmud. [Soncino English translation.] Edited by I. Epstein. 34 vols. London: The Soncino Press, 1935-48. The Talmud includes the Oral Law, or Mishnah, alternating section by section with the Gemara, or extended exposition of the Mishnah by comments, additions, and various interpretations of the rabbis in Babylonia from the 3d to the 5th century. The tractate Rosh Hashanah (in the volume Seder Mo½ed VII) deals with the New Year festival and with certain aspects of the calendar. Representing later traditions, it does not directly concern the Old Testament calendar.

Burnaby, Sherrard Beaumont. Elements of the Jewish and Muhammadan Calendars. London: George Bell & Sons, 1901. 554 pp. An extended discussion (pp. 1-364), out of date but containing helpful information here and there, although much of it pertains to the rabbinical and modern Jewish calendar.

Horn, Siegfried H., and Wood, Lynn H. The Chronology of Ezra 7. 2d ed., rev. Washington: Review and Herald, 1970. 192 pp. This work, by two contributors to this commentary, is primarily concerned with another subject but contains chapters on "Ancient Civil Calendars," "The Pre-exilic Hebrew Calendar," and "The Postexilic Jewish Calendar," also a detailed explanation of the dates of the Elephantine papyri. Though dealing indirectly with the Jewish calendar, it gives source documentation and refers to authorities on many specific points that have a bearing on this subject. The revised edition contains the reconstructed calendar tables, based on the Elephantine papyri, that appear in this commentary, Vol. III, pp. 108, 109.

Parker, Richard A., and Dubberstein, Waldo H., Babylonian Chronology, 626 B.C.-a.d. 75. Providence, R.I.: Brown University Press, 1956. 47 pp. This contains a tabulation of the first of each month of the Babylonian calendar for this period as estimated from new-moon tables, indicating the known 13th months as attested by ancient source evidence. It is a useful approximation of the lunar-calendar dates for Babylon, though allowance must be made for an error of one day in some months resulting from elements of uncertainty. Besides, in using these Babylonian tables for dates in Palestine, two kinds of discrepancy are possible at certain times: (1) a day's difference, if the crescent could be seen at Jerusalem a day earlier than at Babylon because of the difference in longitude; and (2) a month's difference, if the 13th month was not always inserted at the same time in the Babylonian and Jewish calendars.

Bible Chronology From Exodus to Exile

Like all other ancient time records, those of the Bible present problems. In the first place, the records are often incomplete. In the second, we cannot always be sure that we know the method by which the ancients reckoned; for example, whether they reckoned the year as beginning in the spring or the autumn, or whether inclusive reckoning was used in such a phrase as "three years." Again, it is not always possible to synchronize Biblical with secular chronology.

For these and other reasons that might be given, it is not possible to prepare a complete and exact scheme of Bible chronology. However, it is possible to construct a tentative chronological outline, particularly for the reigns of the Hebrew kings, that can be of great help to the Bible student.

Such a chronological outline for the Exodus-to-Exile period is given on pages 36 and 77. The purpose of this article is to set forth reasons for the choice of the dates given in that outline. The following pages survey the source data, discuss the principles and methods used by scholars in constructing ancient chronology, and explain the application of these principles to chronological problems of this period of Bible history. It should be added that learned men have differed in their conclusions on Bible chronology, and that this article does not set forth in full any chronological scheme yet published.

I. The Conquest of Canaan

The Territory East of the Jordan.--When the hosts of Israel turned finally from Kadesh toward the Promised Land they came to Mt. Hor, where Aaron died and where they mourned for him 30 days (Num. 20:22-29). The date of his death was the 1st day of the 5th month, in the 40th year of the Exodus (Num. 33:38). Thus, presumably, they did not leave Mt. Hor until the beginning of the 6th month. After several stops they reached the territory of Sihon, king of the Amorites, east of the Jordan and the Dead Sea. Being refused passage, they conquered Sihon's land from the Arnon to the Jabbok. They also took the territory north of the Jabbok, that is, Gilead and Bashan (Num. 21:21-35), and then returned to camp east of the Jordan opposite Jericho. This must have been a short campaign, because after this occurred the incident of Balaam, the idolatry and punishment of the Israelites, and the numbering of the people, all before the 1st day of the 11th month of the 40th year, when Moses began his final discourses, recounting to Israel their past experiences and admonishing them as to their future course (Deut. 1:3-5). Then Moses died, probably about the beginning of the 12th month, for after mourning for him 30 days (Deut. 34:5-8) the Israelites proceeded on their way, in the first days of the first month, and crossed the Jordan on the 10th of the month (Joshua 4:19). This entry into Canaan on the 10th, and the observance of the Passover on the 14th, were obviously in the 41st year of the Exodus (see list of events in Vol. I, p. 187). Thus the period of the wanderings was one of 40 full years, extending from the midnight deliverance from Egypt on the 15th of the 1st month in the 1st year of the period, to the first Passover in the land of Canaan, following the crossing of the Jordan in the 41st year. But the conquest of Amorite territory before crossing the river occurred in the second half of the 40th year.

This last date is important because it establishes, in relation to the Exodus, the date of the entry into Canaan, and pegs down a landmark from which a period is reckoned in the time of the judges--Jephthah's 300 years from the occupation of Sihon's city of Heshbon and its surrounding territory.

The Conquest of Canaan Proper.--In the 41st year, then, according to this Exodus reckoning, Joshua led the armies of Israel in several campaigns to subdue the land west of the river. His forces included a contingent from the tribes that were to settle in the Transjordan territory recently won from the Amorites. The land was not completely conquered during this war, for the Israelites could not drive out the inhabitants of many of the strongly fortified cities, and many of those conquered in the first campaigns were not held permanently. Yet the country was subdued sufficiently to halt opposition to the settlement of the Israelites. Even after "Joshua took the whole land," and "the land rested from war" (Joshua 11:23), he told the Israelites that "there remaineth yet very much land to be possessed" (ch. 13:1). Ending the armed opposition and allotting the land to the tribes was not the same thing as actually possessing the whole land; this was not accomplished fully until the time of David. But the first stage was completed in the matter of a few years.

The Assemblies at Gilgal and Shiloh.--After the division of most of the land had been completed, the Israelites assembled at Gilgal, where the Passover had first been observed and the tabernacle had been set up. On this occasion the aged Caleb asked for the region of Hebron as his allotment of territory (Joshua 14:6-15). He stated that he was 40 years old when he went with the spies from Kadesh-barnea (in the second year of the Exodus), and that now he was 85 years old. This occasion was therefore in the 46th or 47th year from the Exodus. Since the first campaigns east of the Jordan began in the 40th year, this would make the wars of Canaan last six or seven years. Further distribution of the land by lot (chs. 15-17) was followed by the setting up of the tabernacle at Shiloh (ch. 18:1). If this took place immediately after the assembly at Gilgal mentioned in ch. 14:6, it was soon after the seven-year war.

This commentary uses a dating of the Hebrew kings that puts the spring of Solomon's year 4 in 966 B.C., in the 480th year from the Exodus. Then the Exodus, in the 1st year of that period, 479 years earlier, was in 1445 B.C., and thus the conquest of Heshbon and the other Amorite territory late in 1406, the crossing of the Jordan in the spring of 1405, and the gathering at Gilgal after the war in Canaan, in 1400 or 1399.

The uncertainty in this last date stems from the question of whether Caleb, in speaking of his age as 85, counted the years from the spring or the fall; he did not specifically refer to the years of the Exodus, but was reckoning his own age. The Exodus reckoning, as an era, was used by Moses, but it does not seem to have survived as a means of dating, except in the case of Solomon's 4th year (1 Kings 6:1). Although the months were always numbered from Abib (later called Nisan), in the spring, the years were generally reckoned from the fall (see pp. 109, 110). The gathering at Gilgal, presumably at a regular feast, could have been at the Feast of Tabernacles in 1400 B.C., the Passover in 1399, or the Feast of Tabernacles in 1399.

Following this meeting at Gilgal, the tabernacle was moved to Shiloh (Joshua 18:1), where the final allotment of territory was made to the remaining tribes. There is no indication of the interval between the meeting at Gilgal and the one at Shiloh. The tabernacle was moved not earlier than 1400, and presumably not much later than 1399.

Joshua's Death and the Ensuing Apostasy.--The next chronological item, an uncertain one, is the death of Joshua at the age of 110 (Joshua 24:29). It was "many days" after the end of the war that Joshua called the people together, and told them, "Behold, I have divided unto you ... an inheritance for your tribes" (Joshua 23:4), and bade them farewell with, "Behold, this day I am going the way of all the earth" (v. 14). If this was soon after thedivision of the land at Gilgal and Shiloh, then Joshua was nearing 110 years of age at the time Caleb was 85, was about 65 when he acted as one of the 12 spies, and was a centenarian when he led the Israelites into Canaan. If, however, he was about Caleb's age, his death took place 25 years after the end of the war. Thus the interval between the entry into Canaan and the first judge has a wide margin of uncertainty. In either case, we must allow a considerable period after Joshua's death before the first judges, for it was after the apostasy of the generation that succeeded Joshua that the oppressions began, and the judges were raised up to deliver the Israelites. Apostasy was appallingly rapid (see on Judges 18:30 for the conditions in the lifetime of a possible grandson of Moses), but it must have taken at least several decades for the younger contemporaries of Joshua to die out. It was after "all that generation were gathered unto their fathers: and there arose another generation after them, which knew not the Lord, nor yet the works which he had done for Israel," that "the children of Israel did evil" and forsook the God of their fathers, so that the Lord delivered them into the hands of their enemies, and then raised up judges who repeatedly delivered them and sought to bring them back to the worship of God (see ch. 2:10-16).

II. The Period of the Judges

The chronology of the period of the judges presents problems if we attempt to place all the events in consecutive order. There is no need to doubt the figures, but the problem of harmonizing them with the events described in the end of the book of Joshua and the beginning of 1 Samuel has given rise to varying opinions and solutions. The account is so abbreviated that we do not have all the facts concerning the relationship between the various judges and the intervening periods of oppression. The fact that the story of one judge is told without a hint that there was any other judge in another part of the land at the same time does not rule out the possibility of contemporary judges.

The Data of the Book of Judges.--The writer of Judges did not set out to give all the details of the history of his period; his purpose was to show how the Israelites repeatedly forsook God and fell a prey to their enemies, were in turn rescued and given another opportunity. Whether these events happened successively or contemporaneously in different sections of the country had no bearing on the lesson of the book, and so the writer did not supply all the details of the timing, although he preserved carefully the number of years of each judge and of the periods of oppression. They are given as follows:

The x years represent the unknown period, probably several decades, during which the Israelites "served the Lord all the days of Joshua, and all the days of the elders that outlived Joshua" (Judges 2:7), and then apostatized. Even leaving out the x years preceding the first oppression, we have a total of 319 years to the end of the 18 years of Ammonite invasion, which Jephthah spoke of as 300 years. This 319 plus x may well be 350 or more; and the total of 410 plus x for the whole sum of the years of the judges and the intervening periods of oppression is probably more than 450. Evidently not all these peri

Some Periods Overlap.--The record clearly indicates an overlapping of some of these judgeships and servitudes. The 20 years of Samson fell within the 40 years of Philistine oppression, for "he judged Israel in the days of the Philistines twenty years" (Judges 15:20). Further, in connection with the statement that the Philistines oppressed Israel 40 years (ch. 13:1), it was foretold that Samson would only "begin to deliver Israel out of the hand of the Philistines" (v. 5). If, then, Samson's 20 years are part of the 40, the total is reduced from 410 plus x to 390 plus x.

But the 40 years of the Philistines oppression seem to have been partly contemporaneous with the 18 years of servitude to the Ammonites, for it is said that "the anger of the Lord was hot against Israel, and he sold them into the hands of the Philistines, and into the hands of the children of Ammon" (ch. 10:7). Then follows the description of the Ammonite oppression and the deliverance by Jephthah (chs. 10:8 to 12:7), and after this an enumeration of the three judges who succeeded him, evidently unimportant characters of whom little more is recorded than the duration of their judgeships, totaling 25 years (ch. 12:8-15); then chapter 13 returns to the 40-year Philistine oppression to recount the life of Samson, and how he "began" to deliver Israel from the Philistines. Thus the Scripture indicates that the Philistine oppression and the Ammonite oppression were contemporaneous. The Ammonites, inhabiting the Transjordan plateau toward the edge of the desert, swept over the eastern tribes of Israel (for Gad, Reuben, and half the tribe of Manasseh lived east of the Jordan), and continued their pillaging for 18 years. Finally they invaded the territory of Judah, Benjamin, and Ephraim west of the Jordan (ch. 10:8, 9; cf. PP 557). The Israelites, thus harassed from the east, had no opportunity to employ their united strength to defend the west, where the Philistines on the southern portion of the seacoast raided Judah and Dan and threatened the western tribes.

Other Periods Probably Contemporaneous.--It is obvious that if some of these periods in the book of Judges were contemporaneous, as the record seems to indicate, it is likely that some of the others also were simultaneous, occurring in different parts of the land, even though we cannot tell which periods overlap and for how long. This seems all the more likely when we notice that these judges were widely scattered geographically: Othniel was from Judah, Deborah from Ephraim, Barak from Naphtali, Ehud from Benjamin, Gideon from Manasseh, Tola from Issachar, Jair and Jephthah from Gilead, east of the Jordan, Ibzan and Elon from Zebulum, Abdon from Ephraim, and Samson from Dan. During this period the tribes were living in widely scattered territories largely in mountainous terrain separated by areas held by Canaanites, whom they had never succeeded in driving completely from the land, and whose fortresses held the main routes of communication in the lowlands. It is doubtful that any of these judges ruled over any large portion of the Israelites. The record reveals that even in a time of crisis, when a deliverer was fighting to repel the oppressors, not all the tribes rallied to drive out the invaders. The reason may be that not all the tribes were oppressed at any one time, and that consequently the deliverers were more or less local.

Jephthah's 300 Years.--Further, if Jephthah's 300-year estimate of the time of the Hebrew occupation of the towns of the Amorites is anywhere near exact, there was necessarily an overlapping of the periods up to his time, for the total, excluding the time of Joshua and the surviving elders is 319 years.

It is not necessary to assume that Jephthah's 300-year statement was exact, since he was at the time contending with the Ammonite invaders, and in the heat of controversy he doubtless did not stop to look up any records or consult a tribal "rememberer" to get the exact figure, but used a round number. This number was likely rounded off to the hundred above the actual total rather than to less than the exact interval. But it is also possible that the elapsed time was exactly 300 years when Jephthah spoke. If it was, we have the exact date, in relation to the Exodus, since the towns of Heshbon were taken from Sihon, king of the Amorites, in the 40th year of the Exodus (1406/05 B.C., according to the dating of the Exodus utilized for this commentary). Then 300 years, inclusive, from the acquisition of that territory would be 1107/06 B.C.

The Later Judges.--If the 40 years of Philistine oppression ended with the battle of Ebenezer (1 Sam. 7:5-14), the most likely event to terminate this period, then the judgeships following Jephthah must have overlapped also, probably more extensively than those before him. Samson would be a contemporary of Jephthah; and Eli, who died after 40 years as judge (see ch. 4:4, 11, 18), 20 years before the battle of Ebenezer (see chs. 6:1; 7:1, 2, 11-14), must have been older than either Jephthah or Samson. If the ark was in Shiloh some 300 years (PP 514), reckoned from a point 6 or 7 years later than the beginning of Jephthah's 300 years, and was taken from Shiloh to the battle in which it was captured by the Philistines, then the death of Eli following this battle took place about the time of Jephthah. The ark, returned by the Philistines, was placed at Kirjath-jearim, where it had been 20 years at the time the Israelites won their decisive victory over the Philistines at Ebenezer.

It was at that time that Samuel was made judge (ch. 7:6, 15-17). We are not told how long Samuel's judgeship lasted, but we do know that it closed the whole period of the judges. Some take it as ending with the coronation of Saul, when the monarchy replaced the theocratic government of the judges, but some extend it to Samuel's death, since he continued to function as a judge (ch. 7:15) although the judge was no longer the chief magistrate after the monarchy was set up. Nothing is recorded of Samuel's age, except that he was born when Eli was no longer young; that he received his first message from God while he was still a boy; that he was old enough to be known as a prophet before Eli's death (ch. 3), though he was apparently young enough to be passed by as judge until 20 years later (ch. 7). A fragmentary manuscript from a Dead Sea cave, containing parts of 1 Sam. 1 and 2, gives Eli's age as 90, not at his death (as in LXX), but at some time after Samuel was placed in his care (see on ch. 2:22). If Samuel was about 3 when brought to Eli (see 1 Sam. 1:24; cf. EGW, RH, Sept. 8, 1904), he was at least 11 when Eli died at 98. This fragment may preserve an original figure, later lost, but we cannot build on this assumption. Samuel was judge long enough to be an old man who had already relinquished at least part of his work to his sons before the Israelites demanded a king (ch. 8:1-5). If he lived through the greater part of Saul's reign, as the record indicates, he must have been very old when he died. Samuel is the link between the period of the judges and that of the monarchy. Thus it would seem that the first part of the book of 1 Samuel covers a period contemporary with the last part of the book of Judges, presumably chapters 10-16.

The Judges and the 480 Years.--With such overlaps as are here indicated, it is entirely possible that the 40 years of wandering in the wilderness, the conquest of Canaan, the period of the elders that outlived Joshua, the subsequent apostasy, the various judgeships, some of them contemporaneous, including the judgeship of Samuel, and the reigns of Saul and David could have occurred within the space of 480 years, as indicated in 1 Kings 6:1. There is no way of computing exactly the length of the period of the judges, or the specific overlaps, but a tentative outline of the period that fits this chronology has been included in the article on history, on page 36. This outline is intended only as an approximation of what may have happened, but it demonstrates that the figures in the book of Judges can be reasonably interpreted by means of overlaps that agree with the historical situation and with the interpretation of the 480 years as the exact length of the period from the Exodus to and including the 4th year of Solomon.

Those who follow the longer chronology of the judges, and make all the periods consecutive throughout, interpret the 480 years as the sum of the actual judgeships, excluding the periods of oppression or usurpation (see Vol. I, p. 190), and take the total period as being more than 500 years. This results in an earlier date for the Exodus. One system of dating formerly employed by some "fundamentalist" writers, with the successive periods of the book of Judges, arrives at a total of 594 years from the Exodus to the 4th year of Solomon by interpreting the 480 years as the total number of the "years of the Theocracy" during which Israel was really under God-appointed government, not counting the six periods of servitude and the three years of the usurpation of Abimelech. By overlapping Eli with the Philistine servitude and Samuel with Eli, it arrives at the x years of Joshua's successors as 13 years by subtraction. This scheme, which requires assumptions concerning which there is no evidence, to say the least, has never gained standing in the world of Biblical scholarship.

The marginal dates that have appeared in many editions of the KJV since 1701, derived from the chronology of Archbishop Ussher, first published in 1650 (see Vol. I, pp. 179, 195), place the Exodus in 1491 B.C.; the first judge, Othniel, in 1406; and the beginning of Saul's reign in 1095. This dating is arrived at by placing the 4th year of Solomon, as the 480th from the Exodus, in 1012 B.C. This b.c. date is based on interregna (see p. 140) between the kings, also on Ussher's conjecture that the completion of the Temple (1004) was 1,000 years before the birth of Christ.

Many scholars regard the 480 years as merely meaning 12 generations, estimated at 40 years each. This would be equivalent to throwing out the number 480 entirely, for an estimate of 12 generations cannot be a basis for a specific time statement of an exact "480th year."

If "in the 480th year" is not meant to refer to a specific year, but to a general approximation, how are we to know that "in the eighteenth year of Jehoshaphat," or "in the seventh year of Artaxerxes," or "in the eleventh year of Zedekiah" is anything but an estimate? When the Bible gives exact statements of time, and on these statements can be built a detailed chronology without alteration, there seems to be no adequate reason for assuming that they are not based on exact data. It is admitted that Bible writers may use round numbers at times, especially in the case of the number 40, but such a possibility should not weigh against actual figures that harmonize with other figures to make exact synchronisms as they stand, nor is there any reason to doubt that when a writer puts an event in a certain specific year he means that very year.

It is true that many writers who do not accept the Bible as accurate history revise the figures wherever they please, to suit their own theories. Some of them reduce the time of the judges to even shorter periods by regarding 1 Kings 6:1 as an error; those who place the Exodus in the 12th or 13th century must of necessity do this. But this is not constructing a chronology based on the Bible data; it is a revision of the Bible records according to each individual's theory. Since this commentary is intended to explain the Bible, not to revise it, any chronology incorporated into it must be based on the Biblical figures; if they cannot be explained consistently, it must be admitted that we do not have a complete Biblical chronology. Therefore the 480 years are to be included in the picture.

This commentary employs the simpler interpretation of the so-called 480 years, inclusive (the phrase is not "480 years," but "the 480th year"), as literal and exact, ending with the 4th year of Solomon as the 480th year. The overlapping of the judges, which this reckoning requires, is accepted as a reasonable interpretation of the data, but no attempt is made to be dogmatic on the details of the judgeships. The outline in the history article (see p. 36) shows what may have happened, but no one knows what actually did happen, nor does that fact diminish the value of the narrative for its readers.

III. The United Hebrew Monarchy

Reference has been made (p. 129) to the indefiniteness of our information on the relation of the beginning of the monarchy to the time of Samuel and the earlier judges. The Old Testament contains no clear statement as to the length of Saul's reign, but any difference of opinion on this period would affect only the date of its beginning, for its end is fixed in relation to the reigns of David and the later line of kings.

The Reign of Saul Variously Interpreted.--The only information given in the Bible as to the length of Saul's rule (unless 1 Sam. 13:1 is so regarded; see p. 133) is the remark of the apostle Paul, made in an impromptu sermon at Antioch: "And afterward they desired a king: and God gave unto them Saul the son of Cis, a man of the tribe of Benjamin, by the space of forty years" (Acts 13:21).

Paul had just referred to two other time periods: (1) God's deliverance of the Israelites from Egypt, when "about the time of forty years suffered he their manners in the wilderness," and (2) another period of "about the space of four hundred and fifty years" (vs. 18, 20; italics supplied).

Some have concluded that, since Paul was thinking in round numbers, as indicated by the qualifying word "about" with these two numerals, he merely omitted to repeat the modifier with the third numeral; that he would naturally use round numbers in an oral summary, for he was not writing a history, or even consulting records for these figures. Even his phrase, "about the time of forty years" in the wilderness is an example of 40 used as a round number, since the duration of the Israelites' wandering in the wilderness, after rebelling against God at Kadesh and being turned back, was actually only 38 years (see Vol. I, p. 187).

On the other hand, the fact that the third number, unlike the first two, is not qualified by "about" leads some to think that it was meant to be an exact number in contrast with the others. If so, what period did Paul intend it to cover? Some think that it extends to the beginning of David's rule over both Judah and Israel, more than 7 years after the death of Saul, and hence that the personal reign of Saul, in distinction from that of his house, was less than 40 years. The question as to whether Paul meant to indicate that Saul occupied the throne exactly 40 years cannot be settled, and it does not affect the historical accuracy of the account.

The Ages of Saul, David, and Jonathan.--The only reason for concern with the exact length of Saul's reign is that a total of 40 years involves apparent difficulties as to the comparative ages of Saul, David, and Jonathan, difficulties that would be avoided if 40 were a round number for a considerably shorter period. If 40 is exact, then David was born a decade after Saul came to the throne, for at the age of 30 he succeeded Saul (2 Sam. 5:4). Then, if he slew Goliath when he was as young as 18--and he could hardly have been much younger--this event took place after Saul had reigned nearly 30 years. If the battle of Michmash, in which Jonathan took a prominent part (1 Sam. 13, 14), occurred in the second year of Saul's reign (see on 1 Sam. 13:1), as the KJV has been taken to imply (although it does not actually so state), Jonathan was presumably 18 or 20 years old about a decade before David was born. This makes the close and brotherly friendship between an 18-year-old David and a 46-year-old Jonathan seem entirely out of harmony with the narrative. Also, on this basis, Jonathan's only son, Mephibosheth (or Merib-baal; 1 Chron. 8:34; 9:40), who was 5 years old at the time of the battle in which Saul and his sons were killed (2 Sam. 4:4; cf. 1 Sam. 29:1, 11; 31:1, 2), would have been born when Jonathan was 53. This would be rather late for Saul's heir apparent to be providing for the succession of his line. And if Jonathan was a grown man so soon after his father's accession, Saul must have been between 75 and 80, at the very least, when he was killed in battle. None of this is impossible, but it would seem to be so unusual as to lend weight to one of two views: (1) that the figure 40 does not refer to the exact length of the personal reign of Saul, or (2) that he was quite young at the time of his accession and that the battle of Michmash must have come considerably later than the second year of his reign. Either of these two explanations would allow Saul and Jonathan to be much younger, thus eliminating the apparent difficulties in their ages.

Various Explanations of Saul's Reign.--If Saul's reign was less than 40 years, the question arises as to what evidence there may be for its length. Extending the 40 years to cover the time up to the coronation of David over all twelve tribes would subtract 7 1/2 years at the most. This is possible, but of course unproved.

In one instance Josephus attributes to Saul a reign of only 20 years (Antiquities x. 8. 4). In another instance he has Saul reign 18 years during Samuel's lifetime and 22 years after the death of the prophet (Antiquities vi. 14. 9). This latter statement shows variants in the manuscripts, two of the Latin texts reading 2 for 22, thus making this statement conform to the other. It has been suggested that the number 22 represents an emendation by a Christian copyist to make it conform to Paul's statement, but this is of course merely a conjecture. There seems to be no textual question about the statement from Antiquities x. 8. 4.

Now, if Saul reigned only 20 years, then David, who was 30 when he came to the throne (2 Sam. 5:4), would have been 10 years old at Saul's accession. There is general agreement that David was only about 18 when he slew Goliath; he was young enough to be left at home with the sheep instead of being in the army (1 Sam. 17:13, 14, 28, 33, 42), yet old enough to fight wild beasts (vs. 34-37), and is referred to as a valiant man of war (ch. 16:18). Consequently there would be only about eight years between the beginning of Saul's reign and the battle with Goliath. In that case Samuel could have died about 18 years after Saul's accession. Some regard eight years as a rather short period for the events related before the Goliath incident, and similarly object to only two years between the death of Samuel and that of Saul, since David spent a year and four months of that time among the Philistines. But the interval after Samuel's death could hardly have been much more than two years, unless 1 Sam. 25 and 26 have omitted many events. The only incidents recorded between Samuel's death and David's flight to Philistia are his journey to Paran, his encounter with Nabal, and his second encounter with Saul. These incidents would not seem to require more than eight months.

If, as some think, 1 Samuel 13:1 gives the incomplete remnant of a statement of the length of Saul's reign, and the original numeral ended in two ("... and two years he reigned"; see on 1 Sam. 13:1), it could have been 22, although 32 would seem more likely as an equivalent of the round number 40. In view of the aforementioned observations, what is to be done with Paul's statement assigning 40 years to the reign of Saul? Either this is a round number or it is not. If it is, the relative ages of David, Saul, and Jonathan can be made to appear more reasonable, but any attempt to arrive at an exact figure for the reign will be only speculation. If it is not a round number, the period is 40 years, and the unnatural disparity of ages must be accepted if we are to construct this chronology on the Bible data.

Later Chronology Not Affected.--In either case, any difference of opinion on the duration of Saul's reign has no effect on the date of the end of that reign or on the dates of the reigns of David and the later kings. Regardless of which scheme of chronology is preferred for the kingdoms of Israel and Judah, the b.c. dating pivots on synchronisms in the latter part of the period; consequently shortening Saul's reign would merely move his accession later, and allow that much more time for the judges.

The Reign of David.--There is no question about the length of David's reign. Here 40 is obviously not a round number, for it is the sum of 7 and 33, and there is actual mention of an event in the 40th year of David (1 Chron. 26:31). The extra six months (2 Sam. 5:4, 5) offer no problem. It could be possible that David's entire reign, from the time that he became king in Hebron until he died, was exactly 40 years and 6 months; it is not necessary, however, to suppose this, since the reigns of ancient kings were customarily counted by calendar years; and if one died at any time in his 40th calendar year, he was said to have reigned 40 years, as will be explained later (p. 137). It is more likely that the six months were his "beginning of reign," or "accession year"--the interval between his coming to the throne and the next New Year's Day, from which his "year 1" would begin. (This method of reckoning reigns is explained on pp. 138, 139.) If the Philistines went up against Saul in the plain of Jezreel at the usual season when "kings go out to battle" (1 Chron. 20:1), Saul's death, followed by David's accession in Hebron, would have occurred in the spring, and David's first full year of reign would have begun about six months later, at the beginning of the year in the autumn.

Solomon Made King by David.--At the end of David's reign, "when David was old and full of days, he made Solomon his son king over Israel" (1 Chron. 23:1). At this time he appointed officers for the Temple service and for the affairs of Israel "in all the business of the Lord, and in the service of the king" (ch. 26:30). This seems to have taken place "in the fortieth year of the reign of David" (v. 31). In the last chapter of the book the reign is summarized as 7 years in Hebron and 33 in Jerusalem (1 Chron. 29:27). This would imply that Solomon's joint reign with his father continued for part of the 40th year, for if it had extended into the 41st, David would have been reckoned as reigning 41 years. This 40th year must have been counted also as Solomon's "accession year," or "year of the beginning of the reign."

Solomon's Years From Autumn to Autumn.-- The reign of Solomon furnishes an important clue to the reckoning of the regnal years, that is, the years of the king's reign, as beginning in the autumn, in his day at least. It is explained in the article on the Hebrew calendar (see p. 109) that there were two beginnings of the year: The religious year began with the 1st of Abib (Nisan), in the spring, and the civil year with the 1st of Ethanim (Tishri), in the autumn. Since the months were always numbered from the spring, the civil fall-to-fall year began with the 7th month, with the numbers running 7-12 followed by 1-6. Thus the first month came after the middle of the civil year (see p. 116).

The Temple was begun in the 2d month of the 4th year of Solomon, and was completed in the 8th month of the 11th year (1 Kings 6:1, 37, 38). In view of the well-attested fact that the ancients were in the habit of reckoning inclusively (see p. 136), it seems surprising that an interval from the 4th to the 11th year should not be expressed here as 8 years. But since the beginning and ending dates are given, it is to be presumed that the reckoning was not by complete regnal years, but by anniversary years, that is, years reckoned from the date of the event that marks the beginning, the 2d day of the 2d month. If the 7 years are reckoned inclusively from the 2d month of the 4th year of the reign, the completion of the Temple falls in the 11th year of the reign if the regnal years begin in the fall, but not if they begin in the spring. This has been understood as evidence that Solomon's regnal years were reckoned from the autumn, presumably Tishri 1.

Solomon's Fourth Year Used as Basis for Exodus Date.--This date of the beginning of the building of the Temple on "the second day of the second month, in the fourth year of his reign" (2 Chron. 3:2) is important in relation to the time of the Exodus. According to the chronology of the kings employed in this commentary (see pp. 77, 143, 159), the 40th and last year of Solomon's reign was 931/30 B.C., counted from autumn to autumn; therefore the 4th year of the reign, 36 years earlier, was 967/66 B.C., also beginning presumably with the autumn New Year's Day, the first of Tishri, the 7th month. Since the Hebrews always numbered their months from the spring, even though the civil year began in the fall (see p. 106), the 2d month, Zif, came in the spring of 966 B.C.

But this event in the month of Zif is also dated "in the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt" (1 Kings 6:1). Thus we have a synchronism between two dating scales--the regnal years of Solomon and the years of the Exodus era (see Vol. I, pp. 186-188). Since the deliverance from Egypt took place in the middle of the 1st month in the 1st year of the Exodus reckoning, that departure can be placed 479 years earlier than the 1st month of the 480th year, that is, in the spring of 1445 B.C. Thus Solomon's reign, as dated from the later reigns of the divided kingdom, gives us in turn a date for the Exodus if we accept the 480th year as an exact figure. This is the basis for the Exodus date used in Volume I of this commentary (see Vol. I, pp. 191, 192).

IV. Methods and Principles of Reckoning

Before considering the period of the divided kingdom, which followed the death of Solomon, it may be well to pause for an explanation of the methods used in reckoning ancient reigns, and of certain terms and principles that will be used in the later discussion of the reigns of Israel and Judah.

Chronology Built Upon Synchronisms.--The chronological data in the books of Kings are given mostly in two types of time statements aligning the reigns of the two neighboring kingdoms of Judah and Israel, that is, (1) accession synchronisms, or statements dating the accession of one king in a certain regnal year of the contemporary ruler in the other nation; and (2) the lengths of the reigns. A typical example is seen in the record of the accession of Amaziah of Judah during the reign of Jehoash (Joash) of Israel: "In the second year of Joash ... king of Israel reigned Amaziah ... king of Judah. He was twenty and five years old when he began to reign, and reigned twenty and nine years in Jerusalem" (2 Kings 14:1, 2).

We are told later that Amaziah outlived Jehoash 15 years (v. 17); and then comes the next accession synchronism, the statement of the accession of the next king of Israel, Jeroboam II, during Amaziah's reign: "In the fifteenth year of Amaziah ... king of Judah Jeroboam ... king of Israel began to reign in Samaria, and reigned forty and one years" (v. 23).

Similar synchronisms are given for the other kings. Since the accession of each is synchronized with a regnal year of his contemporary neighbor, and the length of each reign is given, it is possible to construct an outline of the chronology of the two kingdoms based on these interlocking synchronisms. A graphic method of constructing such chronologies is to start with two parallel scales of years in diagrammatic form, and to lay out on them the two series of reigns of Israel and Judah so that (1) the accession of each king is synchronized with the corresponding year of the contemporary ruler of the other kingdom, and (2) the recorded length of each reign is allowed for. If the pattern is correct, the end of each reign and the beginning of the next will come in the prescribed year of the reign of the other kingdom as recorded in the Bible.

Sometimes the figures in Kings can be interpreted in only one way; then the alignment is easy to determine. But in other instances more than one interpretation may be made, and various possibilities must be tried out. To begin with, this is largely a trial-and-error procedure. Where the lengths of the reigns do not fit the scheme, many have concluded that the text was erroneous. But it must be considered that there is more than one method of reckoning involved, that Israel and Judah did not necessarily use the same systems. In order to work intelligently it is necessary first to understand the methods and principles of reckoning that may have been used by the writer of Kings or in his sources. To illustrate from the time statements just quoted, relating to Amaziah and his contemporaries, the following questions must be answered--and they are not so simple as they may seem at first glance.

How did the writer count the 15 years that Amaziah lived after the death of Joash? (See next section.)

If Amaziah reigned 29 years, in what year of his reign did he die? (See p. 137.)

What is meant by his 15th year? (See p. 138.)

When does a king's "first year" begin? (See pp. 138, 139.)

Did the 15th year of Amaziah in Judah exactly coincide with the Israelite year in which Jeroboam II came to the throne? (See p. 140.)

The task of finding the answers to such questions is complicated by the fact that Judah and Israel did not employ identical systems of reckoning. The general principles of ancient reckoning that explain these questions will be found in the following paragraphs.

Years Counted by Inclusive Reckoning.--As already pointed out (see Vol. I, p. 182), the common mode of counting employed in the Bible seems to have been inclusive reckoning, that is, counting both the first and the last unit of time in calculating an interval. This method was also used generally by other ancient nations, as is shown unmistakably by source documents. An Egyptian inscription recording the death of a priestess on the 4th day of the 12th month relates that her successor arrived on the 15th, "when 12 days had elapsed." Today, we would say that when 12 days had elapsed after the 4th, the date would be the 16th. The Greeks followed the same inclusive method. They called the Olympiad, or the four-year period between the Olympic Games, a pentaeteris (five-year period), and used other similar numerical terms. The Romans also, in common usage, reckoned inclusively; they had nundinae (from nonus, ninth), or market days, every ninth day, inclusive, actually every eight days, as indicated on ancient calendars by the letters, A through H.

Of course mathematicians and astronomers were aware that the reckoning was mathematically inexact, but it persisted in common parlance, as it has even down to the present day in the Orient. Modern vestiges in the West are the phrase "eight days," meaning a week in some European languages; the Catholic term "octave" of a festival, meaning the day coming one week after the holy day; the musical intervals, such as octave, third, fifth, etc.; and even the medical term "tertian fever," meaning a fever recurring every other day.

The clearest Biblical demonstration of inclusive counting is in the New Testament (see on Acts 10:30 where a period of 72 hours is reckoned as "four days ago," not "three"), but an Old Testament example is in 2 Kings 18:9, 10. The siege of Samaria lasted from the fourth to the sixth year of Hezekiah, which is equated with the seventh to the ninth year of Hoshea, and yet the city is said to have been taken "at the end of three years." In modern usage we would say two years, by straight subtraction. Obviously the Bible writer reckoned inclusively (years four, five, and six totaling three years).

A Hebrew boy was circumcised when "eight days old" (Gen. 17:12), that is, "in the eighth day" (Lev. 12:3). Similarly Luke speaks of circumcision "on the eighth day" or "when eight days were accomplished" (Luke 1:59; 2:21). Evidently "when eight days were accomplished" (or "at the end of eight days," RSV) does not mean eight full days from the date of birth, but eight inclusive.

Jeroboam II of Israel succeeded his father Jehoash in the 15th year of Amaziah of Judah (2 Kings 14:23), and Amaziah "lived after the death of Jehoash ... of Israel fifteen years" (2 Kings 14:17). A modern reader would mentally add 15 to 15, reaching Amaziah's 30th year, yet Amaziah reigned only 29 years (v. 2). Inclusive reckoning is again the most logical explanation, since 15 years, inclusive, from the 15th year is the 29th, in which he evidently died.

There are other examples. When, at the death of Solomon, Rehoboam was petitioned to lighten the tax burden, he told the people to depart "for three days" (1 Kings 12:5) and then return for his decision "after three days" (2 Chron. 10:5). They came "the third day, as the king had appointed, saying, Come to me again the third day" (1 Kings 12:12; cf. 2 Chron. 10:12). Esther asked the Jews of Shushan to fast, and by implication, to pray, for her before she went in to the king unbidden, and then she approached the king "on the third day" (Esther 4:16; 5:1). Obviously a period of "three days" ended on the third day, not after the completion of the three days, as we would reckon it.

All this serves to explain the supposed difficulty in the three days between the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. The texts are as follows:

It is obvious from these texts that "in three days," "after three days," and even "three days and three nights" are all equivalent to "on the third day." One writer (Matthew) uses all three phrases for the same period. The interval from Friday afternoon to Sunday morning is three days, by inclusive reckoning. Since it is clear that this mode of counting was the common practice in Bible times, and widespread in many countries, it is useless to try to understand this period as three full 24-hour days, according to the modern Western habit of counting. To do so violates both historical usage and Biblical statement, and creates a difficulty that would not exist if the ordinary usage of common speech and of examples in the Bible be taken into acc

The Length of a King's Reign.--Just as the common mode of expression made Noah 600 years old in his 600th year, or a child 8 days old on his 8th day, and just as a period of 3 days or 3 years ends on the 3d day or in the 3d year, although the 3d day or year is not yet completed, so a reign of 25 years was one that ended in the 25th year.

Asa of Judah was recorded as having ruled 41 years, yet he died in his 41st year (1 Kings 15:9, 10; 2 Chron. 16:13); note also the end of Zedekiah's 11-year reign in his 11th year (2 Kings 24:18; 2 Kings 25:2-7). This is also demonstrated by the Judah-Israel synchronisms, and was customary in Babylon and Egypt, as evidenced by documents brought to light by archeologists.

This was somewhat akin to inclusive reckoning, although the total of a reign was not always true inclusive reckoning. There were two methods of counting regnal years, one of which eliminated the inclusive numbering, and so kept the total number of years correct, as will be explained next. But the system of regnal years was not ordinary folk usage; it was a specialized form of calendar reckoning, primarily chronological in purpose.

Regnal Years Are Calendar Years.--When the ancients dated events in a certain year of a king's reign, they were using a calendar dating formula. They were not concerned with how long that ruler had been on the throne when the event occurred, but they used the regnal-year number as the regular designation for that calendar year. This was the common method of identifying the year, for they had no long-term era like our b.c.-a.d. dating. Accordingly, the regnal year coincided with the civil year, beginning on New Year's Day. The various nations had different calendars, and different New Year's Days (see Vol. I, pp. 176, 177), but the system of counting reigns by their respective calendar years was followed in Babylonia, Assyria, and Egypt, and evidently by the Hebrews also. It seems to have been taken for granted in the ancient Near East.

Although a king's regnal years were equated with whole calendar years, the first and last of his kingship would be incomplete unless he happened to come to the throne on New Year's Day and die on the anniversary of his accession. Hence an adjustment had to be made, and there were two methods of making this adjustment as described in the immediately following paragraphs.

Accession-Year Method of Reckoning Reigns.--If King A died during his 35th year, and was succeeded by King B, all documents written in the first part of the year, up to A's death, would have been dated in the such and such day and month of the 35th year of King A, but during the rest of that year they would be dated in the name of his successor, King B, and the first New Year's Day in the new reign would usher in a new regnal year of King B. The difference in the two methods was concerned with the unexpired portion of the year between the accession and the following New Year's Day.

In Babylonia, for example, this partial year would be called King B's "year of beginning of reign," now known as accession year; and the full calendar year beginning on the next New Year's Day (Nisan 1) was numbered the first year of the reign. Thus in a series of reigns, the year 35 of King A would be followed by the year 1 of King B. This is referred to as the accession-year method of dating, because the interval from the date of accession to the end of the calendar year is called the accession year, and is not numbered. This method is also sometimes called postdating, since the beginning of what was called the first year was postdated, or postponed, until the first day of the next calendar year following the new king's coming to the throne.

Non-Accession-Year Method of Reckoning Reigns.--By the other method, used at times in Egypt, the new king began dating documents in his "year 1" as soon as he ascended the throne, and the year beginning at the next New Year's Day (Thoth 1 in Egypt) was called year 2. Thus the same year that began as the 35th of King A would end as year 1 of King B, and A's year 35 would be followed by B's year 2, not year 1. This causes an overlap of 1 year in reckoning a series of reigns. It adds an extra year for each reign, for it is the equivalent of inclusive reckoning, numbering both the first and the last year of every reign, when actually each king's "first year" is only the unexpired part of the last year of his predecessor. Since there is no period called accession year before year 1, this is called the non-accession-year method, or antedating.

Both Systems Used in the Book of Kings.--These two methods are well documented from ancient Egyptian and Babylonian records. The use of regnal-year dating is shown in the Bible by a number of date formulas. For example, Jerusalem was besieged on the 10th of the 10th month in the 9th year of Zedekiah's reign (2 Kings 25:1); and "in the fifth month, on the seventh day of the month, which is the nineteenth year of king Nebuchadnezzar" (v. 8), Nebuzaradan came and burned the Temple. There is no indication as to whether these time statements involve the accession-year or non-accession-year reckoning. But certain synchronisms in the book of Kings, in equating a year of a king of Judah with a certain year of a king of Israel, seem to point to the conclusion that both Hebrew kingdoms used both these systems at different times. At the division, after Solomon's death, Judah seems to have been using the accession-year and Israel the non-accession-year method (see p. 147).

In order to survey briefly the differences between these two methods of regnal reckoning, let us return to the hypothetical King A, who dies in his 35th year, and is succeeded by King B. A diagram will illustrate the differing effects of the two methods on the numbering of B's reign, on the dating of events by regnal-year numbers, and on the totals of B's and succeeding reigns.

The six paragraphs following the diagram will summarize the results

1. In the accession-year system (upper), after the end of the year in which one king dies and the next ascends the throne, the first New Year's Day of the new reign ushers in the year 1 of the new king.

2. In the non-accession-year system (lower), however, the year of death and accession is followed by year 2 of the new king, and so on.

Therefore it follows, as shown by the diagram, that:

3. A king's year 2, for example, will come one year later if he is using the accession-year (or postdating) system than it would if he were using the non-accession-year (or antedating) method.

4. If two scribes, using the two differing methods, date the same event (see Event on diagram) each in his own system, the scribe who uses the accession-year system will give that year a number lower by one than will the scribe using the non-accession-year system.

5. The number of years recorded as the length of a reign is lower by one if the accession-year method is used than if the non-accession-year method is used.

6. In a series of reigns, the sum of the regnal years for the series if counted by the accession-year system will preserve the correct total of the years elapsed; but the non-accession-year reckoning will add an extra year for each reign and thus produce a total larger than the actual number of years elapsed.

Accession-Year and Non-Accession-Year Methods Illustrated

The Spring and Fall New Year.--It has been explained (see p. 109) that the Hebrews had two year reckonings, that when the numbering of the months from the spring (Nisan) was introduced in connection with the series of religious feasts at the time of the Exodus, the older reckoning of the year from the autumn (Tishri) was retained as the civil year. There is Scriptural evidence that Solomon counted the years of his reign from the autumn (see p. 134), and that Judah continued the practice (see p. 146). The record says nothing of whether the northern kingdom of Israel counted the regnal years of their kings from the spring or the fall, but there are indications, from some of the synchronisms of Kings, that Israel used the spring-beginning year.

Thus when the accession year of a king of Judah, for example, is synchronized with a certain year of a king of Israel (according to Judah's system of numbering), that means that the last six months of Judah's year overlaps the first six months of Israel's corresponding year, or vice versa. This alignment differs in various reigns, according to the date of accession. If the accession occurs in the summer, the regnal year of Judah comes six months earlier than the corresponding year of Israel, because Judah's autumn New Year's Day (Tishri 1) arrives first in the new reign, while Israel's next calendar year begins on Nisan 1 in the following spring. If, however, the king comes to the throne in winter, the next New Year's Day after his accession is that of Israel, in the spring, and consequently his regnal year as reckoned in Israel begins six months ahead of the Judah fall-to-fall year.

Two Methods of Constructing a Chronology of the Kings.--One who keeps in mind these principles of ancient reckoning in connection with the chronology of this period should be able to apply these principles to the problem of working out a tentative chronology of the kings of Israel and Judah from the Biblical data. But there are differing interpretations of the synchronisms, and many difficulties. Since the accession synchronisms frequently appear to disagree with the data for the lengths of the reigns, many Old Testament scholars have come to the conclusion that these difficulties indicate that the figures in the narrative are late additions to the text, largely erroneous, and of little or no value for chronology. Actually, when their true nature is understood, they are found to be amazingly consistent.

The two lines must be adjusted by assuming either certain coregencies between father and son or certain interregna between reigns, and, in addition, by allowing for different modes of reckoning. If the reigns will not fit together unless Judah is reckoned by the accession-year method and Israel by the non-accession-year method, it can be assumed, as a working hypothesis, that this was the way in which the respective kingdoms were computing their reigns at that time. And if a whole series of reigns can be interpreted in terms of such a system, the probability of the correctness of the pattern is strengthened.

Interregna Versus Coregencies.--The alternate methods of reconciling the difference between the total lengths of the reigns of Israel and Judah have resulted in two types of chronological schemes of the period. If, when the synchronisms require either a coregency in one line or an interregnum in the other, the former is more often used, the result is a shorter chronology of the period; whereas if the latter is more often used, there is a longer chronology. The merits of either method must be determined by the degree to which the scheme fits all known facts, Biblical and non-Biblical. Even between points where a certain series of reigns began together and ended together in both kingdoms (as the period from the death of Solomon, when the kingdoms were first divided, to the assassination of the rulers of both Israel and Judah by Jehu), the recorded totals of the reigns do not agree. Moreover, in the period after Jehu the inequality grows greater until, at the end of the northern kingdom, the sum of the years recorded for the kings of Israel is 20 years less than the sum of the years of Judah for the same period. In the light of this sort of discrepancy, there is no way of reconciling the lengths of the regnal lines of the two kingdoms unless we assume that either the apparently longer line included overlapped reigns, or the shorter line had gaps between reigns.

If the first is true, there must have been occasions when the heir was placed on the throne with his father before the latter's death, and the total years recorded for the son included the years of his coregency as well as his sole reign. In that case the total lengths of all the reigns would exceed by some years the total time elapsed.

If the second is true, then it becomes obvious that in the shorter line there must have been an occasional interregnum when there was, for one reason or another, a disturbance at the death of a king that prevented the immediate accession of a successor. If such periods without a king were disregarded in the figures given for the successive reigns, the total time elapsed would have been longer than the records show.

We must assume one or the other; either the longer line must be shortened by coregencies, or the shorter line must be lengthened by interregna, or possibly both procedures are to be used.

As has been pointed out (see p. 135), the essential chronological data are given for each king, generally in the account of the beginning of his reign; and the data are of two kinds:

(1) the accession synchronism that dates the beginning of the reign in a certain year of the ruler of the other Hebrew kingdom ("Ahaziah the son of Ahab began to reign over Israel in Samaria the seventeenth year of Jehoshaphat king of Judah"; 1 Kings 22:51), and

(2) the length of the reign ("[Ahaziah] reigned two years over Israel").

It has been noted (see p. 139) that there is an apparent difference of one year between the accession-year reckoning (or postdating) and the non-accession-year reckoning (or antedating). Whenever, in addition to this difference, any of these time statements appear to conflict with the pattern of the other reigns, the explanation may be that there was either a coregency or an interregnum not mentioned in the narrative. Unless there is some hint in the text as to the political situation at the time, there is no inherent reason for supposing that one occurred rather than the other. The solution that brings harmony between the synchronisms in the Bible record must be accepted. This sort of adjustment does not discard the Biblical data; it merely explains them by assuming that the record did not give all the details, some of which must be inferred from the figures given. Consequently, opinions differ as to which solution is more likely.

The choice between interregna and coregencies, that is, between intervening gaps and overlapped reigns, results in assigning a longer or a shorter total period to the two Hebrew kingdoms. Since there is virtually no disagreement as to the end of the period in Nebuchadnezzar's day, the two methods produce an earlier or later b.c. date for the beginning point (the death of Solomon).

Older Chronologies Employ Interregna.--Older chronologists have preferred to employ interregna; by assuming gaps in the shorter regnal line they have lengthened it to match the longer one. The actual occurrence of interregna is within the bounds of possibility, especially in cases where the end of a dynasty might leave a gap without an immediate successor. However, interregna are much less likely to occur than coregencies; for in any disturbance that breaks the hereditary line it is probable that some one strong leader can make himself master of the situation. Even if there were a delay in the transfer of power, the successful contender would likely claim the whole period for his own reign. On the other hand, coregencies represent an established practice, attested in the history of several ancient nations.

The typical chronology of the Hebrew kings based on interregna, and thus lengthened by gaps, is the scheme of b.c. dates (derived from Ussher) incorporated into the Bible marginal notes in many editions of the KJV; and there are one or two other dating systems that are somewhat similar to it. Ussher, writing 300 years ago, did not have access to source documents for the chronology of the period. He had Ptolemy's Canon, but departed from it where he preferred the dates of the Greek historians of the classical period. Aside from his arbitrary placing of the completion of Solomon's Temple 1,000 years before the birth of Christ (he dates it 1004 B.C.; for his 4004 B.C. date for creation, see Vol. I, p. 195), his chronology of the Hebrew kings was determined largely by dead reckoning. In his day the Assyrian records were unknown.

Those who through the years came to accept his system of Biblical chronology were concerned only with the internal harmony of the data for the two Hebrew kingdoms. Ussher's scheme of dating came to be known as the "Biblical" chronology, and many a reader of the English Bible regarded the marginal dates as almost a part of the inspired text.

Later Use of Coregencies.--Then came the unearthing and deciphering of the cuneiform sources, a wealth of Babylonian and Assyrian documents furnishing chronological data contemporary with the Hebrew monarchies. It became evident that the new data did not harmonize with the older chronology based on interregna, which would put the Hebrew kings earlier than their Assyrian contemporaries. The discovery of the Assyrian limmu (eponym) lists resulted in a division of opinion. Some earlier authorities held that the Assyrian records, admittedly incomplete for many periods, had gaps in the chronological lists that affected the synchronism of Assyrian with Hebrew rulers; some said that both the Assyrian and the "Biblical" chronology were correct, but that the names in the Assyrian records translated as those of Biblical kings, such as Ahab and Menahem, were mistaken identifications.

On the other hand, attempts were made to work out a Hebrew chronology by using coregencies instead of interregna, thus shortening the longer line of reigns. This shorter chronology could incorporate the new Assyrian dating, which had become generally accepted as astronomically fixed by an eclipse (see p. 158), and could be fitted in with the beginning of Ptolemy's Canon in the closing years of the Assyrian Empire. Many Old Testament scholars gave up the task as hopeless and declared the Biblical data erroneous. They despaired of the internal harmony of the accession synchronisms and lengths of the reigns as recorded in the Bible, and also of the external harmony of those data with the cuneiform documents.

Later writers attempted by various methods to construct a consistent Biblical chronology that could be aligned with the accepted dating of the cuneiform documents. Some discarded the Biblical accession synchronisms and tried to keep the figures for the lengths of the reigns; others did the opposite. Since most of them have freely revised the Biblical figures in order to harmonize them, on the assumption that the numbers have been altered considerably in transmission, their results have consequently varied according to their conjectural revisions.

Tentative Chronology Used in This Commentary. For the purpose of dating the Hebrew kings in this commentary, a chronology has been employed that offers the prospect of assigning at least tentative b.c. dates to all the reigns. In the system adopted there is not only an internal harmony of nearly all the Biblical time statements--both accession synchronisms and figures for the lengths of the reigns--but also an external harmony between the Biblical and the Assyrian chronology. However, any discussion of the b.c. dating of these reigns will be deferred until after the explanation of the four working hypotheses on which this dating is based--hypotheses derived from experimental alignment of the reigns of the two kingdoms of Judah and Israel.

Most of the basic chronological principles of regnal reckoning used in these hypotheses have been used for decades and employed in various combinations by different writers. But no one has yet succeeded in combining them in such a manner as to construct a consistent chronological scheme of the kings that will be in complete harmony with all the Biblical figures and the Assyrian data as well. Therefore most writers have revised the accession synchronisms or the lengths of the reigns or both.

The value of the particular combination of these principles in the four fundamental hypotheses enumerated below is that with them as a basis a system of dating the reigns can be constructed that succeeds in harmonizing nearly all of the Biblical texts, a result not achieved by any other scheme of chronology of the kings.

The scheme of regnal dating used herein combines two very similar systems, those of two contributors to this commentary, Edwin R. Thiele and Siegfried H. Horn. It incorporates the basic principles and hypotheses used by both of them and agrees with most of Thiele's dates, but it follows Horn's chronology more closely in the one period on which they do not agree, that is, in the proposed solution of the problem of harmonizing certain apparently discrepant synchronisms connected with the reign of Hezekiah.

Since one of these writers finds it necessary to hypothesize a late editorial readjustment of several synchronisms, and the other has to leave one synchronism as a yet-unsolved problem, it can be said that neither has yet constructed an entire system of Hebrew regnal chronology that utilizes every time statement exactly as it appears in the books of Kings. Yet these two men have come nearer to doing so than any other scholar.

Thus for all practical purposes a system of Hebrew regnal dates can be arrived at that is in harmony with the time statements of the books of Kings (the one exception having been noted above), and also with the chronology of the cuneiform sources. This is possible if the Judah-Israel accession synchronisms and the recorded lengths of the reigns are interpreted according to the following four hypotheses (see Thiele's chapter 2 and Horn's article, pages 42, 43; see note 5, above):

1. That in the kingdom of Judah the years of a king's reign were reckoned as beginning in the autumn (presumably by the civil calendar year beginning with Tishri 1), while at the same time in the kingdom of Israel the regnal years were reckoned by a spring-to-spring calendar (probably beginning with Nisan 1).

2. That Israel began to use the non-accession-year system (see p. 147) at the division of the kingdom, after the death of Solomon, but later changed to the accession-year system (see p. 148); that Judah, on the other hand, began with the accession-year system, changed over to the non-accession-year system, and later returned to its original method.

3. That the scribes of both kingdoms, recording the accession of their own kings as taking place in certain years of the rulers of the other kingdom, seem to have each numbered the years of the neighboring kings by the system of reckoning (accession-year or non-accession-year) that was used in his own country rather than that used in the neighboring kingdom.

4. That in both kingdoms coregencies between father and son were rather frequent occurrences, but that no interregna are indicated in the two Hebrew kingdoms.

With the exception of the fall-to-fall regnal year for Judah, for which the direct Biblical evidence will be noted, all these hypotheses have been arrived at experimentally. When a chronology of the period is constructed on this basis, the synchronisms between years of both kingdoms work out almost completely, avoiding difficulties that arise in working them out in other ways. These results do not eliminate the possibility that someone may in the future discover a complete scheme of the reigns with a different pattern, but at present the four hypotheses here listed seem to offer the best working basis for the reconstruction of the ancient reckoning of these reigns. These are explained on pp. 146-149 below.

V. Relationships of Reigns in Divided Kingdom

The Bible Data for the Reigns.--From the death of Solomon, when the kingdoms of Judah and Israel were separated, the books of Kings introduce each king of Israel or Judah with a fixed formula in which the year of his accession to the throne is synchronized with the corresponding year of the contemporary ruler of the other Hebrew kingdom, followed by the length of his reign and--usually, in the case of Judah--the age of the king at the time of his accession. For example, "In the twenty and seventh year of Jeroboam [II] king of Israel began Azariah son of Amaziah king of Judah to reign. Sixteen years old was he when he began to reign, and he reigned two and fifty years in Jerusalem" (2 Kings 15:1, 2).

The following tabulation of the kings arranged in the order in which they are introduced in the books of Kings gives the accession data and lengths of reigns. For the tentative b.c. dating of these reigns, see p. 77.

Bible Data for the Reigns of Judah and Israel

Difficulties in Harmonizing the Reigns.--With all this information, the construction of an exact chronology of the period of the kings would seem to be an easy task. But often the accession of one king, as dated in a specific year of another, seems to be out of harmony with the data for the length of the reigns. The various attempts to harmonize the reigns and to solve the difficulties have given rise to so many revisions of the data to suit individual theories, ignoring the details of the Biblical record, that the result is, in most cases, a series of conjectures rather than a systematic chronology based on the source material.

But recent study of the chronological methods of the various ancient nations, derived from a wealth of archeological documents dated according to ancient calendars, has shown that the data in the books of the Kings can be worked into a reasonable chronology without the drastic revisions referred to. When the basic principles of these synchronisms are arrived at inductively from the Biblical data, and applied to the problem, many of the supposed difficulties vanish. After a survey (in Sec. IV) of general principles and methods of regnal reckoning and their specific applications to the Hebrew kings, the next step will be to explain thereby some of the main points in the outline of the period under consideration. Of course, no detailed, step-by-step analysis of all the reigns will be attempted in this summary.

The four general hypotheses already enumerated (see p. 144) are explained and applied in the following paragraphs.

Judah's Year Begins in Fall, Israel's in Spring.--There is evidence in the Bible that the kings of Judah reckoned their regnal years from the fall--presumably Tishri 1--not only in the time of Solomon (see p. 134), but also in the reign of Josiah. During repairs on the Temple, in the 18th year of Josiah's reign, the workmen found a copy of the book of the Law. Upon reading the scroll the king instituted a mighty reform and held a great Passover, the like of which had not been seen in the history of the divided kingdom (see p. 88). Now the Passover comes on the 14th of Nisan, the first month of the religious year, beginning in the spring; but in this case both the beginning of the Temple repair and the great Passover took place in the 18th year (2 Kings 22:3, 5; 2 Kings 23:23). Since it is evident that all the events described in these two chapters could not have taken place in the first two weeks of the year, obviously the 18th year did not begin with Nisan. Judah must have employed the civil calendar year beginning with Tishri. The fall reckoning would allow six months for the events described above.

These observations have long been recognized by many scholars as evidence for the fall-to-fall regnal year in Judah. Since there is evidence of such a reckoning in the time of Solomon, and again in the time of Josiah, there is no reason to doubt that the year was so reckoned throughout the history of Judah. It is interesting to note that the synchronisms between the reigns of the northern and the southern kingdoms can be harmonized on the basis of such a reckoning for Judah, whereas certain difficulties arise if we try to use a spring-to-spring year for Judah.

On the other hand, although there is no evidence in the text of the Bible, the synchronisms between the reigns of the two kingdoms seem to indicate that Israel used a year beginning in the spring. Many scholars who have reckoned these reigns by various methods have assumed that numerous apparent discrepancies in the synchronisms are due to errors in the Biblical text, and hence do not believe a reconciliation possible, or do not attempt to achieve one. Since the use of a spring-beginning year in Israel alongside a fall-to-fall year for Judah eliminates many of the supposed discrepancies, this sort of regnal reckoning is the more probable. Until someone produces a better scheme based on a different principle, it is assumed that this method, since it works best, is to be preferred.

A possible reason offered for the spring year in Israel is that Jeroboam, the founder of the northern kingdom, who had been a political refugee in Egypt, may have been influenced by the Egyptian New Year which, in its rotation through the seasons (see p. 153) began in the spring in Jeroboam's day. Or he may have chosen the spring New Year's Day instead of Tishri 1, in the autumn, merely in order to be different from Judah, just as he set up a new priesthood and inaugurated a feast in the eighth month in place of the old feast of the seventh month (1 Kings 12:30-33).

Accession-Year and Non-Accession-Year Systems.--Evidence is found in the synchronisms that in the early years of the divided kingdoms Judah was using the accession-year system of reckoning and Israel the non-accession-year system.

Rehoboam and Jeroboam began to reign approximately together after the death of Solomon, and Ahaziah of Judah and Joram of Israel died at the same time, when Jehu seized the northern kingdom. Therefore the reigns during this period should total the same for both kingdoms; but the sum of the years in these reigns recorded for Israel is higher than that for Judah. If the totals are checked reign by reign from the beginning, it will be seen that this difference increases by one year for each king. This would be accounted for if in Israel the death year of each king bore two numbers, the last of one reign and the first of the next, while in Judah the first year of each reign was that following the death year of the preceding king; that is, if Israel used the non-accession-year and Judah the accession-year reckoning.

That this is true can be demonstrated by individual cases. While Jeroboam of Israel was reigning 22 years, there were three kings on the throne of Judah: Rehoboam, 17 years; Abijam, 3 years; and Asa, to his 2d year (see table on p. 145). The exact relationship between these reigns is more complex, but from these figures it can be seen that there was no overlap of one year for each reign; the 17 years of Rehoboam, the 3 of Abijam, and the 2 of Asa in Judah total the 22 years of Jeroboam in Israel. It has been shown (diagram, p. 139, and par. 6) that it is the accession-year system that gives a correct total for a series of reigns. If Judah had used the non-accession-year system, counting the last year of each king as the first of the next, the periods of 17, 3, and 2 years would cover only 20 years of actual elapsed time instead of 22. Actually the 2d year of Asa was recorded as the beginning of the reign that followed Jeroboam's 22 years. Obviously Judah was using the accession-year reckoning, so that the 17th year of Rehoboam was followed by the 1st of Abijam, the 3d of Abijam by the 1st of Asa, etc.

It is equally obvious that Israel was using the other system. During the long reign of Asa of Judah several kings of Israel came to the throne, in the 2d, 3d, 26th, 27th, etc., of that reign. The gaps between these regnal years appear to indicate lengths of 1, 23, 1, etc., for these shorter Israelite reigns. However, the record reads: Nadab, 2 years; Baasha, 24 years; Elah, 2 years; etc. Here, then, is an overlap: If the remainder of the year of accession is called year 1, each reign gets an extra year (p. 139, diagram and par. 2). Nadab's 2 years are necessarily synchronized with Asa's 2d and 3d years, Baasha's 24 years with Asa's 3d to 26th inclusive. Later we find the same thing: Omri's 12 years between the 27th and 38th of Asa, and Ahaziah's 2 years in the 17th and 18th of Jehoshaphat.

On this arrangement, with Judah counting by one system and Israel the other, both lines harmonize.

Later Changes in Accession Reckoning.--This system, deduced from the simple fact that it works, seems to be consistently used in the earlier parts of the books of Kings. Then there comes a time when the synchronisms disagree with the recorded lengths of the reigns unless it is supposed that the kings of Judah have begun reckoning their years by the Israelite non-accession-year system, while the data harmonize if a change to the Israelite method is assumed. This change could have occurred with the accession of Jehoram of Judah at the death of Jehoshaphat, or possibly at the usurpation of Athaliah; some think that she introduced the change and also reckoned the years of Jehoram by it in the official records. The old and new reckonings of that reign may furnish the explanation of the apparently conflicting records of the accession of Ahaziah of Judah in both the 11th and the 12th year of Joram of Israel (see 2 Kings 8:25; 2 Kings 9:29). The supposed contradiction disappears if it is assumed that both refer to the same year, the one numbered the 11th by the older accession-year system being the 12th year by the new non-accession-year method of counting. The reason for such a change is unknown, but it can logically be attributed to the influence of Israel. It is interesting to note that Jehoram, whose reign seems to introduce the change, was married to Athaliah, the daughter of Ahab and Jezebel of Israel.

Half a century later the synchronisms appear to require another change; this time they point to the adoption of the accession-year system by the northern kingdom at the accession of Jehoash in the 37th year of Joash of Judah, and then the return of Judah to the same system at Joash's death, with the accession of Amaziah. There is nothing to indicate this except the interlocking of the reigns when diagramed according to the synchronisms, but a plausible cause might be found in the then-increasing influence of Assyria, which employed the accession-year reckoning.

Each Scribe Uses His National Regnal Reckoning.--The synchronisms seem to indicate that when the accession of a king of Judah is recorded in the book of Kings, presumably as it appeared in the official records of Judah, it is dated in terms of Judah's method of regnal-year numbering. That is, when it is dated in a year of the contemporary king of Israel, the Israelite king's regnal year is numbered by the reckoning used in Judah, even if that is different from the numbering used in Israel. Sometimes, on this basis, the number is one year lower than that reckoned in Israel; for example, the accession of Nadab of Israel, in "the second year of Asa" of Judah, occurred in what Nadab would have called Asa's second year, but what Asa called his "year 1," for the year numbered 1 in the accession-year system is numbered 2 in the non-accession-year system (see p. 139). This difference, of course, disappears during the time when the two kingdoms seem to be using the same system.

It is to be expected that a scribe would use his own calendar-year numbering to record the years of a foreign king; therefore this adjustment is not surprising. But he might also be expected to begin the foreign king's years by his own New Year's Day, just as in later times Nehemiah reckoned the Persian king's 20th year as beginning in the autumn, as in Judah, although the Persian year began in the spring (Neh. 1:1; 2:1). The synchronisms in Kings, however, seem not to be reckoned on that principle, for the discrepancies that appear if that sort of adjustment is made are avoided if it is assumed that the scribe or chronicler of each kingdom revised the year numbers of the other kingdom to his own country's method of numbering, but that he did not revise the beginning of the year. That is, the principle derives its plausibility solely from the fact that it works.

Coregencies Occur in Many Reigns.--Many of the reigns fit into the synchronisms with the other kingdom without any overlap, but in some cases there is an apparent discrepancy unless the son came to the throne some time before the father's death and ruled jointly with him, and thus the two reigns overlapped for a period of years. If, in order to make the accession synchronisms harmonize with the lengths of the reigns, such a coregency can be assumed without doing violence to any other synchronism, there is no reason why the coregency cannot be regarded as based on good evidence. Of course it cannot be taken as completely proved so long as there is the possibility of someone's explaining the data equally well by a different scheme; even the occurrence of an interregnum somewhere along the line cannot be ruled out completely. Sometimes, as in the case of Uzziah, who became incapacitated for royal duties because of leprosy, there is actual narrative evidence for a coregency (2 Kings 15:5), and there is reason to conclude that a coregency is indicated for Jehoram of Judah (2 Kings 1:17; 3:1; 8:16), but most of the cases are based solely on the necessities of the Bible data. In some of these cases the total years given in Kings seem to refer to the whole reign, including the coregency; less often to only the sole reign. Each case is determined by the synchronisms.

In the chronology employed for this commentary the following coregencies are assumed to have occurred: in the kingdom of Judah, Asa-Jehoshaphat, Jehoshaphat-Jehoram, Amaziah-Azariah, Azariah-Jotham, Jotham-Ahaz, Ahaz-Hezekiah, and Hezekiah-Manasseh; in that of Israel, Jehoash-Jeroboam II.

Problem Spots in This System.--Since the purpose of this article is not to set forth a chronological scheme, but to explain the basis for the dating used in this book, it is necessary to discuss only a few typical reigns. There are, however, certain problem spots that need to be mentioned.

1. The earliest is not in the series of synchronisms in the books of Kings, but is an isolated statement in Chronicles, that apparently places the building of Ramah by Baasha in the 36th year of the reign of Asa (2 Chron. 16:1; see also 1 Kings 15:17). But Baasha died and was succeeded by his son Elah in the 26th year of Asa (1 Kings 16:6, 8). Hence he could not have built Ramah 10 years later. If, however, we understand this 36th year as referring to Asa's dynasty, not his personal reign, the problem is solved; for the 36th year from the division of the kingdom falls within the reigns of both Asa and Baasha.

2. There is an apparent discrepancy between the statements that Joram of Israel began to reign in the 2d year of Jehoram son of Jehoshaphat of Judah and also in the 18th year of Jehoshaphat (2 Kings 1:17; 3:1); but that Jehoram of Judah began to reign in the 5th year of Joram of Israel (2 Kings 8:16). The explanation is that Jehoram of Judah was in his 2d year of coregency, in his father's 18th year, when Joram of Israel came to the throne, but that he succeeded his father as sole ruler only in the 5th year of Joram of Israel.

3. There seems to be no room in the charting of the chronology for a 20-year reign for Pekah if it began at the time when he overthrew Pekahiah and took the throne of Israel, but if he reckoned as his the reigns of his two predecessors--that is, the house of Menahem--the 20 years would fit in. Such a procedure is not without parallel. There is a case in Egyptian history where Harmhab counted as his own all the years of four kings: Ikhnaton, Smenkhare, Tutankhamen, and Eye. Even in English history we have the case of Charles II, who came to the throne in the Restoration of 1660, but who counted his reign from the execution of Charles I in 1649, ignoring the Cromwell period.

It is possible that Pekah regarded himself as the genuine successor of the powerful dynasty of Jehu, as a patriot of the anti-Assyrian party in reaction against the "collaborationist" tendencies of Menahem, who paid tribute to Tiglath-pileser. It is even possible that, in the upheaval that put an end to Jehu's dynasty with the murder of Zachariah, Pekah had actually acquired the rule over part of Israel's territory, and so considered himself king, although he did not gain control over all of Israel until he slew Pekahiah; in that case he would not have recognized the intervening rulers as legitimate kings at all. We do not know what happened, but in the light of the historical and political background, Pekah's appropriating in his records a dozen years of reign from his predecessors cannot be considered either unprecedented or improbable.

4. Jotham is given a reign of 16 years (2 Kings 15:32, 33; 2 Chron. 27:1, 8). Yet Hoshea came to the throne in the 20th year of Jotham (2 Kings 15:30). There is no inconsistency between two totals for a reign if a coregency took place, for one can include the entire reign and the other the sole reign. But this case seems complicated by a coregency with Ahaz at the end of Jotham's reign; the combination of the synchronisms seems to indicate that his years 16-20 cover the period after Ahaz came to the throne, when Jotham was probably no longer carrying on the affairs of state. Thus in one sense his rule could have ended in his 16th year, yet during the rest of his life his regnal years could continue to be counted.

5. Some find a problem in synchronizing the reign of Hezekiah with the reign of Hoshea. But others believe that the problem is solved by assuming a coregency, precisely as has been done elsewhere when the synchronisms seem to require it. In every case the figures must be tested by the synchronisms, and on that basis assigned to either the sole reign or the coregency or both. When this method is applied to the case of Hezekiah, it is found that the specifications are all met if it can be assumed (a) that Hezekiah's accession in the third year of Hoshea was the beginning of his coregency; and (b) that the figures for his age and the length of his reign belong to his sole reign after his father's death.

On these assumptions Hezekiah's accession formula could be understood:

"Now it came to pass in the third year of Hoshea son of Elah king of Israel, that Hezekiah the son of Ahaz king of Judah began to reign [as coregent with his father]. Twenty and five years old was he when he began to reign [alone at his father's death]; and he reigned twenty and nine years [in his sole reign]" (2 Kings 18:1, 2).

A similar method of interpreting the figures in the accession formula of Ahaz has been adopted by some (see 2 Kings 16:1, 2). Actually, however, if Hezekiah's age at his father's death was 25, then Ahaz' recorded age of 20 years must have referred to the beginning of Ahaz' coregency rather than to the beginning of his sole reign. Then his age at Hezekiah's birth would have been 15, which is not at all unheard of in the ancient Near East. For the b.c. dating of Hezekiah, see page 160.

6. The greatest difficulty comes in the chronology of Ahaz. Hoshea came to the throne as the result of a conspiracy against Pekah. The Bible says he "made a conspiracy" in the 20th year of Jotham (2 Kings 15:30). The Assyrian annals record that the people overthrew Pekah and that Tiglath-pileser made Hoshea king. This year seems to have been the 12th of Ahaz (2 Kings 17:1). However, the rest of the chronological scheme, as it has been worked out from the other data in the Bible, does not harmonize with this last synchronism with the reign of Ahaz. This is the incomplete link in the chain. It has been remarked that the arrangement of the kings on which the dating in this commentary is based comes nearest to a complete harmony of all the Biblical and non-Biblical data now known. It must not be claimed as complete as long as this synchronism cannot be accounted for and the other reigns related properly to it. Therefore rather than resort to revision or conjecture, it is better to state frankly that this problem has not been solved.

There is the possibility, of course, that the apparent discrepancy is due to a copyist's error. However, other chronological problems formerly thought to be due to such errors can now be solved because of a better understanding of ancient methods of reckoning. Hence it is not unreasonable to hope that this particular problem will, in time, be similarly solved. Perhaps some further information may be unearthed that will help; perhaps someone can build on what has already been done and arrive at a slightly different alignment of the reigns of this period that will preserve the harmony of the synchronism and also find a place for this last piece of evidence.

Some may ask: What is the value of any pattern of chronology if it is incomplete and confessedly subject to possible revision? The answer is, Our understanding of the Bible is incomplete, and our interpretation of certain texts is, at times, in need of revision. But that fact hardly warrants the conclusion some draw, that the study long given to Scripture provides no constructive approach to its understanding. On the contrary, we believe that the longer we study the Bible, the better we see its harmony, and the more fully we are persuaded that the writers of the Scripture presented a coherent, unified line of thought.

The same is true of that part of the Bible devoted to chronology. The longer it is studied, the more it takes shape and orderly form, and the more meaningful become the historical records that hang upon the chronological framework.

VI. The Basis for the b.c. Dating of the Kings

The preceding section deals with a tentative chronological arrangement of the reigns of the two Hebrew kingdoms in relation to each other. Yet even after a complete chronological pattern has been constructed for these two lines, no b.c. dates can be assigned to any reign unless there is at least one direct synchronism to peg the series down in a fixed alignment with known events in ancient history. Therefore a discussion of the historical basis for the generally accepted b.c. dating of the period must be considered.

The books of Kings refer to several rulers of Egypt, Assyria, and Babylon as being contemporary with certain Hebrew kings. There is an indirect but conclusive synchronism in Assyrian records--though not in the Bible--between the reigns of Ahab and Jehu and that of Shalmaneser III (see p. 159). But the clearest and most certain evidence is found in a series of synchronisms, some of them dated to the month and day, between specific years of several of the last kings of Judah and the years of Nebuchadnezzar. Although there are slight differences of opinion on some of these synchronisms, the capture of Jehoiachin is dated beyond question in Nebuchadnezzar's 7th (Babylonian) year, in Adar, 597 B.C. (see pp. 99, 161 note). For Nebuchadnezzar's reign is fixed astronomically, not only by Ptolemy's Canon, which comes from a later time, but also by a contemporary Babylonian text giving a whole series of exact astronomical data. Therefore the explanation of the evidence for the b.c. dating will begin with the firmly established years of Nebuchadnezzar and will work backward through Ptolemy's Canon and the Assyrian limmu lists.

The Astronomical Tablet of Nebuchadnezzar's 37th Year.--Among the thousands of public and private documents, written on clay tablets (see Vol. I, p. 110), that have been unearthed by archeologist in Mesopotamia, two astronomical texts are of outstanding importance to chronology, for they fix the b.c. dating of the reigns of Nebuchadnezzar II and Cambyses, respectively. The one most valuable for the later period of the Hebrew kings is concerned with the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar. It contains a series of observational data on the positions of various heavenly bodies throughout a complete year, running from Nisan 1, year 37, to Nisan 1, year 38 of the reign. Modern astronomers who have checked this information by astronomical computation say that the combination of data for the sun, moon, and planets, which all move in differing cycles, cannot be duplicated in any other year within centuries, if ever. Thus Nebuchadnezzar's 37th regnal year is fixed beyond doubt at 568/67 B.C. (see Vol. III, p. 88; also SDA Bible Students' Source Book, no. 452); and all other years in his reign are established also; the 1st year was 604/03 B.C., and the 7th year, in which he captured Jehoiachin, was 598/97 B.C. Since there are several Biblical synchronisms with Nebuchadnezzar's reign, the end of the kingdom of Judah is anchored to this b.c. dating (see p. 160), but the synchronisms between the Hebrew kings and Assyrian rulers must be located by means of Assyrian chronological lists which are linked with Nebuchadnezzar's reign through the king list known as Ptolemy's Canon.

Ptolemy's Canon Fixed by Eclipses.--The Greek-Egyptian astronomer Claudius Ptolemaeus, or Ptolemy, who lived near Alexandria in the 2d century of the Christian Era, wrote an astronomical work entitled Mathematike Syntaxis ("Mathematical Composition"). It is, however, better known by its Arabic title, the Almagest, because it was preserved for posterity by the Arab civilization that flourished during the Dark Ages, when Europe was sunk in ignorance of classical science and literature. This work, which was the authoritative treatise on astronomy for 1,400 years, until superseded by the theory set forth by Copernicus contains data for numerous eclipses and other celestial phenomena, dated to the year, day, and hour in the ancient Egyptian calendar. There are 19 eclipses, ranging over nearly 900 years, many of which are dated in regnal years of various kings.

As a sort of appendix to the Almagest is Ptolemy's Canon, or list, of kings, enumerating consecutive Babylonian, Persian, Macedonian, and Roman rulers, with the lengths of the reigns and the totals, thus furnishing a scale of years by which to reckon intervals between the observations mentioned in the Almagest (for the canon, see p. 154). Since its purpose was not to give a complete record of all the reigns, but to assign a regnal number to every year in the scale, it did not include any reign that lasted less than a year, and the reigns were counted by full years, ignoring the exact date of accession. The years by which it was reckoned were neither lunar nor true solar years, but the ancient Egyptian calendar year of 365 days, which wanders backward through the seasons one day every four Julian years (see Vol. I, p. 176). The starting point of the canon is the beginning of the first regnal year of the Babylonian king Nabonassar, a point that can be placed, by means of the exact intervals given in the Almagest between that point and the various eclipses, at noon Feb. 26, 747 B.C. This was the 1st of Thoth, the Egyptian New Year's Day, at that time (although by Nebuchadnezzar's time Thoth 1 had shifted to January, and by the time Ptolemy himself lived, it had moved back through the autumn and into July).

From Ptolemy's Canon, then, it is possible to assign b.c. dates to any regnal year of any of the kings in the list, that is, the years as reckoned in the Egyptian calendar. In the early (Babylonian) period of the Canon of Ptolemy each Egyptian year began about one to four months earlier than the corresponding lunar year beginning with Nisan. This is shown by the way in which the Egyptian years, as fixed by the eclipse data of Ptolemy's Almagest, are aligned with the Babylonian years as fixed in the tablet of the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar and the similar tablet from the 7th year of Cambyses (which even records one of the same eclipses mentioned in the Almagest).

Ptolemy wrote many centuries after the early eclipses he records, and depended on copies of the astronomical documents from which his information was originally derived. Yet the canon is corroborated wherever it can be checked by ancient Babylonian, Persian, and Egyptian documents, showing that Ptolemy's regnal numbering corresponded with the contemporary reckoning.

The canon dating harmonizes with the astronomically fixed 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar, although the Almagest does not mention that year. It agrees also with another eclipse in the preceding reign, and with three others in the reign of Mardokempad (Marduk-apal-iddin, or the Biblical Merodach-baladan), the earliest eclipse being only 26 years from the starting point of the canon. And since the number of years from this point back to the first year of Nabonassar agrees with the Babylonian Chronicle and the Babylonian King List A (both found on clay tablets), it can be considered settled that Ptolemy's Canon gives us exact dates as far back as 747 B.C. Furthermore, both the Assyrian king lists and the Assyrian limmu list, sometimes called the Eponym Canon, are in harmony with Ptolemy's reckoning of the lengths of the reigns wherever these lists for the close of the Assyrian Empire overlap the earlier section of the canon dating based on the eclipses. Since the complete canon is not easy to find in publications in English, a translation of it is included, for reference, on the next page.

PTOLEMY'S CANON OF THE KINGS

Note.--The first three columns of the tabulation on the opposite page are a translation from the Greek text of Ptolemy's Canon. The heading at the top of column 1, "Of the Assyrians and Medes," refers to kings of Babylon (some of the earlier ones were Assyrian rulers). After the Babylonian kings come "the Persian Kings," whose line ends with Alexander the Great. Then Ptolemy continues with a listing of the Macedonian rulers of the Egyptian division of the defunct empire of Alexander. The list carries on through the Roman emperors, presumably down to the date when Ptolemy lived. The second column gives the length of each reign. The third gives the accumulated total years of the era. Hence the number opposite any king's name represents, in terms of the Nabonassar Era, his last year of reign. Thus for example, the figure 226 opposite Cambyses represents his 8th, that is his last, year. His year 1 is the year 219 of the canon, the year following the total figure for the preceding king, Cyrus. Accordingly, chronologists have referred to Cambyses' first year as n.e. (Nabonassar Era) 219, and have used this n.e numbering throughout, but Ptolemy's Canon gives only the cumulative total at the end of each reign, carrying that cumulative total down only to the end of Alexander the Great's reign, and then beginning a new series of totals.

The last two columns, not in Ptolemy's Canon, are added for convenience: the n.e. for the year 1 of each reign, and the b.c. date of Thoth 1, the beginning of each of these Egyptian years of the canon. Ptolemy used the old 365-day Egyptian calendar years, not the years used by the Babylonian, Persian, Macedonian, and Roman rulers, and not the Julian-Egyptian civil calendar as s

The Assyrian Limmu List, or Eponym Canon.--This overlap of the latter part of the Assyrian chronology with Ptolemy's Canon makes possible the assignment of b.c. dates to the series of names by which the Assyrians designated successive years, the limmu list, or the Eponym Canon. The ancient Assyrian practice was to designate each year, not by a number, but by the name of an annual honorary official, called a limmu (Greek, "eponym"). This office was conferred in turn upon the king and certain of his high officers, generally in a prescribed order. Lists of these named years were kept for official or business use in every city. In the year in which Tiglath-pileser III came to the throne, for example, the limmu for that year was Nabû-bêl-us#ur; hence all documents were dated "in the year of Nabû-bêl-us#ur." The eponym for the next year (the first year of the reign) was Bêl-dân, but in the following year (the second of the reign), the king himself held the title, and so the year was designated as "the year of Tukulti-apil-Esharra" (Tiglath-pileser). The king customarily, though not always, held the office of eponym in the second year of his reign.

The limmu list is not complete for all of Assyrian history. The extant portion, compiled from various tablets, is consecutive only for the period from about 900 to 650 B.C.; the last period (647-612) is not certain. Fortunately it overlaps Ptolemy's Canon, and is thus anchored to the b.c. dating around 700, when some of the kings of Assyria were also kings of Babylon. Since the limmu list is thus aligned with the b.c. dating near its end, every year in the series can be dated if the list as we have it is complete. In the past there have been differences of opinion concerning possible gaps in the list, but present scholarship accepts it as complete; therefore events recorded as occurring in certain eponymies are confidently dated on this basis--for example, the battle of Qarqar, in which Ahab participated, is placed in 853 B.C.

The King Lists Aligned With the Limmu List.--Since the Assyrian limmu list is a series of names, without numerals, its scale of years can be used only for a purely relative scheme of chronology; it must be aligned with other known dating before it can be employed to assign b.c. dates to recorded events. But some copies of portions of the list carry a notation of a key event for each year, and some have horizontal lines between reigns. Such information makes it possible to align the limmu list with the extant Assyrian king lists as well as with the early part of Ptolemy's Canon. Several of these scales coincide (see p. 156), thus corroborating Ptolemy's Canon for the period preceding the first eclipse record, and locking the eponym list and king lists in alignment with the canon, hence with established b.c. dating.

Notable Synchronisms Between Ptolemy's Canon and Assyro-Babylonian Records

1st
Year
of
Reign*

Ptolemy's
Canon

Years
of
Reign

Total
of
Years†

From
Babylonian
King List A‡

Years
of
Reign

Extracts From
Assyrian Eponym List With Notes
(Limmu) (Event Noted)

Assyrian King List
Years
King of Reign

b.c.

747/46

Nabonassar

14

14

Nabu-nasir

[14]

745/44

NabuÆ-beÆl-us\ur

Tiglath-pileser took his seat on

744/43

BeÆl-daÆn

[the throne

Tukulti-apil-Esharra III

18

(Tiglath-pileser III)

733/32

Nadius

2

16

Nabu-nadin-zeri

2

731/30
730/29
729/28
728/27
727/26

}

Chinzer
and
Porus

}

5

21

Ukinzer 3
& Pulu (Pul
or Tiglath-
pileser)‡ 2

}

5

Naphar-ilu
DuÆri-Ashshur
BeÆl-harran-beÆl-us\ur

The king took the hand of BeÆl
The king took the hand of BeÆl
Shalmaneser took his seat on

726/25

Iloulaius

5

26

Ululaia

5

Marduk-beÆl-us\ur

[the throne

ShulmaÆnu-ashareÆd V

5

Marduk-apal-

(Shalmaneser V)

721/20

Mardokempad

12

38

iddin (Mero-

12

NabuÆ-t\aÆris\

Sharru-ukéÆn II

17

dach-baladan)

709/08

Arkean

5

43

Sharru-ukéÆn

5

Mannu-kéÆ-

Sargon took the hand of BeÆl

[Tablet: Sargon's yr. 13]§

(Sargon II)

Ashshur-le'i

705/04

Nashur-beÆl

Sennacherib took his seat on

704/03

1st Interregnum

2

45

Sin-ahheÆ-réÆba
(Sennacherib)

2

Nabu-dini-epush

[the throne

Sin-ahheÆ-réÆba

24

The Babylonian Chronicle and king list agree with Ptolemy's Canon in the lengths of the reigns and in the names, except that Ptolemy's Greek spelling is quite different from the Babylonian. After the 14 years of Nabonassar and the 2 of Nabu-nadin-zeri (Ptolemy's Nadius), the Babylonian king list gives Ukinzer 3 years and Pulu (Biblical Pul) 2 years (Ptolemy: Chinzer and Porus, 5 years), whereas the Babylonian Chronicle records that Ukinzer in his 3d year was defeated by Tiglath-pileser of Assyria, who took over Babylon and himself assumed the title of king of Babylon for two years.

Thus, some years after Tiglath-pileser III (Tukulti-apil-Esharra) began his reign, according to the Assyrian king list, the notation for the year of the limmu named Naphar-ilu reads: "The king took the hand of Bel." That is, the Assyrian king went through the New Year coronation ceremony at Babylon, the rite of receiving the kingship from the god Bel, just as all Babylonian kings did annually; thus in the sight of his Babylonian subjects he became, not a foreign overlord, but a duly consecrated king of Babylon. Since the Babylonian king list calls Ukinzer's successor in Babylon "Pulu," and the Babylonian Chronicle says that it was "Tukulti-apil-Esharra," and that he died in his second year, it is generally accepted that Tiglath-pileser ruled Babylon in his last two years under the name of Pul, differing from his Assyrian throne name.

Two years after Naphar-ilu the limmu list notes the accession of Shalmaneser (V), and then the Assyrian king list attests the 1st of Shulmânu-asharêd V after the 18 years of Tiglath-pileser III. If the accession year of Shalmaneser V, the death year of Tiglath-pileser, is the same as the death year of Pulu, or the 5th of the 5 years assigned to Ukinzer and Pulu (or Chinzer and Porus), then Shalmaneser came to the throne in the year 21 of the canon, or 727/26 B.C., and the 5 years of Shalmaneser correspond to the 5 years of Ululaia, or Iloulaius, king of Babylon. Thus Shalmaneser seems also to have had a different name as king of Babylon. At the end of Shalmaneser's reign the Chaldean leader Marduk-apal-iddin (Ptolemy's Mardokempad) took Babylon and held it for 12 years. This was the Biblical Merodach-baladan. His rule in Babylon parallels the reign of Shalmaneser's successor, Sharru-ukîn, or Sargon II (called Arkean by Ptolemy from the Assyrian arqu meaning "second"). After 12 years Merodach-baladan was driven out by Sargon, who "took the hand of Bel" and in 709 B.C. began his five-year rule as king of Babylon. This was the year of Mannu-kî-Ashshur-le'i, in the canon year corresponding to 709 B.C. Also, several cuneiform tablets independently corroborate Sargon's 13th through 16th years of rule over Assyria as his years 1 through 4 in Babylon. The limmu list notes the accession of Sennacherib (Sin-ahhê-rîba), and then his first year is listed in both the Babylonian and the Assyrian king lists. Ptolemy, however, has a 2-year interregnum here; evidently because the memory of Sennacherib's destroying the city of Babylon resulted in the dropping out of his name in some king lists. Consequently Ptolemy's source must have named no king for those 2 years, until Bêl-ibni (Bilib) was placed over Babylon, and none for Sennacherib's last 8 years, where Ptolemy again has an interregnum.

This series of exact parallels between the Canon of Ptolemy and the limmu lists demonstrates that this is a genuine overlap of the two lists, and therefore that these years of the limmu list may be assigned the same b.c. dates as the corresponding canon years. The Assyrian list, thus fixed, can be used from this point back as a chronological scale, as far

The Eclipse of 763 B.C.--How far back is the limmu list complete? In the past this was disputed. Those who used interregna (see p. 140) to reconcile the Judah and Israel lines had to assume gaps in the limmu list, but those who used coregencies found harmony between the reigns of the Hebrew kings and their Assyrian contemporaries without assuming gaps in the list. There can be no proof of completeness, since there are no totals or known intervals against which to check the names except where they are corroborated by independent sources. The present list does not depend on merely one original. The fact that several of the various extant partial lists overlap during this period, makes it relatively unlikely that the list is incomplete here. Those who hold that there are gaps must assume that all these copies came from an older erroneous archetype that was incomplete.

A check point is the year of Bur-sagale (a name variously spelled), in which an eclipse of the sun is mentioned as taking place in the month of Simanu (Sivan). Originally there was difference of opinion as to the date of this event, for there were solar eclipses in that part of the world that could have been dated in Sivan in the years 809, 791, and 763 B.C. But the one in 763 is generally accepted today for several reasons: It was, unlike the other two, a total eclipse; it was visible nearest to Nineveh, and therefore would be the most spectacular eclipse of the period; but further, the extant eponym list, anchored firmly to the b.c. dating of the Canon of Ptolemy, places the year of Bur-sagale precisely in 763 B.C., the nearest and most likely year in which there was an actual eclipse at a time that can be dated in the month Sivan. Since this point is only 30 years away from the period of certain dating, it seems reasonable to assume that the list is correct at least this far back, and that the dating of the synchronisms between the Hebrew kings and Tiglath-pileser cannot be moved very far from the present dating of the Assyrian reigns. Back of 763, however, there is no such check point, and the possibility of gaps in the earlier portion is greater, yet there is no definite reason to doubt the completeness of the list as far back as Shalmaneser III, where we find the earliest synchronism between Assyrian and Hebrew reigns.

Synchronisms Between Hebrew, Assyrian, and Babylonian Kings.-- If then the Assyrian limmu list can be used to date the reigns of the Assyrian kings contemporary with the divided Hebrew kingdoms, it can also be used to date the Hebrew reigns wherever they are synchronized with Assyrian kings, just as the last reigns of Judah can be dated by Nebuchadnezzar's reign. The synchronisms between Hebrew kings and those of Assyria and Babylonia must therefore be discussed under Sec. VII.

VII. The B.C. Dating of the Hebrew Kings

Contacts Between Hebrew Kings and Egyptian Pharaohs.--The earliest mention of a foreign king in connection with a ruler of Israel or Judah is that of Shishak (Egyptian, Sheshonk), who invaded Judah in the 5th year of Rehoboam of Judah (1 Kings 14:25, 26; 2 Chron. 12:2-9). But this information does not help to locate the 5th year of Rehoboam, because the chronology of the Twenty-second Dynasty is not exactly known. Sheshonk is believed to have begun his reign about 950 B.C. The next contact mentioned is that of "So king of Egypt" with Hoshea of Israel (2 Kings 17:4), but again there is no information to establish any exact date. On these two pharaohs, see pp. 50, 52. A third contact is that of "Tirhakah king of Ethiopia" and Hezekiah (see pp. 53, 64, 160).

Synchronisms Between Hebrew and Assyrian Kings.--The earliest synchronisms between Israelite and Assyrian kings do not come from the Bible, but from the annals of Shalmaneser III, in the 6th and 18th years of his reign. The first of these was the year assigned in the limmu list to Daiân-Ashshur. Not only does the annotated form of the limmu list give the name of Daiân-Ashshur in the 6th year after the one in which Shalmaneser is noted as taking his seat on the throne, but also some forms of the annals date this campaign in the 6th year of the reign. Shalmaneser's "Monolith Inscription" records that in the year of Daiân-Ashshur the Assyrian forces went on a western campaign and at Qarqar in Syria met a defensive coalition that included Benhadad of Damascus and Ahabbu mat Sir'ila, or "Ahab of the land of Israel." Twelve years later, on another expedition to the west, in his 18th year, he fought Hazael of Damascus, and received tribute from Iaua maÆr Humri ("Jehu, son of Omri," that is, of the land of Omri, or Israel). Shalmaneser's Black Obelisk shows a relief of Jehu bowing before him, presenting tribute. These two years are now placed in 853 and 841 B.C., respectively. (The dates 854 and 842, based by older authorities on a single limmu list, are contradicted by all other lists.)

These two years were the last of Ahab and the first of Jehu, since there are two intervening reigns (Ahaziah, 2 years, and Joram, 12 years) totaling 12 regnal years by the non-accession-year reckoning with its overlap of one year for each reign:

Twelve Years From Ahab to Jehu

Ahaziah and Jehoram (Joram) intervene with 14 regnal years

Since the b.c. dating of Shalmaneser III seems to be established by the limmu list, the reigns of Ahab, Ahaziah, Joram, and Jehu of Israel are similarly established, also that of the contemporary Ahaziah of Judah, whose brief reign of one year ended in the 12th year of Joram of Israel, that is, the 18th of Shalmaneser. Insofar as our data are correct, the whole pattern of the two lines of Hebrew kings can be dated in the b.c. scale. It is from this Shalmaneser synchronism that the b.c. date for Solomon's 4th year, the 480th from the Exodus, is placed at 967/66 B.C., and his 40th year, in which the division came, in 931/30.

Jehoash of Israel is probably the Ia'asu mentioned by Adad-nirari III of Assyria. On Pul as Tiglath-pileser, see p. 156, note ‡. The use of the singular pronoun "he" is held by some to indicate that Pul and Tiglath-pileser in 1 Chron. 5:26 are one person, and that the translation can read Pul, even Tiglath-pileser. Pekah and Ahaz are contemporaries of Tiglath-pileser (2 Kings 16:5, 10; 2 Chron. 28:19-21). The latter's annals mention Menihimme, Paqaha, and Ausi' (translated Menahem, Pekah, and Hoshea), and it is probable, though disputed, that his "Azriau from Iauda" is Azariah of Judah.

Shalmaneser V besieged Samaria which fell "at the end of three years" (inclusive, see p. 136) in the 9th year of Hoshea and the 6th of Hezekiah (2 Kings 17:3, 4; 2 Kings 18:9, 10). Since Sargon II in his later years claimed to have taken Samaria early in his reign, some have thought that the city fell after the death of Shalmaneser, or else that Sargon was the general who actually captured the city just before his accession. But an Assyrian king's vainglorious claim made only in the late editions of his annals incurs suspicion. The one event recorded of Shalmaneser V in the Babylonian Chronicle is the conquest of a city; if its name is to be read as Shamara'in (not Shabara'in), this would indicate that Samaria fell just before the end of Shalmaneser's reign, in 723/22 B.C.

The last Biblical reference to contact between Assyria and Judah is that between Hezekiah and Sennacherib (although later Esarhaddon's annals mention Manasseh as Menasi, and Ashurbanipal likewise refers to him as "Minsie" of "Iaudi"). Sennacherib invaded the west in the 14th year of Hezekiah (2 Kings 18:13) but did not take Jerusalem. This is evidently Sennacherib's "third campaign" mentioned in the Assyrian annals. The two statements that Shalmaneser (V) came against Samaria in the 4th year of Hezekiah and that Sennacherib invaded Judah in the 14th year of the same king (2 Kings 18:9, 13) do not, as might appear at first glance, conflict with the Assyrian records of the intervening 17-year reign of Sargon II. This interval is a strong indication of a coregency for Hezekiah; it would put Shalmaneser's invasion in the 4th year of the coregency and Sennacherib's in the 14th year of the sole reign.

Although some commentators take account of only one attack on Judah by Sennacherib, the Bible narrative lends itself also to the interpretation that allows for a second invasion late in Hezekiah's reign (see pp. 64, 87). Commentators who believe in a second campaign differ as to where the Biblical narrative makes the transition. However, the mention of "Tirhakah [Egyptian, Taharka] king of Ethiopia" (2 Kings 19:9) as threatening Sennacherib at this time seems to refer to a time near the end of Hezekiah's reign, for Taharka, a king of the Twenty-fifth Dynasty of Egypt, which was Nubian, or "Ethiopian," began to reign approximately 690 B.C. at the age of 20 (see p. 53), according to present evidence that was published in 1949. This would have been within a very few years of the end of Hezekiah's 29 years of sole reign (see PK 339). Thus the known date of Shalmaneser V and the approximate dating of Taharka of Egypt combine to favor the view of 29 years plus a coregency for Hezekiah.

Synchronisms Between Kings of Judah and of Babylon.--The final reigns of Judah synchronize with the reign of Nebuchadnezzar (whose 37th year is astronomically fixed), and thus can be given b.c. dates. These may be tabulated:

These dates agree with the most recent finds when Jehoiakim's 4th year is aligned with Nebuchadnezzar's 1st, Jehoiachin's deportation "when the year was expired" (2 Chron. 36:10) with Nebuchadnezzar's 8th year, and Jerusalem's fall with the latter's 19th, if the Jewish fall-to-fall year is taken into account.

Ezekiel, who was taken captive to Babylon with Jehoiachin, frequently dates events by years of this captivity, for example:

Ezekiel's vision of the siege, 9th yr. of captivity--Eze. 24:1, 2 (see the same date for the beginning of the siege--2 Kings 25:1; Jer. 52:4).

News of the city's fall reaches Ezekiel in 10th month, 12th year--Eze. 33:21 (see fall of the city in 4th month of 11th year of Zedekiah and 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar--Jer. 39:2; 52:6-14).

Ezekiel's vision in the 25th year of the captivity, the 14th after the city was smitten--Eze. 40:1.

These dates do not determine whether Ezekiel computed the years of Jehoiachin's captivity from the spring or fall, or by anniversary reckoning from date of capture. These alternatives, along with differing opinions on the alignment of the 4th year of Jehoiakim and the 1st of Nebuchadnezzar, result in different dates for Ezekiel's vision of the siege, and the news of the city's fall.

Ezekiel's reckoning, however, does not necessarily apply to another date formula given in terms of the captivity of Jehoiachin, the release of the captive king in the 12th month of the 37th year. Amel-Marduk, Nebuchadnezzar's successor, took him from prison in Babylon "in the year that he began to reign" (2 Kings 25:27) or "in the first year of his reign" (Jer. 52:31; first being a supplied word). These two texts, respectively, read literally: "in the year when he was (or became) king" (2 Kings 25:27), and "in the year of his kingship" (Jer. 52:31). Some have considered "the year" of Amel-Marduk to be, on the analogy of the Arabic, his year 1, since it was the year--indeed, the only full calendar year--of his reign, for he died in his year 2. Others say that it means his accession year because "in the year that he reigned" may be taken to imply that in which he began to reign. If in Kings and Jeremiah the years of Jehoiachin's captivity are counted inclusively from the fall-to-fall year in which he was taken, the 12th month of the 37th year falls in the Babylonian accession year of Amel-Marduk, in the spring of 561 B.C., which would be in year 1 as counted by Judah's fall-to-fall year. It is not necessary to assume that Ezekiel's reckoning in Babylon was the same as that used in Judah in the closing days of the monarchy. It could

be an example of differing reckonings. This point, however, has no effect on the date of the end of the kingdom of J

Assigning B.C. Dates to the Hebrew Lines.--Assuming, then, that we have a scheme of the reigns of the Hebrew kings that is at least relatively consistent and tentatively correct, we can superimpose on that pattern the scale of b.c. dating to make the years of Nebuchadnezzar, whose b.c. equivalents are known, synchronize with the last reigns of Judah, and can work back from there. If the earlier synchronisms between Hebrew kings and the Assyrian rulers can be fitted in, without doing violence to the Biblical figures, during the time when the limmu list and the Canon of Ptolemy overlap; and if the still earlier period of Shalmaneser III with Ahab and Jehu can be harmonized also, it will appear that the reconstruction of the chronology of this period is reasonably correct.

This does not necessarily mean that every detail can be considered absolutely fixed, for where so many overlapped reigns must be allowed for, there may be more than one feasible way to adjust the relationships of these reigns. But the general scheme may be regarded as based on sound principles and usable as a working hypothesis for dating Biblical events. Absolutely exact dates can be given for only those events that are directly and unambiguously connected with some fixed point of reference, like the synchronisms of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar. Even in such cases dates given in terms of lunar months cannot be dogmatically dated to the very day without allowing room for the variation of a day, sometimes of a month (see pp. 119, 120).

Although the exact chronology of all the Hebrew reigns is not regarded as fixed, the pattern is sufficiently complete to allow the listing of b.c. dates as at least tentative approximations (see tabulation on p. 77) for the reader's convenience. These dates are not given as a final statement of the exact chronology. Though the last few reigns of Judah are aligned with the Babylonian years of Nebuchadnezzar, the b.c. dates of earlier kings are to be taken as approximate, although possibly, and in most cases very probably, correct.

Other dates are relatively less certain, as they are distant in time from such fixed dates, or as they are involved in some of the adjustments, such as assumed coregencies, made solely on the basis of making the synchronisms fit on paper--as must be done provisionally if a complete scale is to be constructed at all.

The possible uncertainty of a few days, or even a few years, does not outweigh the value of a series of dates presented as a working hypothesis for the reader's convenience, but it is well to preserve an open mind for the possible revision of some of these minutiae when additional information becomes available.

Bibliography

The works listed here are cited, not because they necessarily agree with the chronological views set forth in this commentary, but because they are useful for reference on this subject, especially as source material for points discussed in the foregoing article.

Albright, William Foxwell. "The Chronology of the Divided Monarchy of Israel," Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, No. 100 (December, 1945), pp. 16-22. A discussion based on the premise that the data in Chronicles require considerable revision of the figures in Kings. It exemplifies the attitude of the modern scholar who assumes that most of the Bible figures for the reigns have suffered from copyists' errors.

Babylonian Chronicle. A general title applied to the known portions of the military annals of Babylonian kings, including the portion for c. 747-648 B.C. published under that title in 1887, and others issued variously since. The latest is Chronicles of Chaldaean Kings, 626-556 B.C., edited and translated by D. J. Wiseman (London: Trustees of the British Museum, 1961 [first printed 1956]. 99 pp., 21 plates). It includes texts previously issued; on pp. 1-3 are enumerated the dates, cuneiform sources, and earlier publications. The new texts furnish hitherto unknown details, also dates for several Biblical events (see p. 99 above).

The Cambridge Ancient History. Vol. I (3d ed.), Part 1: Prolegomena and Prehistory (1970); Part 2: The Early History of the Middle East (1971). Vol. II (3d ed.), Part 1: History of the Middle East and the Aegean Region c. 1800-1380 b.c. (1973); Part 2: The History of the Middle East and the Aegean Region c. 1380-1000 b.c. (forthcoming). Edited by I. E. S. Edwards and others. Vol. III: The Assyrian Empire (1st ed. reprinted with corrections, 1954). Edited by J. B. Bury and others. Cambridge: University Press. The complete 12-volume work, with each chapter written by a specialist, is the most exhaustive ancient history available in English. The new Vols. I and II and the old Vol. III cover the Biblical period to the Exile.

Garstang, John. The Foundations of Bible History; Joshua, Judges. London: Constable and Constable, Ltd., 1931. 423 pp. Puts entry into Canaan about 1400. Discussion of Joshua's conquest of Jericho (see p. 42 above) has been outmoded by later findings (see entry under Kenyon).

Horn, Siegfried H. "The Chronology of Hezekiah's Reign," Andrews University Seminary Studies, II (1964), 40-52. A study (with a chronological chart from 751 to 712 B.C.) of the place of Hezekiah's reign in the Judah-Israel chronology.

_______. "The Babylonian Chronicle and the Ancient Calendar of the Kingdom of Judah," ibid., V (1967), 12-27. A discussion of the light thrown on the nature of the calendar of the last decades of the kingdom of Judah (Josiah to Zedekiah) by several portions of the Babylonian Chronicle.

_______, and Wood, Lynn, H. The Chronology of Ezra 7. 2d ed., rev. Washington: Review and Herald, 1970. 192 pp. A solution of a problem in postexilic Biblical chronology. The earlier chapters explain general principles and methods of ancient chronology, with documentation to sources on such topics as Egyptian and Babylonian regnal reckoning, Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year, etc. Both authors have also constructed chronologies of the Hebrew kings, but except for Horn's two articles mentioned above, they have never been published.

Kenyon, Kathleen M. Digging Up Jericho. New York: Frederick A. Praeger, 1957. 272 pp. A preliminary account of the excavations of 1952-56 at Jericho, by the joint expedition of the British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem and other institutions, under the direction of Kathleen Kenyon. If the preliminary conclusions of this book are valid, they render Garstang's conclusions on Jericho obsolete, leave the subject of the conquest by Joshua where it was before Garstang's excavations, and postpone any archeological solution until further findings are in.

Luckenbill, Daniel David. Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia. 2 vols. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1926-1927. Reprint: Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1969. An English translation of source documents, including the limmu list, annals, etc., old but still useful.

Poebel, Arno. "The Assyrian King List From Khorsabad," part 3, Journal of Near Eastern Studies, II (1943), 56-90. A study of a king list written in 738 B.C. The portion furnishing data for the period of the overlap with Ptolemy's Canon is an editorial continuation of the kings compiled from other lists.

Pritchard, James B., editor. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. With supplement. 3d ed. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1969. The representative collection of such documents, translated and annotated by a number of leading scholars. It includes much historical and literary material from other nations, relating only indirectly to the Old Testament but throwing light on the cultural and religious setting in which the Old Testament was written. It supersedes the older collections for the Assyrian annals referring to various kings of Israel and Judah, and contains the Babylonian King List A, but only a short extract from a limmu list.

Ptolemy (Claudius Ptolemaeus). The Almagest. Translated by R. Catesby Taliaferro. "Great Books of the Western World," vol. 16: Ptolemy, Copernicus, Kepler, pp. vii-xiiv, 1-478. Edited by John Maynard Hutchins and Mortiner J. Adler. Chicago: Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc., 1952. Ptolemy's great astronomical work, containing the records of eclipses, etc., that establish the dating, and containing the canon in Appendix A (Greek text in Ptolemy's Opera, Halma ed., Paris, 1813).

Rowley, H. H. From Joseph to Joshua. London: Oxford University Press, 1950. 200 pp. Valuable, not for the author's critical viewpoint and conclusions, but for the summary of the theories of various scholars and for the comprehensive footnotes to authorities.

Thiele, Edwin R. The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings. Rev. ed. Grand Rapids, Mich.: The William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1965. 232 pp. A scholarly landmark in the field of Biblical chronology. An exposition of the chronology of the kings that seeks to harmonize all the Biblical data and the Assyrian and Babylonian chronology as well. It attains more harmony between the Biblical figures and the generally accepted dates for Assyrian history than any other scheme thus far published. In addition to presenting diagrammatic outlines of the reigns and a fully documented exposition of this chronological system, the book is a storehouse of information on the ancient principles of reckoning, on the source data, both Biblical and non-Biblical, and on the various chronological schemes of preceding writers in this field. The appendix tabulations include the Assyrian limmu (or eponym) list and the Babylonian and Persian sections of Ptolemy's Canon.

Ussher, James. The Annals of the World. London: J. Crook and G. Bedell, 1658. 907 pp. The classic but obsolete Biblical chronology, first published in 1650 in Latin. It introduces interregna to harmonize the reigns, and bases the b.c. dating on the arbitrary assumption of 1004 B.C. (1000 years before the birth of Christ) for the completion of Solomon's Temple. The 480 years are taken literally.

Wiseman, D. J., ed. Chronicles of Chaldaean Kings. See Babylonian Chronicle.

INTRODUCTION

1. Title. The title of the book is taken from the name of the successor of Moses, Joshua, the son of Nun, of the tribe of Ephraim. He was at first called HosheaÔ, transliterated Hoshea or Oshea (Deut. 32:44; Num. 13:8, 16), which signifies "savior" or "salvation." According to v. 16, Moses changed his name to YehoshuaÔ, Jehoshua, by prefixing the abbreviated form for Jehovah (Yahweh) to Joshua's former name. It now signified "salvation of [or by] Jehovah." Joshua is merely a shortened form for Jehoshua, the form always found in the Hebrew Old Testament. In the LXX he is called Iesous huios Naue, "Jesus, son of Naue [Nun]." In the New Testament he is expressly called Iesous, Jesus (Acts 7:45; Heb. 4:8). The ASV has "Joshua" in both references.

Christ and the Jews recognized three divisions in the Old Testament: the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms, or Writings (Luke 24:44). Joshua is the first book in the second division, called "the Prophets" in Hebrew Bibles, because its author occupied the office of prophet. In Hebrew Bibles the section entitled "the Prophets" is divided into two parts: the Former Prophets, comprising Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings, and the Latter Prophets, comprising those we commonly know as the Prophets. Thus Joshua stands as the first book of the Prophets, although in content it is closely related to the Pentateuch, known to the Jews as the Law.

2. Authorship. Commentators and critics are divided in opinion as to whether the book was actually compiled by Joshua. Critics insist that the book is not a literary unit, composed by one author, but pieced together from several documents. But the internal unity of the book is so evident from its connected narrative that no serious consideration need be given such a documentary analysis. It is argued by those who deny Joshua as the author that there are both names and transactions mentioned in it that did not exist or occur until a considerable period after the time of Joshua. The expression "unto this day," found in a dozen or so places, say they, indicates it was written long after Joshua's time. However, at least one of those texts proves just the opposite. In ch. 6:25, speaking of Rahab, it says, "She dwelleth in Israel even unto this day." There is no reason why this could not have been written by Joshua. It certainly could not have been written as late as modern critics imply, since it was obviously written in Rahab's lifetime.

None of the 12 texts referred to, with the possible exception of ch. 15:63, can be definitely established as having been written after Joshua's time. According to this text, "the Jebusites dwell with the children of Judah at Jerusalem unto this day." In Judges 1:21, after the death of Joshua (v. 1), the story is told of Benjamin's not driving out the inhabitants of Jerusalem but of his allowing them to dwell there "unto this day." But this was as true before the death of Joshua as it was after his death.

A more difficult problem, perhaps, is the account of the capture of Leshem by the Danites, in ch. 19:47. A comparison with Judges 18:27-29 may possibly imply that the capture of Leshem occurred long after the time of Joshua. But there is no evidence to prove that this was so.

Other objections are mentioned, such as place names that were not given until later times--Cabul (Joshua 19:27; cf. 1 Kings 9:13), Joktheel (Joshua 15:38; cf. 2 Kings 14:7), and a few others. It has therefore been supposed by many devout men that the book was written by some inspired person after the time of Joshua but before many kings had reigned in Israel. However, Joshua 6:25 does not permit so late a date of writing as implied in ch. 19:47, or as late as indicated by the argument of the names referred to previously. What, then, is the solution?

The fact that the book is written in the third person in no way tends to exclude Joshua as its author; Moses also wrote in the third person, keeping an accurate record of all events that occurred under his leadership, up to his death. It is certainly reasonable to suppose that Joshua, chief assistant to Moses, would follow the example set by his great predecessor. The apparent difficulties mentioned previously may reasonably be accounted for on the basis that when the book was transcribed in later years, particularly up to the time of the kings, certain minor alterations were made, such as the substitution of contemporary place names for ones that were older and less familiar. We speak of New Amsterdam as New York, for the sake of clarity. Other minor explanatory additions may have been made, as for instance the expression "unto this day." Such modifications would in no way detract from the authenticity of the book as the work of Joshua, prepared under the guidance of Inspiration.

It is generally agreed that the record of Joshua's death in ch. 24:29-33, like that of Eleazar, was recorded by someone else. But even this would in no way affect the inspiration or authorship of the book. Books today often contain prefatory or biographical notes prepared by someone other than the author himself. With few exceptions until modern times, Jews and Christians have uniformly acknowledged Joshua as the author of the book bearing his name. The Jewish Talmud (Baba Bathra 14b) specifically affirms this to be so, and states further that Eleazar, the son of Aaron the high priest, added the conclusion (ch. 24:29-32), with v. 33 being appended by Phinehas (Baba Bathra 15a, 15b).

3. Historical Setting. On the basis of Joshua being the author, and of the Exodus being in the year 1445 B.C., it is clear that the book of Joshua was written in the early part of the 14th century b.c. Portions of it may have been recorded in the last years of the 15th century. Slight additions, by way of explanation, as previously mentioned, may have been made by later transcribers, but hardly later than the very early kings. Israel was now entering the land of the Amorites west of Jordan, to possess it according to the promise to Abraham in Gen. 15:16. The iniquity of the Amorites was now full.

Modern excavations have given us much information regarding Palestine and surrounding nations at the time of Joshua. For several centuries Palestine had been intermittently under the influence, and at times the control, of Egypt. Thutmose III, who died about 1450, conducted 17 campaigns in or through Palestine to quell what had developed into a general revolt against Egypt. These campaigns continued over a period of 18 years. Even after that there were additional minor campaigns, and several new strongholds were erected. In certain times of the year soldiers and supplies were constantly being moved along the coastal highway, called in the Bible "the way of the land of the Philistines" (Ex. 13:17). This was probably just prior to the time of the Exodus if, as seems likely, the Exodus took place about 1445 (see p. 125; also Introduction to Exodus, Vol. I).

After the Exodus the strength of Egypt began to wane. However, war between Egypt and the nations of Canaan continued until the reign of Thutmose IV (c. 1425-1412 B.C.). A new enemy, the Hittites, began to menace the Mitannians, Egypt's former enemy. Thutmose IV made peace with the Mitannians because of their new common foe, shortly before 1400 B.C., and the long standing hostility between them came to an end. In the days of his successor, Amenhotep III (c. 1412-1375 B.C.), the high tide of Egyptian power began to ebb. However, he ruled in security and unparalleled splendor. Egypt was enjoying the wealth she had obtained in past conquests. Her military might was ending; and as revealed by the Tell el-Amarna Letters, correspondence from vassal princes in Syria and Palestine to Amenhotep III and his successor, Ikhnaton (c. 1387-1366 B.C.), Syria and Palestine were seething with intrigue internally and were under attack from without. Yet help from Egypt was not forthcoming. Scarabs of Amenhotep III, the latest found in the tombs outside Jericho, are regarded by some scholars as evidence that the city fell during his reign. Conditions in Palestine were thus such as to make possible the Israelite conquest, without their having to meet the strength of the Egyptian Empire.

The Hittites, mentioned in Joshua 1:4, were rising to power at this time, but had no power in Palestine (see pp. 30, 31). This served to restrain the power of the Mitannians in the north. Assyria was in periodic decline, and therefore weak. The Kassites ruled in Babylon, but because of the uncertainty of their position--due to their fear of the Mitannians, to pressure from Assyria, and to the constant struggle for pre-eminence in Mesopotamia--they too were exerting every effort to gain the friendship of Egypt. The main wave of Philistine immigrants had not yet arrived in Palestine, to build up their power on the coastal area (see p. 27). Thus the political world was in a state of flux, and no power from without was in a position to come to the rescue of the peoples of Canaan.

The land of Canaan was divided among numerous small kingdoms and one autonomous state, Gibeon, with its dependent towns, Chephirah, Beeroth, and Kirjath-jearim. East of the Jordan there were the kingdoms of Sihon and Og. The land was already cultivated. The inhabitants lived in cities, but tilled the ground outside the walls and planted oliveyards and vineyards. They were acquainted with writing, as the original name of Debir--Kirjath-sepher, "city of books" (ch. 15:15)--proves. The people of Canaan owned horses and chariots (Joshua 11:4; 17:18); but religiously and morally they were very degraded (Deut. 12:29-31; 18:9-12), practicing almost every kind of superstitious art and immorality.

The chronological data of the book are limited. Unfortunately, no historical or archeological data are yet available to cross-reference any part of the Joshua narrative with known events in secular history. According to ch. 4:19, it was on the tenth day of the first month (Abib) that the people "came up out of Jordan." The crossing of Jordan therefore occurred in the spring of the year (see also ch. 3:15). If the Exodus occurred in 1445 B.C.--as the evidence seems to indicate--this would be the spring of 1405 B.C.

The next question that arises is, How long a time was required for the conquest of Canaan? The answer is found in chs. 11:18; 14:7, 10, 11; 23:1; 24:29. In ch. 11:18 it is simply stated that Joshua waged war "a long time." According to ch. 14:7, 10, 11, Caleb was 40 years old when Moses sent him from Kadesh-barnea to explore the land of Canaan, and 45 years had passed since that time. The conquest of the land was by this time considered complete, as chs. 11:23 and 14:5 indicate. This does not mean that every part of the land was under Israelite control, for God had promised only a gradual taking over lest the land revert to wilderness (Ex. 23:29, 30). Since the mission of the spies coincided with the second year of the Exodus (Deut. 2:14), and the wandering in the wilderness lasted 38 years, the conquest occupied between 6 and 7 years (45-38 = 7). Josephus, on the contrary, gives the duration of the conquest as only five years, and with this some modern scholars tend to agree. See pp. 125, 126.

A third question follows: How long, in all, did Joshua hold the reins of government? In other words, what space of time is covered by the book? Chapter 23:1 speaks vaguely of "a long time," after which Joshua, who was now old and advanced in years, assembled the nation (v. 2). According to ch. 24:29, Joshua was 110 years old when he died. There are no other references to this period of time here or elsewhere. Josephus (Antiquities v. 1. 29) divides Joshua's life into three parts: 45 years before the Exodus, 40 years with Moses, and 25 years as sole leader. Writers of later times, such as Theophilus, Clement, and Eusebius, give 27 instead of 25, because, it is explained, of reckoning the conquest as 7 years. This would simply make him two years younger at the time of the Exodus, and in no way affects the historical accuracy of the statement of ch. 24:29.

4. Theme. In viewing the book of Joshua as a whole, the careful reader is impressed with the fact that he is reading a sequel to the record of the Pentateuch by an eyewitness of the events narrated in the book. The great theme is the faithfulness of Jehovah in the fulfillment of His promises (ch. 21:43-45), under the able leadership of Joshua, the one chosen of God to accomplish the divine purpose.

The book of Joshua is a most important part of the Old Testament, and should not be considered separately from the Pentateuch, of which it is the continuation and conclusion. This book is related to the five books of Moses in somewhat the same way as the book of Acts is related to the four Gospels. The Gospels give an account of the ministry of Jesus Christ, the Christian Legislator, as the books of the Pentateuch give, for the most part, an account of the ministry of Moses, God's representative and legislator for the Israel of his day (see Deut. 18:18). As long as men were content to remain under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the early church prospered; as long as Joshua and Israel depended wholly on God, the conquest of Canaan progressed. God ever works through human instrumentalities, qualified as leaders by years of training, yet conscious of their own unworthiness. When such men trust to their own wisdom and fail to depend wholly on God, many mistakes occur--as at Ai and with Gibeon. Lives are lost, and the work of the Lord is delayed. But when deep humility is felt, and courage to deal with sin is manifested, then victory is certain.

5. Outline.

I. The Conquest of Canaan, 1:1 to 12:24.

A. Crossing the Jordan, 1:1 to 4:24.

1. The Lord's charge to Joshua, 1:1-9.

2. Preparations for crossing the Jordan, 1:10-18.

a. Announcement of the crossing, 1:10, 11.

b. A reminder to the two and one-half tribes, 1:12-18.

3. The sending forth of the spies, 2:1-24.

4. The crossing of the Jordan, 3:1 to 4:24.

a. Preparatory instructions, 3:1-13.

b. Waters of the Jordan cut off, people pass over, 3:14-17.

c. Erecting memorials of the crossing, 4:1-24.

B. The fall of Jericho, 5:1 to 6:27.

1. Preparation for taking Jericho, 5:1-15.

a. Rumors dishearten the people, 5:1.

b. The people circumcised, 5:2-9.

c. The Passover observed, 5:10-12.

d. Joshua's vision, 5:13-15.

2. Jericho compassed and destroyed, 6:1-21.

3. Rahab saved, 6:22-27.

C. The capture of Ai, 7:1 to 8:35.

1. Preliminary defeat and retreat, 7:1-5.

2. Joshua's humiliation and instructions from the Lord, 7:6-15.

3. The trespass of Achan, 7:16-26.

4. The final conquest of Ai, 8:1-29.

5. The reading of the blessings and cursings, 8:30-35.

D. The treaty with the Gibeonites, 9:1-27.

E. The Canaanite confederacy, 10:1-27.

1. The siege of Gibeon, 10:1-5.

2. Joshua crushes the Canaanites, 10:6-27.

F. Joshua's conquests, 10:28 to 12:24.

1. Conquests of the south country, 10:28-43.

2. Conquests of the north country, 11:1-15.

3. The conquests completed, 11:16 to 12:24.

II. The Partition of the Land, 13:1 to 22:34.

A. The tribal allotments, 13:1 to 19:51.

B. Cities of refuge appointed, 20:1-9.

C. Cities assigned to the Levites, 21:1-45.

D. The tribes of Transjordan, 22:1-34.

1. Their return home, 22:1-9.

2. Their offending altar, 22:10-20.

3. Their defense of the altar, 22:21-34.

III. Joshua's Farewell, 23:1 to 24:33.

A. His address to Israel, 23:1 to 24:28.

B. His death, 24:29-32.

C. The death of Eleazar, 24:33.

Joshua Chapter 1

1 The Lord appointeth Joshua to succeed Moses. 3 The borders of the promised land. 5, 9 God promiseth to assist Joshua. 8 He giveth him instructions. 10 He prepareth the people to pass over Jordan. 12 Joshua putteth the two tribes and half in mind of their promise to Moses. 16 They promise him fealty.

1. Now. Or, "and it came to pass," as in Num. 7:1; etc. "And," the first word in Hebrew, may imply that the narrative of Joshua is a continuation of that of Deuteronomy. This suggests Joshua as the writer of the last chapter of Deuteronomy; here he takes up the story and continues with an account of his own experiences. The time here referred to must have been after the 30 days of mourning mentioned in Deut. 34:8.

Servant. The word thus translated often denotes a person completely in subjection to his master. Here it indicates one in complete submission to God and obedient to His biddings. Thus Paul commonly spoke of himself (Rom. 1:1; etc.). A "servant of the Lord" is under bonds to Christ, who has redeemed him from bondage of sin. So it had been with Moses. Joshua, who had served as prime minister to Moses, was now confirmed by God as leader of Israel. His quiet, unpretending fidelity and steadfastness had given evidence of his fitness to succeed Moses. Joshua was born probably a few years before Moses' flight from Egypt to the wilds of Midian. It did not seem likely then that Moses would ever become the emancipator of a nation. But Providence foresees and prepares long in advance to meet the needs of His people. God holds in reserve agents and forces of which we are unaware until the time comes. How was an unknown university professor, for instance, to shake all Europe and cause the pope to tremble on his throne? Nothing seemed more impossible; yet Frederick, prince of Saxony, was placed by God upon his throne, ready to help when the time should come. And long before Luther was born, Providence ordained the printing press, which was to become Luther's deadliest artillery. God's plans are perfect, and for the accomplishment of His every purpose there comes the hour, and with it, the man for the hour.

God's plans are never dependent on one man alone. When a Moses dies, God has a Joshua ready. Moses was best qualified to stand before Pharaoh; Joshua, to stand before the Canaanites. God's choice of a man is made with respect to four factors: (1) His temperament and disposition. Joshua had a natural capacity for military affairs. He was bold and firm (Num. 14:6-9) and wielded a powerful personal influence (Joshua 24:31). (2) His previous training. Joshua had already served for 40 years as a responsible leader (Ex. 17:9, 10; Num. 13:2, 3, 8). Training and experience are essential. (3) His reputation. He and Caleb had stood alone for an unpopular cause. (4) The task to be accomplished. To dispossess the Canaanites, a soldier was needed. The man and the need must correspond.

Moses' minister. In Hebrew as in English the term "minister" is not used exclusively of religious service. It indicates a voluntary attendant, one who waits on another, in contrast with a "servant," who is under obligation for one reason or other.

2. Jordan. Heb. Yarden, from the verb yarad, "to go down." The name aptly describes the swift current of the river, which rises on the slopes of the 9,232 ft. (2,814 m.) Mt. Hermon, and descends at the rate of 60 ft. to the mile, to the Sea of Galilee, 686 ft. (209 m.) below sea level. After it leaves the Sea of Galilee the rate of fall is much less, approximately 10 ft. (3 m.) to the mile. In spring, when the snows on Mt. Hermon are melting, it overflows its banks and becomes a rushing torrent all the way from Hermon to the Dead Sea, about 1,300 ft. (400 m.) below sea level, the lowest body of water on earth. The reason for its Hebrew name, "the descender," is obvious. It was over this river that Joshua was to lead Israel.

I do give. God places emphasis on the fact that it is He who gives them title to the land of Canaan. The promise made to Abraham (Gen. 13:15) was now to be fulfilled to his descendants (see Gen. 15:16-21). The iniquity of the Amorites was "full," and they were to be dispossessed. The conquest of Canaan, however, was to be progressive. It was to be theirs only as in faith and obedience they should go forward to possess it. Thus it is with all of God's promises. They are ours only as we press forward to obtain them. His gifts are greater in proportion to our capacity to receive them. Our capacity for receiving increases with each added gift, and God's resources are unlimited. His ability to give is limited only by our capacity to receive.

3. Every place. It has been supposed that v. 3 was intended to imply the ease with which the Israelites were to conquer the whole land, as illustrated by the taking of Jericho. It was only their unfaithfulness to God that, in any instance,as later at Ai, rendered the conquest more difficult than it would otherwise have been.

The sole of your foot. It was primitive custom to measure out by foot the land to be cultivated or built upon. The footprint was regarded as the symbol of possession, denoting that the land had been marked out by the foot of the supposed owner, who thereby acquired it as his own property. This still holds, figuratively, in the taking of a homestead.

The implication, then, is that they must do something to gain possession of the land. The Israelites were to have only as much of the land as they actually trod with the soles of their feet. Theirs was a bountiful promise, but it was to be realized only by their own exertion. It is a divine law, as true of our spiritual inheritance as of the ancient inheritance of literal Israel, that only as we march forward in faith, claiming the promises, do they become ours. We have the Bible, and may think we know it well; yet of this vast field of unlimited treasures we may in reality possess no more than a mere fragment. Only the "place that the sole of your foot shall tread upon" is yours. Only that which we appropriate to ourselves is our own. Large neglected areas await our possession. The same is true of the privilege and blessings of grace. It is limited only by the bounds we ourselves put upon it. What a vast, unclaimed, untrodden land of promise it is There is, finally, the heavenly Canaan, which God has promised to all true Israelites down through the ages.

4. Land of the Hittites. This expression is omitted in the LXX, perhaps because the memory of Hittite greatness had already been forgotten when that translation was made. Prior to the recovery of knowledge about the Hittites, with the excavation of Khattushash (Boghazköy), the old Hittite capital, critics challenged the accuracy of the Scripture record in ascribing so extensive a dominion to the Hittites. Until the late 19th century only the Bible had preserved so much as even the name of this people, who at one time exercised almost as great an influence as Egypt or Assyria.

Now we know that the Hittite empire arose toward the close of the 17th century b.c. under its King Labarna. In the second half of the 16th century, under their King Murshilish I, the Hittites raided Babylonia and sacked the capital.

The Hittite empire reached its zenith under Shubbiluliuma,its greatest ruler, about 1375-1335 B.C. About 1200 B.C. the Hittite empire was destroyed by the Sea Peoples (see pp. 30-33). At one time the Hittite territory included Asia Minor and extended southward to Damascus, from Lebanon to the Euphrates. During the 14th century a king with the Hittite name Abdu-Khepa ruled in Jerusalem. There were also, no doubt, city states under Hittite control in Palestine proper. Jerusalem seems to have been founded by Amorites and Hittites (Eze. 16:45). There were proto-Hittites in Hebron at the time of Abraham (see Gen. 23:3). The Hittites were one of the seven nations whose land was promised to Abraham (Gen. 15:20). This ancient nation thus provides us with a noteworthy example of the historical accuracy of God's Word. The archeologist's spade confirms, and does not contradict, Scripture.

5. Stand before thee. Literally, "set himself up against thee," that is, "successfully oppose thee." God promised Joshua no more than He promises the Christian today. The Creator of the universe, the Father of eternity, has pledged all His resources to see us through; He promised no more than that to Joshua. God never makes provision for the Christian to retreat. He clears the way to Canaan if we go ahead; to retreat is often to die.

Fail thee. Literally, "slacken the hand from thee," that is, "not give thee up."

Nor forsake thee. The two Hebrew words reflected in the expressions "fail thee" and "forsake thee" are synonymous, and are used together here for emphasis. Any man may conquer who has the Lord on his side. Victory is then as certain in one place as in another. Joshua faced a great task with a people who had so often failed in the past. God here promises that He would not get them into a situation and then leave them there. He would see them through to the end. The same holds true for Christians (Matt. 28:20).

6. Good courage. To lack courage is to lack faith, and "without faith it is impossible to please him" (Heb. 11:6). One of the greatest wants of the day is courage--courage to confess Christ in word and deed upon all occasions, courage to believe the Bible and to live in harmony with it, courage to express and to follow our convictions when in the minority. Satan has no dread of learning, of influence, or of riches; but he quails before the dauntless courage of a humble soul who presses forward in faith. Divinely inspired courage arms the soul with invincible power. God was preparing Joshua for a task that would require full faith and trust in Him.

But though it is our privilege to have boundless confidence in God, we are ever to fear and distrust ourselves. Fear as we look within is to be quelled by courage as we look up to God. Joshua was no doubt conscious of his own inadequacy. He had not aspired to the high honor and great responsibility that were now his. He sought them not. When, therefore, the call came to him to assume the office left vacant by Moses, his courage may have failed him momentarily, and he needed encouragement from both God and man. It is when men sense truly their own inadequacy that God considers them qualified to undertake great and sometimes even overwhelming responsibilities. Often we are too self-confident for Him to use us effectively, too full of our own schemes and ways of doing things--like Abraham (Gen. 12:11-13; 16:1-3) and Moses (Ex. 2:12).

Shalt thou divide. "Thou" is emphatic in the Hebrew. "Divide" means "cause to possess." In a secondary sense this would also include the dividing of the land, probably a more difficult process than taking possession of it. It would call for sound leadership to do this to the satisfaction of all. The apparent absence of even one serious complaint indicates that Joshua was guided by wisdom from God as he proceeded with the delicate task. Do we lean so heavily on divine guidance that those under us feel satisfied, or does our leadership produce grumbling and complaining?

7. Only be thou strong. The exhortation of v. 7 reads, literally, "Only be strong and very courageous in observing all the instructions [torah]," etc. This was the condition of success: complete surrender to God and cooperation with His expressed will. The task was such that he could not accomplish it by himself; divine power must be united with human effort. God's plan ensured success. Joshua could not follow his own devices and still expect God's favor. So it is with salvation, with victory over sin. We too must "be strong and very courageous in observing all the instructions" of the Lord.

Turn not from it. If God in His wisdom has given a command, every detail of it is as sacred as the whole. It would be a challenge to God's integrity to ignore "one of these least commandments" (Matt. 5:19). We may, perhaps, think we agree with the general principle, yet fail to see the importance of certain details. In so doing we are obeying not God but ourselves. Thus the seeming minutiae become the real test of full allegiance to God.

Joshua needed God with him in such an undertaking as the conquest of Canaan; hence, he was warned not to go his own way in the least degree. "Turn not from it to the right hand or to the left." The path of obedience is the middle path. There is always a bypath to the right, and one to the left; both are undoubtedly wrong. A person may go to extremes on either side of the pathway of duty. The evil one is as content for a Christian to take the right-hand path of fanaticism as the left-hand path of liberalism. Both lead to destruction. Compare Deut. 5:32 for similar instruction referring to the Ten Commandments.

Prosper. Or, "be prudent." "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom" (Prov. 9:10). Prosperity comes as a result of wise action. A man can act wisely only when and to the extent that he cooperates with the Source of all wisdom.

8. Not depart. "After the settlement in Canaan, the divine precepts were to be repeated daily in every home" (PK 464). Joshua himself was expected to do what the people had been commanded, not as an arbitrary decree, but because it would be the key to his own success. This was also the instruction of God to Israel's king, when they should have one (Deut. 17:18-20). He was to have his own copy transcribed from the one preserved in the sanctuary. Here is evidence of a copy of the Pentateuch made for the priests. Now Joshua was given similar instructions (see on Deut. 17:18). Pursuant to the command of Deut. 31:10-13, providing for a public rehearsal of the words of the book of the law every seven years, other copies were made. This process was both expensive and tedious, and the number of copies was limited. From such a copy Joshua read all the words of the law before the entire congregation (Joshua 8:35).

That the people might commit the law to memory, they were to write it on the doorposts and to teach it continually to their children (Deut. 11:18-12). Today everyone may have his own copy of "the law." Wonderful privilege If it was important for Joshua ever to have these words on his lips, it is today an equally important and sacred duty. Obedience to the law of life is still the key to success, for it attunes us to the harmony of heaven. Created in God's image, we were formed to live in harmony with God's laws. Obedience to them assures both physical and spiritual success (see DA 827).

Meditate. The Hebrew word thus translated implies the kind of mental cogitation that may at times vent itself in an audible voice--the result of intense concentration. If man's business might ever excuse him from meditation and other acts of devotion, for lack of time, Joshua might qualify. In spite of the great trust and responsibilities vested in him, he must yet find time for meditation. How much our hurried lives lose for lack of meditation We pass so rapidly over texts of Scripture that we often lose gems of rare value. If we would take a phrase and meditate upon it, shutting out the world and permitting God to speak to us and direct our minds, we would discover wondrous truths we never dreamed were there. "One passage studied until its significance is clear to the mind, and its relation to the plan of salvation is evident, is of more value than the perusal of many chapters with no definite purpose in view and no positive instruction gained" (SC 95). Meditation logically results in, and is to be followed by, appropriate conduct--"that thou mayest observe."

9. Be strong. For the third time God gives this command (see vs. 6, 7). Joshua had shown courage in years gone by, yet God repeats this precept again and again. Joshua was humble in his own eyes, not distrustful of God's power and His promises, but diffident of himself and of his own wisdom, and strength, and sufficiency for the task that lay ahead. Perhaps this feeling was due in part to association with so great a man as Moses. God highly esteems a humble spirit, for God can work for and with such a person (see Isa. 57:15). The very humility of Joshua testifies eloquently to his fitness for the sacred task committed to him.

10. Then. From the same word usually translated "and." This indicates a close connection between the command and its execution. Joshua did not procrastinate. Immediately upon receiving orders he proceeded to execute them.

Officers. That is, "scribes." These were lesser administrative officials who carried out the commands of the leaders.

11. Victuals. From a word whose root meaning is "to hunt." The derived masculine noun means "venison." Through usage it had come to mean "provisions" in general, as for a journey. This could not refer to the manna, for that fell daily (Ex. 16:4); yet soon it would cease forever (Joshua 5:11, 12). Joshua's command probably anticipated that day as well as the crossing of the Jordan.

Within three days. The question naturally arises, How can it be said that Israel was to cross the Jordan "within three days" when the spies, who seem not to have been sent out as yet, remained three days in the mountains (ch. 2:22), and the people seem not to have passed over for another three days (ch. 3:2)? Some say the time statements are not exact; others claim that chs. 1:11 and 3:2 cannot be identified as to time. Still others attempt to shorten the three days of the spies to parts of days, and thus harmonize the two statements; and others, that the word "within" did not mean that they would pass over "within three days," but only leave Shittim within that time (see ch. 3:1). The further explanation has been made that Joshua intended to pass over "within three days," but that his plan was frustrated by the delay the two spies experienced. None of these explanations, however, are satisfactory.

The word translated "within" is a combination of Ôod, "continuation," "duration," and the preposition be, "within" or "in the continuation of." The LXX renders "within three days" (ch. 1:11) as "yet three days," and the Syriac, "from this time to three days," or "within three days." The word translated "after" in ch. 3:2 is from the preposition min, "from," "after," and qas\eh, "end" or "extremity." It thus reads, literally, "from the end of" the three days. In either case both "within" (ch. 1:11) and "after" (ch. 3:2) refer to approximately the same time. Two facts are clear: (1) The spies were sent out from Shittim and returned to Shittim (chs. 2:1 and 2:23 to 3:1). (2) The morning after their return the people left Shittim for the Jordan, some 7 mi. away, and lodged there 3 days (ch. 3:2) before crossing. See pp. 136, 137.

The command of ch. 1:10, 11, though recorded here, was not actually issued till after the return of the spies (PP 483). Thus the account of ch. 2, concerning the two spies, precedes the command of ch. 1:10, 11. Such proleptic transpositions are frequent in Scripture (see on Gen. 38:1; 39:1). Their purpose is to preserve continuity. Here Joshua's purpose was to let it be known that he did issue orders in harmony with the command he had just received from God (vs. 1-9), and that without undue delay. For a chronological analysis of the sequence of events, see on ch. 3:2.

13. Remember the word. Joshua proceeded immediately to carry out Moses' program. He did not feel it necessary to alter the general plan and initiate a new program of his own, to make a name for himself, as so often happens today in both the political and the religious world. He did not, for instance, seek to win friends for himself by releasing the two and one half tribes from their obligation. Rather, he reminded them of their promise. They kept their word at no small cost of toil and danger, and furnished thereby a perpetual lesson for those, who, having made a promise under great pressure, are tempted to retire from it when the pressure is removed.

14. Armed. Heb. chamushim. Considerable question has arisen as to the meaning of this word. It appears in Ex. 13:18 as "harnessed" ("by five in a rank," margin), in Joshua 4:12 as "armed," and in Judges 7:11 as "armed" ("ranks by five," margin). In a parallel passage (Num. 32:17) the word appears as chushim, with the middle consonant m of chamushim omitted. This was probably a copyist's error, for the word as it stands should be translated "haste" or "quick," neither of which makes sense. English translations, therefore, follow the LXX and the Vulgate, which read "armed." The Syriac reads, "We will conquer." There seems to be no authority for translating chamushim as either "armed" or "harnessed." It seems to refer to an orderly manner of marching (see on Ex. 13:18). Thus, the two and a half tribes were to proceed in an organized manner, submitting to the leadership of Joshua.

All the mighty men. That is, of the two and a half tribes. All must be ready and willing to go. According to ch. 4:13, only some 40,000 went over to battle. But there were about 110,580 from the two and a half tribes eligible for military service (Num. 26:7, 18, 34). Thus, more than 70,000 must have remained behind to protect their families and flocks.

16. They answered. Theirs was a fourfold reply: (1) They promised him obedience. (2) They prayed for the presence of God with him, or perhaps expressed confidence that God would be with him (v. 17). (3) They decreed death for anyone who disobeyed him (v. 18). (4) They encouraged and admonished him to be strong and courageous. Though God had promised Israel divine assistance, He also insisted on their cooperation. Today He requires the use of every talent and ability He has given us. The two and a half tribes stand forth a commendable example of cooperation with God and His appointed leaders.

17. Only. Or, "surely," as it is elsewhere translated (Gen. 20:11; Deut. 4:6; etc.).

Be with thee. More accurately, "will be with thee." With confidence in this fact they expressed their complete submission to Joshua's commands.

18. Be strong. As the people had a part to perform, so Joshua, as leader, had a responsibility to carry out. It was the solemn sense of this responsibility that made him hesitate and shrink from the chief place of leadership. Many are charmed by what they consider the glory of leadership, but fail to sense its solemn responsibilities and personal sacrifice. With every privilege there is always an equal responsibility. A leader must be strong even when others weaken. He must have courage when others are discouraged, and be able to inspire others with courage. He must gather warmth from the coldness of others. A leader for God must live close to the Lord, that he may be able to encourage those associated with him. Sensing his fellowship with God, they would be the more ready to cooperate with him, and there would thus exist in the church the unity for which Jesus prayed (John 17). With such unity the conquest of Canaan could not fail. Leaders must be men who have an "understanding of the times" and "know what Israel ought to do" (1 Chron. 12:32), who merit the confidence of those who follow, and who inspire their followers with joy in working together as a united force. Followers, for their part, must be people who know how to cooperate cheerfully with their leader and with one another.

Ellen G. White Comments

1-18PP 481-483; SR 175

2, 3 PP 482

5 MH 405; PP 482, 485; 4T 156

6 7T 185

6-8PP 482

7 ML 120; 4T 157

8 PK 465; 5T 328

9 MH 405; ML 10

11 SR 175

16, 17 PP 483

16-18SR 175; 4T 157

Joshua Chapter 2

1 Rahab receiveth and concealeth the two spies sent from Shittim. 8 The covenant between her and them. 23 Their return and relation.

1. Sent. Perhaps preferably, "had sent." The spies had been sent out prior to the events recorded in ch. 1:10-18 (see on ch. 1:11). It is clear that Joshua did not send the spies out as a result of distrust, but rather, probably, by divine command. The two men sent were guided and protected in a remarkable way. Faith in God's promises does not supersede, but rather complements, diligence and effort on our part.

Shittim. Or, "Abel-shittim," meaning "meadow of acacia trees" (Num. 33:49). Some suggest Tell el-Kefrein, about 6 mi. (10 km.) east of the Jordan; others as Tell el-H\ammaÆm, 9 mi. (14 km.) east of it. Here Israel had camped for some time. Here the Moabite and Midianite women had tempted them. Nearby lay the town of Beth-peor. Here also Moses had delivered his last discourse, and near here he was buried (Deut. 4:46; 34:6).

Secretly, saying. Or, "secretly saying." Joshua's instructions to the men were given secretly, that is, without the knowledge of the people. He remembered vividly the adverse reaction to the report of the spies 38 years previously. The 12 spies (Num. 13:2, 26) had been sent out from the people (Deut. 1:22) and reported to the people (Num. 13:32), whereas these 2 spies were sent out by Joshua and reported directly to Joshua (Joshua 2:23). Prudence on the part of a leader is necessary. Even though Joshua had all faith in God, yet he must do all in his power to ensure the success of the attack. He should not, as general, enter a strange and hostile land without first exploring it. This precaution may have been taken under God's explicit direction as a means of encouraging Joshua. Also God knew of Rahab and her faith (vs. 9-11), and would save her and her family.

An harlot's house. Jewish writers and some Protestant commentators have sought to show that Rahab was simply an innkeeper. But neither the Heb. zonah nor its Greek equivalent in the LXX permits such a rendering. As used throughout the OT, and as translated in Heb. 11:31 and James 2:25, the word denotes a "harlot." Such she either now was or formerly had been, and into such a person's house the spies might enter less conspicuously than into a more public place, for food and lodging.

As the light of the true God dawned upon Rahab's heart, she repented and cast her lot with God's people (PK 369). To her was granted the honor of becoming a progenitor of Christ (see on Matt. 1:5). Nevertheless, the opprobrium of her former life clung to her, for she is ever after known as "the harlot." Her experience teaches three great lessons: (1) Great sin is no bar to repentance. (2) Many who before their conversion led wicked lives may thereafter distinguish themselves as heroes of faith. (3) A reputation once established may cling to a person long after repentance has erased sin from his life.

2. It was told. The city was in a state of emergency. An army that had but recently conquered two powerful kings was camped less than 15 mi. away. The people of Jericho knew of the miracles attending Israel's wilderness journey, as evidenced by Rahab's testimony (vs. 9-11). They were living in dread of imminent siege, and every stranger looked suspicious to them.

To night. The spies had chosen evening time to enter, for it was then that the tillers of the fields would be returning and the least attention would be directed toward the two spies. They had hoped thus to escape attention, but evidently their dress, language, or features gave them away. Had God not provided them a refuge, they would have been captured and no doubt lost their lives. Even the harlot recognized them as Israelites, but uninhibited by prejudice, she realized that it was useless to fight against Jehovah, and cast herself upon the mercy of their God. She may not have known what the word "faith" meant, but the thing itself was in her heart (Heb. 11:31), and found expression both in words and in deeds (James 2:25).

3. Come to thee. The king of Jericho apparently thought that the spies had not only come for lodging ("entered into thine house") but also to visit Rahab personally. Now she must choose between her country and her conscience. Whether the spies had as yet had time or opportunity to tell her about their God, we do not know, but with whatever light she did have she made the momentous decision to cast her lot with God's people. Following the words "come to thee" both the LXX and the Syriac add, "during the night," suggesting that it was dark when they entered. The Holy Spirit had been impressing Rahab's heart, and apparently led them to her house, even as He leads God's messengers to homes that are looking for light today.

4. Took. Obviously, "had taken," that is, before the officers arrived. Aware that the arrival of the strangers was known and that search would likely be made for them, and knowing also of their errand and having made her decision, she had already safely hidden the men where search was not likely to be made for them.

Hid them. Or, "had hidden them [literally, "him"]," that is, she hid each one separately in a place by himself. It would be easier to hide them separately, and also, if one was found, there was a possibility that the other might escape. Such details could have been reported only by an eyewitness.

I wist not. Here and in v. 5 is a series of lies told in order to save life. Is this justifiable? Rahab was faced with what seemed to her a choice between a greater and a lesser evil: to share in the responsibility of the death of two men whom she believed to be messengers of God, or to tell a lie and save them. To a Christian a lie can never be justified, but to a person like Rahab light comes but gradually. There was a time when God's people did not know of the true Sabbath, and so transgressed it. There was a time when we did not understand tithing or healthful living. "The times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent" (Acts 17:30). God accepts what is sincerely and honestly intended, even though there be a mixture of frailty and ignorance in it. Rahab's faith was tested and it rang true. God accepts us where we are, but we must "grow in grace" 2 Peter 3:18).

6. Brought them up. Literally, "caused them to go up," that is, to the flat roof, so common in the Near East. According to Jewish law, the roof was to be provided with a parapet (Deut. 22:8). Even the roof of a public building was flat (Judges 16:27). A roof might be used as a promenade (2 Sam. 11:2) or for prayer (Acts 10:9). Rahab used it, as did many others, for drying stalks of flax, from which she would make linen cloth, and so it is used today. Flax and barley are both early crops (Ex. 9:31), and this was the first month (Joshua 4:19).

8. Before they were laid down. Sleeping on the roof was common practice in warm weather, and in the tropical climate of Jericho summer arrives early. There was nothing the spies could do until she came with further instructions. She could yet deliver them over to the king if she would. With faith in her heart she came up to where they were to make arrangements for her own safety and for that of her relatives, when Israel should take the city.

9. I know. The Hebrew reads, "I knew," or, "I have known." Here she uses the language of the prophets, expressing that which is promised as though it were already fulfilled. Her faith was equal to theirs. This was the encouragement that Joshua and the children of Israel needed.

Faint. Literally, "melted away." Here she refers particularly to the peoples that Israel had already overcome, as listed in v. 10. A report of the great things God had done for them had come to Jericho (v. 10).

10. Amorites. A powerful race that subdued the aboriginal Rephaim (Deut. 2:20, 21, Israel's victory over the Amorites was in fulfillment of a promise God had made while Moses was still alive (Deut. 11:25).

11. Our hearts did melt. The word translated "hearts" is singular in the Hebrew, and probably refers to their will to resist. In such a state of mind men are easily overcome. The people of Jericho were in terror, and the two spies no doubt realized that victory was certain.

This experience may serve to encourage us. We too are fighting the battles of the Lord under the heavenly "Joshua." All appearances to the contrary notwithstanding, the forces of evil cringe before the manifest power of God. He is going before us, and the fear of us and of what the Lord has done for us is in the heart of His enemies. The kingdom of darkness is tottering to its fall, and Satan and his hosts know it. In view of this fact let us be strong; perfect faith and love cast out fear (1 John 4:18). The inhabitants of Jericho all heard and trembled; only Rahab passed from fear to faith and service.

He is God. How Rahab had learned of the true God is not revealed. There had not been time for her to get much information from the two spies. Her chief knowledge had no doubt come from the reports of how Jehovah, the God of Israel, was working for them. After making her confession of faith Rahab proceeded to enter into covenant relations with God and the representatives of His people for the preservation of her life. Surrendering her life to God, she received assurance that it would be preserved in the coming judgment of Jericho.

12. A true token. Literally, "a token of truth." She asked two things: (1) that she and her family might be preserved, as she had preserved them, and (2) that the spies would give her "a token of truth," which the Israelites would recognize and respect. She had no husband, but mentioned a mother, father, brothers, and sisters. After she had extracted from the spies an oath that they would preserve her life and that of her family, they designated the "token"--a scarlet cord in the window (v. 18). Like the blood sprinkled upon the doorposts, this cord assured the safety of those residing within.

14. Our life for your's. They pledged their lives as security for hers. Should they fail, she and her family would be slain.

This our business. Literally, "this our word," here evidently a reference to the "true token" she had requested. Before giving it they sought assurance that she would keep secret the fact that Israel expected soon to take Jericho. Carelessness or duplicity on her part would release them from their pledge.

15. Let them down. But not before the conversation of vs. 16-20 had taken place. As in ch. 1:10, 11, a future fact is injected earlier than its chronological position would lead us to expect. Such repetitions occur frequently in the Bible.

Upon the wall. Living as she did upon the wall, it would be comparatively easy for her to lower the spies. For archeological information concerning the ancient city of Jericho, see p. 42.

16. The mountain. The site of ancient Jericho is situated near the western edge of the valley, here some 14 mi. wide, and the only "mountain" nearby is to the west. In that direction, but a mile from Jericho, rise the hills that form what is known as the Wilderness of Judah. The nearest ridge is so high that long before evening it casts a shadow on the city. In this mountainous area are many caves, and here the spies might have fled and been safe until the searchers returned. Then, at night, they might safely have made their way to their camp at Shittim.

17. The men said. Or, "had said," that is, before she let them down. It is most improbable that she would have dismissed them before the conditions discussed in vs. 16-20 were agreed upon, or that she would converse with them about such matters after they were let down. Nor would she begin her discourse in her house, and not complete it until she had let them down the wall. The statement in v. 18, "which thou didst let us down by," does not necessarily prove that these words were spoken after they had descended. Speaking of the future, they naturally think of the present as being in the past, and of the action now contemplated as already completed (see Vol. I, p. 27).

18. This line. The scarlet "line" is not the same as the "cord" (v. 15) by which the men were lowered. These are described by different words in the original. The word translated "cord" (v. 15), or "rope," is chebel, whereas the word here translated "line" is tiqwah. Elsewhere in the OT (31 times) it is translated "hope" or "expectation" (Ps. 62:5; 71:5; etc.). It comes from a root meaning "to twist," "to bind," and consequently, "to be firm," "to be strong," or figuratively, "to be confident," "to hope." It would have been preposterous to require Rahab to display in her window the means by which the spies had escaped. It would at once have declared to all beholders the very thing Rahab was pledged not to disclose. The "line of scarlet thread" was probably of linen. A product of her trade (v. 6), it would not be likely to attract undue attention.

Which. That is, the window, not the "cord."

Thou shalt bring. A reasonable provision. If her relatives would not perish with the people of Jericho, who believed not, they must manifest their belief by finding shelter in the place of refuge, as Noah and his family did in the ark. In a similar way, those today who would escape the judgments of God upon an unbelieving world will be found associating with others who have chosen the way of life.

21. She bound. Perhaps not until the time when this precaution became necessary, but more likely that very night, lest she should forget it later. Furthermore, it would inspire her with courage and hope to be able to see there the sign of deliverance.

23. Came to Joshua. The spies reported directly to Joshua (see on v. 1). He had probably learned a lesson from the time he with 11 others had been sent out from Kadesh-barnea, and 10 had returned with a discouraging report. He may have felt it wise for this reason to keep the mission of the two spies secret until he had received their report. Their message (see ch. 2:9-11, 23, 24) must have encouraged Joshua and the people to advance without delay across the Jordan and against Jericho.

24. The Lord hath delivered. How different the report of the two spies at the close of the 40 years of wandering, compared with that of the ten spies 38 years earlier (Num. 13:31-33) Compare the experience of Gideon (Judges 7:9-14).

Ellen G. White Comments

1-24PP 482, 483

10 PP 483

11 PK 369; PP 369, 483, 492

24 PP 483

Joshua Chapter 3

1 Joshua cometh to Jordan. 2 The officers instruct the people for the passage. 7 The Lord encourageth Joshua. 9 Joshua encourageth the people. 14 The waters of Jordan are divided.

1. Joshua rose early. Joshua could not rest when important work for the Lord awaited his attention. He did not consider his own ease. As leader, he must set a right example before the officers under him. The Lord's business ever requires the best we have to offer. Those who would accomplish great things for God must rise "early."

In the morning. That is, "in the morning" of the day following the return of the spies (see ch. 2:23, 24).

They removed. They had camped more than 2 months in Shittim, having arrived here by the 1st day of the 11th month in the 40th year after they had left Egypt (Deut. 1:3). This, their first march under Joshua, was only about 7 mi. in length, but may have required most of the day, on account of the flocks and the little ones.

Lodged. Literally, "spent the night," that is, set up a temporary camp. They probably remained there for three days (vs. 2, 5), making final preparations for crossing the Jordan.

2. After three days. At the close of the three days Joshua sent officers through the camp with a second proclamation. According to ch. 4:19, the people crossed the Jordan on the 10th day of Abib, the 1st month. This was in the 41st year of the Exodus. The proclamation was therefore issued on the day preceding (ch. 3:5), the 9th. The 9th was, in turn, the 3d day after their march from Shittim to the Jordan (v. 2). According to Oriental reckoning (see p. 136), that would place the arrival at Jordan on the 7th of the month, that is, the day after the spies returned to Shittim, the 6th of Abib (chs. 2:22, 23; 3:1). Inasmuch as the spies returned 3 days after entering Jericho (ch. 2:2, 16, 22, 23), they had probably been sent out by Joshua on the 4th of the month, Oriental reckoning. But according to PP 483, the instructions of ch. 1:10, 11, were issued upon the return of the spies, probably on the morning of the 7th (ch. 3:1). Chronologically, the account of the 2 spies in ch. 2 thus precedes the command of ch. 1:10, 11. The command of ch. 1:10, 11, was therefore given on either the 7th or the 8th, and that of ch. 3:2-5 on the 9th.

3. The ark. Hitherto the pillar of cloud and fire had guided Israel on their way. Now it was to be seen no more. In their crossing of the Jordan the ark, which had formerly been carried in the midst of the camp (Num. 2:17), was to lead the way. It was the center of their religion and a symbol of God's presence. Thus the Lord was with them still, though no longer in the pillar of cloud. The ark was the repository of His holy and immutable law. Above the ark was the mercy seat, reminding them of God's mercy, patience, forgiveness, and grace. Thus early in their national experience God said to them, in effect, Let My character, My justice, and My mercy be your guide. Let the Ten Commandments, My standard of right, show you how to live, and My grace help you to obey it. As long as they would follow these principles they would be safe.

The priests the Levites. Or, "the Levitical priests" (RSV). Ordinarily the sons of Kohath bore the ark (Num. 4:15). The Jewish rabbis say that it was thus carried upon only three other occasions--when they marched around Jericho, when Zadok and Abiathar returned it to Jerusalem as David fled from Absalom (2 Sam. 15:29), and when it was brought into the Temple of Solomon. Here, at Jordan, the priests, representing Christ as our mediator and high priest, must go first and lead the way.

Go after it. Contrary to the usual custom (Num. 2:17), the ark was now to lead the way. Once before, upon their first removal from Mt. Sinai, it had gone before them for three days (Num. 10:33). Now another special occasion had arrived. To impress upon them the fact that it was God who gave them entrance to Canaan, and who would lead them in its conquest, His presence was to go before them. In a similar way He has promised to lead us. As Israel followed the ark, representative of divine justice and mercy, it is our privilege to follow on. At the end of the journey we will find "honour and immortality, eternal life" (Rom. 2:7, 8), and a ready welcome into the heavenly Canaan (Matt. 25:21, 34).

4. A space. The ark needed no guards, other than the priests who carried it. The distance between the ark and the people made it possible for many more to observe the rolling back of the Jordan than if it had been followed closely by a throng of people. Also, reverence and respect for the ark and the law would thus be emphasized. Had Israel been unwilling to follow the sacred precepts of the Decalogue, they would never have entered Canaan. Nor will we enter the heavenly Canaan unless we are obedient--obedient through the enabling grace of God.

Two thousand cubits. About 1/2 mi. (.8 km.).

Not passed this way. The ark must be clearly visible to all, inasmuch as the pillar of cloud led them no more. Had many been permitted to crowd closely around it, it would soon have been lost to the sight of the great majority. To be guided without the pillar of cloud was a new experience. Providence leads us, from time to time, by strange paths and into new experiences; and we too must keep the ark of the covenant ever in sight, that we may follow on wherever God leads us.

5. Sanctify yourselves. Joshua probably refers here to the same type of experience God required of the people at Sinai (see on Ex. 19:10). They were to wash themselves and their garments, and to abstain from everything that might prevent them from fixing their attention on the great miracle soon to be wrought in their behalf. To their work of preparation God would, of course, add His blessing. Man must ever cooperate with God in the working out of his own salvation (Phil. 2:12). If we would expect the blessing and leadership of God in our preparations for entering the heavenly Canaan, it is essential that we "sanctify" ourselves by consecrating our lives to God that He may purify and make us holy. If this was necessary for entrance into the earthly Canaan, how much more necessary it is for admission to the heavenly Canaan.

Wonders. The word thus translated is from a verb meaning "to separate," "to distinguish." The "wonders" God performed from time to time distinguish Him as the true God. In that these "wonders" were done for Israel, they would set Israel apart from other peoples as the special object of God's favor. But there could be no "wonders"--God could not work on their behalf--unless they first heeded the command to "sanctify yourselves."

6. Took up the ark. A parenthetical statement included here to indicate obedience to the command to "take up the ark." The instructions of vs. 7-13 preceded the march to Jordan.

7. Magnify thee. Crossing the Jordan was to do for Joshua what the giving of the law at Sinai did for Moses--"that the people may hear when I speak with thee, and believe thee for ever" (Ex. 19:9). Both men were established before the people because they were first established with God. Worldly honors often have no relation to character, whereas the outward honor that comes from God testifies to the presence of God's character within.

8. The brink. Literally, "the extremity"--not merely to the bank of Jordan, but to the water itself. The river overflowed its banks at this time of the year (v. 15). The priests were to enter the shallow water at the edge. When the water had ceased flowing, they were to proceed to the middle of the river and remain there until all Israel had passed over. The waters flowed on and left the whole river bed dry, from a point above the ark down to the Dead Sea. This was a distance of several miles, and provided ample room for the multitude of people, with their cattle, to pass over quickly (see on v. 16).

9. Come hither. The people must have been in a state of great expectancy. They knew that something unusual was to happen (v. 5). The officers had already instructed the people about following the ark (v. 3), but nothing had been said as to where it would lead them. Joshua had sent the word around the camp that they should sanctify themselves (v. 5), and now he called them to hear additional instructions the Lord had given him. He informed the people as to precisely what would happen. Sharing this information with the people bound them more closely to him. This marked him as a wise and able leader, for an informed people can follow their leader more intelligently.

10. The living God. The signal manifestation of divine power they were about to witness would distinguish their God as the true and "living God."

The Amorites. The Amorites were among the early inhabitants of the land of Palestine. In the days of Joshua they occupied the mountainous country west of the Dead Sea and also that portion of Transjordan Israel had taken from Sihon and Og. Their kinsmen, the Canaanites, lived chiefly in what is called Phoenicia and in the mountainous areas to the north and south of Jerusalem. According to 1 Chron. 1:13-15, the Jebusites, Amorites, Girgashites, and Hivites were all descendants of Canaan (see Vol. I, p. 270). The Hittite empire, centered in Asia Minor, controlled certain city-states as far south as the land of Palestine. A great racial migration had taken place in the first half of the second millennium b.c.in the eastern Mediterranean area, during the course of which the Hyksos had spilled over into Palestine, and even as far south as Egypt. It is thought that this movement was responsible for bringing south into Palestine a large number of Hittites, Hurrians (Horites, sometimes classed with the Hivites), and possibly the Jebusites of Jerusalem, the Perizzites, and other non-Semitic tribes. These were scattered in various areas of Palestine, which are not always clearly defined. These six or seven nations are frequently referred to in the early books of the OT, often in connection with a promise to drive them out.

13. As soon. The priests carrying the ark were to manifest their faith in God's word by stepping into the water. God ever calls upon His people not only to face difficulties but to march boldly forward in faith, at His command, confident that He will open a way. He has promised to turn the waters aside and to overcome all obstacles (Isa. 43:2).

The Lord, the Lord. Literally, "Jehovah, Lord."

Cut off from. The word "from" is not in the original. Hence, "the waters that come down from above" is in apposition to, and explanatory of, "the waters of Jordan shall be cut off." In other words, the waters from above were "cut off" and heaped up. The waters below that point flowed on down to the Dead Sea, leaving the river bed dry. The miracle of the Red Sea, the opening of a path through the waters, is here repeated as evidence that God has the same power to complete the salvation of His people that He had to begin it (see Heb. 12:2). Why did the Lord have Israel wait until Jordan was in flood stage before crossing? A month earlier or a month later this would not have been so, and they had been encamped at Shittim for two months. There were probably two reasons: (1) God's power would be more evident (see on Ex. 9:16; see also 2 Cor. 12:9). (2) The people in Jericho would not be expecting them, and would not have guards at the river. Being fearful and intending to resist, the people of Jericho could be expected to guard the fords of Jordan, where it would have been easy to resist the Israelites. The people of Jericho remembered well the report of Israel crossing the Red Sea 40 years previously, and this even yet struck terror to their hearts (Joshua 2:9, 10); a repetition of that miracle, close at hand, could be counted on to intensify their fear. For God, the volume of water in the Jordan made no difference.

14. Bearing the ark. See on v. 3.

15. All the time of harvest. Not the wheat harvest but the barley harvest, which, according to Ruth 1:22 and 2 Sam. 21:9, came first. According to Joshua 4:19 the crossing occurred on the 10th day of the 1st month, and on the 14th the people kept the Passover (ch. 5:10). On the 15th they were to present the first fruits (Lev. 23:10, 11)--a sheaf of barley, according to Josephus. In the hot Jordan valley the harvest came very early in the spring; at the same time the streams were swollen from recent winter rains and from the melting snow in the mountains. According to Ex. 9:31, 33, the barley and flax ripened together. Rahab had flax bundles drying on her roof, a fact that confirms the previous statements regarding the barley harvest and marks the Bible narrative as a reliable eyewitness account.

16. From the city Adam. The original Hebrew text reads, "at" Adam. This the Masoretes changed to read "from Adam." Their reason for doing so is not clear. The LXX reads, "There stood one solid heap very far off"--with no mention of "Adam." The intent of the original Hebrew text seems to be that the damming up of the waters took place near the city of Adam, "very far" from the place of crossing. This city has been identified with the modern Tell ed-DaÆmiyeh. Nearby is the ford of Damieh, where the remains of a Roman bridge may still be seen. Here the Jordan valley is compressed within its narrowest limits, the rocks on both sides almost meeting. This is perhaps 20 mi. (32 km.) from where Israel crossed over. There would thus be an ample distance on both sides of the ark for the people to cross on dry ground. As to the miracle aspect of the drying up of the river, see p. 41.

Zaretan. A site in the Jordan Valley. Some locate this place near Beth Shean (1 Kings 4:12), others near Succoth (1 Kings 7:46). Some think it to be identical with Zereda, Jeroboam's birthplace (1 Kings 11:26). Some identify it with Tell-es-SaÔéµdéÆyeh, about 11 mi. (18 km.) north of Adam.

The sea of the plain. Literally, "the sea of the Arabah," that is, the Dead Sea. The Arabah was the great depression of the Jordan valley extending southward to the Gulf of Aqabah.

Against Jericho. It would have been difficult, if not impossible, for the whole camp to pass over at one spot. Indeed, they may have made use of several miles of the bed of the Jordan. The priests with the ark evidently crossed opposite Jericho, and the multitude passed over on both sides of the ark. It is likely that the Canaanites would have attempted to defend the fords of the Jordan if they had expected that such a passage would be attempted. They surely knew that the Israelite camp was on the other side of Jordan, but the crossing took them entirely by surprise.

Ellen G. White Comments

1-17PP 483-485

1, 3 PP 483

4 PP 484

5, 6 PP 483

5-7SR 176

7 PP 485; 4T 157

8-17SR 176

10, 11 PP 484

13 AA 357

15-17PP 484; 4T 157

Joshua Chapter 4

1 Twelve men are appointed to take twelve stones for a memorial out of Jordan. 9 Twelve other stones are set up in the midst of Jordan. 10, 19 The people pass over. 14 God magnifieth Joshua. 20 The twelve stones are pitched in Gilgal.

1. The Lord spake. Perhaps it was by Eleazar the priest that God gave these instructions to Joshua, for when Joshua was ordained to this great trust, God ordained that Eleazar should inquire of the Lord for him. It was at his word that Joshua and all the children of Israel must "go out" and "come in" (Num. 27:21).

2. Twelve men. These men had already been chosen for the work (ch. 3:12). Chapter 4:4 plainly recognizes this previous selection.

3. Where the priests' feet stood firm. Literally, "from the station [standing place] of the feet of the priests." The stones were to be taken from this spot, that the monument to be erected might be more vivid in its appeal to the memory and to reflection upon the signal power of God so gloriously manifested in their behalf.

4. Whom he had prepared. A reference to their appointment, as recorded in ch. 3:12, one man for each tribe and one stone for each man (see on v. 6).

6. What mean ye? God knew His people, knew how soon they would forget His great works of deliverance for them unless provision be made for keeping this great event in mind. Future generations must not be permitted to forget God's leading. Even so today "we have nothing to fear for the future, except as we shall forget the way the Lord has led us, and His teaching in our past history" (LS 196). There were 12 tribes and 12 stones, all the people thus being represented. There were two monuments--one erected in the midst of the river, and another of stones taken from the bed of the river, set up at the site of their first encampment in the Land of Promise. These monuments to the power of God were to be a memorial of the successful completion of the wilderness wanderings. The murmuring, rebellion, and disappointment of the wilderness were to be things of the past. In the Red Sea, Israel had been "baptized unto Moses" (1 Cor. 10:2); here they were baptized, as it were, unto Joshua. Through these demonstrations of His power God sought, among other things, to confirm the confidence of the people in their appointed leaders (Joshua 3:7; 4:14).

9. In the midst of Jordan. There has been a difference of opinion as to whether this should read, "in the midst of Jordan," or, "from the midst of Jordan." The KJV represents the Hebrew text as we now have it. The Syriac reads, "from the midst of Jordan," but no other manuscript supports this reading. The best evidence supports the KJV and RSV rendering.

Unto this day. See the Introduction to Joshua.

10. The people hasted. Some "hasted," perhaps in fear that the waters might return at any moment. Others may have felt that unnecessary delay on their part would not be pleasing to God. Still others may have "hasted" because of eagerness to be in the land of Canaan. Some may have "hasted" just because others were hastening, not thinking or knowing why.

13. About forty thousand. At the last census (Num. 26) the men eligible for military service numbered: Reuben, 43,730 (v. 7); Gad, 40,500 (v. 18); Manasseh, 52,700 (v. 34), or, for the exact half, 26,350. Thus the entire force of the two and a half tribes was about 110,580. They therefore left more than half their number to protect their families and their dwellings. This was not inconsistent with the spirit of their agreement with Moses.

Prepared for war. In ch. 1:14 this expression is translated "armed," literally "an army in five parts." The phrase, "prepared for war," is from a word meaning "stripped" or "equipped for war."

14. They feared him. That is, in the sense of awed reverence. This gained for Joshua the same respect that the dividing of the Red Sea did for Moses (Ex. 14:31).

16. Testimony. Or "law," generally understood to be the ten-commandment law, which Moses had placed in the ark (Ex. 25:21; Deut. 10:2; see on Ex. 25:16). Here God emphasizes the law as the basis of the covenant between Himself and His people. This law He desired to write in their hearts.

19. The tenth day. That is, four days before the Passover. This was the day when the Passover lamb was to be selected (Ex. 12:3, 6).

Gilgal. See on ch. 5:9.

20. Pitch. Literally, "caused to stand." A stonework foundation or mound of earth of considerable height was probably laid first, and the 12 stones placed on top of it. Twelve stones of a size that could be carried that distance on a man's shoulder would not have made a very conspicuous monument unless erected on such a base.

22. Let your children know. God ordained that the great "wonders" (ch. 3:5) Israel had witnessed this day should not soon be forgotten. It was His purpose that they should keep His "wonderful works" (Ps. 111:4) ever vivid in their memory, as a means of binding them in loyalty to Him. It was 40 years before in that very month that they had crossed the Red Sea. This was springtime (see on ch. 3:15), and even though the stream was strong and deep, God rolled back the waters and they crossed over safely. The queries of the children (ch. 4:21) would provide the parents with an opportunity to recount the story of God's patient dealings with Israel in the wilderness. Joshua's admonition to the fathers and mothers of his day provides a pattern parents of today would do well to emulate (LS 196).

24. All the people. God designed that His dealings with Israel should become an object lesson to all mankind. The people of Israel were not selfishly to hoard to themselves the knowledge of the true God and of His power to save. This knowledge was to go to all the earth as a result of the proper education of their children (cf. v. 22), who in their turn were to become missionaries. As Israel grew in numbers and in influence, the whole earth would soon learn of the true God and give glory to Him. But Israel failed, and this same commission was later given by Christ to His disciples (Matt. 28:19, 20). The "word of reconciliation" has now been "committed unto us" (2 Cor. 5:19). We must not fail.

Ellen G. White Comments

1-24PP 484, 485; SR 177

2, 3 4T 158

2-9PP 484

12, 13 PP 518

14 PP 485

18 PP 484

20-244T 158

24 PP 484

Joshua Chapter 5

1 The Canaanites are afraid. 2 Joshua reneweth circumcision. 10 The passover is kept at Gilgal. 12 Manna ceaseth. 13 An Angel appeareth to Joshua.

The Land of Canaan Before the Israelite Conquest

1. Amorites. That portion of Amorite territory to the east of Jordan had already been conquered (Num. 21:21-24); now the Amorites in the mountains to the west of Jordan trembled. The Amorites had constituted the second great wave of Hamites that moved out of the Arabian peninsula into the Mesopotamian valley during the early years of the second millennium b.c. There they broke up into two groups. One of these groups intermingled with the cultured Sumerians, and out of that union developed the great early Babylonian culture. The second group moved westward, and then south into Palestine, whence some of them spread across the Jordan River to the east (see on Gen. 10:16). Others remained in Palestine and intermingled with the native non-Semitic population. From this fusion came the Phoenicians, named in the LXX of Joshua 5:1, 12. Here they are described as being "by the sea," where, in later years, we find the Phoenicians.

Until we were passed over. The LXX reads, "when they passed over," and the Syriac, "until they passed over." The Masoretes in the margin corrected this passage to read, "until they passed over." However, "we" seems to have been the original reading. If so, this would be evidence that the author of the book shared in the experience, despite the critical view of many modern scholars.

Their heart melted. The mighty works of God struck fear to the hearts of the Canaanites and dispirited them, as He had promised (Ex. 23:27). The Jordan had been their line of defense. Furthermore, the Israelites had camped east of Jordan for months without making any attempt to cross over, with the result that the Amorites felt secure, especially now that the river was in flood stage. For this reason they set no guard to hinder the crossing. Even though their hearts had "melted" before, as Rahab admitted (ch. 2:11), they had maintained a degree of courage. They trusted, no doubt, in their numbers and in their fortified cities to repel the invaders. But when they heard that Israel not only had crossed the Jordan, thus breaking through their supposed defense, but had been able to do so as the result of a divine miracle, their hearts utterly failed them. "Neither was there spirit in them any more."

2. Sharp knives. Literally, "knives of stones," or "flint knives" (RSV). It was probably considered unlawful to use metal of any kind in this religious rite, as perhaps may be implied from Ex. 4:25. Egyptians considered it unlawful or profane to use any kind of metal for making incisions in the human body when preparing it for embalming. In some parts of the world, it is reported, the rite of circumcision is still performed with stone knives.

Circumcise again. This is not to be understood as a command to repeat circumcision on those individuals who had already received it. The command implies only that they were to renew the observance of a rite that had been discontinued during their wilderness travels (PP 406). A "second time" implies that there had been a first time when God ordered the general administration of this rite. It seems that circumcision had not been practiced in Egypt (PP 363), and that possibly in connection with the ratification of the covenant at Sinai (Ex. 24:3-8) this rite, the sign of the covenant (Gen. 17:10, 11; Rom. 4:11), was reinstituted. It has also been suggested that the first time occurred before Israel left Egypt. The Passover was then first observed, and according to instruction given afterward, no uncircumcised male might eat of it (Ex. 12:43-49). Now, upon their entry into Canaan, the Israelites were renewing their covenant with God, and this called them to adopt once more the sign of that covenant. This outward rite was to represent true circumcision of heart (Deut. 30:6; Jer. 4:4; Rom. 2:29). The wilderness had been the scene of distrust, murmuring, and rebellion against God. Now, in obedience to His directions, they were to begin anew a life of faith and obedience.

3. Hill of the foreskins. A translation of the Heb. gibÔath haÔaraloth, transliterated "Gibeath-haaraloth" (RSV). This is a reference to the location where the rite was administered.

4. This is the cause. Suffering under the "breach of promise" of Jehovah (Num. 14:34) and as a reminder of the broken covenant, the people had been forbidden to practice circumcision in the wilderness (PP 406). Their entrance into Canaan was evidence of restoration to divine favor (see Num. 14:23; Ps. 95:7-11). For 38 years they had borne the reproach of apostasy at Kadesh.

6. All the people. That is, with the exception of Caleb and Joshua (Num. 14:30). It seems that the priests, possibly all the Levites, were exempted from the death sentence at Kadesh and that some of them survived. Eleazar, the son of Aaron, is specifically named as entering the Promised Land (see Ex. 6:25; 28:1; Joshua 24:33). There was no representative of the Levites among the 12 spies (Num. 13:3-16), nor among the "men of war."

9. Reproach of Egypt. Because of rebellion at Kadesh, God had been unable to lead Israel into Canaan--the very purpose for which He had led them forth from Egypt. They had not been permitted to receive circumcision, the sign that marked them as God's chosen people. The suspension of this rite was a constant witness to them that they had broken the covenant.

Though the "Angel" of the covenant continued to lead Israel throughout their wilderness wanderings, they were, nevertheless, not completely restored to covenant relationship during that long period. So long as they remained, in a measure at least, outside of the covenant, they stood in the same relationship to God as if they had never left Egypt. The "reproach of Egypt" was still upon them. Now, by the restoration of the Passover--the memorial of deliverance from Egypt--and the reinstitution of circumcision the "reproach" was effectively removed, or "rolled" away. Already their feet were planted on the soil of the Promised Land. The removal of the curse was memorialized by naming the site of their first encampment in Canaan, Gilgal, which means "rolling."

There is a measure of reproach resting upon God's people today. They too should have been in the kingdom long ago, but like Israel they have been wandering about in the wilderness (GC 458). "There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God" in our day (Heb. 4:9). "Let us labour" diligently "to enter into that rest"(v. 11).

Gilgal. The name thus transliterated is from the root galal, "to roll." From this time onward Gilgal occupies a place of importance in sacred history. Here the Israelites pitched camp the first night after entering the Promised Land. Here the reinstitution of the rite of circumcision signified the renewal of the covenant (vs. 2-8). Here Israel celebrated their first Passover in the Promised Land (v. 10). Here the manna ceased to fall (v. 12). Gilgal served as the base for military operations during the early part of the conquest of Canaan. It appears also to have been the place where the women, children, and cattle remained during this time. In later history it was here that Saul was confirmed as first king of Israel (1 Sam. 11:15). Here the ark remained till, after the conquest of the country, it was removed to Shiloh (Joshua 18:1; PP 514).

Gilgal cannot now be definitely located. According to Josephus, it was about 5 mi. (8 km.) from the Jordan and about 1 mi. (1.6 km.) from New Testament Jericho. But see p. 501.

12. The manna ceased. God had provided the manna for nearly 40 years to satisfy the needs of the people under circumstances that made it impossible for them to secure an adequate supply of food for themselves. Now that they "did eat of the old corn of the land" (v. 11), there was no longer need for the manna. God does not do for men what they are able to do for themselves.

13. By Jericho. Or, near Jericho. The Syriac reads, "in the plains of Jericho." Joshua directed his attention to his next great task, the taking of Jericho, and he left the camp to meditate and to pray for divine guidance in the accomplishment of this task.

His sword drawn. The Lord had appeared to Moses at Horeb (Ex. 3:2) as he was about to take up the task of delivering Israel from the house of bondage. Now, as Joshua began the conquest of Canaan, the Lord appeared to the new leader of His people, to assure him of victory and success. "The iniquity of the Amorites" was now "full," and as the Lord had solemnly promised Abraham four centuries earlier, his "seed" had now "come hither again" (Gen. 15:13-16). Israel entered upon the conquest of the nations of Canaan with divine approval. The witness of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and news of the manner in which God had, upon repeated occasions, interposed in behalf of His people--all this was known in Canaan. But these heathen nations followed ways of their own choosing rather than submit to God.

14. The host. Not primarily the Israelite armies, but the armies of heaven (PP 493). Elsewhere the word translated "host" refers specifically to armies (Judges 4:2, 7; etc.), often to the army of Israel (2 Sam. 2:8), sometimes to angels, as here (1 Kings 22:19), and frequently to the stars of heaven (Isa. 34:4). Angels stand ready at all times to minister to the needs of the church and to carry out the commands of their Captain. Those who are confronted with formidable "Jerichos" in their experience may call upon the help of these invisible forces and receive the assurance, as did Joshua, that the resources of heaven are available to every trusting soul. Joshua received the assurance that he would not stand alone at the head of the Hebrew army. As Captain, the Lord Himself would be there, superintending and disposing, ordering and commanding.

Did worship. By accepting the worship offered by Joshua the heavenly Visitor proved Himself to be more than an angel (see Rev. 19:10).

15. Loose thy shoe. Here is further evidence that "the captain of the host" was more than an angel; He was, in fact, none other than Christ Himself in human form (see PP 488). In Joshua 6:2 He is designated by the divine name (see on Ex. 6:3; 15:2). It should be noted that Joshua 6 is a continuation of the narrative of ch. 5:13-15, ch. 6:1 being a parenthetical statement inserted by way of explaining what follows in vs. 2-5.

Ellen G. White Comments

1-15PP 485-488, 613; SR 177, 178

1 SR 177

1-34T 158

3-5PP 485

9 SR 177; 4T 158

9-12PP 486

10 PP 485; 4T 158

12 SR 178; 4T 159

13 PP 487

13-15SR 178; 1T 410; 4T 159; 6T 140; 8T 284

14 SL 12

14, 15 PP 488

15 4T 160

Joshua Chapter 6

1 Jericho is shut up. 2 God instructeth Joshua how to besiege it. 12 The city is compassed. 17 It must be accursed. 20 The walls fall down. 22 Rahab is saved. 26 The builder of Jericho is cursed.

1. Straitly shut up. In the Hebrew this statement is emphatic, indicating that the gates were not only shut but also securely fastened with bolts and bars. The LXX renders it, "closely shut up and besieged." This verse, as stated before (see on ch. 5:15), is parenthetical. It describes the condition of the city as a result of the danger posed by the presence of the Israelites at its very gates.

2. I have given. The outcome of the divine prediction is so sure that it is stated as already having happened. An expression such as this is called "prophetic perfect," and is used to emphasize the certainty of fulfillment. The doom of Jericho was thus irrevocably assured. As far as its inhabitants were concerned, they had had ample opportunity to seek salvation of the God of Israel. Had they so desired, they might all, like Rahab and her family, have been saved. God "will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth" (1 Tim. 2:4).

3. All ye men of war. Or, perhaps, "all, men of war." That is, all who were to march round the city were to be men of war. This did not necessarily include the whole army, but representatives from each tribe. The common people apparently were not included. Such a large number would have created too cumbersome a retinue. Though described as a "large" city (PP 487), Jericho was "large" only in comparison with the fortified cities of its day, rather than with cities of our time. Excavations of the ruins reveal its area to have been only 8 acres (3.23 hectares). The size of the procession must have been proportionate to this limited area. First in order was a body of chosen warriors. These were followed by seven priests bearing trumpets. Then came the ark, borne by other priests. Last of all, the army of Israel made up the "rereward."

4. Trumpets of rams' horns. Not the silver trumpets of Num. 10:2 but probably trumpets manufactured of rams' horns, bored hollow, or, perhaps, made of metal and called rams' horns from their shape. Literally, they are called "trumpets of jobelim,Ó from which the term "jubile" is derived. The year of "jubile" was introduced by the sounding of trumpets (Lev. 25:9).

5. Fall down flat. See p. 42.

7. Unto the people. This expression does not refer to all the people. The reference is still only to the divisions specified in vs. 3 and 4. The command was for the designated groups to proceed with the divine order to compass the city.

Compass the city. They made the circuit once each day. The solemn, silent procession struck terror to the hearts of the watchers from the walls of the doomed city. They recalled how God miraculously wrought for His people in opening up a passage for them through the Red Sea, and more recently through the Jordan, and they tried to fathom the mystery of these strange proceedings. But the lesson was rather for the Israelites. God commanded that these solemn ceremonies be extended over seven days before He brought down the city walls. He wished to give the Israelites time to develop faith (PP 493). "By faith the walls of Jericho fell down" (Heb. 11:30). The people needed to understand fully that the battle was not theirs but the Lord's. He could do great things for them if they cooperated with Him. Faith is simply the acceptance of God's program and full cooperation with His plan. This is the kind of faith that will accomplish as great things for us as it did for the ancients.

9. The rereward. An obsolete English word better rendered "rear guard." The Heb. me'asseph means "those that bring up the rear." Following the ark, borne by priests dressed in special vestments, came the army of Israel with representatives from every tribe.

10. Any noise. The solemn silence of the procession presented an ideal opportunity for meditation and reflection on the part of the besiegers of the city, on whose hearts God was seeking to impress the great lesson of faith. Such lessons are not easily learned, and often much time is required. If God always answered our requests immediately, we would not have the opportunity of exercising or developing faith. Delay impresses upon us our dependence on God and teaches us to trust in Him. But such a result comes only if the period of waiting is devoted to quiet meditation and the exercise of full submission to the divine plan. How many blessings we miss by not keeping silence before the Lord, and waiting for Him to work in our behalf. "Be still, and know that I am God" (Ps. 46:10). Only slowly do we learn the lesson, "He that believeth shall not make haste" (Isa. 28:16). For the besieging of a walled city nothing seemed quite so ridiculous as what the Israelites were doing. But God had His design in such a procedure, and the lessons of unconditional faith and patient trust in the power and assistance of God were deeply impressed upon the Israelites. They knew that the omnipotence of Jehovah alone gave this walled city into their hands.

15. The seventh day. The wording of the narrative has led some to believe that this expression refers to the Sabbath day. Such a conclusion is by no means indicated. We do not know what day of the week the proceedings began. But inasmuch as the Israelites employed seven days in making the circuits of the city, it seems that one of these days must have been the Sabbath. This observation raises the question as to whether the act of marching around the city was in harmony with the spirit of true Sabbath worship. We may observe that the Sabbath is a day devoted to God, and that whatever He may see fit to command upon that day is certainly in harmony with the spirit of its observance. According to the divine command, the Sabbath is not to be devoted to "doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure" (Isa. 58:13). But we may safely devote its sacred hours to doing that which God enjoins to be done upon that day (see Matt. 12:5).

16. Shout. Six times on this seventh day Israel compassed the city in silence, in full obedience to the command of Joshua. Not till commanded to do so did all the people shout. Their implicit obedience in this was a striking demonstration of their faith (see Heb. 11:30). In that crucial hour Israel acted with unanimity and singleness of heart. Had they continued in that experience their course in history would have been entirely different. They would have fulfilled the divine plan, and their witness would have gone to the whole world. Jerusalem would have been established forever as the center of a great spiritual kingdom.

17. Accursed. Heb. cherem. This noun can also be translated "a thing" or "a person devoted" either to destruction or to sacred use, and therefore excluded from common use (Lev. 27:28, 29). The noun comes from the verb charam, which means "to shut up" or "to seclude." Jericho was to be under a ban, with none of its wealth to be devoted to personal use, and all of its living things utterly devoted to destruction. Its metals were to be consecrated to the Lord and brought into His treasury. Jericho was the first fruits of Israel's conquest, and perhaps in this sense also, dedicated to God.

18. Trouble it. The Heb. Ôakar means "to trouble." ÔAkan (Achan) appears to come from this root. He was the one who later troubled Israel (Joshua 7:25). Joshua sought to forestall this type of "trouble" by giving strict instruction to the people to keep themselves from the "devoted" things.

19. Silver, and gold. No doubt heed was given to the specific instruction to burn all graven images with fire, for they were an abomination to the Lord (Deut. 7:25).

Consecrated. Perhaps by first being passed through the fire, as commanded in Num. 31:21-23.

20. Fell down flat. See on p. 42.

21. Utterly destroyed. This has seemed to some an act of utter barbarity and cruelty. However, a careful investigation of the whole problem of the ways and works of God as revealed in the Scriptures leads to a very different conclusion. It must be remembered that the Israelites acted strictly according to divine orders (Deut. 20:16, 17), and any charge against them is a charge directly against the justice of divine judgments. The Canaanites had reached the limit of their probation. God had given them an adequate opportunity for repentance, just as He gives to every person in this world (John 1:9; 2 Peter 3:9). At last mercy can go no further without interfering with the justice of God. At such a time God must act in order to be true to His character, which includes justice as well as mercy. It often becomes an act of love to cut off those who have had their opportunity, lest their evil example corrupt others (see PP 492). Had the inhabitants of Jericho so desired, they might all have shared in the salvation that came to Rahab and her house (see Additional Note at the close of this chapter).

23. Without the camp. Rahab was left for some time without the camp, no doubt to prepare herself for admission as a proselyte. In due time she was admitted into the congregation of Israel, presumably after she and her kindred had been instructed in the religion of Jehovah and had purified themselves from their heathen ways and beliefs. She probably became the wife of Salmon, prince of Judah, and the mother of Boaz, and thus one of the ancestors of our Saviour (see on Matt. 1:5). What a blessed privilege awaits those who by faith join themselves to the people of God How wonderful to know that the gospel of Jesus Christ transcends even the most unfavorable heredity and environment "Whosoever will," of any color or race, or station in life, may partake of the glorious privileges of sonship.

26. Adjured them. That is, "caused them to swear." He no doubt made the elders and heads of their several tribes bind themselves by a solemn oath, so that a knowledge of their pledge might be passed on from generation to generation.

Cursed be the man. In the case of Jericho the curse was doubtless intended to keep the memorial of the destruction of the city ever before the eyes of coming generations. The ruins of the city would go on bearing mute testimony, but a new city on the old site would obliterate the traces of such a memory. The curse was uttered by divine direction (see 1 Kings 16:34).

In his firstborn. The fulfillment of the prediction by Hiel the Bethelite is recorded in 1 Kings 16:34. The absence of this record in the book of Joshua is further proof that Joshua is further proof that Joshua was written some time before Kings. Five centuries after this curse was pronounced Hiel, following the example of the wicked king Ahab in resisting the word of the Lord, rebuilt the city of Jericho. Hiel might have thought that time had rendered the curse null and void, or that such a pronouncement could not have come from God. Perhaps he could see no reason at all for the strange command. But human reasonings are not a sufficient pretext for disobedience or unbelief.

There are records of a settlement in the vicinity of Jericho antedating the rebuilding of the city by Hiel. Deut. 34:3 makes mention of a city called the "city of palm trees." This was an inhabited place early in the period of the judges (Judges 1:16), a short time after the death of Joshua. The same city appears to have been taken from the Israelites by Eglon, king of Moab (Judges 3:12, 13). Moreover, David's ambassadors, who were maltreated by Hanun, king of the Ammonites, were commanded to tarry at Jericho till their beards were grown (2 Sam. 10:4, 5). It appears, therefore, that there was a town called by the name long before the time of Hiel. Yet probably this was not on the mound, but in the neighborhood. Josephus speaks of the site of the old city as if in distinction from a modern one; New Testament Jericho was a mile south of the mound. Archeologists have never discovered remains of the walls of Hiel's 9th-century city, built probably on a much smaller scale on the ruins of the old city, and eventually eroded away. The fragmentary evidence from before Hiel's day tends to indicate that there had been only a few intermittent occupants of the site, and no city had been built, for an interim of about 500 years after the fall of the old city. This fact agrees with the Scriptural account of the rebuilding by Hiel. Men may challenge God's Word, but when they have spent their arrows of challenge and criticism, the ruins uncovered by the pick and shovel of the archeologist silently testify to the truthfulness of the Scripture record.

ADDITIONAL NOTE ON CHAPTER 6

The history of Israel's conquest of Canaan, so strikingly illustrated by the capture of Jericho, presents a record of wholesale destruction by the edge of the sword. Even devout believers have often been troubled by this record, particularly because skeptics have sought thereby to prove God bloodthirsty and merciless.

However, if certain facts are kept in mind, the record of destruction takes on a very different hue, and God stands forth as One who has displayed both mercy and justice in His dealings with men.

The first fact to bear in mind is that any and all who sin against God and thus rebel against His government, forfeit their right to life. In our world a man who turns rebel and fights against the government is declared worthy of death. In the very nature of the case, no government can continue to exist unless it uses every necessary means to put down all enemies. It is no straining of analogies to declare that the great government of God's universe cannot successfully continue if no plan is in operation that will ultimately, if not immediately, put down all rebellion. Simply for God to hold rebels at bay because of His omnipotence would be no satisfactory solution, for the ideal world or the ideal universe cannot include the thought of any restricted area where rebellion festers and foments.

The second fact is this: Though rebellion must be put down, and though on the principle of justice a rebel has forfeited his right to life, God has not proceeded simply along the lines of justice as an earthly government would, but has also displayed mercy. The Bible explanation of why the coming of Christ, which means the ultimate destruction of all the wicked, is delayed, is that the Lord "is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance" (2 Peter 3:9). And again in Ezekiel we read that the Lord takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked (Eze. 18:23). These statements of Scripture showing the Lord's policy in relation to sinful men are as definitely a part of the Bible as are those concerning the Israelites' being commanded to destroy the Canaanites. A man cannot consistently hold to the latter statements as describing the plan of God, and reject the former.

The third fact is this: Even though the Ruler of the universe displays mercy and gives to men time in which to turn from their rebellion, there must ultimately come a day of reckoning. If grace and probation are extended indefinitely, we have merely a never-ending truce with rebellion and iniquity, which is the same as capitulating to it.

The problem before us in connection with the destruction of the Canaanites by the Israelites, then, is simply this: first, to prove that the Canaanites were rebels against God's government, thus to demonstrate the justice of God in having them destroyed; second, to prove that they had been given a period of grace and probation, thus to demonstrate the mercy and long-suffering of God. It is not difficult to prove both of these propositions.

As to the first, it is a simple matter of history that the peoples on the eastern seaboard of the Mediterranean were as corrupt and depraved as any who have ever dwelt upon this earth. They made a religion of lust. They sent their children into the fires of the god Molech. Lev. 18 presents briefly something of the moral rebellion of the Canaanites. The imagination and a little knowledge of history supply the rest. According to the Bible the Canaanites were so vile that the very land "spued" them out (see Lev. 18:28). On the religion and cult practices of the Canaanites, see Vol. I, pp. 126, 129, 162; Vol. II, pp. 38-40.

As to the second proposition, the Bible is equally explicit. In the 15th chapter of Genesis is the record of the promise of God to Abraham, that his seed should inherit the land of Canaan. The explanation that God gave to Abraham as to why the promise would be so long in fulfilling, was that "the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full" (v. 16). The Amorites here stand for the peoples of Canaan, for they were the powerful, dominant race. There is no statement anywhere in the OT that more clearly sets forth the fact of God's mercy to sinners, and of how He gives to them a time of probation.

Here was Abraham, the friend of God. The Lord desired to give to him the land of Canaan for an inheritance. If God had been like an earthly ruler, He would doubtless have taken immediate steps to see that His promise was fulfilled for His favorite, and would have driven out or put to the sword all who stood in the way. That has been the history of despots who had all power in their hands. But not so with God. He declared in effect to Abraham, You must be patient. Your children and your children's children to the fourth generation must also be patient. My love to you is great. I long to fulfill for you and yours My promise. Nothing would bring greater pleasure to My heart. But--ah, here is the significant fact. Did the Lord say, But I have no power to fulfill My promise now? No; He had all power. He could have sent fire from heaven suddenly to consume all the inhabitants of Canaan. No, that was not the problem. The delay was because the cup of the "iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full." In other words, they had not completely sinned away their day of grace. There was still further mercy to be extended to them. God's Spirit was yet to plead with their hearts.

And so for 400 years more, generation after generation of the Amorites was permitted to live and to practice increasing abominations. Then God ordered their destruction. The reasonable conclusion is that their destruction was decreed because their cup of iniquity was full, that nothing would be gained by further extending mercy to them.

The destruction of the children along with their parents finds its justification on the ground that the younger generation would follow exactly the path of all the generations that had gone before them, that the bent to corruption and rebellion and depravity was deep seated and all-dominant in their natures, the same as in that of their parents. To have destroyed the parents and left the younger generation would have been but to preserve the seed of corruption. On the skeptic rests the burden of proof if he claims that the rising generation would not have followed the very same course that the preceding generations had followed without exception. But all the presumptions are against any such claim, and thus the destruction of the younger generation becomes as reasonable as the destruction of the older.

Further evidence regarding God's dealing with men in judgment is revealed in the record of the Flood. God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. Here was certainly a hopeless state. For God to allow such a condition to continue indefinitely would be tantamount to admitting before the universe that He either was indifferent to such flagrant, outrageous rebellion, or else was unable to cope with it. Yet the Lord did not immediately bring judgment upon the antediluvians. He declared, "My spirit shall not always strive with man," yet He gave them 120 years more (see Gen. 6:3). The reasonable conclusion is that by the end of this time nothing more could be gained by God's Spirit striving with sinful hearts. And when God can do nothing more to woo human hearts back to allegiance, then the day of mercy ends. Man indeed has himself ended it by his refusal to listen to the pleadings of the Spirit, and nothing but judgment can remain.

We cannot too often emphasize the fact that such statements as these from the Bible regarding God's dealings with man before the Flood, and His long-suffering with the Canaanites before their destruction, are as definitely a part of the Bible, and a revelation of the plans and character of God, as the command to the Israelites to destroy the Canaanites. To fasten upon the isolated command for the destruction of the inhabitants of Canaan, and insist on measuring the character of God by this lone fact, is as unreasonable as to seize upon a lone statement of a governor of one of our modern states, wherein he refuses further reprieve for a criminal and gives him over to the gallows, and attempt therefrom to prove that the governor was a heartless, cruel man.

Death and destruction are horrible thoughts to contemplate under any circumstances, and the most God-fearing and Bible-believing individual may willingly admit that he is filled with distressing thoughts as he reads of the destruction of the wicked at different times in the history of the world, and as he contemplates the final destruction of all evildoers. But it would be far more distressing to contemplate the kind of world and the kind of universe we would be forced to live in, if summary destruction were not ultimately meted out to all who were stubbornly determined to continue on in their sinful, corrupting ways.

Indeed, this whole question of judgment upon the wicked reveals the inconsistency in the attitude of the skeptic. How often a scoffer hurls at Christians the inquiry, If there is a God in heaven who rules and directs affairs, why does He permit evil men to dominate this world and to carry on all their terrible practices that bring sorrow and trouble to poor innocent creatures? Then the same scoffer will turn around a little later and ask sneeringly, If God is a God of love, as you Christians declare, why did He bring destruction on people at different times in the world, and why is He finally going to destroy all except a select group? But the skeptic does not seem to realize that the first question finds its answer in the second. And accordingly, he does not realize that he is inconsistent in raising a clamor against the judgments of God when he has just inquired why God does not wreak vengeance upon evildoers.

The harmony in this whole problem is found in such dealings of God as are here cited. God does rule in the universe, as the Bible declares. His will and government ultimately will be supreme everywhere, and rebellion will be put down. The wicked will not always oppress the innocent. Injustice will not always be meted out to the weak and helpless. The God who looks at all things in a longer perspective than man, and whose love for fallen creatures is greater than that of even the most devout believer, desires not only to save the meek and the upright and give to them ultimately a new earth wherein dwelleth righteousness but also to salvage from the hosts of the rebellious as many as possible.

It is this fact of the Lord's long-suffering, of His not being willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance, that gives plausibility to the first of these two skeptical questions. When we have this fact of God's long-suffering, we have the answer to the first question; we can view the injustice in our world, and still believe that God is ruler. And when we keep in our minds the simple fact that justice ultimately demands the destruction of those who continue in open rebellion, we have the answer to the second question. There is no necessity for offering an apology for the judgments of God that have been meted out to sinners in the past and are yet to be meted out in the future.

It is hardly necessary to discuss the question of the method God employed in bringing destruction to the Canaanites; it is enough to note that God was just in destroying them. That He should at one time use water, another time fire, another time plague, and still another time, as in the case of the Canaanites, the sword, has no more bearing on the question of the justification for the destruction than has the relative use of electrocution, hanging, or a firing squad on the question of capital punishment today. It is the justice of capital punishment and not the method that properly receives our attention.

Commentators have suggested that perhaps the Lord saw fit to have His chosen people, Israel, as executioners, in order that they might have mostly vividly impressed on their minds the awfulness of sin and rebellion; for the warning to the Israelites was that they should take care not to fall into the abominations of the Canaanites lest they suffer the same fate (see Lev. 18:28-30; cf. Rom. 11:15-22).

However, had Israel fully carried out God's plan for the conquest of Canaan, the course of events, as regards the destruction of the Canaanites, would have been different, at least in great degree, from what actually took place. This becomes evident when the principles already given are restated in the context of related principles:

1. God, the great arbiter of history, determines the duration and territorial extent of the nations (Dan. 2:21; Acts 17:26; see on Deut. 32:8; see also Ed 174, 176, 177). Silently, patiently He guides the affairs of earth in order to work out the counsels of His divine will (Ed 173, 178). Each nation, nevertheless, determines its own destiny by its use of the power granted to it by God, by the fidelity with which it fulfills His purpose for it (Ed 174, 175, 177, 178; see on Ex. 9:16). Opposition to God's principles means national ruin (see Dan. 5:22-31; GC 584; PP 536), for only that which is bound up with His purpose and expresses His character can endure (Ed 183, 238, 304).

2. God did not select Israel as His chosen people because of partiality for them; He would have accepted any nation on the same conditions that He accepted them (Acts 10:34, 35; 17:26, 27; Rom. 10:12, 13). It was simply that Abraham responded without reserve to the invitation to covenant relationship with God, to serve God faithfully himself, and to train his posterity to do likewise (Gen. 18:19). Accordingly, Abraham's descendants became God's representatives among men, and the covenant made with him was confirmed to them (Deut. 7:6-14). Their chief advantage above other nations was that God made them the custodians of His revealed will (Rom. 3:1, 2) and charged them with the dissemination of its principles throughout the world (Gen. 12:3; Isa. 42:6, 7; 43:10, 21; 56:3-8; 62:1-12; PP 492; COL 290).

In order that they might carry out this task effectively, and subject to their compliance with His requirements (Deut. 28:1, 2, 13, 14; cf. Zech. 6:15), it was God's plan to bestow unparalleled blessings upon Israel (Deut. 7:12-16; 28:1-14; COL 288, 289). He proposed to furnish them with every facility for becoming the greatest nation on earth (COL 288). In the blessings thus accruing to Israel the nations about them would have tangible, convincing evidence of the fact that it pays to cooperate with God (Deut. 4:6-8; 28:10). It was His original plan that the personal missionary labors of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob should provide the peoples of Canaan with an opportunity to worship and serve Him (COL 290; PP 128, 133, 134, 141, 368). All who turned from idolatry were to unite with God's chosen people (Isa. 2:2-4; 56:6-8; Micah 4:1-8; cf. CT 454-456; Zech. 2:10-12; 8:20-23; COL 290). But should they prove unfaithful, He would reject them as He now rejected the nations of Canaan (Deut. 28:13-15, 62-66, cf. Isa. 5:1-7; Rom. 11:17-22; PP 688), and drive them also from the Land of Promise (Deut. 28:63, 64).

3. The Canaanites enjoyed a probationary period of 400 years (see on Gen. 15:13, 16), but instead of responding to the opportunity thus accorded them they filled up their cup of iniquity (Gen. 15:16; see on Deut. 20:13; see also Vol. I, pp. 126, 129, 162; Ed 178) and were to be dispossessed (COL 290). It was necessary that the land should be cleared and cleansed of what would so surely prevent the fulfillment of God's gracious purposes (PP 492). Divine justice and mercy could no longer suffer the nations of Canaan to continue (see 5T 208; 9T 13; cf. Gen. 6:3), and God's account with them was closed (cf. Dan. 5:22-29).

Having granted Canaan to Israel, God appointed them His instruments for the execution of divine judgment upon the inhabitants of the land (PP 491). They were to smite the Canaanites "utterly" (Deut. 7:2) and to "save alive nothing that breatheth" (Deut. 20:16); all were to be put to the sword (PP 491). This did not mean, however, that individuals who might yet choose to serve the true God must perish. The conversion of Rahab the Canaanite testifies to the fact that divine mercy would spare those who forsook idolatry (Joshua 2:9-13; 6:25; cf. Heb. 11:31; James 2:25). At the Flood, the destruction of Sodom, and the fall of Jerusalem to the Romans all who heeded the warning given them were saved (Gen. 6:9-13, 18; 18:23-32; Luke 21:20-22 GC 30). The close of probation for a nation, as such, did not necessarily mean that innocent individuals would have to suffer death with those who deserved it.

4. In the conquest of Canaan divine power was to be combined with human effort. God intended all men to recognize that it was by His favor alone that Israel prevailed (PP 491, 496). Military reverses at Kadesh-barnea (Num. 13:28-31; 14:40-45) and some 38 years later at Ai (PP 493) taught them that in their own strength they could never subdue the land (see Dan. 4:30; PP 491; Ed 176). However, God did not intend Israel to take Canaan by ordinary warfare, but rather by strict compliance with His instructions (PP 392, 436). In some instances the report of God's mighty deeds on behalf of His people would have smitten the Canaanites with fear and they would have surrendered without out fighting (Num. 22:3; Joshua 2:9-11; Deut. 28:10; Ex. 23:27; Deut. 2:25; 11:25; Ex. 15:13-16; Joshua 5:1; Ex. 34:24; cf. Gen. 35:5; Joshua 10:1, 2; 1 Sam. 14:15; 2 Chron. 17:10). At other times they would have become confused, and turned on one another (Judges 7:22; 1 Sam. 14:20; 2 Chron. 20:20-24). Also, God would have utilized, at times, the forces of nature (Joshua 10:11, 12; etc.) even as He had done in Egypt, at the Red Sea, and at the crossing of the Jordan. Had Israel only cooperated with Him, He would have worked for them in many unexpected ways. Perhaps, too, some nations--like the Gibeonites (PP 507, 508)--would have come to a knowledge of the true God.

But Israel's repeated failure to give strict obedience to God's commands at Kadesh (PP 394), Shittim (Num. 25:1-9), and Ai (Joshua 7:8, 9; PP 494) in large measure allayed the fears of the Canaanites, gave them time to prepare for the fray, and made the conquest of the land far more difficult than it would otherwise have been (PP 437). Nevertheless, divine love no longer availing to bring repentance, divine justice decreed the probation of these rebels against God closed, demanded their prompt execution, and assigned their land to His chosen representatives (see Num. 23:19-24; PP 492; cf. GC 37; Matt. 21:41, 43).

Ellen G. White Comments

1-27PP 488-493; SR 178-181

1-4SR 178

2 PP 488, 493; 4T 161

3, 4 PP 488; 4T 160

6 4T 160

6-11SR 179

8, 9 PP 488

9, 11 4T 160

12, 13 SR 179

14 PP 488; SR 180

14-164T 161

15, 16 SR 180

15-18PP 491

17 3T 264

18 PP 495; 3T 264

18, 19 3T 269; 4T 491

20 SR 180; TM 410; 4T 161, 164

21 PP 491; 4T 161

24, 25 PP 491

26 PK 230; PP 492; 3T 264

chapter 7

1 The Israelites are smitten at Ai. 6 Joshua's complaint. 10 God instructeth him what to do. 16 Achan is taken by the lot. 19 His confession. 22 He and all he had are destroyed in the valley of Achor.

1. Committed a trespass. From the Heb. maÔal maÔal, literally, "trespassed a trespass." The verb is generally translated "committed" when followed by its cognate noun, but originally it meant "to cover," as is apparent from the derived noun meÔil, "garment." Thus the word means "to act underhandedly," "to act treacherously," and with its noun, "to commit a treacherous act." It is noteworthy that all Israel is considered guilty because of the transgression of one of its members. Even though the sin was not known, Israel as a nation was held accountable, and God's blessing withheld from them. We see an example of such corporate responsibility in the intercourse of nations. A whole nation is held accountable for the words and acts of its ambassador. If he should insult another nation, the whole nation is held accountable until such a time as reparation is made. In like manner offenders in a church may hinder the divine blessing upon that church (see 4T 68; 6T 371). If the church fails to take appropriate action when sin is known, the church then becomes a partaker in that sin. However, this does not necessarily imply personal guilt upon each of the members as individuals (yet see 3T 266).

Israel's First Campaigns West of the Jordan

Achan. The LXX and Syriac both support the reading "Achar," as the name appears in 1 Chron. 2:7. The Heb. Ôachar means "trouble" or "troubler," and the name was obviously given this culprit in allusion to the effects of his conduct (see on Joshua 6:18; 7:4, 9). It is common in the Scriptures to have the names of persons and places changed in consequence of, and in allusion to, certain remarkable events by which they may have been distinguished. A notable example is Hosea 4:15, where Bethel, "house of God," is called Beth-aven, "house of vanity," on account of the idolatry practiced there.

Zabdi. Also called Zimri (1 Chron. 2:6). Such variant readings are common. In this case the change is probably due to the mistaking of one letter for another--a d for an r and a b for an m. In the Hebrew one letter of each pair might easily be taken for the other. The genealogy here given suggests that Achan was probably past middle age, unless we assume his forefathers to have been old when their children were born. Thus his own children must already have arrived at the age of accountability by the time of this tragedy, and may have shared in the crime, and hence also in the responsibility for it.

2. Ai. Heb. ÔAi, "ruin" or "heap." This city (also known as Hai, by the inclusion of the Hebrew definite article) is spoken of as early as the time of Abraham (Gen. 12:8; 13:3).

Beside Beth-aven. This phrase is omitted in the LXX. Chapter 18:12 mentions the wilderness of Beth-aven, and the intent of the statement is probably that Ai is in proximity to the wilderness of Beth-aven.

Go up and view. Literally, "go up and foot," that is, tramp about the country. The geography of this region shows that there were two chief passes that led from the city of Jericho into central Palestine. The most practicable and direct of these was the one that veered somewhat to the north, and is now known as the Wadi Kelt. This gorge meets another, Wadi Harith, a deep ravine some 8 mi. from the Jordan valley. Somewhere among the hills and ravines a little to the east of the town of Bethel stood the city of Ai. In a region of hills and valleys the spies could readily advance without being seen.

3. Not all the people. According to ch. 8:25, the population of Ai was 12,000. Evidently the spies, in their self-confidence, had underestimated the defenses of the city. But more than that, the Israelites, flushed with victory, failed to realize that divine help alone could give them success, and neglected to take God into their counsel when planning to take Ai.

4. They fled. Trust in God means success. Failure to trust in Him means defeat. Many a carefully laid scheme miscarries because God is not taken into account. Three lessons stand out among those that may be learned from this experience: (1) It was God and not their own valor that gave the Canaanites into the hands of the children of Israel. (2) Success cannot come when there is sin in the camp. (3) When sin is confessed God takes man's failures and turns them into blessings.

Every man enjoys a personal relationship with his Creator that can be severed only by his own choice. But God also deals with men in a corporate relationship, as groups; thus there is group as well as individual responsibility (see Ed 178, 238). God holds nations, for instance, accountable for their corporate actions. This was true in a special way of the chosen nation, Israel, and it is equally true of spiritual Israel, the church, today. At times the entire group suffers as a result of the deeds of its individual members (Eze. 21:3, 4; PP 497). It is within the power of any member of a group to benefit the others or to bring suffering and evil upon them (2 Cor. 2:15). And, as in the case of Achan, God holds the entire group, as a group, accountable for the deeds of its individual members. Nevertheless, as then, God acts through the recognized leaders of the group in requiring cooperation and in inflicting punishment. God has a church, and has set leaders over it. He looks to them to take the initiative in carrying out His will. Furthermore, God requires His people to cooperate with their leaders (Heb. 13:17), and will not tolerate independent action on the part of individuals, in opposition to His appointed leadership. Great is the curse that comes upon those leaders who are unfaithful in their task (Isa. 3:12; Isa. 9:16; Jer. 13:20; Eze. 34:10), and upon those individuals who deliberately hinder them in their work (see Judges 5:23). God's presence with us in the past is not a guarantee of His continued presence with us in the future. In the religious life there must be a continual dependence upon God, and constant inquiry as to what God would have us to do. The grace and strength granted for the accomplishment of one task are not sufficient for the demands of the next. Joshua failed to take this spiritual law into account. In laying plans for the conquest of Ai, he neglected to take God into his counsel (PP 493). How we need to be on guard lest we merely go through the motions of religious service, and fall short of victory, because we have neglected to work according to God's plan. Our zeal for God must be under the control of sanctified knowledge (see Rom. 10:2; cf. Ps. 111:10).

5. Shebarim. The word thus translated is from a root meaning "to break in pieces." Most versions give it as a proper name. This would make of it a site between Ai and Jericho, presumably of a stone quarry. However, no stone quarry has been located in the vicinity, and it is reasonable to suppose that the remains of a stone quarry would not be completely obliterated by time. The Vaticanus manuscript and some Syriac versions, together with the Targums, translate the expression, "unto their [Israel's] being broken." One Syriac edition reads, "until they [Israel] were routed," translating rather than transliterating the Hebrew. The latter suggestion appears to be more in harmony with the context.

The going down. The LXX reads, "from the steep hill," and the RSV, "at the descent." Evidently the fleeing Israelites entered a narrow and steep ravine that delayed them in flight. Here, it would seem, they became panic-stricken, and in the confusion the hindmost were smitten.

6. Rent his clothes. The rending of the clothes as a sign of mourning and distress originated in ancient times (Gen. 37:34; 44:13). Generally the outer garment was torn in front, over the breast, but for no more than a handbreadth. This act became a custom among the Jews, as an external symbol of a broken heart (see Joel 2:12, 13. Placing dust or ashes on the head represented even greater grief and unworthiness 1 Sam. 4:12; 2 Sam. 1:2; 13:19). Joshua's faith had led him to expect nothing but victories, and he now seemed to be at a total loss to understand this failure. But there are conditions to the promises of God, and these Joshua and Israel had not met (see on Joshua 7:3).

7. Would to God. This expression indicates a profound feeling of despair and utter inability to understand the situation. Joshua's prayer almost takes on the spirit of murmuring and complaining, so characteristic of the children of Israel on numerous occasions. But even the best of men at times give way to discouragement and fear (see 1 Kings 19:9-18; Jonah 4:1-9). Joshua rightly interpreted the defeat at Ai as a mark of God's displeasure upon His people, yet did not understand the reason for it. His words may have been ill-chosen, but his resort to prayer at such a moment of crisis is commendable.

8. What shall I say In desperation Joshua seeks counsel.

9. Thy great name. However much Joshua was concerned about Israel's fortunes, he was even more concerned for Jehovah's name. Surely God would not allow it to be ridiculed, would He? Moses had used the same argument upon several occasions (Ex. 32:12; Num. 14:13-16; Deut. 9:28). God Himself made use of it in the song He bade Moses teach the people (Deut. 32:26, 27). We should ever remember that our faithfulness or unfaithfulness involves the honor not only of the church but of God's name.

10. Get thee up. Or, "stand up for thyself." This was a time for action, not for repining.

11. Israel hath sinned. The guilt was attributed to all Israel (see on v. 1). God was not to be charged with the humiliating defeat. He had not deserted them; they had disobeyed. Had God continued to fight for His people, He would have been sanctioning sin and encouraging its continuance.

Which I commanded. This may refer specifically to the command regarding the spoils of the city of Jericho, but in a broader sense it includes God's original covenant with Israel. This was based on the Ten Commandments, described in Scripture as "his covenant, which he commanded you to perform" (Deut. 4:13). Both aspects of the divine command are referred to in the expressions, "they have even taken of the accursed thing," and "have also stolen." In the Hebrew each of the five items listed in v. 11 is connected to the preceding statement by the conjunction we, "also."

Dissembled. Literally, "lied," "deceived." In this case they lied by their actions. They kept the matter secret and acted as though they were not guilty. Lying is often companion to stealing.

Their own stuff. As though it belonged to them. Some of the stolen things God had ordered destroyed; others, the gold and the silver, had been dedicated to the Lord and were to be placed in His treasury. But Achan had fearlessly appropriated them to himself as though they were his own. There are Achans in the camp today. Of the tithes and offerings it is declared, "Will a man rob God? Yet ye have robbed me. But ye say, Wherein have we robbed thee? In tithes and offerings" (Mal. 3:8). The tithe is consecrated to the Lord and is to be put into His treasury. There are those who take the tithe as though it belonged to them, and "put it ... among their own stuff." Israel lost the blessing of God because of this type of sin. Can it be that the curse of Mal. 3:9 rests upon the camp of Israel today? We are not living under a theocracy now, and transgressors do not immediately receive the punishment that is their due (see Eccl. 8:11). But this does not make their sin less heinous. "Jesus Christ [is] the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever" (Heb. 13:8). Eventually all sin will receive its just punishment.

12. Accursed. Or, "devoted to destruction" (see on ch. 6:17). The curse was such that those who took of the thing devoted to destruction themselves thereby became "devoted" to the same. This sentence doubtless was understood at the time the curse was pronounced. Furthermore, Achan had seen in the destruction of the inhabitants of Jericho the sure result of transgression. Yet in the face of all this he chose to pursue his wicked course. The utter deceptiveness of sin is revealed in the fact that it leads its victims to believe that somehow or other they will escape punishment (see Gen. 3:4; Eccl. 8:11).

13. Sanctify yourselves. As they had done when they met the Lord at Sinai (Ex. 19:10). The external cleansing there enjoined was to be symbolic of the inner cleansing. Times of peculiar danger and calamity should be seasons of heart searching and earnest reformation. The heart searching here commanded gave Achan a unique opportunity to reconsider and acknowledge his crime. But sin has a peculiar way of hardening men's hearts and lessening their abhorrence of it. Not until forced to do so did Achan acknowledge his guilt, and even then not in the true spirit of repentance. He probably flattered himself that others were equally as guilty as he. A guilty person often holds others to be guilty of the same act he habitually commits.

14. According to your tribes. As is evident from the records in the books of Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, and others, the Israelites preserved genealogical records with the greatest of care. Thus Achan's name is found faithfully chronicled in the genealogy of Judah (1 Chron. 2:7).

Which the Lord taketh. The method was by lot (PP 494), a device frequently mentioned in the Scriptures. Caution, however, needs to be exercised in the use of this means of ascertaining the will of God. The course is safe only when God, through inspiration, indicates that He wishes this method to be employed. If God is not in the procedure, it becomes nothing more than a chance method like the flipping of a coin or the dropping of a card. There are times when in a crisis God may answer by an audible voice or by direct signs (see Judges 6:34-40). Such, however, are not His usual means of communicating His will. God has endowed men with intelligence, and He expects them to develop the faculty of making decisions for themselves. If, in every decision of life, men could determine by a sign the divine will, they would become mentally impotent and fail of the necessary development of mind and character. Those who consistently follow chance methods will weaken their entire religious life. In the beginnings of religious life and occasionally since, God may have honored our developing faith by giving us remarkable answers by such means, but this does not imply that He wants us consistently to depend upon this method. The ideal of Christian attainment is to have the mind so imbued with divine knowledge, and the faculties so trained, that in following our own impulses we will but be doing the will of God (DA 668).

15. All that he hath. Including the children (vs. 24, 25). Yet in Deut. 24:16 the Lord had declared that children should not be put to death for their father's sins, but each man for his own. Perhaps Achan's family had been party to the act (see on v. 1), and shared with him the evil secret. Men are responsible not only for the sins they themselves commit, but also for sheltering an evildoer, by withholding information that might assist those responsible for administering justice.

19. My son. This expression may give us a glimpse into the heart of Joshua. It seems to indicate that he loved the offender as a tender father, and that his heart went out to him as though he were indeed his own son. Such an attitude shows true magnanimity, and should be emulated by those who are called upon to administer discipline. Many a soul has become discouraged for life by receiving unduly harsh discipline, whereas a different method might have led to repentance and restitution. Jesus, our Exemplar, pronounced His most scathing rebukes with tears in His voice (DA 353), and Joshua exhibited many of the qualities of Christ. No wonder God chose him; no wonder the people served the Lord all his days.

20. I have sinned. The public revelation of his guilt secured Achan's cooperation, and he promptly confessed his crime. His guilt was thus established beyond question, and no room was left for his sympathizers to charge that he had been unjustly condemned. The problem could thus be settled once and for all, instead of smoldering on for years in the hearts of any minded to criticize.

21. A goodly Babylonish garment. The LXX reads, "an embroidered [many-colored] mantle." Such garments were decorated with figure work, either woven into the fabric or wrought with a needle (see Eze. 23:15). They were costly, and could be afforded only by royalty and by the most opulent citizens. Josephus says that it was "a royal garment woven entirely of gold."

Achan likely followed the usual steps in sin. First he looked, then, he coveted, then he took. And when he had taken, his next step was to conceal what he had done. Successfully to avoid sin, one must promptly expel the first insinuations of evil--the first look (see Gen. 3:6).

22. They ran. Probably to avoid anyone's removing the treasures, but doubtless also because they were anxious to clear the camp of the accursed thing and to regain the favor of God. It is well to make haste in putting away sin. Delay is dangerous.

24. His sons. See on v. 15.

His oxen. Brute beasts are of course incapable of sin, and so also not deserving of punishment. But they suffer, along with inanimate creation, the effects of the curse upon Adam. Thus "the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now" (Rom. 8:22).

Valley of Achor. See on chs. 6:18; 7:1. In Hosea 2:15 the valley of Achor is said to be given for a door of hope. God is always willing to turn our defeats into blessings if we are willing to "take away the accursed thing" from our hearts (Joshua 7:13).

25. All Israel stoned him. The Hebrew here uses two different words for stoning, ragam and sŒaqal. It has been suggested that the former means to stone a living person, whereas the latter signifies to heap stones upon a dead person, from its possible connection with the Heb. sheqel, which means "a weight." But in the OT the two words seem to have been used interchangeably. In this verse the writer may have purposely chosen a synonym to avoid repetition. The punishment is said to have been executed by all Israel. Though probably not all actually cast stones, all were presumably present as spectators and "consenting unto his death" (Acts 8:1).

With fire. It seems that Achan and his family were first stoned to death, and afterward their bodies together with the spoil and other things pertaining to them were burned. Stoning by the congregation was a legal form of punishment for certain crimes (see Lev. 24:14; Num. 15:35).

26. Heap of stones. As a warning to future generations to prevent them from falling into the same snare of covetousness that caused Achan's ruin.

Ellen G. White Comments

1-26PP 493-498

1 1T 122; 3T 239, 264; 4T 564

2-4PP 493

4 3T 264

5-12PP 494

6 3T 266

6, 7 3T 264

6-94T 491

10 4T 493

10, 11 4T 492

10-123T 264, 520

10-13TM 91

12 3T 239, 267

12, 13 TM 428

13 1T 140; 3T 267

16-19PP 495; 3T 268; 4T 492

20 3T 271

20-23PP 495

20-253T 268

21 PP 496; 3T 239; 5T 157

25, 26 PP 495

Joshua Chapter 8

1 God encourageth Joshua. 3 The stratagem whereby Ai was taken. 29 The king thereof is hanged. 30 Joshua buildeth an altar, 32 writeth the law on stones, 33 propoundeth blessings and cursings.

1. Dismayed. The sin of Achan and its consequences must have brought great discouragement to Joshua. But now that he had done God's will in ridding the camp of sin, the Lord gave him fresh encouragement to proceed with the conquest.

Take all the people. The spies had suggested that Joshua not require all the people to participate in the attack on Ai (ch. 7:3), and he had acceded to their suggestion. Human wisdom, guided by over-confidence, dictated this first plan and it failed. Now it seems that God administered a tacit rebuke to the scheme of partial participation. He directed that all were to share in the task of taking Ai, and to receive a portion of the spoils. Thus it is in the cause of God today. All are to labor in the work of the gospel, and all are to share in its rewards.

2. Lay thee an ambush. God Himself gives detailed instruction as to strategy to be employed. Joshua should have waited for such divine direction before pressing his first attack. Often we too run ahead of God, and walk in the sparks of our own kindling (see Isa. 50:11), all the while thinking that we are doing the will of God. In every decision in life we should earnestly inquire, Is this the will of God?

3. Thirty thousand. There is some difficulty in harmonizing the figures mentioned in this chapter, possibly because the narrative is so briefly recorded. In vs. 1 and 3 the expression "all the people of war" (see also v. 11) seems to indicate that God commanded all the men of war to join in this battle. This verse mentions 30,000 who were to lie in wait "between Beth-el and Ai, on the west side of Ai" (v. 9), whereas in v. 12 he took 5,000 men and set them to lie in ambush "between Beth-el and Ai, on the west side of the city." This latter group may have been an additional ambush later sent out on a special assignment. If so, the two ambushes together with the main body of forces with Joshua would make up the total number of men of war. In support of this suggestion is the observation that the 30,000 were directed to take the city and set it on fire at a given signal from Joshua. The 5,000, on the other hand, received no direction, as far as the record goes, as to what they were to do. It has been suggested that their assignment had to do with the proximity of hostile Bethel to Ai (see on v. 12).

9. Among the people. That is, at Gilgal, where the main body of troops were stationed.

10. Numbered the people. Literally, "visited the people," that is, "reviewed," or "mustered," them. This would, of course, have reference, as explained in v. 11, to the people of war. The LXX here reads, "concealed the people." Perhaps Joshua gave final instruction on secrecy, how the men of war might proceed and remain undetected until the opportune time. They pitched camp that night on the north side of the city. The LXX reads, "on the east." There is a ravine running east and west on the north of et-Tell, the supposed site of Ai, and here on the north side of this ravine they probably took their position.

12. Five thousand men. See on v. 3. The following explanation has been given as to the assignment of the group. There are two ravines, which come to a head between Bethel, the modern BeitéÆn, and Ai, et-Tell. The body of men who were to attack and fire the city were posted in the ravine nearer to Ai. When they should leave their ambush to attack the city, it would be necessary to have someone to protect their rear and ward off any men of war who might sally forth from Bethel to assist the king of Ai. The 5,000 would then be posted in the other ravine with their eyes toward the west in defense against Bethel. They were probably the ones who took care of the men of war from Bethel, so that they were not able to attack Joshua's men in the rear. However, the mention of the troops from Bethel also pursuing the Israelites (v. 17) suggests that this ambush was likely involved in another part of the stratagem.

13. The valley. From -emeq, a low, wide tract of land. It seemed to be distinguished from the "valley" of v. 11, which is from the Heb. gai', "ravine." Inspiration does not tell us the purpose of his visit to the valley. We may conjecture that with the battle impending, Joshua spent the night in prayer to make sure nothing would intercept the blessing of God and prevent victory. Compare 1 Sam. 17:3.

14. When the king of Ai saw. Literally, "according to the seeing of the king of Ai," that is, immediately upon his seeing or knowing. The word sometimes takes on this latter sense. Probably the guards were the first to discover Joshua and his troops and to report them to the king. A leader is often given credit for that which is done by those under him. Immediately he wakens his officers and men, and together they rush out to meet Israel, perhaps in hope of another easy victory.

At a time appointed. Heb. lammoÔed. The LXX here reads, "straight out," and the Syriac, "in the valley." By reading mored for moÔed we get the translation "to the descent" (see on chs. 7:2, 5; 8:13).

Before the plain. Literally, "in the sight of the Arabah." The Heb. Ôarabah means, "a waste region," "a desert." With the article it refers specifically to the valley, or plain, of Jordan. Israel's flight probably took them toward Gilgal.

16. Were called together. Literally, "were cried together," that is, they were assembled, as by a public crier. This seems to indicate that the sudden flight of Israel's army came as a surprise, for the inhabitants of Ai were not expecting it. In their zeal to defend themselves the men of Ai at least displayed greater courage than their neighbors in Jericho. They were not afraid to take the offensive. Encouraged by their previous victory, they had great confidence in success. But their zeal was misspent because they were fighting against God. Thus it is with all who carry on a program in opposition to God. The all-important question is, In my feverish endeavor, on whose side am I? If I am on the wrong side, then there is only one sane course to follow--surrender. If I am on the Lord's side, then it is mine to "fight the good fight of faith" (1 Tim. 6:12) with all the energies of my soul.

17. Or Beth-el. This city was only a few miles from Ai. The two cities may have had a signal system between them, so that when one was attacked, immediately the other could be alerted and come to the rescue. It may have been the work of the 5,000 in ambush to attack the assisting force from Bethel. The city of Bethel itself was not completely overthrown until later (see Judges 1:22). It is probable that events on the day that Ai was taken inflicted a measure of defeat upon the men of Bethel permitting the postponement of the capture of the city for a time.

19. Set the city on fire. The Hebrew for "set on fire" has the idea of "kindling a fire." This expression is to be distinguished from the word "burnt" used in v. 28. The men set fire to the city, that is, they started a fire, but they did not consume the city with this fire. The word used in v. 28 has the idea of consuming. There is no discrepancy between the two statements.

26. Drew not his hand back. Some have suggested that Joshua lifted up his spear, perhaps with some banner or emblem on it, and that he held it aloft as Moses uplifted his arms 40 years before when Joshua fought the Amalekites. On the other hand, the language need imply nothing more than that he desisted from withdrawing his spear in battle until the work God had commanded was completed. It is likely, however, that Joshua would have recalled the scene at Rephidim when he had personally led in the battle against Amalek (Ex. 17:8-13), and prevailed as long as Moses held up the rod of God in his hand.

28. Heap for ever. Here it definitely states that Ai was made a heap forever. The Hebrew for "heap" is tel, which means "a hill," especially "a heap of ruins." Compare the Arabic tell, "mound," used in so many place names.

29. Hanged on a tree. Possibly slain with the sword first as in the case of the five kings of the Amorites (ch. 10:26). The Hebrew reads "hanged on the tree." This may have reference to some specific tree, or it may be that the kings of both Jericho and Ai were hanged on the same tree, and exhibited, each in turn, as under the curse of God. It appears that the king of Jericho was also hanged, for as Joshua "had done to Jericho and her king, so he had done to Ai and her king" (ch. 10:1; cf. ch. 8:2). Anyone committing a sin worthy of death and hanged on a tree was "accursed of God" (see Deut. 21:22, 23). Jesus, though He had done no sin, was made a curse for us, being hanged on a tree (Gal. 3:13).

The entering of the gate. The gate of a city was the usual place of judgment as well as of most other important public business. The king of Ai himself may have frequently sat in this very gate in judgment. Now he himself was judged. Since the gate of the city was its most public place, the judgment upon the king was thus publicly displayed before all.

30. Then Joshua built an altar. The word translated "then" is not the ordinary connective that is so frequently translated "then" elsewhere. The word here used is more emphatic, placing special stress on the time. It marks the fact that the development of the building of the altar began then, growing out of the situation just described. Israel had been victorious, and had received evidence that God was with them and would drive out the nations before them. It was an opportune moment for them to interrupt their military campaign and to renew their covenant with God. On two separate occasions God had instructed Israel to call a solemn assembly of all the tribes upon Mts. Ebal and Gerizim, shortly after their entrance into Canaan (Deut. 11:26-30; 27:2-8). Israel was to hear the law reread, and its precepts were to be inscribed on stone and placed in the very heart of the country for all, both the Israelites and the other nations, to read. By this means God extended an invitation to all nations to become acquainted with His benevolent purposes, and to join His people.

Geographically the place was in the very center of the land and at the crossroads of travel. Some historians have found great difficulty in admitting the possibility of such a journey through hostile enemy territory at such a time. Josephus supposes that this religious ceremony happened after five years, and the LXX places this passage after ch. 9:1, 2. But all attempts to adjust the time are entirely unnecessary. Though in the midst of an enemy's country, as yet unconquered, Israel passed on unharmed, because the terror of God had fallen upon the cities round about, as when Jacob long before had passed through this very region on his way to Bethel (Gen. 35:5). It has also been suggested that no mention is made of a strong place north of Bethel in that part of the country, and that from other passages (see Joshua 17:18) there seems reason to think that a large part of this district was wooded and unpopulated. The confederacy of the southern kings had its center far to the south, and there was a considerable distance between Shechem and the strong places to the north. See on 1 Sam. 9:4.

Mount Ebal. Mt. Ebal was only about 20 mi. from Ai. Leaving their encampment at Gilgal, probably in charge of a guard, all Israel journeyed to Mt. Ebal and Mt. Gerizim for this sacred service and the renewal of the covenant. Though they were anxious to obtain settlement in their homes, the work of conquest had to come to a standstill while they made the long march, attended this solemn ceremony, and returned to Gilgal. Thus they were taught that the way to prosper is to make God first. Jesus later reiterated this great principle in the words, "But seek ye first the kingdom of God" (Matt. 6:33). Mt. Ebal is situated on the north, and Mt. Gerizim on the south. The valley between them is about one third of a mile wide, and runs east and west. The summits of the 2 mountains are about 2 mi. apart. Where the 2 mountains face each other, at the point of their closest proximity, there is a green valley of about 500 yd. in width. The limestone stratum of each mountain is broken into a succession of ledges forming a natural amphitheater on either side. Here Abraham had erected his first altar in the Land of Promise. Here the people now congregated, six of the tribes on one side and six on the other--the six on Mt. Gerizim to respond with an Amen after each blessing was read and the six on Mt. Ebal as each curse was read. Spurs jut out from each of these mountains forming natural pulpits from which the speaker's voice could be heard throughout the valley. According to directions, an altar was erected on Mt. Ebal, the mount of cursing (Deut. 27:4, 5). But why on the mount of cursing? This was fitting. In that place from which the curses of the law were read against sinners, there must also be an indication of the means of grace and forgiveness. The sacrifices on that altar prefigured Christ.

31. Whole stones. This was in harmony with God's command (Deut. 27:5, 6). The reason for the use of "whole stones" was that there was danger that by the use of the chisel the Israelites might fashion for themselves images upon these altars, and thus be tempted to idolatry (see on Ex. 20:25).

32. A copy of the law. According to Deut. 27:2-8, a stone monument was to be erected next to the altar. This was to be covered over with plaster. Upon this plaster the Ten Commandments and the law of Moses were inscribed. These, together with the blessings for obedience and the curse for disobedience, were read to the whole congregation of Israel. In that country, were heavy frosts would not disintegrate the letters, this monument may have remained for centuries as a witness to Israel of their covenant, as well as a witness to the nations about.

35. All the congregation. The women, the children, and strangers, like Rahab and her family, were there. All, old and young, were to hear the words of the Lord. The enlightenment of the intellect is one of the first steps in Christian growth. One cannot live in harmony with God while in ignorance. Ignorance and true Christianity can never continue in the same individual. This is why God has laid great stress on Christian education. Nothing should be permitted to interfere with giving our children the education God enjoins. In spite of the hardship of the journey to Ebal, the children of ancient Israel were to accompany their parents.

Ellen G. White Comments

1-35PP 499-504

30-35PP 499

35 PK 465; PP 503

Joshua Chapter 9

1 The kings combine against Israel. 3 The Gibeonites by craft obtain a league. 16 For which they are condemned to perpetual bondage.

1. When all the kings. Undoubtedly the reports that came to these kings both angered and frightened them, with the result that they called this emergency meeting. They had heard not only of the fall of Jericho, and of Ai, but doubtless also of the great meeting at Ebal, where the Israelites had proclaimed the law of Jehovah as the law of the entire land of Canaan. The convocation at Mt. Ebal showed clearly that the children of Israel intended to be its sole rulers. The resulting anger of the Canaanites probably overcame their fright, and they determined to resist together, hoping thereby to prevent any encroachment upon their territory. For a description of "the kings" see the Introduction to Joshua.

This side Jordan. The Hebrew has, "beyond the Jordan." The reference, of course, is definitely to the western side of the river, and either the writer was writing on the eastern side, or the arrival on the western side had been so recent that he still thinks of the territory as "beyond the Jordan." If the writer had already made the land of Palestine his permanent home, he would hardly have used such an expression. This observation argues for an early writing of at least this portion of the book of Joshua. The expression "beyond the Jordan" subsequently refers to the east side of Jordan, unless the speaker is there or thinks of himself as being there (see Judges 5:17).

Hills. By the "hills" is meant the mountainous uplands in the central part of Palestine that afterward became the territory of Judah and Ephraim. The "valleys" are what is called the Shephelah, or western foothills. The "coasts of the great sea" include the maritime plains of Philistia and Sharon.

2. One accord. Literally, "one mouth." The word for "mouth" is frequently used for "command," and this might here be the intent of the expression. These six nations pooled their military forces and banded themselves together under one command to meet the emergency. Although of different clans, and with differing interests, doubtless often at variance with one another, they were ready to make common cause against the people of God. Their hatred of the righteous was the common bond that united them, as has often been true of wicked men. For instance, opposition to Christ brought Pilate and Herod together. In the last days it will unite all the religious and political forces against the true remnant of God, "which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus" (Rev. 12:17).

3. Gibeon. Literally, "a hill." The city was situated on a terraced hill, and had a pool of water in it. Jeremiah refers to it as "great waters" (Jer. 41:12). The city was nearly 6 mi. (9 km.) northwest of Jerusalem, on the road to Joppa. Its inhabitants, the Hivites (Joshua 9:7; see on Gen. 10:17), were included in the confederacy of vs. 1 and 2. When the Gibeonites received the news of the destruction of Jericho and Ai, they concluded that it was futile to resist the army of Israel, and accordingly worked out a carefully planned scheme to gain favor with Israel and make a league with them.

Some scholars have considered the Hivites (see on Gen. 10:17) to be the same as the Horites or Hurrians (see on Gen. 36:20). The LXX calls the Hivites the Chorrhaion. If this identification has any validity, then a group of Horites, originally from the region southwest of Lake Van, in Armenia, settled in the vicinity of Gibeon some time before the arrival of the Hittites.

The Gibeonite form of government must have been more or less democratic, for the Gibeonites spoke of their elders and all their people as sending them (v. 11). Had their government at this time been headed by a king, his heart might have been too proud to bow to the conquering Israelites. In that event the Gibeonites might have joined with the other Canaanite kings in resisting Israel. The Gibeonites may have had spies at Ebal, when the law was read, who brought them word of the command given to Israel (see Deut. 7:1-3) to show no mercy to the Canaanites, to give them no quarter in battle, and to make no league with them (see on Ex. 23:32). To say the least, their determination not to resist showed a degree of faith in the strength of Israel's God. They were willing to enter into a league, which included their pledge to renounce idolatry and to accept the worship of Jehovah (PP 506).

4. They did work wilily. The ruse would immediately have been disclosed had Joshua sought counsel of the Lord, but once more, as at Ai, he neglected to do so.

Made as if. The clause thus introduced is translated from a single Hebrew word, one that occurs nowhere else in the Scriptures. The root idea of the word is "to revolve." Elsewhere the word is unknown, except in Arabic. By the substitution of a d for an r, which letters are easily mistaken in the Hebrew, we get the translation "and provided themselves with provisions." The word then becomes the same as that found in v. 12 and there translated "took hot for our provision." This reading agrees with many MSS and ancient translations, including the LXX and Syriac. That they would go as ambassadors is understood. "Provided themselves with provisions" seems to fit the context more adequately.

6. The camp at Gilgal. The children of Israel returned to their former camp at Gilgal near Jericho, and not to some new "Gilgal" near Shechem as some have thought (see PP 505 and on 2 Kings 2:1). Chapter 9:17 states that Israel arrived at the city of Gibeon from their encampment at Gilgal on the third day. But Shechem is only a short distance from Gibeon, and three days would not have been required to make the journey. The expression, "Joshua ascended" (ch. 10:7), again points to the Israelite camp as being in the Jordan valley.

7. The men of Israel. The Hebrew has the singular "man," not "men," but the verb is plural, evidently because the "men" are thought of as individuals. The LXX reads, "sons [children] of Israel," and the Syriac, "[they] of the house of Israel." Apparently the negotiations were carried on by the princes (v. 18).

The Hivites. See on v. 3.

Make a league. The Israelites were permitted to make peace with cities that were far off, but not with the seven Canaanite nations living in close proximity to them (Deut. 7:1, 2; 20:10-15). These were to be completely destroyed (Deut. 20:17) lest Israel become contaminated by their false religion and low moral principles. Hence the repeated instruction to Israel not to make any league with them (see Ex. 23:32; 34:12; Deut. 7:2; 20:16-18). The Gibeonites seem to have been aware of this edict, and accordingly resorted to the strategy of feigning to come from a far country.

8. We are thy servants. This statement was probably more of a polite form of address rather than a sincere declaration of their submission (see Gen. 32:4, 18; 50:18; 2 Kings 10:5; 16:7). However, it was calculated to impress Israel. The Gibeonites, no doubt, expected to make some concession such as paying tribute, but they hoped that the contract would be as favorable as possible. Nevertheless, their carefully worded reply did not satisfy Joshua, as is clear from the questions he continued to direct at them. At this moment of doubt and uncertainty he should have sought the Lord. He probably felt as many Christians do today, that here was a matter he could handle without troubling the Lord. But God has bidden us to come to Him with all of our problems. We are not to feel that we weary or burden Him. Many pitfalls might be avoided by taking all our problems to the Lord, not trusting to our own understanding (Prov. 3:5-7).

9. Because of the name. Literally, "for the name," or, "in respect to the name," of Jehovah thy God. These words reveal a degree of reaching out after God on the part of the Gibeonites. They had received a measure of knowledge, and they acted upon this limited enlightenment. We find fault with their approach, but we should not find fault with the fact that they here made a beginning at serving the true God. They did not know all that was involved, but they did know that what Jehovah had done for Israel was greater than what any so-called god had done for his people. By this rule they measured the relative merit of the gods. God honored their limited faith, and would not permit Israel to cancel their pledge to them. God accepts men where they are, and then seeks to lead them on to more perfect service. Some begin their worship of God from entirely wrong motives, but God accepts the surrender of the soul and then works to more commendable motives. Thus it was with the Gibeonites. To them were opened the full covenant blessings, as far as spiritual privileges were concerned.

All that he did. They were careful to enumerate only the events in Egypt and beyond Jordan. Had they mentioned Jericho or Ai, their subterfuge would have been exposed, for anyone coming from a far country would not, presumably, have had time to hear of so recent an event.

11. Our elders. From this it is inferred that Gibeon and her cities had no king over them (see on v. 3).

12. Mouldy. The word here translated "mouldy" is used only three times in the OT, twice in this chapter (vs. 5, 12) and in 1 Kings 14:3, where it is translated "cracknels" ("cakes," margin). In this last instance it would be impossible to translate it "mouldy," and there is a question as to whether it should be so translated here. It has been suggested that it would be appropriate to translate it the same way in Joshua as in 1 Kings. Furthermore, in the case of each of occurrence in Joshua the word is preceded by the perfect tense of the verb "to be." Thus here it would read literally, "And now, behold, it is dry, and it was cakes." Most translators and commentators, however, take it to mean "mouldy" (see PP 505).

14. Took of their victuals. This seems to be a better translation than that suggested in the margin, "they received the men by reason of their victuals." Many commentators favor the marginal reading, in spite of the fact that there is nothing in the Hebrew that requires it. Their reason for doing so is that it seems to agree better with the context. The Hebrew leaders took from the provisions to taste, handle, and test for themselves, so that they might be certain in their decision. Having done so, they felt confident in their own judgment. This test differed from the one they had met at the time of their first attempt to take Ai, or they might have recognized the tempter in his new guise. Satan has many tricks, and employs the one he thinks will best suit his victim. We are never safe in any problem with human wisdom alone.

Asked not counsel. God had made provision for His will to be known through Eleazar, the priest, by means of the Urim and Thummim (Num. 27:18-23). Joshua might thus have obtained divine guidance in this important decision. What the Lord's answer in this instance would have been, we are not told. Possibly the Gibeonites would still have been spared; God's mercy embraces all who seek His salvation. He had forbidden His people to make any covenant with the inhabitants of the land, but this was for a specific reason, namely, that they might not be turned to follow the abominations of the inhabitants. Had any of these heathen people, like Rahab, turned from their abominations and sought divine mercy, God would have accepted them as readily as He afterward accepted Nineveh (Jonah 3:10). But the ultimate decision in each case must rest with God. He is the only one who can truly read the heart. He could not entrust such decisions to men. Therefore, He gave command for the total annihilation of all the Canaanitish nations, but this did not mean that He might not make exceptions where the circumstances so indicated. It would not be safe to trust the people with power to make peace with even single cities, lest repentance be simulated by the Canaanites. Such deception could rapidly spread, and many of the inhabitants of the land would feign repentance, while remaining in heart as idolatrous as ever.

The worker for God today should exercise great care in ascertaining whether an individual has given evidence of faith before admitting him into the covenant of faith. In such instances it is well not to be self-assertive and confident in one's own opinions, but always humble, sincerely seek the guidance of God (Ps. 32:8).

15. The princes. Literally, "the lifted up ones," that is, the heads of the various tribes.

17. The third day. That is, the third day after they set out for Gibeon. They were thus on the journey for two days. This is evidence that they did not set out from the new Gilgal, as some think, because it would not have taken more than a few hours at most from there to Gibeon (see on v. 6). Three days after the treaty had been made and the messengers had departed, the Israelites discovered that the Gibeonite cities were close by and that they had been deceived. Perhaps some deserter told them, or Israelite scouts may have found someone who told them the truth. Under Joshua's direction the army of Israel immediately set out to investigate. Possibly Joshua had in mind to revise the treaty because of the deception practiced upon him by the Gibeonites, and to see what use could be made of their cities.

Their cities. Gibeon, meaning "a hill," Chephirah, "a young lioness," and Beeroth, "wells," later fell to the tribe of Benjamin (ch. 18:25, 26), while Kirjath-jearim, "city to the tribe of Judah (ch. 15:60). It was later at Kirjath-jearim that the ark rested before David moved it to Jerusalem (1 Sam. 6:21; 7:1, 2; 2 Sam. 6:2). Gibeon is known today as ej-JéÆb, Chephirah as Tell KeféÆreh, and Kirjath-jearim as Tell el-Azhar.

18. Smote them not. Even though the congregation murmured against the princes, and the princes had done wrong in making such an agreement, the Israelites felt obligated to keep their oath. A promise, once made, should be held sacred if it does not bind the one making it to perform a wrong act (see Prov. 12:22; Ps. 24:4; 15:4; PP 506). The leaders of Israel involved the whole congregation in trouble because of their mistake. Yet, to their credit, they felt that they should abide by the promise they had made. How careful those in responsibility need to be lest, by reliance on their own judgment, they bring difficulty on the whole congregation.

20. Because of the oath. Had the fulfilling of the oath required a sinful deed, it would not have been binding, for we cannot be bound to commit a sin (see Judges 11:29-40). Though the princes were at fault in engaging so rashly in this matter, they were not to violate the oath, even though it was to their own hurt (Ps. 15:4). It is evident that God approved their conduct in this, and was displeased with Saul when, long after, he infringed it (2 Sam. 21:1-3).

21. Hewers of wood. According to vs. 23 and 27, this service was to be for the congregation and for the house of God. Such laborers were reckoned among the lowest class of people (Deut. 29:10, 11), and these services were to be performed by the strangers among them. The assignment of these menial tasks constituted the punishment of the Gibeonites. Had they dealt honestly with Israel, their lives would still have been spared, and they would probably have been exempted from servitude. Yet even a curse may be turned into a blessing. They were servants, it is true, but their service was for the house of God. By doing the work of the house of the Lord, they would be in a position where they could readily learn of the true God. They were thus placed under an influence that would prevent their returning to the idolatry of their fathers. Though bondmen to Israel, they would be freemen of the Lord, for in His service the lowest office is liberty, and His work is its own wages. Some have thought that the "Nethinims" of Ezra and Nehemiah (Ezra 2:70; 8:20; Neh. 7:60) were the Gibeonites, inasmuch as the Nethinim were the temple servants. The Heb. nethinim means "given ones" or "devoted ones"; this lends some support to their possible identity with the Gibeonites. That the Gibeonites existed as such in the time of David is evident from the circumstance mentioned in 2 Sam. 21:1-9. However, it is possible that Saul's misguided zeal all but annihilated them, and that David replaced them with a new order--the Nethinim of Nehemiah's day.

Ellen G. White Comments

1-27PP 505, 506

7, 8, 12-16PP 505

15-19PK 369

18 PP 506

21, 23 CE 30

24-27PP 506

Joshua Chapter 10

1 Five kings war against Gibeon. 6 Joshua rescueth it. 10 God fighteth against them with hailstones. 12 The sun and moon stand still at the word of Joshua. 16 The five kings are mured in a cave. 23 They are brought forth, 24 scornfully used, 26 and hanged. 28 Seven kings more are conquered. 43 Joshua returneth to Gilgal.

1. Adoni-zedec. Literally, "my lord is righteousness."

Jerusalem. The first occurrence of this name in the OT. Opinions differ as to the origin of the name. It is generally conceded that the last part of the word means "peace" (see Heb. 7:2). The first part may come either from a word meaning "inheritance" or from a word meaning "settlement," the basic ideas of which are similar. There is little doubt that the Jerusalem of Joshua's time is identical with Jerusalem of today. Egyptian texts as early as the 19th and 18th centuries mention the city. Its existence at that time is confirmed by archeology.

The Amarna Letters, dating from the 14th century b.c., near the time of the conquest of Canaan by Israel, mention a city of Palestine by the name of Urusalim, "city of peace." This is its name in later Assyrian records. Rabbinical sources claim the word is derived from the name Abraham gave to Mt. Moriah, the place where he offered up his son, plus the name Salem of Gen. 14:18. Mt. Moriah later became the site of the temple Solomon built (Sam. 24:18-25; 2 Chron. 3:1). From the story recorded in Gen. 22 it seems that there was no city on Mt. Moriah in Abraham's day, but only on the neighboring hills (see PP 703). Abraham called the place Jehovah-jireh (Gen. 22:14). "Jehovah will provide." Moriah has been held by some to be derived from the same root and to signify "vision of Jehovah." According to rabbinical interpretation, the name Jerusalem would be a combination of Jireh and Salem.

Another of Jerusalem's ancient names was Jebusi or Jebus (Joshua 18:16, 28; Judges 19:10, 11). The Jebusites dwelt there in the time of the judges, and the city was not taken from them until the time of David.

Were among them. The LXX reads, "had changed sides." The Gibeonites' transfer of allegiance precipitated upon them the bitterest hatred of their former friends. Their decision made, the Gibeonites seem ever after to have remained loyal to Israel and the true God. This fact implies that though their method of securing the friendship of Israel was questionable, they were, nevertheless, sincere to the extent of the light they had.

2. Feared greatly. They feared now not only the power of Israel and Israel's God, as evidenced by the reports from Jericho and Ai, but also the military strength of the cities of Gibeon. They felt that any inclination toward changing sides must be stopped immediately.

As one of the royal cities. Literally, "as one of the cities of the kingdom." The importance of the word "as" should not be lost, because it reveals the accuracy of the writer. As previously mentioned, the city had no king but was governed by "elders" (see on ch. 9:3). Here, again, is an indirect intimation that Gibeon had no king, for it was like a city with a king for greatness. Gibeon was afterward the city of the first king of Israel, Saul (1 Chron. 8:29, 30, 33).

3 Hebron. Literally meaning "union," "league," or "association." It is one of the oldest inhabited communities of Palestine, situated about 19 mi. (30 km.) southwest of Jerusalem. It was built seven years before Zoan (Tanis) in Egypt (Num. 13:22), the old Hyksos center of Avaris. Many patriarchal events are associated with Hebron. Here Abraham dwelt in the plains of Mamre (Gen. 13:18; 18:1). Here Sarah died, and Abraham bought the cave of Machpelah from Ephron the Hittite (Gen. 23:7-16) for her burial place. Later, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Rebekah, and Leah were buried there. At Hebron the 12 spies found the giant Anakim (Num 13:22, 33). The place held many sacred memories for the Israelites.

Piram king of Jarmuth. Piram signifies "a wild ass"; Jarmuth (meaning uncertain) was about 15 3/4 mi. (25.5 km.) west-southwest from Jerusalem. It has been identified with the modern Khirbet YarmuÆk. where remains of some ancient walls and cisterns have been discovered. Nothing is known of its size in the time of Joshua, but it must have been reckoned as one of the larger royal cities of southern Palestine.

Japhia king of Lachish. Japhia probably means "visible," or "the radiant one," with the possible idea of the impersonation of the god. Lachish, now identified with the large mound of Tell ed-Duweir, is the site of one of the largest occupied cities of ancient Palestine. It is about 27 mi. (44 km.) southwest of Jerusalem in what is known as the Shephelah, or low hills, of Judah. It dominated the main road from central Palestine to Egypt. Although this is the first reference to it in the Bible, Lachish is frequently mentioned in later Israelite history.

Debir king of Eglon. Debir means "oracle." Eglon may mean "rolling." The place has been tentatively identified with Tell el-Heséµ, which was formerly thought to contain the ruins of Lachish.

4. Come up. This expression is geographically correct, since the other kings dwelt in the lowlands and hills, and Jerusalem was of a relatively higher altitude. Jerusalem was the nearest city of importance to the now-common foe, and thus stood in the greatest danger. This may account for the leadership of Jerusalem in this crisis.

Smite Gibeon. Instead of Joshua. It is remarkable that we do not hear of one direct attack against Joshua and his army in the wars of Canaan. The conquest was chiefly an offensive campaign on the part of the Israelites. In spiritual battles as well as in military the best form of defense is often offensive action against the enemy.

5. Amorites. This term is often taken generally for any of the Canaanitish nations, probably because the Amorites were the most powerful people of the country. The inhabitants of Jerusalem were called Jebusites (Joshua 15:63); and those of Hebron, Hittites (Gen. 23:2, 3; 25:9, 10). The Gibeonites are sometimes called Hivites (Joshua 9:7), and occasionally Amorites.

6. Sent unto Joshua. The Gibeonites were in sore straits. Their defenses were in adequate against so powerful a coalition. They appealed to Joshua, in the hope that he, despite their fraud, would come to their aid. The way in which they looked to their allies for help in time of trouble may be thought of as illustrating how we may call upon God for assistance when we are hard pressed by spiritual foes. We may feel unworthy of divine aid because of our sins, but we may also know for certain that no sincere prayer for help will be unanswered.

In the mountains. Reference is to the central range called "the hill country," in which were situated some of the five cities mentioned previously (ch. 21:11). Others were in the Shephelah; but the Gibeonites, in their haste, probably did not trouble to make the distinction. As far as they were concerned the armies of the five nations were approaching them from the mountainous region of Jerusalem (vs. 3, 4). What may appear to be a contradiction is in reality an assurance of the authenticity of the record, inasmuch as the writer faithfully recorded what the messengers told Joshua even though it may not have been entirely correct geographically.

7. Ascended. This expression and the "went up" of v. 9 are geographically correct, because the line of march from Gilgal to Gibeon is an ascent all the way. The distance from Gilgal to Gibeon was 16 1/2 mi. (26.7 km.). Marching all night up the Wadi Kelt and through the Wadi Suweinit, Joshua arrived early in the morning in the neighborhood of the city of Gibeon before the Amorites were aware that he had left camp at Gilgal. In going to the defense of Gibeon, Joshua also helped the cause of Israel. The city commanded important passes to central and southern Palestine and needed to be held.

And all the mighty men. The LXX and the Vulgate omit the "and." The Hebrew word translated "and" may also be translated "even," which seems to express better the meaning intended here. The passage, then, would imply that Joshua went up with an army of picked men, men of valor and courage, and skilled in warfare. The Syriac agrees with the idea thus expressed, reading, "and all of them [were] mighty men of valor."

8. And the Lord said. Perhaps better, "for the Lord had said." It is clear that Joshua did not undertake the expedition without seeking counsel of God. He seems at last to have learned this lesson.

9. Suddenly. Joshua was a man of dispatch. The task at hand required immediate action. Many a cause is defeated by lack of action, or action that comes too late. Joshua marched all night, and in the morning was ready for action before the enemy had time to prepare for battle.

And went up. Preferably, "having marched up" (RSV). This clause is simply explanatory of how Joshua "came unto them suddenly." This he did by marching "all night."

10. Discomfited them. Or, "threw them into a panic" (RSV). The Hebrew word here used means "to rush about madly." When it takes an object, as here, it means "to confuse," "to throw into confusion," or "to rout." In Ex. 23:27 God had promised to send His fear before Israel and cause their enemies to turn their backs before them. The discomfiture of the five kings was a fulfillment of this promise, and is an example of how the Lord would have wrought in the entire conquest of Canaan if the Israelites had always been willing to work according to His plan.

Beth-horon. Literally, "house of [the god] Choron." Beth-horon was made up of twin towns comprising the upper and lower cities, today known as Beit ÔUr el Foµqaµ (upper) and Beit ÔUr et-Tah\taµ (lower). These towns controlled the mountain pass. Joshua and his men pursued the Amorites in a northwest direction to this point. The path descending from Beth-horon Upper to Beth-horon Lower was very rocky and rugged, so steep that steps have been cut in the rock to facilitate the descent. It was here that the Lord sent hailstones upon them. From this point the enemy turned in a southerly direction, toward Jarmuth and Lachish, the cities of two of the kings.

Azekah. A strongly fortified city about 11 mi. (17 km.) northeast of Lachish, known today as Tell ez-ZakaréÆyeh. It is referred to a number of times in later OT history.

Makkedah. The site of Makkedah is uncertain. Some believe it to be the excavated stronghold at Tell es-Safi, but that tell is held by others to be Libnah. Some prefer Tell MaqduÆm, 6 5/8 mi. (10.8 km.) southeast of Beit Jibrin (Eleutheropolis) and 8 mi. (13 km.) west by north from Hebron.

11. Great stones. Defined in this same verse as "hailstones." The LXX has "hailstones" in both instances. It is hardly necessary to think of these stones as being meteors, or literal "stones." God had on a previous occasion used hailstones as an agency of destruction (Ex. 9:18-26). Records of several storms in the East are preserved, in which it is stated that the hailstones were found to weigh from one half to three quarters of a pound. In Northern China some have been known to weigh several pounds and to have killed cattle. God has in store "treasurers of the hail" (Job 38:22, 23) to use in the day of final battle (Rev. 16:21).

12. To the Lord. The Syriac reads "before the Lord," or, "in the presence of the Lord." The Hebrew preposition le has a variety of meanings, such as "with regard to," "on account of," "concerning," "because of." These meanings convey the idea that what Joshua said was, "because of the Lord," or, "with regard to the Lord," that is, spoken under divine direction or at least with divine approval. Consequently, his words were not presumptuous.

Stand thou still. The verb here translated "stand still" is generally rendered "be silent." However, it can also mean "be motionless," depending upon what it is applied to. Being addressed to the sun and moon, which ordinarily have no sound, it would naturally have the meaning of the latter. The inspired writer used the popular language of the day in describing matters of science. Actually it is not the sun that moves in the heavens but the earth turning on its axis that marks off the day. But even in our modern age of scientific enlightenment we speak of the sun rising or setting. Some, whose limited concept of God leaves Him powerless to interfere with natural law, feel that a halt in the rotation of the earth would have disastrous effects upon the earth itself and possibly upon the entire solar system, if not the universe. Whether the phenomenon was produced in this fashion or by the refraction of light or in some other way, the fact remains that a miracle of some kind occurred. If we believe in an omnipotent God, who, as Creator and Sustainer, controls the works of His creation, there is no problem.

The lengthening of the day not only provided additional time for the total destruction of the enemies of Israel but was a signal demonstration of the power of Israel's God. It showed that the very gods whom the heathen worshiped were powerless before the true God. They worshiped the Canaanite god Baal and the goddess Ashtoreth. Both the sun and the moon whom they worshipped were shown to be subservient to Joshua's command, under the direction of Israel's God, Jehovah.

Some, on casual reading, have believed that the miracle took place as the sun was setting, and that the sun, therefore, was held just above the horizon. But v. 13 states that "the sun stood still in the midst of heaven." Joshua and his men were pursuing the Canaanites beyond Beth-horon. Inasmuch as the battle started early in the morning, it would have been possible to reach this spot before noon. As Joshua stood at the summit of the pass at Beth-horon and looked down upon the vast multitudes of the enemy fleeing to the southwest toward their strongholds, he feared that the day would prove too short to bring complete victory. He knew that the opportune time to strike was while the enemy was disorganized. Delay would give time for reorganization. So as he looked back eastward toward Gibeon he saw the sun, as it were, above that point. To the west, over the Valley of Aijalon, the waning moon was still faintly visible. Had the time been near sunset, he would have seen the sun toward the west sinking in the sea instead of toward the east over Gibeon.

As to the length of time that the sun was delayed in its course, it is generally assumed to have been a whole day. However, the Hebrew is not specific. Literally, it reads, the sun "did not hasten to go down as a perfect day," that is, as it does when the day is finished. But the language also permits the reading "about a whole day." This would give time for the accomplishing of the events noted through v. 28, since the wording of that verse seems to imply that Makkedah was taken on the same day.

13. Book of Jasher. Literally, "book of the upright." The Syriac calls it "book of praises," or "book of hymns." The book is directly referred to only twice in the OT, here and in 2 Sam. 1:18-27. The LXX of 1 Kings 8:53 mentions a "book of the song," probably also a reference to the book of Jasher. The book, as a whole, seems to have been made up of ballads accompanied by prose introductions, dealing with historical heroes--upright men--showing how they lived and what they achieved. It was evidently compiled by degrees, as the events performed by these upright men and women occurred. That the ballad of 2 Sam. 1:19-27 was composed by David and recorded in the book of Jasher is no proof that parts of the book were not in existence earlier, even, perhaps, in the time of Joshua. The remarkable event of the standing still of the sun and moon may have been recorded soon after its occurrence. If so, when Joshua recorded the battle of Gibeon (see p. 169), probably a short time before his death, it would seem that he quoted this particular ballad with its prose introduction as part of his account of this remarkable incident. Verse 15 implies that it is a part of the quotation, or at least words of comment on the contents of the ballad. The first part of v. 12, by way of introduction, and v. 15, by way of conclusion, may have been added by the writer of v. 14, but it seems more probable that all except the formula of citation, "is not this written in the book of Jasher?" is part of the quotation.

16. In a cave. Literally, "in the cave." The site of Makkedah is uncertain (see on v. 10). Evidently a cave was nearby.

19. And stay ye not. Literally, "and you, ye shall not stand still." Joshua's prompt dispatch revealed the skill of his inspired generalship. The time was advantageous for action against the main forces of the enemy. Any diversionary action, such as the execution of the five kings, would have meant costly delay.

Smite the hindmost. That is, rout the rear of the host. The Hebrew word translated "smite" occurs only here and in Deut. 25:18.

21. All the people. If the "all" is to be taken literally, it means that no Israelite was slain, none wounded, none missing from the battle. The Hebrew expressly states that against one single Israelite none dared lift up the voice, much less a weapon. It was a complete, glorious victory.

24. All the men. That is, all the men of war "which went with him," as stated in the same verse. Joshua knew how to keep the good will of his men. He took them into his confidence. They had shared in the battle, and they deserved to see the fruits of their labor and to share in the final results. The true leader shares both the joys and the sorrows of service with his fellow laborers--not only the labor but the fruits of labor as well. He makes his men feel that they are a part of the task and not mere cogs in the wheel of success. Joshua had confidence in his men, and they had confidence in him. For a leader thus to share is to strengthen his position, not to weaken it. Confidence begets confidence.

Upon the necks. This procedure was a custom of the Orient as can be seen from certain Assyrian and Egyptian monuments. It was a token of complete victory. To the Israelites it was a demonstration of the complete subjection to which God would reduce all their adversaries (see Gen. 49:8; 2 Sam. 22:41).

26. Hanged. The Hebrew people did not hang men alive on OT times. The victim was first killed and then hanged by way of example, to deter others from similar crimes. But according to the law of Deut. 21:23, the body must not hang overnight lest the land be defiled.

27. It came to pass. In view of the fact that the day was lengthened, there is no reason to doubt that "the going down of the sun," mentioned in this verse, was on the evening of the remarkably long day.

28. That day. Apparently the day of the battle of Beth-horon. It seems that the taking of Makkedah completed the series of accomplishments of that memorable day. It left the Israelites, for a time, without danger of attack. It was a great day, full of great accomplishments.

29. Libnah. The operations against Libnah mark the beginning of a further stage of the campaign. Libnah was a strongly fortified city north of Lachish. Excavations on the site reveal that it was once a well-built fortress and that fire practically destroyed it at about this time.

31. Lachish. This was the chief "fenced city" of the area and continued to be a stronghold in later Israelitish history. The site has been excavated, and is known today as Tell ed-Duweir. Here the famous Lachish Letters, from the time of Jeremiah, were found. The ruins are about 27 mi. (44 km.) southwest of Jerusalem and 19 mi. (31 km.) from the seacoast. Lachish is frequently mentioned in the OT. It was an important stronghold, whose control an enemy from the south must secure before advancing on Jerusalem (see 2 Kings 18:14, 17; 19:8).

33. Gezer. This city is the present Tell Jezer. Important archeological material has been found in excavations at this site, 19 1/4 mi. (31 km.) west-northwest of Jerusalem. It was out of Joshua's line of march, but Horam, its king, came to the assistance of Lachish. Joshua smote him and his army, but did not take his city (ch. 16:10). Horam evidently had a pact of mutual assistance with the king of Lachish, effective in the event of an attack on either city. Gezer was later designated a Levitical city (ch. 21:21).

34. Eglon. See on v. 3.

36. Hebron. See on v. 3. Evidently the inhabitants of Hebron had appointed a new king to succeed the one previously slain (vs. 24-26). The expression "all the cities thereof" (v. 37) indicates that Hebron was a metropolis, that is, a mother city, with several cities subject to its jurisdiction and dependent upon it. Such also was Gibeon, mentioned in ch. 9:17.

38. Debir. The Canaanite name was Kirjath-sepher, which means "city of books." In ch. 15:49 it is called Kirjath-sannah, city of palm trees. It was in the highlands of Judah about 12 mi. (19 km.) southwest of Hebron and about 8 mi. (13 km.) southeast of Lachish. It has been identified with Tell Beit Mirsim. The Canaanites subsequently retook the city, but Othniel, the brother of Caleb, later recaptured it for Israel. For his bravery he received Achsah, the daughter of Caleb, in marriage (ch. 15:17). The city was given to the priests (ch. 21:15).

40. All the country. The expression "the hills" denotes the mountainous region extending southward from Jerusalem.

South. Heb. negeb. A semiarid region of limestone, with but few perennial springs, bereft of trees, and green only in the rainy season. The territory offered an opportunity for the diligent husbandman who would not only plow up every level spot but utilize the very rocks and make them support his crops and vines.

The vale. This lowland, the Shephelah, was the foothill region between Judah and Philistia.

The springs. Probably the undulating land at the foot of the Shephelah, and between it and the plain of Philistia. This region was intersected by brooks and ravines, and so fertile and prosperous.

41. Goshen. Not the country of that name in Egypt, the former residence of the Hebrews, but a section in southern Judah (chs. 11:16; 15:51).

43. Gilgal. See on chs. 9:6 and 10:7.

Ellen G. White Comments

1-43PP 506-510

1-6PP 507

2 PP 506

7-14PP 508

12 PP 509

40, 42, 43 PP 510

Joshua Chapter 11

1 Divers kings overcome at the waters of Merom. 10 Hazor is taken and burnt. 16 All the country taken by Joshua. 21 The Anakims cut off.

1. Jabin. Meaning, probably, "he understands." It may have been the common name of all the kings of Hazor, for the king of this city by whom the Israelites were afterward held in bondage for 20 years, and who was defeated by Deborah and Barak, was also known by this name (Judges 4:2-24) Jabin appears now as the head of the confederacy of the northern tribes.

Hazor. Literally, "an enclosure." It was a strongly fortified city southwest of the now drained Lake Huleh, identified today as the fortified enclosure 131 ft. (40 m.) high at Tell WaqqaÆs, 3.8 mi. (6.3 km.) from the south end of the former lake, which lay in one of the most pleasant valleys of Palestine. The open water was then about 2 mi. (3 km.) broad at its widest part, and 3 mi. (5 km.) long. A great marsh of papyrus reed stretched for nearly 6 mi. (10 km.) north of the clear surface, from 1 to 3 mi. (1 1/2 to 5 km.) in breadth.

Jobab. Meaning, possibly, "battle crier" or, perhaps, "crier" or "proclaimer."

Israel's Last Campaign West of the Jordan

Madon. Meaning "strife" or "contention," or perhaps "extension" or "height." Its location is unknown; it may have been west of the Sea of Galilee.

Shimron. Literally, "a watch," "a guard." This was a Canaanite town situated somewhere in Galilee. Some identify it with Shimron-meron (ch. 12:20). The town was later given to Zebulun.

Achshaph. Literally, "incantation." It was one of the border cities of the territory later assigned to the tribe of Asher (ch. 19:25).

2. North of the mountains. Probably the mountainous region of Galilee.

Plains. Heb. Ôarabah. This word is usually translated "plain" or "plains," though occasionally it is left untranslated. In the later books of the OT it is frequently translated "desert." It often refers to the great depression of the Jordan valley and the Dead Sea. Here it probably designates the northern part of this depression, extending for some distance south of the town of Chinnereth, from which the Sea of Chinnereth (the Sea of Galilee) received its name. The LXX reads "opposite to Chinnereth."

Borders of Dor. Rather, "heights of Dor." Probably a reference to the promontories or rocky ridges behind Dor. Dor was south of Carmel on the seacoast, 9 mi. (14.5 km.) north of Caesarea.

3. The Canaanite. This expression describing the Canaanites as being to "the east" and to "the west" is somewhat ambiguous. The LXX reads, "and to the Chananites on the coast eastward, and to the Amorites on the coast." There were probably Canaanite city-states in both directions. Jabin summons all of them, as well as the Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Jebusites, and Hivites.

Hivite under Hermon. In distinction from the other section of the same tribe at Gibeon, as has already been mentioned (ch. 9:3, 7).

Mizpeh. Literally, "watchtower." Mizpeh was near Mt. Hermon, at the southern end of the Anti-Lebanon range and on the extreme northern boundary of Israel. It was probably situated west of the base of the mountains. Its location made it a desirable military watchpost.

4. As the sand. A proverbial expression used to denote a vast but indefinite number (Gen. 22:17; 41:49; Judges 7:12; 1 Sam. 13:5; etc.). Other comparisons used in a similar sense are the stars of heaven (Gen. 15:5) and grasshoppers (Judges 6:5; 7:12) Josephus gives the number as "three hundred thousand armed footmen, and ten thousand horsemen, and twenty thousand chariots" (Antiquities v. 1. 18).

Very many. Literally, "exceedingly many." The horses were probably brought from the land of Armenia, since Canaan may not have been a country favorable to their breeding or use (1 Kings 10:28, 29). In view of such a formidable army it is no wonder the Lord gave Joshua special encouragement and promises of success.

5. Were met together. The Hebrew implies that the kings were "met together at an appointed time and place." The place selected for meeting was, no doubt, territory suitable for chariots to maneuver, because these vehicles could not be used in mountainous terrain. The vast concourse must have given the Canaanite confederacy a measure of confidence in victory. But numbers and equipment are of no avail against a force that has the God of heaven on its side, a fact on which Jonathan later commented to his armorbearer (1 Sam. 14:6).

Waters of Merom. Although many regard this as Lake Huleh, others think that the terrain there is too swampy for chariots and horses. For that reason they take the expression to refer to the Wadi MeiroÆn southwest of Hazor. The LXX has Maron, which lends support to this view. News of this great gathering at the waters of Merom soon reached Joshua at Gilgal. It is uncertain whether the Canaanites intended to attack the Hebrews. Inasmuch as their force consisted so largely of chariots and horses, it is unlikely that they would attempt to move it from the plains where alone it could be of service. More likely, they expected to draw the Israelites to a territory they themselves had selected, where they might have the advantage. Joshua, a skillful commander, determined to take the enemy by surprise, as he had done at Gibeon. The distance from Gilgal to Merom is about 70 (112.7 km.) Josephus says that the march took five days, which may well be true, since an army with supplies moves slowly.

6. Will I deliver. This encouragement came the day before the Israelites were to meet the Canaanites in battle. In this statement the word "I" is emphatic: "I myself will deliver." In this campaign God was going to be with the armies of Israel as definitely as He had been with them in the former campaign. True, the miracles might be less spectacular, but this was no evidence of a diminishing of divine help. The wonders God had wrought for Israel were not intended to lead them into inaction, rather they were to animate and encourage them to act vigorously for themselves. God would subdue the Canaanites by making Israel's efforts effective. This would be as surely God's work as though He had rained down great hailstones.

Miracles have often occurred at the beginning of new ventures, to provide a basis for faith and to give the assurance of divine assistance. Later they may become less frequent, not as a sign that God has forsaken His people, but as a token that He calls for greater faith to be exhibited by those who, though they have not seen, may thus learn to believe (John 20:29). In part, this principle explains the abundance of miracles at the opening of the Christian Era. But as historical evidence increases, the need for miracles decreases. Today, in the full blaze of Scriptural and historical evidence, there is sufficient basis for faith apart from any confirmatory supernatural sign. This does not mean, however, that the day of miracles is past. It is God who decides the need and the occasion for them.

Hough. The meaning of the Hebrew is to "hamstring," that is, "to cut the large tendon above the hock." The LXX also uses a word that means "to cut the tendon." It was the practice of victors thus to treat the horses taken in battle, and for which they themselves had no use. Why was such a command given? Horses were used in Palestine for military purposes only, and God did not want Israel to put their trust in horses or chariots (Deut. 17:16; Ps. 20:7), but in Him alone. Furthermore, for Israel to have retained the horses would have been a double burden, since the horse is not suited for agriculture in Palestine. Israel was to be an agricultural and not a commercial people. They were not to rely on human resources for victory, nor were they to be a wandering military people with a large army. God purposed to remove such a temptation from them, and for this reason ordered the horses "hamstrung."

7. Suddenly. That is, by a forced march, and before the enemy could have supposed him at hand. Joshua fell "suddenly" upon them before they had time to organize their chariots in battle array. What God commanded, Joshua did without delay.

8. Great Zidon. Called "great," both here and in ch. 19:28, not as superior to another city of the same name, but to indicate its greatness from the standpoint of population and as the chief city of Phoenicia. In the time of David and Solomon, Tyre had replaced Sidon as the metropolis of Phoenicia. The route of the fleeing Canaanites can be traced in three different directions: some fled to the northwest, some to the south and southwest, others to the east. Evidently Joshua divided his army and sent them in pursuit in each of the three directions. Sidon, to which one body of the fugitives fled, was some 40 mi. (64 km.) away.

Misrephoth-maim. Literally, "a place of lime burnings at the water." Some render it "house of gathering together of waters." From the above it would seem that this may have been a place of hot springs rather than of salt pits or glass houses, as some have interpreted the name. It is thought to have been the same as Khirbet el-Mushei-refeh, about 11 mi. (18 km.) north of Acco, on the coast where there are warm springs. Other fugitives fled in this direction.

Valley of Mizpeh. A broad valley with surrounding walls. As Sidon was north as well as west, so this was north as well as east, under Mt. Hermon, from whence some of the fleeing fugitives had come (vs. 3, 17).

None remaining. The language here is not to be construed in its most literal import. Numbers of the Canaanites did undoubtedly escape the sword of the Israelites, and flee to Tyre, Sidon, and other cities. But the intent of the words is to intimate that they left none alive who fell into their hands--whomsoever they encountered or overtook they slew.

10. Hazor. See on v. 1.

11. Utterly destroying. For the meaning of the Hebrew word thus translated, see on ch. 6:17. Nothing is said about the taking of the spoils. From the context it would appear that everything, including the spoils, was burned along with the city of Hazor, whereas in the other cities the Israelites took the spoil for themselves. Inasmuch as v. 11 is seemingly a repetition of v. 10 it has been thought, by some, to describe a different event. The phrase "at that time" (v. 10) would then refer to the original investment of Hazor. Jabin, the leader of the confederacy, had fled there for refuge. Joshua took Hazor and smote the king with the sword. It is not unlikely that he reached an agreement at this time that reduced the city to a vassal state. It has also been thought that while Joshua was pursuing his victories in distant quarters the inhabitants of Hazor had revolted and resumed their independence. Verse 11, then, is believed to describe the punishment of Hazor.

13. In their strength. Literally, "on their mound." The LXX may also be translated "which are upon mounds," or "fenced with mounds." The Heb. tel, in the text translated "strength," in its cognate Arabic form tell, is a familiar word in Palestine today. It is used for the mounds of ancient cities. It was the custom, generally, to rebuild a city on its former ruins. Eventually such a process would produce a mound of considerable height. Such texts as Deut. 13:16; Joshua 8:28; Jer. 30:18; 49:2, show the genuine force of the word tel. From a comparison with the context it appears that the kings and the inhabitants of these various cities were all put to the sword, though the cattle and the cattle and the spoil generally went to the captors. It is not difficult to imagine the condition of one of these captured cities with its heaps of lifeless bodies, gathered spoil, and debris accumulated in the streets. Such cities could easily be spoken of as standing "on their mound," or "on their ruinous heaps." Not all cities were to be destroyed, however, for Israel was to dwell in "great and goodly cities, which thou buildedst not" (Deut. 6:10).

15. Left nothing undone. Literally, "set aside nothing." This text is a noble commentary on the character of Joshua. He obeyed implicitly every command of God. He had a simplicity of character that took God at His word, and then acted on that word, whether the future was all understood or not. Some men are faithful only in the things that are pleasant to them, or in things they can fully understand and are in full agreement with. But true fidelity to God aims at full compliance with His will. Personal wishes and desires may conflict with known duty, but the surrendered soul chooses the will of God no matter how crucifying the experience may be to natural inclinations. To a noble-minded man like Joshua the work of blood and judgement must have caused great pain. But like a true soldier he respected the orders of his Commander. He left no known duty unfulfilled. It is on this point that many fail in their Christian experience. They may keep themselves from positive sin, but they leave untouched the exercise of the positive graces and requirements. Such neglect, too, is sin--sin of omission. "To him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin" (James 4:17).

16. The hills. See on ch. 10:40, 41.

17. Mount Halak. Literally, "smooth mountain," or perhaps "divided mountain." The LXX gives it the name Chelcha, whereas the Syriac calls it "the dividing mountain," It is located 35 mi. southwest of the Dead Sea. The writer's design seems to be specify the extreme southern and northern limits of the Promised Land. Joshua's conquests extended from the borders of Seir, or Edom, where Mt. Halak was situated, northward to Baal-gad, which lies at the foot of Mt. Lebanon. This latter place some identify with Paneas or Caesarea Philippi, others with Baalbek.

18. A long time. Literally, "many days." According to ch. 14:7-10, the conquest of Canaan must have required 6 or 7 years. Caleb, who was 40 when Moses sent him as a spy from Kadesh-barnea, about 2 years after they had left Egypt, was now 85 years old. Thus it was between 38 and 39 years from Kadesh to the time when Israel laid siege to Jericho. Subtracting 78 or 79 from 85 leaves 6 or 7 years for the campaign. It would seem that the writer, by inserting the statement here to the effect that the wars continued a long time, designed to guard the reader against the impression that, since the record of these wars is very brief, the space of time in which they were accomplished was also brief. God had given a definite reason for prolonging the time of conquest: "lest the beasts of the field increase upon thee" (Deut. 7:22). Perhaps, also, the long series of arduous struggles was designed to develop the faith of His people.

19. Not a city. This verse intimates that other cities might have made terms of peace for themselves as had the Gibeonites, if they had so desired. Although in the commands of Moses for the extermination of the Canaanites there seems to be no intimation that in case any of them surrendered to Jehovah they were to be spared, yet judging by the case of Rahab and the Gibeonites, and especially by the words of the text, this was apparently possible. If these nations, doomed to destruction, had renounced their idolatry and had come to cooperate sincerely with Israel, there would have been no danger to Israel. Thus the reason prompting the decree to destroy them would have disappeared, and consequently, we may suppose, the obligation to do so (see Jer. 18:7, 8). But apparently these heathen nations were not disposed to recognize the true God.

20. Harden their hearts. See on Ex. 4:21. God does not exercise arbitrary power to control a person against his will. The case in question has nothing to do with the free moral agency of man, which permits him to choose eternal life and does not prevent his contrary choice. God was here dealing with nations that had already refused His repeated offers of mercy. They had been given ample opportunity for repentance. Now divine justice demanded their prompt execution (see PP 492) and selected the means of their extermination (see Additional Note on ch. 6).

God might have chosen other means for the accomplishment of His judgments upon these nations. His choice of the arms of Israel as His instrument of destruction was for the benefit of the Israelites. They needed to be brought face to face with various tests that would try their faith and prepare them to fulfill their high spiritual destiny. Their failure at Kadesh and the resultant delay in their entry into Canaan had greatly increased the difficulties of the invasion. The Canaanitish nations were thus given ample time to build up their defenses and to prepare their military forces. God intended the extended conquest to be for the discipline of His people, to help them to overcome where formerly they had failed (see PP 437).

No favour. This implies that had these nations repented, God would have shown them favor. Such an attitude is in harmony with His character as expressed in Eze. 33:11 and 2 Peter 3:9. On the other hand, God has a right to destroy those who, having had opportunity for salvation, have not taken advantage of it. Thus He will deal with the finally impenitent. No one may deny Him the right to do the same at any other period in history.

21. At that time. That is, at the time of the continuance of the war as described above. This cannot be merely a recapitulation of the military operations described in ch. 10:36-41. In many cases territory once conquered was reoccupied by the original inhabitants on the withdrawal of the victorious Israelites, and had to be recovered by further conquests. This was the case with Hebron and the towns in its vicinity, Debir and Anab (see Joshua 11:21; 15:15-17; Judges 1:19, 20). The cutting off of the sons of Anak is particularly mentioned, because they had been a terror to the spies 40 years before. The spies had represented their size and strength as an insuperable barrier to the conquest of Canaan (Num. 13:28, 33).

The Anakims. A race of gigantic stature, these may have been either aboriginals or very early immigrants from the region of the east. At first they settled on the eastern side of Jordan, but subsequently occupied the hill country of Judea and the coast cities later taken by the Philistines.

22. Only in Gaza. Though these Anakim were now for the most part subdued, yet numbers of them escaped and took refuge in the country and cities that later belonged to the Philistines, and settled there. Goliath and other giants seem to have descended from them. From here they appear to have returned and again occupied Hebron (ch. 15:13, 14) before Israel was able to subdue the land. Years later after Joshua's death, they were again driven out by Caleb and Othniel (Judges 1:9, 10).

23. Whole land. The Heb. kol, "whole," often does not imply what might at first seem to be its meaning. It cannot here be understood in the absolute sense, for the Lord Himself told Joshua, "There remaineth yet very much land to be possessed" (ch. 13:1). Joshua had made a military conquest of the land, and there was now no unified resistance. It was not God's plan to exterminate the Canaanites immediately, and to do so was not a part of Joshua's military program. Before the conquest could be completed to its full extent, it was necessary to divide the land among the tribes of Israel and make provision for the peaceful settlement of the tribes in the land already conquered. But the Canaanites were so thoroughly defeated and dispirited that they dared not offer any further resistance.

Ellen G. White Comments

1-23PP 510, 511

4-6, 8, 11PP 510

23 PP 511

Joshua Chapter 12

1 The two kings whose countries Moses took and disposed of. 7 The one and thirty kings on the other side Jordan which Joshua smote.

1. These are the kings. The writer is about to enter upon a particular account of the distribution of the land among the tribes. He here pauses to give a short summary of the work that has been done. In this summary the accomplishments of Moses are recorded along with those of Joshua. Inspiration points out how God uses many instruments in the carrying forward of His work, and that He is not dependent on any one man. The chapter gives a brief account of the victories of Israel, together with the defeats inflicted upon the Canaanites.

Chapter 12 describes the extent of the conquest and shows the land that now lay open for settlement. Verses 1-6 describe the territory to the east of Jordan and the list of kings conquered by Moses, and the remainder of the chapter is occupied with a catalog of those on the west of Jordan that were reduced by Joshua. In this summary we see traced both the course and the end of those who resist God. Both the narrow road and the broad way are pointed out in this lesson. That of Israel was the path of obedience, under divine direction. But the pathway of obedience was not always easy. It often meant going forward in spite of great obstacles. Hesitation would have meant failure and loss. But Israel's history at this time was marked by patient and steadfast endurance. On the part of the Canaanites, their course was marked by rebellion. They said, "Who is lord over us?" and hardened themselves against God's will and the revelation of Himself through Israel. They fought it out to the bitter end, learning no lesson and refusing to yield. All through this war of conquest Israel had as their hope a divine inheritance, and all the glory and honor that it implied. As for the Canaanites, they were without God and without hope.

Arnon. This river was the boundary between the kingdoms of Sihon and Moab (Num. 21:13), and formed the southern boundary of Israel to the east of Jordan. The river rises in the mountains of what is now the Kingdom of Jordan and enters the Dead Sea at about the midpoint of its eastern side. It forms a deep gorge, both banks of which were fortified in the period of Joshua.

Mount Hermon. This mountain is a short distance south and a little west of Damascus. The territory between Mt. Hermon and the Arnon comprised the deep valley of the Jordan and the plateau to the east, whose borders are lost in the eastern desert.

All the plain on the east. Literally, "all the Arabah eastward." The Arabah is the entire deep rift extending south from the Sea of Galilee and the Jordan valley as far as the Gulf of Aqabah. However, this description would include only the area south as far as the river Arnon and east of the river Jordan.

2. Aroer. This city stood on the north bank of the river Arnon and was later allotted to the tribe of Reuben (ch. 13:9, 16).

Gilead. This territory included the highland grazing ground east of the Jordan from the river Yarmuk to the river Arnon. The river Jabbok divided it in two. Sihon ruled the half of Gilead south of the river Jabbok.

3. Plain. Heb. arabah, the depression through which the Jordan flows (see on chs. 11:2; 12:1). Beth-jeshimoth, literally, the "house of desolation," was about 5 mi. east of the Jordan in a desert section near the Dead Sea called Jeshimon, or the "waste" district.

From the south. Rather, "southward," that is, from Beth-jeshimoth, to below Ash-doth-pisgah, literally, "the ravines of Pisgah." The author here points out that the Arabah turns southward, east of the Dead Sea, in the area below the ravines of the mountains. Pisgah was a familiar landmark--the place where Moses went to view Canaan. This verse concludes the description of the extent of Sihon's kingdom.

4. Bashan. An area east of the Sea of Chinnereth and extending south from the Pharpar River to the Yarmuk, the border of Gilead. Og also ruled the northern half of the Gilead to the Jabbok River.

Giants. Heb. repha'im. The derivation of this word is uncertain. The Rephaim were the aboriginal inhabitants of Ammon, Moab, Edom, and Canaan. Og was one of the last of this race. Other remnants lived around Hebron and were known as Anakim (see on Gen. 14:5).

Ashtaroth. The Hebrew plural for Ashtaroth (Astarte), a goddess of sex and war. The city was a center of Astarte worship in the kingdom of Og, and has been identified as Tell ÔAshtarah, situated about 20 mi. (32.2 km.) east of the Sea of Galilee. It was one of Og's royal cities.

Edrei. One of Og's royal cities on the plateau southeast of the Sea of Galilee. It was the place where Og was slain by the Israelites (Num. 21:33-35; Deut. 3:1-3). The king dwelt in both Edrei and Ashtarot probably using one city for his summer home and the other for his winter home.

5. Salcah. Og ruled as far north as Mt. Hermon and as far east as Salcah, which was in the mountains on the far east border of his kingdom.

Geshurites. An Aramaean tribe living on Og's western border, east of the Sea of Galilee. They were not expelled by the Israelites (ch. 13:13), and continued their independence until the time of David.

Maachathites. A tribe living immediately north of the Geshurites, to the east of Lake Huleh and overlooking its marshes. Their principal town was Abel-beth-maachah, identified with the mound Tell Abil. The city was prominent in the days of David (see 2 Sam. 20:14-22). Israel did not expel the Maachathites, who continued to dwell there (Joshua 13:13). Og's kingdom extended from Mt. Hermon in the north to the river Jabbok on the south, and from Salcah in the extreme east to the Geshurites and Maachathites in the west, but did not include any part of the Arabah.

7. These are the kings. Here begins an enumeration of the kings of the country to the west of Jordan whom Joshua smote. The details of their slaughter were recorded in earlier chapters.

8. In the mountains. This verse, in striking contrast, describes the general features of the country of Palestine with its rich variety of soils. It was the land "flowing with milk and honey" that God appointed for Israel. Today, by contrast, the land, except where irrigated, is one of the most barren countries.

Hittites. These were the descendants of Canaan, the wayward son of Ham (Gen. 9:25; see on ch. 10:15). Deut. 7:1 lists seven nations that were to be cast out. This verse mentions only six, the Girgashites being omitted. It has been suggested that the Girgashites had by now either been incorporated with some of these other nations or, according to the tradition of the Jews, had withdrawn to Africa upon the approach of Israel under Joshua, leaving their country to be possessed by Israel. The Girgashites inhabited the country to the north of the lake Gennesaret, or Galilee, and are supposed to have migrated in a body on the approach of the Israelites.

9. King of Jericho. Here and in the following verses the vanquished kings are enumerated, generally in the order in which they were conquered. There are 31 of them, which, together with the 2 on the east side of the Jordan, make a total list of 33. A large proportion of these kings have already been mentioned in previous chapters. The most important of the new names are Geder, Hormah, Arad, and Adullam, all belonging to the southern league.

13. Geder. Probably the same as Gedor (1 Chron. 4:39), a town in southern Simeon.

14. Hormah. The name, meaning "devoted to destruction," was given the city after it had incurred this fate. Its earlier name was Zephath (Judges 1:17). Its site is unknown, but is believed to have been not far from Beersheba. We read of Hormah in Moses' time (Num. 14:45; Deut. 1:44). It was the place to which the Israelites were driven by the Amalekites and the Canaanites, when, after the rebellion at Kadesh on the report of the spies, the Israelites obstinately persisted in attacking the inhabitants in spite of Moses' emphatic warning (Num. 14:40-45).

Arad. This place is mentioned as destroyed by Moses in punishment for an unprovoked attack made upon the Israelites when they approached that neighborhood (Num. 21:1-3). The spot is easily identified. On a plateau 17 mi. (28 km.) south by east of Hebron, and the same east of Beersheba, is an eminence, with remains of a reservoir and ancient pottery upon it, called Tell-ÔAraÆd. It likely represents the site of the city then destroyed.

15. Adullam. A town southwest of Jerusalem, about halfway between it and Lachish, now known as Khirbet esh-Sheikh MadhkuÆr. It is best known for its cave, in which David found refuge (1 Sam. 22:1).

16. Beth-el. Bethel was doubtless taken during this campaign, though the details of the conquest are not given.

17. Tappuah. Identified with Sheikh Abuµ Zarad, 7 7/8 mi. (12.6 km.) south-southwest of Shechem. Lasharon may be a city unidentified, or may be the Plain of Sharon. Aphek is generally believed to be the Antipatris of the NT (Acts 23:31), 29 mi. (46.6 km.) from Jerusalem on the road to Caesarea.

21. Taanach. Several towns connected with the northern league, not previously mentioned, are next listed. Among them are two frequently named together, Taanach and Megiddo. Megiddo is in the great plain of Jezreel, whereas Taanach is only a short distance to the southeast, on the border of the plain. The site of Megiddo is now called Tell el-Mutesellim. Its strategic location gave it historic importance. Taanach is now called Tell TaÔannak.

22. Kedesh. Also called "Kedesh in Galilee" (Joshua 20:7). This is thought to be a fortified Canaanite hill center northwest of the former Lake Huleh. It was the home of Barak, the general under Deborah who fought Sisera, and the place where he assembled his troops on that occasion (Judges 4:6, 9, 10).

Jokneam. Another town not previously named, on a tributary of the brook Kishon about 14 mi. (23 km.) from the Carmel promontory and commanding the pass across the ridge. It is now known as Tell QeimuÆn.

23. Nations of Gilgal. This does not refer to the camp in the Jordan valley, but probably to a place now known as JiljuÆlieh in the Plain of Sharon, 14 mi. (22.5 km.) northeast of Joppa. This seems to have been the headquarters of certain mixed and nomadic tribes, here called"nations."

24. Tirzah. A city highly celebrated in later Jewish history as the capital of Jeroboam and his successors. From the beauty of its situation it was taken by poets as the type of all that is lovely. It has been tentatively identified as Tell el-FaÆrÔah, "mound of the elevated ridge," about 7 mi. (11 km.) northeast of Nablus. The existence of so many kings in so small a territory shows that their kingdoms must have been comparatively small. Many kings in ancient times ruled over a territory no larger than that represented by a village or a town. These towns were independent of one another, and each had its own local chief.

Joshua Chapter 13

1 The bounds of the land not yet conquered. 8 The inheritance of the two tribes and half. 14, 33 The Lord and his sacrifices are the inheritance of Levi. 15 The bounds of the inheritance of Reuben.22 Balaam slain. 24 The bounds of the inheritance of Gad, 29 and of the half tribe of Manasseh.

1. Joshua was old. This chapter is generally considered to be the beginning of the second part of the book of Joshua. The first part has given a history of the conquest of the land. The second part deals with the division of the land among the conquerors.

Literally the first clause reads, "Joshua had aged and was advanced in days." This statement was made some time before his death at 110 years of age (ch. 24:29). At times the Hebrew word translated "old" seems to be used with respect to the state of vitality rather than with respect to the number of years men lived. Gen. 27:1 states, "Isaac was old," that is, he had aged; yet he lived 43 years after that. Likewise, it is said concerning David, "the king was very old" (1 Kings 1:15), but he could not have been more than about 70 when he died. The hardships and anxieties of the king's life had aged him. In many countries 50 or 60 years is considered a great age. So it was, perhaps, with Joshua. His strenuous life as a warrior and leader of Israel, and the intenseness of the last years of conquest, had probably aged him, perhaps somewhat suddenly. His energies may have failed rather rapidly after his long course of active and anxious military service, so that he was glad to hear God utter the word that called for a halt in the campaign, to apportion the land. He may himself have been wondering how he would live to carry through the campaigns yet necessary to place the children of Israel in full possession of the land. As God's true servant, Joshua had been willing to "spend and be spent."

We have no definite information as to Joshua's age at this time, but Josephus (Antiquities v. 1. 29) asserts that he was associated with Moses for 40 years, and that after his master's death he governed Israel for 25 years. Since he died at the age of 110, this would have made him 85 years old at the death of Moses and about 45 years of age at the time of the Exodus. Comparing this with the stated age of Caleb (see on ch. 11:18 and Introduction, p. 172), Joshua would have been about 92 years of age at this time, that is, if we can rely on the figures of Josephus.

There remaineth. The military conquest in general was completed. Now it remained for the Israelites to possess the land. So far they had settled comparatively little of it. For the present there seemed to be no point in proceeding with the military campaigns, because often as soon as the armies of Israel had gone the vanquished people would move back and repossess the land. The plan was for the tribes, after they were established in their inheritance, to extend their own territories. Many battles remained yet to be fought in order to complete the possession, but God's blessing in the past was an assurance for the future.

So it is in the spiritual warfare. The work of overcoming the defects of character is progressive. The dispossessing of enemies from the heart is a continuous struggle. Conflict after conflict must be waged against hereditary and cultivated tendencies toward evil.

It is important to mark clearly the distinction between the work done by Joshua and the work left for Israel. Joshua overthrew the ruling powers and defeated their armies to such an extent that Israel was given a firm foothold in the country. But he did not exterminate the population from every portion of the country. Some nations were left entirely intact (Judges 2:20-23; 3:1-4). In the conquest and in the expansion the rules laid down in the law of Moses were to be the guiding principle. The 7th and 12th chapters of Deuteronomy set forth three main rules that the children of Israel were to follow: (1) utter extermination of the nations Jehovah should deliver into their hands; (2) no covenant or treaty to be made with them, and all intermarriage prohibited; (3) the destruction of all traces of idolatry in the conquered territory. The responsibility of the first of these was upon the leaders; the second and third, upon all the people. It is obvious that the persistent and general destruction of objects of Canaanitish worship, with the refusal to make treaties or intermarry, would tend to perpetuate a state of irritation in the minds of the Canaanites. Had these rules been faithfully observed, there would probably have been constant outbreaks of hostility, terminating in the further and more rapid extermination of the enemies of Israel, or else in their absolute submission to Israelite law. Thus the entire conquest might have been completed in a comparatively short time.

The manner of the ancient conquest may be taken to illustrate a spiritual truth. In the Christian warfare, not only may many battles against sin remain to be fought, even after years of warfare, but there may also be much territory of truth yet to be occupied. We have not yet secured all the sacred knowledge which God would teach us from His Word, and which would be profitable for us. Many Christians are in danger of relying on the conquests of some "Joshua," rather than making fresh explorations for themselves in the unexplored mines of truth.

2. Yet remaineth. The author proceeds to enumerate the unconquered areas to the west of Jordan (vs. 2-6). He begins at the south and proceeds north and northeast to Lebanon.

Borders of the Philistines. Literally, "circles of the Philistines." The expression probably refers to the patches of cultivated ground extending around each of the cities, which we might call "districts." The LXX reads horia, "regions." The Philistines were not Canaanites, but were descended from Mizraim, through Casluhim (Gen. 10:6, 13, 14; 1 Chron. 1:8, 11, 12; see on Gen. 10:14). In Gen. 21:32, 34; Gen. 26:1, 8, the Philistines are named as already inhabiting the neighborhood of Gerar, in the extreme southwestern part of Palestine, and in Gen. 10:14 as relatives of "the Caphtorims, which came forth out of Caphtor," destroying "the Avims" and establishing themselves northward to Azzah (afterward Gaza) in what was subsequently known as "the land of the Philistines." They are mentioned by the prophets as coming from Caphtor (Jer. 47:4; Amos 9:7). At the present time there is no archeological evidence of the Philistines living in the coastal cities until about 1200 B.C. At that time they are reported to have attempted a landing in Egypt but were driven off by Ramses III, in connection with the great movement of "Sea Peoples," which led to the downfall of the Hittite empire. However, in a number of instances the Biblical record names the Philistines as already in this coastal territory as early as the days of Abraham. There were probably repeated waves of migration from the island of Caphtor, the last or perhaps major one being about 1200 B.C., the only one attested by archeology. Further excavations may bring additional information to light.

Geshuri. These are not to be confused with the Geshurites northeast of the Sea of Galilee. The Geshuri inhabited a district lying to the south of the Philistines, on the way to Egypt or Arabia (1 Sam. 27:8).

3. Sihor. From the Hebrew form of the Egyptian Shi-h\or, "Pond of Horus," which appears in Egyptian documents as a body of water at the eastern border of the Delta. Its exact location is unknown. The LXX reads, "from the uninhabited area which is before Egypt." In certain other places in the Bible (Joshua 15:4, 47; Gen. 15:18; Num. 34:5; 1 Kings 8:65; Isa. 27:12) the expression "river of Egypt" or "stream of Egypt" is used. But these do not refer to the river Nile, because in the Hebrew the word nahal, "a winter torrent," is used. Also in Jer. 2:18 and 1 Chron. 13:5 Sihor, or Shihor, is used in a way decisively eliminating the Nile. Some think the Sihor to be the brook that runs into the sea at the extreme southern border of Palestine. It flows through a broad, shallow wadi, or valley, that drains the seasonal surplus water from the Wilderness of Paran into the Mediterranean. It is known today as Wadi el-Arish, and is about 47 mi. (75 km.) southwest of Gaza.

Ekron. Site uncertain, but assigned most recently to Khirbet el-Muqanna', about 11 mi. (17.7 km.) east-northeast of Ashdod, nearer that city than formerly supposed. This territory is probably "counted to the Canaanite" because its original possessors were descendants of Canaan, the youngest of Ham's sons. However, the Caphtorim dispossessed the Avites who held this territory (see on Gen. 10:14), and dwelt there in their stead (see Deut. 2:23).

Lords. See on Judges 3:3. The word translated "lords" is peculiar to the Philistines. It literally means "axle," and, in view of the phrase referred to above, "circles of the Philistines" (see on v. 2), is very fitting. These "lords" were heads rather than kings.

Avites. Literally, "ruin dwellers." These may have been the aborigines of the area around and to the south of the Philistines who preceded the Canaanites, and were dispossessed by the Caphtorim (see Deut. 2:22, 23).

4. From the south. It cannot be definitely determined whether this phrase should go with the preceding or succeeding verses. The LXX and the Syriac connect it with what follows, which seems to make the better sense. The LXX employs for south the proper name, and translates it, "from Theman," which was the southern limit of Avite territory.

Mearah. Literally, "cave." The verse may be translated "and the cave that belongs to the Sidonians." This cave has been thought to be the cave between Tyre and Sidon, called Mughaµr Jezzéµn, where a number of grottoes are hewn out of the limestone rocks of Lebanon. Another tentative identification is Mogheiriyeh, about 5 1/2 mi. (9 km.) northeast of Sidon. With this verse the writer turns to the northern unconquered areas.

Aphek. Apparently the northern Aphek (ch. 19:30), now Afka, northeast of Beirut. Not to be confused with the Aphek of ch. 12:18. Called by the Greeks Aphaka, it was near the source of the Adonis River. It was in the lot that fell to Asher.

Borders of the Amorites. That is, the land once inhabited by the Amorites, which belonged to Og, king of Bashan. It extended north of the central and upper Yarmuk River.

5. Giblites. Heb. gibli, translated "stone-squarers" in 1 Kings 5:18. These people inhabited Gebal, an important Phoenician seaport. This city, called Byblos by the Greeks, was 17 1/2 mi. (28.2 km.) north by east from Beirut. From this it is evident that God intended Israel to occupy territory much farther to the north than they actually later conquered. In fact, He had declared that the Euphrates was to be their boundary (Gen. 15:18; Deut. 11:24).

Lebanon, toward the sunrising. The eastern range, that is, the Anti-Lebanon.

Baal-gad. Literally, "lord of fortune." All the kings south of Baal-gad had been conquered (see on ch. 11:17 and 12:7). Now the reference is to the unconquered territory north from Baal-gad.

The entering into Hamath. Investigation has shown that when the Hebrew word lebo', "entering," is used with the name Hamath it refers to an ancient city known today as Lebweh, 70 mi. (113 km.) south-southwest of Hamaµ, the Biblical Hamath. Ancient Egyptian texts frequently mention the city, which was at that time a dependency of Hamath.

The northern border of Israel is described as extending to the "entering in of Hamath" (Judges 3:3; 1 Kings 8:65; see Num. 34:8; 2 Kings 14:25). There were times when the border of Israel actually extended that far, as in the reign of Solomon and also in the reign of Jeroboam II.

6. The hill country. The mountains of southern Lebanon and upper Galilee.

Misrephoth-maim. See on ch. 11:8.

All the Sidonians. All the heathen tribes dwelling south of the Lebanon as far as the promontory of Raµs en-Nak\uµrah, or Misrephoth-maim, Khirbet el-Musheirefeh.

Will I drive out. The original is emphatic, "It is I that will drive them out." This promise, however, like other similar declarations, is to be understood conditionally. If the Israelites would go forward by faith as Joshua had done, God would fight for them and give them victory. But Israel failed to press their conquests to completion. Some of the very people whom God had promised to drive out but did not, for lack of Israel's cooperation, became the source of Israel's greatest irritation and shame in later years (see Num. 33:55; Judges 2:1-5; 10:6-9; 13:1; 1 Sam. 4). Israel failed to carry out their part of the agreement, and the promise remained unfulfilled. An unfulfilled promise of God to us should cause us to inquire diligently into the cause. God does not intend that the word that has gone out of His mouth shall return unto Him void (Isa. 55:11).

Divide thou it by lot. Literally, "cause thou it to fall for an inheritance." The phraseology is evidently derived from the method of casting lots by which its distribution was governed. Though still only partially conquered, the great Proprietor would have His people consider the country even now as theirs. As a pledge of the sincerity of His purpose to give the entire land to them, He directs that without further delay it be divided among the tribes.

8. With whom. That is, with the other half of the tribe of Manasseh. Literally the phrase reads, "with him," a personal rather than a relative pronoun. The words of the Lord direct to Joshua close with v. 7. The author uses the pronoun in order to avoid the repetition of "the half tribe of Manasseh." So that the reader might understand the reason for the omission of the two and a half tribes in the new distribution, the writer explains (vs. 8-14) that they have already been provided for. The restatement of the fact here, in the formal record of the division of the land, would serve to ratify the grant formerly made by Moses.

9. Medeba. The modern MaÆdebaµ, a town east of the Jordan about 40 mi. (65 km.) south of Jerash (Gerasa) and about 15 mi. (24 km.) southeast of the north end of the Dead Sea. Medeba is mentioned in connection with Dibon as having been conquered by Israel (Num. 21:30).

Dibon. This town was 15 mi. (24 km.) directly south of Medeba and 3 1/4 mi. (5 km.) northwest of Aroer, on the river Arnon. It was taken by Israel at an early period and rebuilt by Gad. It was here that the famous Moabite Stone was discovered in 1868. The site is now called DhéµbaÆn.

10. Border of the children of Ammon. This was northeast of the kingdom of Heshbon. Ammon lay in the watershed of the Jabbok River. It was bounded on the west by Gad and Manasseh, and on the east by the desert, with its northern boundary probably being the southern branch of the Yarmuk River.

11. Geshurites and Maachathites. See on ch. 12:5.

12. Giants. See on ch. 12:4.

14. Levi. The statement that Levi was to receive no inheritance among the tribes is given here at the end of the account regarding the two and a half tribes, and is repeated in v. 33 and again in ch. 14:3, 14:4 God gave them no inheritance, because the tithes of the whole country were to be theirs instead of a portion of the land (Num. 18:20-24). They were also to receive of the offerings (Num. 18; Deut. 18:1, 2). They had as indisputable a right to the tithes and allotted offerings as their brethren had to the land. The priests and Levites could not at once perform the duties of the priesthood, teach the people, and perform other spiritual duties if they were to be burdened with land, cattle, business, and warfare. As it was not in God's plan to have the Levites take their share of the tithes and at the same time carry on farming or commercial enterprises, so today God asks those dedicated to the ministry to give their full energies to the advancement of the kingdom of heaven.

Sacrifices. Heb. 'ishsheh, always translated "offering made by fire," or "sacrifice made by fire." However, in Lev. 24:7, 9, the shewbread is spoken of as an offering made by fire, yet it was to be eaten by the priests. Hence the word does not necessarily mean that the sacrifices thus designated were always to be consumed with fire.

15. Reuben. Having set forth in general the territory that Moses had assigned to the two tribes and a half, Joshua proceeded to set down the particular boundaries of each tribe. The territory of Reuben was first defined.

16. Aroer. See on ch. 12:2.

Medeba. See on v. 9. From vs. 16-21 the author enumerates in detail the various cities and territories that formed part of the inheritance of Reuben.

19. Zareth-shahar. Meaning "Sereth of the dawn." This place is unidentified, perhaps near the Dead Sea. Apparently it was on a hill in a valley, probably the Jordan Valley. The name of this place may be preserved in the modern ZaµraÆt.

21. With the princes. The preposition "with" is not in the original. The Hebrew does not say that Moses smote them at the same time he smote Sihon, but only that they were smitten, as well as Sihon.

Dukes of Sihon. Also called princes in this same verse. In Num. 31:8 they are called "kings." However, in the sacred writings a "king" may be no more than a petty chieftain, perhaps himself subject to some more powerful ruler. In this verse they are called "dukes," or princes, of Sihon, because they were subject and tributaries to Sihon and assisted him in war. It is probable that when Sihon destroyed the Moabites who dwelt in these parts, he found some of the nomad Midianites living there, placed them under subjection, and forced them to pay tribute. For this reason they may here be called "dukes of Sihon." The conquest of the Midianites by Israel is recorded in Num. 31. The orders were given to "avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites" (Num. 31:2), because the Midianites had tempted Israel to idolatry and immorality. This verse supplies us with a further reason for hostilities between them and Israel. They were a part of Sihon's government. In order for the subjugation of Sihon's territory to be completed, it was necessary to remove Sihon's dukes or princes. The connection between the Midianites and the Moabites is seen in earlier Israelitic history (see Num. 22:4). An existing relationship between Midian and Moab, which is implied but not explained in Num. 31, is attested by the incidental remark here. It is another example of historical agreement between the book of Joshua and the Pentateuch.

22. The soothsayer. Balaam was at one time a prophet of God, but sold himself for reward and honor, and degraded his position as a prophet until he became known as a soothsayer. After returning home from his unsuccessful attempt to curse the camp of Israel, Balaam decided to resort to other means to obtain the reward offered by Balak. Returning to the land of Moab, he persuaded the Moabites to entice the children of Israel into idolatry and immorality. The plan was successful. For thus opposing God's people Balaam shared the fate of God's enemies in the destruction that fell upon the Midianites (Num. 25:16-18).

25. Jazer. This city was snatched from the Amorites (Num. 21:32), and given to Gad upon his request (Num. 32:1, 2). Later the place became a Levitical city (ch. 21:39). The town was in Ammon, or on its border, a short distance north or northwest of Rabbath-ammon, the modern Amman. The region was excellent for grazing.

Cities of Gilead. That is, the cities of the southern part of Gilead, as far as the Jabbok. The other half of Gilead, which belonged to the king of Bashan rather than Sihon, fell, as we learn from v. 31, to the half tribe of Manasseh (see ch. 12:2). The border of Gad extended farther east than did that of Reuben. The northern border of Gad was the river Jabbok west to the Arabah and then north to the Sea of Chinnereth (Deut. 3:16, 17). Gad evidently was given the plain of Jordan north of the Jabbok and east of the river Jordan.

Ammon. The children of Israel had already been expressly forbidden to meddle with the country of Ammon (Deut. 2:19).

Unto Aroer. This Aroer is not to be confused with Aroer of Reuben on the northern bank of the Arnon (chs. 12:2; 13:9, 16). It is "before" Rabbah, Rabbath-ammon. Some taking "before" in the sense of "east of," place Aroer east of Rabbah; others, taking it in its time sense, see it as a place reached earlier by one coming from the Jordan, hence west of Rabbah.

26. Heshbon. See on Num. 21:25.

Ramath-mizpeh. Literally, "height of the lookout point." The site, somewhere in the highlands north of the Jabbok, is today unknown unless it is Ramoth-gilead, probably 30 mi. (48 km.) east of Beth-shan, at Tell er Rumeith (Ra_mith). It was on the northern border of Gad.

Betonim. A site near Ramath-mizpeh, forming a north point in the boundary of Gad, somewhere near the Jabbok, identified with Khirbet Batneh, near es-Salt.

Mahanaim. Not as yet definitely identified. This city was east of the Jordan, probably on the banks of the river Jabbok, built on the spot where Jacob saw the camps of angels (Gen. 32:1, 2, 22). It was situated on the border of Gad and Manasseh. Somewhere near Mahanaim lay Debir, which is probably identical with Lo-debar, the home of Machir, who helped to provide David with necessary supplies when he fled from his son Absalom (2 Sam. 17:27).

27. In the valley. The boundary of the kingdom of Heshbon not only went north as far as the Jabbok but also took in the Jordan valley as far north as the Sea of Chinnereth. All this territory was given to the children of Gad, although maps generally show Manasseh's inheritance as extending all the way to the river Jordan.

Succoth, and Zaphon. These are the only two cities of the four mentioned in v. 27 that have been identified. All these cities, of course, were in the upper Jordan valley. Succoth lay on a highland site near the river Jabbok and has been identified as Tell DeirÔallaµ, a whitish mound 60 ft. (18.3 m.) high. Zaphon may be identified with Tell el-QoÆs. Zaphon is on the north side of the Rajeb River north of Succoth and south of Zaretan.

29. Manasseh. As far as can be observed, Manasseh did not formally request this inheritance to the east of Jordan, as did Reuben and Gad (Num. 32:1, 2). Probably it was thought fit to join them with the other two tribes because of the large population of the tribe of Manasseh (Num. 26:34). It is also likely that they had a large number of cattle, as did the other two tribes. The Manassites were good warriors, and perhaps Moses felt it would be well to have them to the east of Jordan as an outer guard, especially the families of Machir and Jair (See Deut. 3:14, 15).

30. From Mahanaim. See v. 26. The territory of Gad went from this point in toward the Jordan and the Sea of Chinnereth, whereas the territory of Manasseh lay toward the northeast.

Bashan. The grain country east of the Sea of Chinnereth.

The towns of Jair. Literally, "the dwelling places of Jair." Jair's grandmother was of the tribe of Manasseh, but his grandfather was Hezron, a grandson of Judah through Tamar (1 Chron. 2:18-22). Still he was reckoned with the tribe of Manasseh because he was the grandchild of the daughter of Machir, the son of Manasseh. Associated with the valiant Manassites, and with their help, he took many cities (Num. 32:40, 41; Deut. 3:4, 14). Another Jair, who judged Israel two centuries after the time of Joshua, may have been a descendant of this Jair (see Judges 10:3-5). Originally, there were 23 "towns of Jair."

31. And half Gilead. That is, the other half not given to the Gadites (v. 25). North Gilead was part of the kingdom of Og.

Ashtaroth, and Edrei. See on ch. 12:4.

Children of Machir. The same as those previously called the children of Manasseh. They are now called the children of Machir, because Machir was the first-born and only son of Manasseh (Num. 26:29; 1 Chron. 7:14-16). Thus the "children of Machir" are the Manassites. For the other half of Machir's children, see Joshua 17:1-6.

33. Tribe of Levi. Again mention is made of the fact that Levi received no inheritance. This is a repetition of v. 14, and the statement is again repeated in ch. 14:3, 4, and in ch. 18:7. This frequent repetition was probably to help the people remember their obligation to the Levites. It may also have been designed to impress the members of the tribe of Levi that they were the ministers of the Lord and that their life was to be devoted to the service of God. God would care for them through the arrangement made concerning the tithes and offerings. Therefore, they should not be concerned over the fact that they received no inheritance.

Joshua Chapter 14

1 The nine tribes and a half are to have their inheritance by lot. 6 Caleb by privilege obtaineth Hebron.

1. These are the countries. The words "are the countries" are supplied. I would be as correct to read, these "are the inheritances," or these "are those who inherited." The LXX has for the opening sentence of this verse, "these are they of the children of Israel that received their inheritance." This chapter is a preface to the division of the land among the nine and a half tribes. The time had come for the Israelites to disperse themselves and to take over their new conquests. Canaan would have been subdued in vain, if it was not now inhabited. Centuries had passed since the call of Abram out of Ur of the Chaldees, and since the promise that his seed should inherit the land. God's promises are sometimes long delayed because of the unfaithfulness of those to whom they are made. It is our privilege to hasten the fulfillment of His promises.

Eleazar. Literally, "God has helped." Eleazar was Aaron's third son and successor in the high priesthood (Ex. 6:23, 25; Num. 3:2, 4; 20:25-28; Deut. 10:6). The order in which the names appear is not Joshua and Eleazar, but the reverse. The naming of Eleazar first is in accordance with the law of Moses, and the form of government that he was ordered to establish in Israel. God was to be supreme through His priest. Joshua was to stand before Eleazar (Num. 27:21), and the priest was to ask counsel for him after the judgment of Urim before the Lord. At Eleazar's word both Joshua and the congregation were to go out and come in (see Deut. 17:9). Under the system of government established in Israel by Moses, the priest, under the direction of God, had the legislative authority, and the executive power rested with the judge. Such a system is known as a theocracy. As long as the priest depended wholly on God, the arrangement was ideal. On the other hand, a corrupt priesthood could take control and endanger the whole realm. The theocratic form of government ceased when Israel as a nation was rejected. The system has never been revived.

Heads of the fathers. The names of these are found in Num. 34:19-28. No prince was taken from the tribes of Reuben and Gad, because these had already received their inheritance on the other side of Jordan.

2. Lot. Literally, "pebble," the name evidently preserved from the primitive method of casting lots by the use of a pebble. Rabbinical scholars have a conjecture that two urns were used. In one had been placed little tablets (anciently perhaps stones) with the names of the tribes, and in the other, similar tablets with the names of the districts, and one of each was drawn at the same time by Eleazar and Joshua or by the representative of each tribe when his turn arrived. There is, of course, no verification for this story. There may have been only one urn containing the names of the districts, which the heads of the several tribes may have drawn. The exact method employed is not known. It seems evident that the land so divided could only point out the districts in general. The extent of their boundaries had to be decided by the leaders of the people. A larger tribe would require more territory, and a smaller tribe, less. This was the rule specified by the Lord (Num. 26:51-56; 33:54). The whole distribution was evidently overruled by special providence so that it would correspond with the inspired predictions of Jacob and Moses respecting the allotment of each tribe (Gen. 49 and Deut. 33). To Judah fell a country abounding in vineyards and pastures; to Zebulun, seacoasts; to Issachar, a rich plain between ranges of mountains; to Asher, one abounding in oil, wheat, and metals; and so to the others.

4. Two tribes. The Levites were not reckoned among the tribes as far as inheritance was concerned. Their dwelling was to be among all the tribes. One of the sons of Joseph took his place so as to make up the number 12 in the reckoning of the tribes. Thus there are two ways of enumerating the tribes of Israel, each yielding the total 12. It has been suggested that these two systems may have been distinguished in the account given in Ex. 28. Mention is there made that the high priest should bear the names of the children of Israel on his shoulders according to birth (that is, Joseph being counted as well as Levi, but not Ephraim and Manasseh). On his breastplate these names were to appear according to the 12 tribes (that is, Ephraim and Manasseh being specified but Joseph and Levi left out).

Suburbs. Literally, "pastures." The Hebrew word comes from a root that means "to drive out." Therefore, literally, the suburbs were places to which cattle were driven to graze. Num. 35:1-5 gives the size of these pasture grounds.

6. In Gilgal. Where the tabernacle and the camp of Israel were still located, for Joshua had not removed his camp from here. The work of dividing the land began in Gilgal. It was completed later in Shiloh (ch. 18). Considerable time must have been required to make all the geographical measurements and observations necessary for the proper and equitable division of the land.

Caleb. An interesting question arises as to the birth and parentage of Caleb. He is always spoken of as the son of Jephunneh, and so must not be confused with the other Calebs referred to in 1 Chron. 2. His younger brother, Othniel, is called the son of Kenaz (Judges 1:13), and here Caleb is called the Kenezite. It may be that Othniel was the son of Caleb's stepfather. Or, more likely, Kenaz and Caleb were brothers, for the Hebrew can be understood in that way. That would make Othniel a nephew of Caleb rather than brother. Jephunneh's lineage cannot be traced back, but some have thought that Caleb was a descendant of Kenaz, the grandson of Esau (Gen. 36:11), and that Caleb was a proselyte, one of the mixed multitude who had joined himself to Israel like some of the Kenites, Moses' relatives (Judges 1:16; Gen. 15:19; see on 1 Sam. 15:2).

The fact that Caleb was loyal and true, for he "wholly followed the Lord" (Num. 32:12), has been taken by some to be the reason that he was chosen to represent the tribe of Judah and was given a part "among the children of Judah" (Joshua 15:13).

The Lord said. There is no direct statement recorded in Scripture that Caleb and his posterity should receive Hebron and its environs. However, God made the promise, "Him will I bring into the land whereinto he went" (Num. 14:24); and again, "Him will I give the land that he hath trodden upon" (Deut. 1:36). The following circumstances have been suggested as perhaps forming the background to this promise. it is quite likely that, to avoid detection, the 12 spies did not all go together as a group. They may have gone out by twos. In this case it is likely that Caleb and his companion spied out the land of the Anakim around Hebron, but his companion, terrified by the size of the inhabitants and the strength of their fortifications, did not agree that Israel would be able to take the city. This would make the phrases "the land whereinto he went" (Num. 14:24) and "the land that he hath trodden upon" (Deut. 1:36) refer specifically to Hebron. Caleb and Joshua would definitely understand what God meant even though Hebron was not mentioned specifically by name.

7. Forty years. See on ch. 11:18.

As it was in mine heart. Literally, "as it was with my heart." The expression denotes real sincerity. Without fear or favor Caleb had reported the facts as he saw them, and expressed his faith in the power of God to overcome these giants. Even now, at the age of 85, he was willing to attack these formidable inhabitants, which, also, he successfully undertook a short time later (ch. 15:14).

8. I wholly followed. Literally, "I fulfilled after." The LXX reads, "I applied myself to follow." The words give the idea of a traveler, who, intent upon following his guide, walks so closely in his steps as to leave hardly any space between. The value of the character of a man becomes manifest when, despite others' failures, he stands for principle. Such was the character of Caleb.

9. Moses sware. See Num. 14:20-24 and Deut. 1:34-36, where this oath is attributed to the Lord. There is no contradiction here. Moses was God's spokesman, and may have afterward repeated the oath of God, and confirmed it with his own mouth. We today use similar terminology when we say that Isaiah says so and so, when the word actually originated with the Lord.

Whereon thy feet. Probably a direct reference to Hebron (see on v. 6).

10. Kept me alive. In the ordinary course of events Caleb would likely have died before this. All his contemporaries in age, except Joshua, had passed from the scene of action years before. Caleb knew that his long life was the result of his obedience. He had fully followed the Lord. His life was a demonstration of faith, for in all things he accepted the program of God instead of his own. God can do great things for those who are wholly surrendered to Him. But those who follow only so much of the divine program as suits them, and neglect those items displeasing to them, cannot expect the blessing of Heaven.

Forty and five years. See on ch. 11:18.

11. As strong. The reward of a life of virtuous youth and temperate manhood, by nature's own law, is ordinarily a vigorous, healthy, and respected old age. Loyalty to God had apparently preserved Caleb from the dissipating sins of his fellow Israelites. He had not indulged appetite as they had, nor had he lost sleep and rest at night struggling with a pained conscience. His abstemious life had paid off in dividends in this life, and now he presented himself before Joshua with undiminished strength at an age when most others had already been called from this life.

12. This mountain. He did not mean the city of Hebron alone, which had been taken before by Joshua, but he included, in his request, all the adjacent country, including the caves and strongholds to which the Anakim had retired, and where they were now abiding in considerable force. We may suppose that Caleb, in the light of the stress that the other spies had laid upon the difficulty of conquering Hebron and the surrounding area, asked for the territory of Hebron as evidence of his faith in complete victory.

Thou heardest. Probably, as suggested (see on v. 6), it was another companion and not Joshua who accompanied Caleb to Hebron. But Joshua would later have heard from the lips of Caleb the expression of his convictions.

If so be. The Hebrew word here translated "if so be" may express hope as well as fear, and need not be taken as an expression of doubt as the English makes it appear. The whole statement is the language of one who disclaims reliance on his own ability--one who realizes that the battle is not to the strong, nor the race to the swift (Eccl. 9:11). It may be that Hebron had fallen again to its former possessors after Joshua had once taken it. On the other hand, the request of Caleb, no doubt, had reference mainly to the adjacent country where the Anakim still held out in their strongholds. Caleb's example of utter dependence upon God should teach us to make certain of the presence of God in all our undertakings. Our equipment may not be the best--we may not have had superior training, but if God be for us, who can be against us (Rom. 8:31))?

14. Wholly followed. See on v. 8.

15. Kirjath-arba. Kirjath means "city," and Arba is the name of the father of Anak (ch. 15:13), from whom came the Anakim. The first mention of this place in Scripture is by the name Hebron (Gen. 13:18), but it was either built or rebuilt by the Anakim and named Kirjath-arba.

After that territory was reconquered by Caleb, the city was called Hebron. The name Hebron, meaning "alliance," is a derivative of the Hebrew verb chabar, which has the meaning "to ssociate," "to join fellowship," or "to ally."

The land had rest. This statement appears in ch. 11:23, where its position is perfectly natural. There it closes the record of the wars of Joshua. It is not so easily accounted for here, but its apparent reference is to the land taken by Caleb from the Anakim. Then, again, the statement may be a reiteration of the conclusion of Joshua's campaigns. After this the conquest consisted more of isolated battles than of general wars. The enemy was now disjointed and broken, and Israel could move in and take over without too much resistance. God had promised to go before His people to subdue the rest of the land, and if Israel had moved forward by faith and obedience, the land would soon have had rest in the fullest sense of the word.

Ellen G. White Comments

1-15PP 511, 512

6-9PP 511

10-14PP 512

13 Ed 149

Joshua Chapter 15

1 The borders of the lot of Judah. 13 Caleb's portion and conquest. 16 Othniel, for his valour, hath Achsah, Caleb's daughter, to wife. 18 She obtaineth a blessing of her father. 21 The cities of Judah. 63 The Jebusites not conquered.

1. Children of Judah. It has been suggested that the section of the narrative beginning with this chapter might better begin with the last sentence of the previous chapter, giving the following reading: "And the land had rest from war, and the lot for the tribe of the children of Judah according to their families extended to," etc. Joshua allotted to Judah, Ephraim, and the half of Manasseh their inheritances before the removal of the camp from Gilgal. For some unstated reason the division of the remainder of the land was not completed immediately. Probably Judah and the sons of Joseph were aggressive and desired to take immediate possession of their inheritances, whereas the other tribes were more reluctant and fearful. On the other hand, Judah and Joseph were the two sons of Jacob on whom Reuben's forfeited birthright devolved . Judah had the dominion given to him and Joseph the double portion, and this is probably the reason that these two tribes were first seated, Judah in the south and Joseph in the central part. Later, after the removal of the camp to Shiloh, portions of their lots were given to some of the remaining seven tribes. Also a more accurate and extensive survey was made of the remaining part of the land before the portions were assigned to the other seven tribes. The detailed arrangements in the first divisions were not arbitrary. Each tribe did not selfishly retain its lot when it was realized that other tribes had less. Several adjustments were later made.

Many of the cities of the Holy Land have long since been destroyed, with no visible remains by which to identify them. But many others retain their ancient names or recognizable characteristics. Enough of the latter can be identified to locate the tribal boundaries with a remarkable degree of precision. Archaeologists are constantly locating more cities and identifying ancient place names more precisely, thus throwing increasing light on the geography of Palestine. The first 12 verses of the chapter define the boundary of Judah.

Border of Edom. The verse reads literally, "to the border of Edom, the Wilderness of Zin, toward the dry country from the extreme limit of the south." The territory of the tribe of Judah took in the most southern part of the land. It touched Edom in the southeast, and in the south bordered on the Wilderness of Zin. The southern border here given is identical with the southern border of Israel described in Num. 34:3-5.

2. Bay that looketh southward. Literally, "tongue that faces southward." The LXX reads, "from the high country that extends southward." The Syriac translates this verse, "And their border was from the south of the shore of the Salt Sea; and it extended from there to the tongue that turns to the south." It is probable that the translators of the LXX understood the "bay" to be the tongue of land projecting into the Dead Sea. The Syriac, in turn, was probably influenced by the LXX. The term is generally applied to the jutting promontory of land, but from the context here it applies best to the southern extent of the sea.

3. Maaleh-acrabbim. Literally, "hill of scorpions," or "ascent of scorpions" (see Num. 34:4), perhaps because of the number of scorpions in that area. It was probably situated halfway between Mt. Halak and the Dead Sea. Mt. Halak is mentioned also in Joshua 11:17, 12:7.

Passed along to Zin. It is more accurate to read, "crossed over toward Zin," that is, the line passed over the mountain.

Kadesh-barnea. The complete clause reads, literally, "and went up from the south to Kadesh-barnea," a considerable distance south of Beersheba. Some have identified it with ÔAin el-QudeiraÆt, 73 mi. (118 km.) south of Hebron; others, with ÔAin Qedeis, about 5 mi. (8 km.) southeast.

Hezron. The exact locations of Hezron, Adar, and Karkaa are not known. The border evidently ran northwesterly from Kadesh as far as Adar, and then made a turn to the west, following probably the border between the Wilderness of Paran and the Wilderness of Zin. Kadesh-barnea seems to have been situated on this border, since it is spoken of as being in both wilderness (Num. 13:26; 20:1).

4. River of Egypt. This is believed to refer to the north branch of the Wadi el-ÔArish. The boundary followed this wadi to the Mediterranean Sea.

5. The end of Jordan. The east border was the entire coast of the Salt Sea, from the southern bay to the end of the northern bay, or "tongue" (see on v. 2), to where the river Jordan emptied into the sea. The northern border began from this point.

6. Beth-hogla. Literally, "house of the partridge." The site is known today as ÔAin H\ajlah. It lies 2 mi. (3 km.) from the Jordan between the mouth of the river and Gilgal, the camping site of Israel. Beth-hogla was on the border, but belonged to Benjamin.

Beth-arabah. Literally, "house of the desert," or, "house of the Arabah." The depression of the Jordan was known as the Arabah. The exact site of Beth-arabah is unknown, but it may be near Ôen Gharabeh, the desert plain north of the Dead Sea. It is ascribed at times to Judah (v. 61) and at times to Benjamin (ch. 18:22).

Stone of Bohan. The statement here is that the border went up to the Stone of Bohan and in ch. 18:17, where the border is given in reverse, it is said to descend to the Stone of Bohan. From this observation it seems clear that the stone must have been on the side of the incline near the mountain in this area and thus west of Beth-arabah. Why the stone was named after the son of Reuben is not known. Bohan the Reubenite did not live here. At least the inheritance of his tribe was on the other side of the river. But Bohan probably was one of those who went over to help Israel to conquer the land, and in the course of events did some notable exploit there, was buried on the spot, and a stone was erected to his honor.

7. Debir. This is not the Debir of ch. 10:38 but a place called Thogret ed-Debr, halfway between Jerusalem and Jericho.

Valley of Achor. A plain south of Jericho called el-BuqeÔah. It runs southwest-northeast about 3 mi. (5 km.) west of Khirbet QumraÆn, in the northern part of the wilderness of Judah. See on v. 61.

Adummim. This place is on the Jerusalem to Jericho road. The words "going up to Adummim" refer to a mountain pass in this area. The word for river is the word for a "winter torrent," which represents a valley usually dry except during winter rains. The valley is believed to be the modern TalÔat ed-Damm.

Waters of En-shemesh. Literally, "the spring of the sun." The exact location of this spring, on the Jerusalem to Jericho road, is uncertain, but it may possibly be the ÔAin el-HoÆd, a short distance beyond Bethany, the last watering place before reaching the Jordan and known as the Apostles' Fountain.

En-rogel. Literally, "spring of the spy." This was a well or spring just outside Jerusalem at the juncture of the Kidron and Hinnom valleys.

8. Valley of the son of Hinnom. Sometimes called merely "the Valley of Hinnom." From the Hebrew of this term ge hinnom, is derived the Greek word gehenna, which is translated "hell" in the KJV (Matt. 5:22, 29, 30; 10:28; 18:9; 23:15; Mark 9:43, 45, 47; Luke 12:5; (James 3:6). The place is of evil repute in Scripture from the sacrifices, including children, offered there to Molech, and from the defilement of its high place by Josiah (2 Kings 23:10), and from the fact that Jerusalem's offal was later burned there. The word Hinnom is most often thought to be the name of a man to whom the valley once belonged. But some have suggested that the word may also come from an obsolete word which means "weeping," or "moaning," and that such a designation would be appropriate in the light of the valley's being the scene of the sacrifice of so many innocent children (see 2 Kings 23:10; Jer. 7:31). After King Josiah removed the image from this valley, and defiled the high place, the valley appears to have become the general receptacle of filth and refuse that were carried out of Jerusalem, and so was held in universal execration. It is supposed that continual fires were there kept burning to consume these impurities and prevent infection. The valley was south and west of Jerusalem, meeting the valley of Kidron at the southeast corner of the city where En-rogel was situated.

South side of the Jebusite. Literally, "shoulder of the Jebusite," likely with reference to the ridge or plateau on which the Jebusite city was situated. Since the border ran to the south of Jerusalem, the city was left in the territory of Benjamin.

Top of the mountain. The phrase in its context reads literally, "the head of the mountain, which faces the valley of Hinnom, toward the west."

Valley of the giants. Also called "valley of Rephaim" (2 Sam. 5:18). This valley runs south toward Bethlehem from the southwest corner of the city of Jerusalem. The region was very fertile and a prize possession sought for by the enemies attacking Jerusalem. The valley was twice the scene of defeat for the Philistines (2 Sam. 5:18-22; 23:13; 1 Chron. 11:15; 14:9).

9. Nephtoah. About 2 1/2 mi. (4 km.) northwest of Jerusalem, a short distance east of Emmaus, and known today as Liftaµ.

Mount Ephron. A mountain ridge near which the road from Jerusalem to Joppa runs, on which stand the places Soba, Kartal, Kulonieh, and other small towns. The border still followed a northwest course.

Baalah. More commonly known as Kirjath-jearim. The place was evidently anciently a Canaanitish high place for the worship of Baal. It has been identified by many with the present-day town of Tell el-Azhar, a little hill village about 8 mi. (13 km.) from Jerusalem on the road to Joppa. Kirjath-jearim was the place where the ark resided for 20 years after its return by the Philistines (1 Sam. 7:1, 2).

10. Compassed. Literally, "turned." That is, from Baalah the border turned from a northwest direction to a westerly.

Mount Seir. A ridge running southwest from Kirjath-jearim known today by the name of SaµréÆs. Seir, from which SaµréÆs is derived, means "hairy," and as Kirjath-jearim means "a city of forests," this mountain ridge no doubt received its name from its wooded character. This Mt. Seir has no connection with the Mt. Seir, the home of Esau.

Chesalon. Probably the modern Keslaµ, also called Har-jearim, "mountain of forests," as Kirjath-jearim means "city of forests." The region appears earlier to have been covered with forests.

Beth-shemesh. Literally, "the house of the sun," or "the temple of the sun." The sun was an object of worship among the Canaanites, and hence fountains, hills, etc., were dedicated to it. Beth-shemesh was about 15 mi. (24 km.) southwest of Jerusalem on the way to Ashdod and the sea. It is known today as Tell er-Rumeileh. This is the place where many perished for looking into the ark in the days of Samuel (1 Sam. 6:19).

Timnah. A city about 4 1/2 mi. (7 km.) west- northwest of Beth-shemesh.

11. Unto the side. Literally the passage reads, "unto the shoulder of the hill north of Ekron." Ekron was the northernmost of the five Philistine cities, and lay about halfway between the Judean highlands and the sea. The border passed a short distance north of this city; hence, Ekron was in the territory of Judah (later of Dan).

Shicron. A small town on the northern border of Judah.

Mount Baalah. Probably the short line of hills running almost parallel with the coast, west of Ekron. It has been suggested that they may have been dedicated to Baal in view of the fact that they were the last hills the sun passed over before setting.

Jabneel. Literally, "a god causes to build." The town was about 13 mi. south of Joppa and 4 mi. inland from the Mediterranean on the road from Gaza. It has been identified with the village of Yebnaµ. Jabneel was the Jamnia of the Apocrypha. Here many of Jewish scholars and members of the Sanhedrin fled before the fall of Jerusalem in a.d. 70. It became a seat of Jewish learning in the first and second centuries a.d.

13. Unto Caleb. See on ch. 14:12. The verb should probably be translated as "had given" (see ch. 14:13). This paragraph also occurs in Judges 1:10-15 with slight variations, where the narrator is probably copying from this earlier narrative with his own minor variations. It can hardly represent, as some have held, two phases of the capture of Hebron, as the same circumstances attend each narration.

It is remarkable that Ahiman, Sheshai, and Talmai, mentioned more than 40 years before when the 12 spies went up from Kadesh-barnea (Num. 13:22), are apparently living. It has been thought that these were the names of three clans of the Anakim, rather than personal names.

14. Children of Anak. Literally, "sons [descendants] of Anak." This expression supports the observation made above on the three sons of Anak.

15. Debir. See on ch. 10:38.

16. Will I give Achsah. In ancient times fathers assumed an absolute right over their children in disposing of them in marriage, and the children took such an arrangement for granted as a proper procedure. In this offer it is not to be supposed that Caleb was putting up his daughter as the object of a wretched scramble by any type of man. He no doubt was anxious to unite her to a man honorable for his zeal and energy, one who was conspicuous for his bravery and willing to dare for God. Perhaps, also, he had in mind to unite her to one who was on her social level. The promise of her hand in marriage was not to the man who would first enter Kirjath-sepher, but to the one who would smite it and take it. No man singlehanded could smite and take a fortified city, thus the promise was probably limited to the leaders of the army who were under Caleb.

17. Brother of Caleb. It is believed that Kenaz, and not Othniel, was the full brother of Caleb (see ch. 14:6). Othniel later proved himself worthy both of his work and wages, for he afterward became a deliverer and a judge in Israel (Judges 3:9-11).

18. She moved him to ask. A few Greek manuscripts read, "he moved her to ask." This is also how the transaction is reported in the LXX in Judges 1:14. However, the KJV gives a correct translation of the Hebrew in both passages. The LXX in the verse under consideration reads, "she counselled him, saying, `I will ask.'" Apparently Othniel readily consented to the request being made, but seems to have preferred that it should come from her rather than from him. He may not have wanted to do anything that would appear like taking advantage of Caleb's favorable disposition toward his son-in-law.

19. A south land. Heb. Ôeres\ hannegeb. The word negeb means "dry." It became the word for "south" because the south of Palestine was dry and like a desert, and everything to the south of Palestine, as well, was a desert land. Caleb's daughter was, in effect, saying to her father that he had given her a dry land, and now she wanted a field with springs of water from which she might obtain water also for the dry field. There is no doubt a lesson here for us, seeing that such an item was recorded. We too are to ask our Father for springs of blessing to water our arid hearts. When we do He too will give us a double portion, both the upper and the lower springs, which will replenish us completely.

20. This is the inheritance. This expression shows that the whole preceding paragraph, from the 13th verse through the 19th, is parenthetical. The territory assigned to Judah was about 45 mi. long and 50 broad, of varied character and of great natural strength. It comprised four distinct regions: (1) the Negeb, or the south, the "dry" land, which lay between the central hills and the desert; (2) the low-lying hills, usually called the Shephelah--the strip of country between the central mountains and the sandy shore of the Mediterranean; (3) the mountains, which rose in the Negeb below Hebron and extended north to Jerusalem, being bounded on the east by the wilderness of the Dead Sea, and on the west by the Shephelah; (4) the desolate Wilderness of Judah or "hill country."

21. The uttermost cities. These are the cities in the Negeb, the southern extremity of the inheritance. There are 38 cities mentioned as belonging to this region, but most of them are of little importance and quite unknown to history. The writer of the book has methodically arranged the towns in four groups, running from east to west. The first, consisting of nine towns situated on the border of Edom toward the southwest of the Dead Sea, contains none that are known except, probably, Kadesh-barnea, and Kabzeel, the birthplace of David's loyal hero Benaiah, who may well have gained his reputation as a slayer of lions in this locality. The next group of five or six cities contains "Kerioth, and Hezron" (or Kerioth-hezron, RSV), not identified with any known site, but situated in the extreme south of Judah, and according to tradition, the home of the traitor Judas, from which he derived the name Iscariot (Heb. 'Ish Qeriyyoth, "man of Kerioth"). Among the nine cities of the next group, which lie more to the north, occurs the time-honored Beersheba, still famous for its wells of living water. Though the province of Judah extended originally some distance farther to the south, yet as the last important place between the desert and the uplands, Beersheba is generally taken as representing the southern boundary. Thus, in the phrase "from Dan to Beersheba," the whole country from north to south is expressed. The fourth group, of 13 towns, lay to the west and southwest, and contained Ziklag, a town celebrated for its connection with David.

32. Twenty and nine. There are two explanations of the discrepancy between the actual number of cities listed, namely 38, and the number given here. Nine of the above cities, namely, Beersheba, Moladah, Hazar-shual, Baalah, Azem, Hormah, Ziklag, Ain, and Rimmon, were afterward given to the tribe of Simeon (ch. 19:2-7). It may be that the writer, knowing this, did not include them in the number, although he named them. This is the Jewish explanation and may appear satisfactory. But perhaps the explanation lies rather in the lack of knowledge regarding the way these names should be interpreted. The names of several cities in the area are expressed by compound terms. Since many of the places mentioned have ceased to exist, and the names of others have been changed, translators may combine what should be separated, and in many cases separate what should be combined (see on v. 21). Such lack of information might easily have increased the number to 38.

33. In the valley. The next division of the territory of Judah was the "valley," the lowland, or Shephelah--the strip of country between the central hills and the coastal plain of the Mediterranean. This was a region of limestone hills some 500 ft. (152 m.) above sea level. The territory contained a large number of towns arranged by the narrator in four groups. First comes the northeast portion, among whose 15 cities (v. 36 says 14; the last 2 named may represent the same city) we find 2 places connected with the history of Samson: Eshtaol and Zoreah, the residence of Manoah. Zoreah has been identified with a hill site above what is now the Wadi es\-S\arar, about 14 1/2 mi. (24 km.) west of Jerusalem. This group also contains the Canaanite capital, Jarmuth; David's refuge, Adullam; Socoh, now Khirbet ÔAbbaÆl, 2 mi. (3 km.) south of Jarmuth; and Azekah, mentioned in connection with the pursuit after the battle of Beth-horon (Joshua 10:10, 11). The second group comprises 16 cities situated wholly in the plain, including the Canaanite cities, Lachish, Eglon, and Makkedah. The third group, of nine cities, includes the southern portion bordering on the hill region. Here was Libnah, a fruit of Joshua's prowess; Keilah, on a hill 2 1/2 mi. (4.1 km.) south of Adullam, the town that David rescued from the Philistines; and Mareshah, later fortified by Rehoboam, and famous in the time of Asa. It is near modern Merash, 1 mi. (1.6 km.) south of Beit-JibréÆn (Eleutheropolis). The fourth group includes the towns on the Philistine seacoast. All of the cities enumerated above are important places in the Shephelah.

48. In the mountains. The third and most important division of the territory was "the hill country." Beginning in the Negeb below Hebron, this region extends toward the north to Jerusalem, and is bounded on the east by the wilderness of the Dead Sea and on the west by the Shephelah. The highest point is near Hebron, and reaches more than 3,300 ft. (1,006 m.) above sea level. The cities enumerated in this section are arranged in five groups.

The first group (vs. 48-51) contains 11 cities situated in the southwestern portion, among which we may note Jattir, modern Khirbet ÔAttéÆr, 13 mi. (21 km.) southwest of Hebron; Socoh, now the modern Khirbet Shuweikeh; Debir, already referred to (ch. 10:38, 39); Eshtemoh, now es-SemuÆÔ, one of David's places of refuge; and Giloh, probably Khirbet JaÆlaµ, 6 1/2 mi. (10.5 km.) northwest of Hebron, the native city of Ahithophel, Absalom's counselor, and the scene of his suicide. The second group, to the north of the first group, contains nine cities, among which is reckoned Hebron. None of the others is of any importance.

In the third group of cities (vs. 55-57), consisting of ten towns lying nearer the southern desert, occur some that are connected with the life of David as an outlaw. It includes Maon, 8 mi. (13 km.) south of Hebron, where dwelt the churlish Nabal; Jezreel, from which came David's wife, Ahinoam. Here, too, is Timnah, not the Timnah of Samson's story, but the place where the patriarch Judah "went up" to his sheepshearers, 9 mi. (14.5 km.) west by south of Bethlehem. Remarkably, Bethlehem does not appear in the lists. It never played any important part in history outside of being the birthplace of David and Jesus, but became world famous on this account. According to the prophet Micah (ch. 5:2), the city remained in almost total obscurity. In Joshua's time it had probably not yet become worthy of mention.

The fourth group consists of six cities to the north of Hebron, and the fifth group, of only two cities, on the west of Jerusalem, Kirjath-jearim, known in early times as Baalah or Kirjath-baal, and Rabbah, at an unidentified site in the hills near Kirjath-jearim.

61. In the wilderness. The last six cities listed for Judah are in the wilderness south of Jericho, west of the Dead Sea. The northernmost was Beth-arabah, on the Wadi Qelt (see on v. 6); the southernmost two--the City of Salt (probably Qumrân), on the northwest shore of the Dead Sea, and En-gedi, nearly halfway down the west shore (see on 1 Sam. 24:1). Listed between are three cities not certainly identified, perhaps the three ruin sites in the Valley of Achor, or el-BuqeÔah (see on v. 7): Khirbet Abuµ Tabaq, Khirbet es-Samrah, Khirbet el-Maqari. En-gedi, "the fountain of the kid," is still noted for its warm spring, and Khirbet Qumrân is famous as the Essene center where the Dead Sea Scrolls were found.

63. Could not drive. From what is said in Judges 1:18, 21, and in 2 Sam. 5:6 it is evident that the people of Judah took and set fire to at least a part of the city of Jerusalem, but probably were not able to take the stronghold situated on Mt. Zion. The king had been slain by Joshua (ch. 12:10), but the city continued to be held by the Jebusites until the tribe of Judah burned it. After this, as the brief record seems to imply, the Jebusites retook and rebuilt the city and held it until the time of David.

Jerusalem, at the time of the original distribution, was in the territory of Benjamin because the border ran in the valley south of the city. Though it belonged to Benjamin, the children of Judah for some reason, as seen by their attack upon it (Judges 1:8), sought to share with the Benjamites in the possession of it. It later became known as the city of David.

There is a spiritual lesson here for us. Before the time of David, Judah was not able to drive out the Jebusites. It may have been unbelief, coming from conscious sin or from a weak distrust of God, that made the tribe of Judah feel that they were unequal to this task. The lesson is apparent. When we decline to do the work that God has bidden us to perform, on the ground that we are unable to accomplish it, we are equally manifesting our unbelief. When faith departs, fear necessarily enters in to take its place. When we fail to have faith in God, our hearts will fail before our enemies. Then zeal departs also, and inaction and indifference follow.

Unto this day. This verse is an additional proof that the book of Joshua was not written after the times of the Jewish kings, as some have endeavored to prove, for when this verse was written, the Jebusites dwelt with the children of Judah, which they did not do after the days of David.

Ellen G. White Comments

14 PP 513

Joshua Chapter 16

1 The general borders of the sons of Joseph. 5 The border of the inheritance of Ephraim. 10 The Canaanites not conquered.

1. Children of Joseph. The order of precedence among the tribes of Israel made Judah first and the sons of Joseph second. These relative positions are suggested in 1 Chron. 5:2: "Judah prevailed above his brethren, and of him came the chief ruler; but the birthright was Joseph's." Accordingly, in the division of the land of Canaan under Joshua, there were three successive stages: first, the settlement of the tribe of Judah in the strongholds of the south of Palestine; second, the establishment of Ephraim and Manasseh in the center of the country, and in some strong positions toward the north; third, the settlement of the remaining tribes, so as to fill up the gaps left between Judah and Joseph, and also to settle them upon the outskirts of their territory, so as to be, as it were, under the shadow of their wings. In giving the description of the territory of Joseph, the narrator does not go into so much detail as he did with the borders of Judah, and so the border is difficult to trace. Neither do we have the list of the cities given as in the case of Judah. The reason for this is not known. Some have suggested that Joshua, being of the tribe of Joseph, was left to distribute the territory of his tribe, and so the minute details were not brought into the council. Hence, the description of the border and the cities was left out of the record. Another peculiarity in the narrative is the interlocking of the tribe of Ephraim with the tribe of Manasseh by Ephraim's possessing some of Manasseh's cities. This seems to have been a peaceful arrangement of good will.

Fell from Jordan. Literally, "went out from Jordan." Some have seen in the word "fell" a reference to the drawing of the lot out of the urn, but this interpretation is hardly justifiable since the Hebrew makes it clear that the writer is merely describing the beginning of the border of the children of Joseph. Starting from the Jordan directly opposite Jericho, the southern boundary ran to "the water of Jericho"--the"Sultan's Spring"--the scene of Elisha's miracle, passing it on the east side. From Sultan's Spring the border continued eastward, leaving the city of Jericho to the south.

To the wilderness. The Hebrew has no preposition before the word "wilderness," but it is necessary to supply one. Probably "by way of" would best convey the writer's thought. The region intended here is what in ch. 18:12 is called the wilderness of Beth-aven. Beth-aven appears from ch. 7:2 to have been east of Bethel.

Throughout mount Beth-el. The Hebrew preposition be, here translated "throughout," has rather the idea of "at," or "in proximity to." The mountainous area around Bethel is meant. After having passed Jericho on the east and north, the boundary ran by way of the wilderness of Beth-aven (see ch. 18:12), and up by way of one of the ravines, either the Wadi Harith or the Wadi Suweinit, and up into the hills around Bethel.

2. Beth-el to Luz. Bethel literally means "house of God," and was so called because Jacob there received the divine vision recorded in Gen. 28. From Gen. 28:19 it appears that the site was in the vicinity of the city of Luz, but was distinct from the city itself, being in the neighboring fields, where Jacob lay all night. The two cities being so close together, it is likely that afterward the two places were looked upon in a general way as one city (see Joshua 18:13; Judges 1:23).

Borders of Archi. Literally, "border of the Archites." Hushai, David's friend, was an Archite (2 Sam. 15:32), but little else is known concerning his tribe or their place of residence.

Ataroth. There is considerable uncertainty about the location of this city, but it is thought to be identical with Ataroth-addar, unidentified.

3. Coast of Japhleti. Little is known of the clan of Japhleti, since there is only one other reference (1 Chron. 7:32, 33) to a man by this name. According to this reference, Japhlet was a great-grandson of Asher, and it is possible this family of the tribe of Asher early settled in this part of Ephraim's territory and remained there. From Bethel, then, the border went in a northwesterly direction toward Ataroth, and then on down toward the southwest, touching the border of the Japhletites, to the border of Beth-horon the Lower.

Beth-horon. Beth-horon Lower was about 700 ft. (213 m.) lower than Beth-horon Upper, and yet was only 1 3/4 mi. (2.8 km.) away. These strategic towns controlled the pass leading from the plain of Aijalon to Jerusalem. Today Beth-horon the Lower is known by the name of Beit ÔUr et-Tah\taµ (see on ch. 10:10).

Gezer. See on ch. 10:33.

5. Ataroth-addar. The mention of this town to the east is not easy to understand. However, if this Ataroth-addar is the same as the Ataroth of v. 2, which it seems that it must be, then the border from Ataroth (see on v. 2) would run quite largely in a southerly direction down as far as Beth-horon. This section, then, could be considered as part of the east border of Ephraim.

6. Went out toward the sea. For clarity this clause ought to have been connected with the final clause in v. 5. "Beth-horon the upper" is here mentioned instead of "Beth-horon the nether" in v. 3. But the two places were very near each other, and perhaps the separate mention of both serves to indicate that both belonged to Ephraim. From here the border went out to the sea passing Gezer, as already mentioned in v. 3.

To Michmethah. The "to" is not in the original text. The writer has begun to define the north border, and the sentence should not be connected to the preceding. Michmethah is described in ch. 17:7 as being before Shechem, probably a short distance to the east or southeast.

Went about eastward. Literally, "turned eastward." The course is thought to be from Tappuah (see v. 8) northeast to Michmethah, and then eastward to Taanath-shiloh.

Taanath-shiloh. It is thought to be the same as Khirbet TaÔnah el-FoÆqaµ or ÔAin Tana, a place of ruins southeast of the modern Nablus, which is near the site of ancient Shechem.

East to Janohah. Probably Khirbet YaµnuÆn, now a ruin, about 6 mi. (9.6 km.) southeast of Shechem.

7. Ataroth. Not the Ataroth of vs. 2 and 5, but a town on the north border of Ephraim near the Jordan valley. It was evidently down at the edge of the valley, for the text says, "went down from Janohah to Ataroth." The town's name means "crowns."

Naarath. Called Naaran (1 Chron. 7:28). A town in the east of Ephraim, probably Khirbet el ÔAuja, 5.3 mi. (8.5 km.) north-northeast of Jericho. From here the border ran south and reached to the border of Jericho, Jericho itself belonging to Benjamin.

8. From Tappuah westward. Tappuah signifies "apple." According to ch. 17:7 Tappuah was southwest of Michmethah. The author now begins to describe in more detail the western half of the northern border. Tappuah is thought to have been almost 8 mi. (12.8 km.) southwest of Shechem. From here the boundary went westward to the river Kanah.

River Kanah. Again, the word for "river" used here is the word for "winter torrent." It is named Kanah, "place of reeds," from its many reeds and canes. The border followed this river to the sea.

9. The separate cities. Literally, "the cities, the separations," that is, "the cities set apart." These were cities set apart from the territory of Manasseh for the children of Ephraim, of which only Tappuah is mentioned (ch. 17:8). In ch. 17:11 is found a list of the cities of Asher and Issachar that were given to Manasseh. In turn Manasseh permitted Ephraim to have some of her cities. This mutual sharing and yielding of territory to each other would tend to produce a solidarity among the several tribes, and prevent disunion. The interest of the stronger tribes would be served by completing the conquest of the territory assigned to the weaker. We help ourselves when we help others. The cohesion of the ten tribes in opposition to Judah later, until the break came, may have had its beginning in the manner in which the territory was originally divided and shared. For centuries a feeling of jealousy and bitterness against Judah, because of the largeness of her territory in contrast with theirs, probably rankled in the hearts of the northern cities.

10. Drave not out. An indictment is brought against the Ephraimites for not driving out the Canaanites from Gezer. Instead they put them under tribute. The real motive was probably covetousness, so that the Ephraimites might be profited by their services. The city and its inhabitants were not destroyed until Solomon's time, when Pharaoh, king of Egypt, took Gezer and gave it to his daughter, Solomon's wife (1 Kings 9:16).

By allowing these foreigners to stay in their midst, the Ephraimites were endangering themselves spiritually. The future history of this tribe shows them lapsing completely into idolatry until God was forced to declare through His prophet, "Ephraim is joined to idols: let him alone" (Hosea 4:17). The fate of Ephraim and the associated tribes should serve as a warning to us, not to yoke ourselves together with unbelievers (2 Cor. 6:14). Such an association is almost always detrimental.

To profess fellowship with those who love the Lord, without resolutely setting about to drive out from the life those habits that bind one to this world, is to be in danger of succumbing to the evil these habits are certain to produce in the life. A Christian cannot expect to retain the friendship of the world, to continue his association with worldly-minded persons as before conversion without being influenced by them. Our only safety is to drive out from the life all that tends to evil (see on ch. 17:18).

Joshua Chapter 17

1 The lot of Manasseh. 7 His coast. 12 The Canaanites not driven out. 14 The children of Joseph obtain another lot.

1. There was also a lot. Jacob had preferred Ephraim before Manasseh (Gen. 48:17-20), even though Manasseh was the first-born. Now Ephraim had been honored by having his lot described first. Nevertheless, Manasseh was the first-born and was to have the "double portion" (Deut. 21:17), which was his right. This chapter deals primarily with the territory allotted to Manasseh west of the Jordan, but reference is also made to that portion already allotted to the half tribe east of the Jordan.

To wit. These words are supplied, and the verse might better read, "To Machir ... and to him was Gilead and Bashan." The reason for this assignment is stated in the parenthetical clause, "because he was a man of war." Machir himself by this time must have been dead. He had been born to Manasseh in Egypt and had he lived, he would have been about 200 years old. He had probably distinguished himself sometime in battle, or else his descendants were of a warlike spirit, and his name was retained by them. At any rate Moses and Joshua recognized the skill of this family at war, and were willing to entrust to them the defense of the frontier country of Bashan.

2. Rest of the children. In actuality the names listed are the great-grandchildren of Manasseh, for they are the sons of Gilead (Num. 26:28-34), who is the son of Machir, who is the son of Manasseh. In Num. 26:30 "Abiezer" is written "Jeezer," probably by an error of transcription. The other names are identical. From a comparison with 1 Chron. 7:14-19, on the other hand, it may seem more reasonable to consider these six names as names of important families and not necessarily the names of brothers.

3. Zelophehad. Hepher, one of the aforementioned six sons of Gilead, had one son named Zelophehad, who died in the wilderness without any sons. Zelophehad had five daughters, however (Num. 26:33, 34; 27:1-5). The young women themselves had to be champions of their own cause before Moses so as to retain their father's inheritance and name. The decision that Moses rendered under the direction of God was that the women should inherit their father's inheritance on the condition that they married within their own tribe so as to keep the property in their own tribe. In point of fact, the sisters married their own cousins, and thus fulfilled the law (Num. 27:6-11; 36:10-12). This incident showed a larger regard for the rights of women than is usually conceded for that time. It established the principle that a woman was not a mere chattel, with no rights of her own. Wherever the principles of the true God have been established, there the state of womanhood has been exalted.

5. Ten portions to Manasseh. Literally, "the lots of Manasseh, ten." Verse 2 lists six families including Hepher's. Inasmuch as Hepher's son Zelophehad died without leaving a son, Zelophehad's five daughters received their father's portion. It would seem that Hepher's portion was divided into five. This makes ten portions in all.

7. Asher to Michmethah. The south border of Manasseh is first described, that is, the border next to Ephraim. The description begis with the town Asher, which, as nearly as we can ascertain, lay somewhere on the road between Shechem and Bethshan (Scythopolis), if in fact it was a town, rather than the territory of the tribe. From this point the border went to Michmethah, which was before Shechem, or a little to the east (see ch. 16:6). Shechem is near the modern Nablus situated between Mt. Gerizim and Mt. Ebal.

Along on the right hand. The Hebrews thought of their directions from the standpoint of facing east, which was the front side. To the right would be south, especially when the Hebrew word for "right," yamin, is preceded by the article and the preposition 'el (toward), as here. So from Michmethah the boundary turned south to the inhabitants of En-tappuah. The city of Tappuah belonged to Ephraim, but the country adjoining belonged to Manasseh. The line evidently approached the outer limits of the city and from there turned westward.

9. Southward of the river. The word for "river" here is the word meaning "winter torrent." Some identify this watercourse as the Abu Zabura, and others as the Nahr el-Kassab, in which the old name Reedbrook is retained. It is probably the brook that flows into the Mediterranean north of Joppa.

These cities of Ephraim. It is not clear just what these cities were. They are also referred to in ch. 16:9, and it may be that Tappuah was one of them. The others are not named, but it is clear that Ephraim had cities in the territory of Manasseh, and Manasseh had cities in the territories of Issachar and Asher. These were special arrangements entered into between the tribes in order to make certain territorial adjustments to suit the population. It does indicate a degree of unity existing between the tribes mentioned, at least in the early period of their existence.

10. They met together. In view of the description of the territories of Ephraim and Manasseh in which Manasseh lies north of Ephraim across the length of Ephraim's territory, the antecedent of "they" seems somewhat obscure. But in view of the previous description and the further statements in the 11th verse, it is probable that the "they" refers to the Manassites. Then the sentence would read, "and they [that is, the Manassites] border on Asher to the north, and on Issachar to the east." According to ch. 19:26, the tribe of Asher extended southward as far as Mt. Carmel, and the tribe of Manasseh extended to Dor and her towns (see v. 11), which were in the vicinity of Carmel. Thus it appears that these two tribes formed a junction at the Mediterranean Sea.

11. Beth-shean. Literally, "house of rest." This was a city in the tribe of Issachar that was assigned to Manasseh. It was in a strategic place at the junction of two important valleys, namely, the deep Jordan valley and the Valley of Jezreel. It is possible that because Manasseh was a warlike tribe, and thus an able defender for Israel, it was thought wise to allow Manasseh to man this stronghold and dwell in it. In NT times Beth-shan was one of the largest of the ten Greek cities known as the Decapolis, and was called Scythopolis. To modern Arabs it is known as Tell el H\us\n, near modern Beisaµn (Beth-shan), which perpetuates the ancient name.

Ibleam. Today known as Tell BelÔameh. It too was a heavily fortified town, being a part of a series of fortifications that extended from Beth-shan to the Mediterranean coast. It was situated about 13 mi. (21 km.) north-northeast of Samaria on the road to Megiddo. Along with Beth-shan it was probably given to Manasseh for defense purposes as well as to provide more living space.

Dor. A Mediterranean seaport in the inheritance of Asher, but given to Manasseh. It lay between the Carmel headland and the Caesarea of NT times.

En-dor. This town was to the north of the Hill Moreh, 3 3/4 mi. (6 km.) south of Mt. Tabor and 6 1/2 mi. (10.4 km.) southeast of Nazareth. The witch to whom Saul resorted lived at Endor (1 Sam. 28).

Taanach. A city commanding one of the passes to the plain of Esdraelon. It lay about 5 mi. (8 km.) southeast of Megiddo and was the site of a fortress on the road from Mt. Carmel to the main road running from Judea to Galilee. Its ruins are known today as Tell TaÔannak.

Megiddo. An important strategic city overlooking the plain of Esdraelon. Its ruins have been identified with the mound called Tell el-Mutesellim. There seems to have been some military reason behind the turning over of these strategic cities to the tribe of Manasseh.

Three countries. Literally, "three of the heights." The LXX reads, "and the third part of Mapheta, and its villages." The Syriac has "three villages." The RSV translates it "the third is Naphath." A number of commentators take this expression to refer to the three cities formerly enumerated that lay on hills or three heights, namely, Endor, Taanach, and Megiddo--three mountain cities in distinction from the places on the plain.

12. Would dwell. This indicates the stubbornness of the Canaanites in refusing to be evicted from this territory. It also carries with it a reflection on the unbelief and cowardice of the Israelites. If they had put forth the requisite effort, God would have wrought with them to give them complete victory.

13. To tribute. The LXX reads, "made them obedient." Covetousness probably led to this compromise. Money and power go a long way to ease many a conscience. Yet money without righteousness can never enrich a righteous cause. Many a man will stand condemned in the judgment because he loved riches more than God. God wants men with faith and courage who will not be bought or sold either by money, power, or honor.

14. One lot. Here Ephraim and Manasseh are regarded as one tribe, the tribe of Joseph. At least it was to their advantage to be considered so now. They probably recalled the promise and prophecy of Jacob (Gen. 48:22) in which the aged patriarch gave to Joseph one portion above his brethren. But, at the same time, they seemed conveniently to forget that their brethren had received a portion across the Jordan. A selfish, grasping spirit always forgets how much has already been received. Manasseh and Ephraim were probably comparing their portion with what Judah had received. Then, too, they may have reasoned that Joshua, being of the tribe of Ephraim, would show them special favor. But Joshua was too great a man to yield to so small and selfish a proposal as that of the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh.

A great people. The attitude of the children of Joseph is duplicated by many today. Those who have an exalted opinion of self often think that their greatness ought to be recognized by God and men, and if it is not recognized, then they maintain that something is wrong with either God or men. In the case under consideration, if the descendants of Joseph were a great people because of the blessing of the Lord, then they should have continued to look to Him for continued blessings rather than unfairly to request of Joshua more than their share.

There is ever a danger that when men are blessed of God they will attribute this blessing to some merit of their own. This may be the reason why they do not receive more of Heaven's benefits. They are prone to interpret these favors wrongly, and while giving credit to God with the lips, in their hearts they are all the while giving credit to self.

15. If thou be. Joshua was too wise to dispute the assumption of the Ephraimites and Manassites. He said to them, in effect, "If you are a great people through the blessing of God, then God will continue to bless you in conquering the land. You are well able to take care of yourself. Go up into the vast forests of central Palestine and take possession of them." It is plain from these statements that a large portion of central Palestine was at that time a great forest and thinly populated. This fact helps to explain the strategy of the attack of Israel under Joshua upon the center of the country, so that the forces of the Canaanites were divided at the beginning of the campaign. Thus the Israelites could strike with their whole force at the southern armies, and having defeated them, turn upon the armies of the north.

Perizzites. See on ch. 3:10.

Giants. Heb. repha'im (see on ch. 12:4).

16. Not enough. Literally, "not found," that is, "does not exist," or, "is not acquired." The mountain, these tribes claimed, was not for them. It would be too difficult to clear and prepare for agriculture. They wanted the valley, but that was controlled by the Canaanites who possessed powerful weapons.

Chariots of iron. Not chariots with frames of iron, but chariots with iron plating. Some have denied the existence of objects of iron at this time; however, iron objects found in King Tutankhamen's tomb come from the same century and prove the existence and use of iron at that time (see also on Gen. 4:22). These weapons were formidable instruments of war, but the children of Joseph should have remembered that their God was greater than even the "chariots of iron."

17. One lot only. These tribes were not to designate their inheritance as one lot only, because actually it was sufficiently large if only they would possess the whole. By going up into the woods and clearing it they would be able to double their territory. Evidently a large section of their territory was wooded in those days (see on Deut. 8:7).

18. Outgoings of it. If they would clear away the wood and occupy the mountain, they would be able to command all the valleys. Possessing all the defiles of the country, they would be able to drive out the Canaanites, despite their formidable chariots of iron.

Thou shalt drive out. This was the final command to the cowardly tribes. A similar command comes also to those who are harboring besetting sins. Not a single defilement is to be tolerated. All corrupting vice should be driven from the heart. Any pretense of tolerance or compromise is sure to bring ruin. Frequently we may look at our sins as Israel did at the chariots of iron and feel we cannot overcome them. So we ease our conscience by putting them to "tribute" and permit them to remain. The ultimate result is certain defeat. Fear and lack of faith and courage are Satan's allies. But the command of God rings down through the ages, "Thou shalt drive them out." See also on ch. 16:10.

Ellen G. White Comments

14, 15 PP 513

16-18PP 514

Joshua Chapter 18

1 The tabernacle is set up at Shiloh. 2 The remainder of the land is described, and divided into seven parts. 10 Joshua divideth it by lot. 11 The lot and border of Benjamin. 21 Their cities.

1. Shiloh. Meaning "place of rest." This name was probably given to the site because the tabernacle of the Lord was now, at last, at rest after wandering for more than 40 years. It would seem that Shechem might have been chosen, a place in the neighborhood of Mt. Ebal and Mt. Gerizim, which had already, in a sense, been consecrated to God. But evidently Shiloh was the place chosen by God, at least temporarily, to place His dwelling (Deut. 12:5, 11, 14). Three reasons have been given for the suitability of this site: (1) it was central, (2) it was protected and isolated, (3) it was in the tribe of Ephraim, of which Joshua was a member. Thus, he as the leader of the nation would have ready access to the sanctuary whenever he would need to consult the God of Israel. Excavations have verified the statement found in Judges 21:19 giving its location as "on the north side of Beth-el, on the east side of the highway that goeth up from Beth-el to Schechem." It is known as SeiluÆn today, and is situated on a saddle between two low hills east of the main road running from Jerusalem to Shechem at a place 9 1/2 mi. (15 km.) north of Bethel and 3 mi. (5 km.) southeast of Lebonah. It was the most central location to all the tribes, and here the ark remained for about 300 years until it was taken by the Philistines in the time of Eli (1 Sam. 4:1-11; PP 514).

Land was subdued. The surrounding area being subdued and the three tribes, Judah, Ephraim, and Manasseh (chs. 15 to 17) having taken possession, there was nothing to hinder the tabernacle from being moved from its protected place at Gilgal to this central location. This was done, even before the division of the remainder of the land between the remaining tribes.

3. Are ye slack? Because the Israelites had long followed a nomadic life they were reluctant to make a change. They had been enriched with the plunder of the Canaanites and were living in plenty. They seemed to be more intent on present ease and indulgence than upon obtaining their inheritance. Like the Babel builders of old, they were pleased with their present condition of living in a body together. They apparently had no mind to be scattered abroad and break good company. From the very beginning it had been God's plan for man to scatter upon the face of the earth rather than to colonize together in one place. As soon as men lost their spiritual vision they showed a tendency to congregate together, and to seek the protection of man rather than to trust in the protection of God.

There is a lesson in this for us. After we have been truly converted to God and have received our title to eternal life, our great concern should be to labor to enter into possession of that eternal inheritance. But too often, like the seven tribes, we become content with the spoils of this life and feel no urge to pursue our possessions. To us comes the apostle's admonition, "Fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life" (1 Tim. 6:12).

4. Three men. It is uncertain whether this meant 3 men from each of the 12 tribes or 3 men from the remaining 7 tribes; probably the latter, since these 7 tribes were the ones concerned. The others had already received their inheritances. This would make 21 in all.

Describe it. Literally, "shall write it." The men apparently were to describe it, naming the cities, size of the cities, value of various districts for farming, stock raising, etc., so that the value of these properties might properly be assessed. Having this knowledge the delegation was afterward to divide the whole territory into seven portions. These ideas are in harmony with Josephus' account of the incident (Antiquities v. 1. 21). Regarding Joshua's charge, he says, "He also gave them a charge to estimate the measure of that part of the land that was most fruitful, and what was not so good." Also further, "Joshua thought the land for the tribes should be divided by estimation of its goodness, rather than the largeness of its measure, it often happening that one acre of some sorts of land was equivalent to a thousand other acres."

6. Seven parts. A written report of the land divided into seven equal parts according to its fairly estimated value was to be brought to Joshua so that he might cast lots for the tribes before the Lord.

Cast lots. See on chs. 7:14; 14:2. The several tribes were not permitted to choose their own portions. The land was to be fairly divided. The directions were, "To many thou shalt give the more inheritance, and to few thou shalt give the less inheritance. ... Notwithstanding the land shall be divided by lot" (Num. 26:54, 55). These words imply that there must have been unequal portions of territory for larger and smaller tribes, but that the particular position of each tribe must be settled by the lot, so that "the whole disposing thereof is of the Lord" (Prov. 16:33). We are not told how this rule was carried out in the case of Judah, Ephraim, and Manasseh, who received their inheritance first. Possibly a sufficient extent of territory was surveyed at first to provide three large allotments. The three tribes might then have cast lots, first between Judah and Joseph for the northern or southern portions, and then between Ephraim and Manasseh for the two sections of the northern territory. Such a method would carry out the instructions of Num. 26.

9. In a book. Besides the written description of the leading features of the country, the men probably drew sketches of the territory on maps. The statement implies that a geographical survey according to the cities was made and recorded. This is perhaps the earliest instance of land surveying on record. The art may have been learned from the Egyptians, who are known to have been good surveyors.

10. Divided the land. According to v. 9, the land was marked off by cities into seven parts. Then Joshua cast lots for these seven parts to decide which part should go to each tribe. After this he divided the land according to the size of the tribe to which any particular group of cities had fallen by lot. A small tribe would have its lot made smaller, and a more numerous tribe would have its lot increased by lands taken from the tribe of fewer people. This would be according to the law of division that God gave through Moses (Num. 33:54).

11. Benjamin came up. Evidently the providence of God so ordered it that the children of Benjamin should have the first lot of these seven, next to the tribe of Joseph. Joseph and Benjamin were brothers, the only sons of Rachel, Jacob's beloved wife. Benjamin later furnished the first king of Israel, Saul. The important city of Jerusalem fell in her territory. The city seems for a time to have been the joint possession of Judah and Benjamin, according to Judges 1:8, 21, and 1 Chron. 8:28, 32. Later Jerusalem became the royal city of the kings of the house of Judah.

Their border. Inasmuch as Benjamin's inheritance lay between the north border of Judah and the south border of Ephraim, the places mentioned on these borders have already been commented on in chs. 15 and 16.

14. Corner of the sea. Literally, "side of the sea," that is, the border continued on the western side. In Hebrew the word for "sea" is often used for "west" from the point of view of the Mediterranean lying to the west (see Ex. 27:12; 38:12). With this literal interpretation the LXX and Syriac both agree.

Kirjath-baal. The Israelites changed the name to Kirjath-jearim, "city of forests," to blot out the remembrance of Baal (see Joshua 15:9; Num. 32:38). The west boundary of Benjamin extended to this city on the border of Judah. From there it turned eastward and touched the northern boundary of Judah, as described in ch. 15:5-9. Somewhere along the borders of Benjamin lay the hallowed spot where Rachel was buried (Gen. 35:16, 19), but the exact site of her tomb is unknown (see Additional Note to 1 Sam. 1).

17. Geliloth. Meaning "circles." Evidently the same place as Gilgal in ch. 15:7.

21. Cities of the tribe. These were divided into 2 groups, the first containing 12 cities in the eastern section, and the second 14 in the western section. Some of them have already been noticed in the description of their borders.

Jericho. That is, the site of Jericho. Under the curse of ch. 6:26 the city was not to be rebuilt (see on ch. 6:26).

Valley of Keziz. Since the writer is giving a list of cities, it seems more probable that this phrase should be given as a proper name, "Emek-keziz." There is a Wadi el-Keziz east of Jerusalem, but the site of the town is unknown.

22. Beth-arabah. See on ch. 15:6.

Zemaraim. This place has been identified with the ruins called Rasez-Zeimara, northeast of the Wadi el-Keziz, near the road from Jerusalem to Jericho. The Zemarites are mentioned in Gen. 10:18 as a Canaanite tribe.

Beth-el. See on Gen. 28:19. This city passed into the hands of Ephraim when the tribe of Benjamin was all but exterminated (Judges 20). In the division of the kingdom, under Rehoboam, though the tribe of Benjamin joined with Judah, Bethel was regarded as part of the northern kingdom of Israel in Jeroboam's southern boundary. It was here that Jeroboam set up one of the golden calves (1 Kings 12:19-33).

23. Avim. Since, in the enumeration, Avim follows directly after Bethel, and Ai, which stood near Bethel, is not mentioned, it has been assumed by some commentators that Avim is identical with Ai (see on ch. 7:2). However, the site remains unidentified.

Parah. Perhaps Khirbet t-FaÆrah on the Wadi FaÆrah to the west of Jericho, about halfway to Jerusalem.

Ophrah. Perhaps the same as the Ophrah in 1 Sam. 13:17, and the Ephrain in 1 Chron. 13:19 (Ephraim, John 11:54), and now identified with et-Taiyibeh. It must not bee confused with the Ophrah of Judges 6:11, which was probably in Manasseh.

24. Chephar-haammonai, and Ophni. Both towns mentioned only here, and both unknown.

Gaba. Signifying "hill." Not the same as Gibeah of Saul. Gaba and Gibeah were no doubt not far apart, since both are near to Ramah (see Ezra 2:26; Neh. 7:30; Isa. 10:29).

25. Gibeon. Signifying "a hill," it lay nearly 6 mi. (9 km.) northwest of Jerusalem on the road to Joppa. It was the chief city of the Hivites, whose inhabitants deceitfully made a league with Joshua and Israel as recorded in ch. 9. It is the modern el-JéÆb.

Ramah. Meaning "height." Ramah was on what later became the border between Judah and Israel according to 1 Kings 15:17, 21, 22, a short distance from Bethel. Whether it is to be identified with the Ramah of Samuel is not certain (see Additional Note to 1 Sam. 1).

Beeroth. A plural form meaning "wells." It was situated about 10 mi. (16 km.) north of Jerusalem. The modern town of el-BéÆreh is believed to be near its site.

26. Mizpeh. Meaning "watchtower." Modern archeologists are divided as to the location of Mizpeh (Mizpah) of Benjamin. Robinson (1856) supported the location of Mizpeh at Nebéµ-SamwéÆl, an elevation of 2,904 ft. (885 m.) overlooking Jerusalem, and 4 3/8 mi. (7 km.) southwest of Tell en-Nas\beh. On the other hand, William F. Badé and his associates hold Tell en-Nas\beh, which they excavated, to be Mizpeh. Tell en-Nas\beh is 7 1/2 mi. (12 km.) north of Jerusalem on the main highway to Samaria and Galilee. It is north of Ramah and Gibeah and south of Beeroth.

Chephirah. Like Beeroth, one of the four cities depending upon Gibeon (ch. 9:17), situated in the neighborhood of Gibeon, northwest of Jerusalem.

27. Rekem, and Irpeel, and Taralah. The location of none of these, including Mozah (v. 26), is known unless Rekem is el-Burg.

28. Zelah. Mentioned in 2 Sam. 21:14 as containing the sepulcher of Kish, where the remains of Saul and Jonathan were ultimately buried (see Additional Note to 1 Sam. 1).

Eleph. Location unknown.

Jebusi. Jerusalem. See on v. 11.

Gibeath. This is probably the Gibeah of Saul (1 Sam. 10:26; 2 Sam. 21:6), the first political center of the kingdom of Israel. It has been identified as the site known today as Tell el-FuÆl, "hill of beans," about 3 1/2 mi. (5.6 km.) north of Jerusalem on the main road leading to Samaria. In Saul's day the Jebusites still held Jerusalem. Gibeah, being Saul's headquarters, served as a military watchpost over Jerusalem. It was near Gibeah that Jonathan made his attack upon the Philistines (1 Sam. 14). Two excavation campaigns carried on at this site have thrown an abundance of light on the Biblical history of Saul's ancient capital.

Kirjath. Identified by some with Kirjath-jearim of v. 14 and ch. 15:60, which belonged to Judah. Otherwise the location of Kirjath is uncertain, unless it may be Kerteh, west of Jerusalem.

Thee inheritance. When compared with the inheritance of the other tribes that of Benjamin was one of the smallest with respect to area. However, according to Josephus, its soil was the richest. The territory occupied a highly strategic position, and the names of many of its towns indicate by their meaning that they were situated on heights, and hence were easily defended. It was doubtless because of this defensive strength that the tribe of Benjamin at one time was able to resist successfully the combined arms of Israel until Israel resorted to strategy (Judges 20).

Ellen G. White Comments

1-10PP 514

7 PP 517

Joshua Chapter 19

1 The lot of Simeon, 10 of Zebulun, 17 of Issachar, 24 of Asher, 32 of Naphtali, 40 of Dan. 49 The children of Israel give an inheritance to Joshua.

1. Within the inheritance. Joshua had ordered the remaining part of the land, after Judah and the children of Joseph had received their inheritance, to be divided into seven portions (ch. 18:4-6).However, it may have been that the land was not sufficient for seven parts so as to give every tribe a fair portion. Probably also the contour of the land was not such as to be conveniently divided into seven. Inasmuch as Judah had received such a large share, it was probably suggested that Judah share its territory with one of the tribes. When the lot was cast the portion fell to Simeon. Perhaps, at the beginning, the Israelites had supposed the land to bee large enough to give Judah a large share. In fact, if the people had possessed all the land that God originally intended "from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates" (Gen. 15:18; cf. Deut. 11:24), Judah would have been able to retain her full allotment. But Israel had become negligent and content. Now the boundaries had to be adjusted according to their faith. Similarly with us--we too could have much more from the Lord if we possessed the faith to attempt great things for Him. These things are "written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come" (1 Cor. 10:11).

In the lot of Simeon it can be seen how explicitly God guided in the selection of the inheritances. Because of the massacre of the people of Shechem by Simeon and Levi (Gen. 34), Jacob, in his dying prophecy, had prophesied that he would divide these two tribes in Jacob and scatter them in Israel (Gen. 49:7). Levi, as has already been noted, was not to have any inheritance of his own, but was to have cities in the various tribes, and now Simeon was to have his portion inside the inheritance of Judah. Simeon was still further isolated, so that at the time of the division of Judah and Israel in the reign of Rehoboam (1 Kings 12), the tribe of Simeon, though adhering to the kingdom of the 10 tribes, was separated from the territory of that kingdom by the kingdom of Judah. Thus they were divided in Jacob. Nothing much is said in Scripture concerning the tribe of Simeon. It gave to the nation neither judge, prophet, nor any other illustrious person. We may suppose, therefore, that this tribe became absorbed in that of Judah, and its individual identity was probably, to a large extent, lost (see on Gen. 49:7).

2. In their inheritance. The writer enumerates 17 cities that were given to Simeon, 13 of which were chiefly in the Negeb, and four largely in the Shephelah, although the dividing line between the Negeb and the Shephelah cannot be too distinctly drawn. He does not specify any boundary for this tribe, since Simeon did not receive so much a definite portion of territory, but rather certain cities with their surrounding lands, and these within the limits originally allotted to Judah. Many of these cities were occupied conjointly with Judah, and hence ascribed sometimes to one tribe and sometimes to the other.

Beer-sheba, and Sheba. Literally, "Beer-sheba and [or, even] Sheba." It seems to be clear that these are one and the same city; otherwise there would have been 14 cities instead of 13. Furthermore, in 1 Chron. 4:28, where Simeon's cities are enumerated, the name Sheba is omitted. Abraham's Beer-sheba ("well of the oath") lay in the present city of Beer-sheba, approximately 27 mi. (43.6 km.) southwest of Hebron. Later, during the Hebrew monarchy, the town of Beer-sheba was about 3 mi. (5 km.) east, at Tell es-Seba, 24 3/4 mi. (39.7 km.) from Hebron.

Of the 13 cities (vs. 2-6), and 4 cities (v. 7), the site of only 1, Beersheba, is definitely known.

5. Ziklag. Possibly identified with Tell el-Khuweilfeh, which is southeast of Gaza, between Beersheba and Debir. Although given to Simeon, it was either not taken by this tribe, or, later lost, because it was given to David, at the tim of his banishment by Saul, by the Philistine ruler, Achish (1 Sam. 27:6).

Beth-marcaboth, and Hazar-susah. These two towns, the latter possibly Sbalat Abuµ SuÆsein, were probably located near the north-south highway to Egypt. Their names suggest that they may have been the place where the Hyksos, and possibly later Solomon, kept their chariots and horses (1 Kings 10:26). The former name signifies "the house of chariots," and the latter, "the village of horses."

6. Sharuhen. This was a town on the main route between Palestine and Egypt. It has been identified with Tell el-FaÆrÔah, which shows impressive evidence of ancient Hyksos, Egyptian, and Roman fortifications. It lies about 15 mi. (24 km.) south of Gaza.

9. Too much for them. For the present it was too much, but had they by faith looked to the future, it would not have been more than, under the blessing of God, they would need. But the Israelites by this time had begun to lose their vision of God's plan for them, and were content to receive only enough for their present need. God temporarily permitted the readjustment, but even under the adapted program it was Israel's privilege to grow and to expand her territories until eventually she would again have need of every part. How narrow and often selfish grows our own vision when we lose sight of God's plan for us. We accomplish little because we attempt little, and we attempt so little because we are so prone to count our strength by the arm of flesh rather than by the mighty arm of God.

10. The third lot. Either the tribes were called up in the order designated by God in His prediction through Jacob, according to their pre-eminence, or the lot was drawn in this order. Though Zebulun was younger than Issachar, yet, in both the prophetic blessing of Jacob (Gen. 49) and that of Moses (Deut. 33) Zebulun came before him. Now again the precedence is shown in the allotment of the inheritance. According to the prediction of Jacob, the lot of Zebulun was to "dwell at the haven of the sea," and Zebulun was to be a "haven of ships" (Gen. 49:13). Josephus (Antiquities vi. i. 22) held that their possession extended from the Sea of Chinnereth to Carmel and the sea. But from the description of the territory in the book of Joshua it is doubtful whether their boundary actually extended to the sea.

If the land of the Manassites touched upon that of the tribe of Asher (see Joshua 17:10), the land of Zebulun, unless in some detached way, could not have extended continuously to the Mediterranean. Perhaps Zebulun had access to the sea through Asher, or by a corridor that might have included the bay area north of the base of Mt. Carmel. The prediction was that Zebulun was to be a people dwelling at the haven of the sea, and this was probably accomplished by some arrangement with Asher whereby the children of Zebulun had easy access to harbors and thus were in convenient reach of rich markets. It has also been noted that their country was traversed by the ancient international highway known as "the way of the sea."

Unto Sarid. The LXX (Codex Alexandrinus) agrees with this reading, but the Codex Vaticanus has Esedek Gola. The Syriac has "Ashdod." But this cannot be the Ashdod of the Philistines. Some MSS read "Shadud," which means "ruins." There is a Tell ShaduÆd, an extensive ruin, on the northern side of the plain of Esdraelon, 4 1/2 mi. (7.2 km.) southwest of Nazareth.

11. Toward the sea. That is, "westward." The expression denotes this direction.

Maralah. Neither Maralah nor Dabbasheth can be definitely identified.

12. Chisloth-tabor. Literally, "the flanks of Tabor." Now believed to be IksaÆl, a rocky height to the west of the base of Tabor, which is one of the most conspicuous mountains of Palestine. Some have supposed Tabor to have been the later mount of transfiguration.

Japhia. Believed to be the same as YaÆfaµ. It lies about 13 3/4 mi. (2.8 km.) southwest of Nazareth.

13. Gittah-hepher. The same as Gath-hepher, "wine press of Hepher," the birthplace of Jonah (2 Kings 14:25). It is supposed to be Khirbet ez-ZurraÆÔ, near which a tomb claimed to be that of Jonah is shown. The place is 2 3/4 mi. (4.4 km.) north by east of Nazareth on the road to Tiberias.

Remmon-methoar to Neah. Or, "Remmon, which extends to Neah," which some hold to be the same as the present RummaÆneh, north of Nazareth, but the location seems too far west.

14. Compasseth it. The border bent around it (Neah) on the north side to Hannathon. The description of the northern border begins at Neah.

Jiphthah-el. This valley has been identified with the Wadi el-Melek, near Bethlehem in Galilee. Here the northern boundary ended.

15. Kattath. It is not clearly stated whether Kattath and the other cities mentioned belonged to Zebulon or are merely noted here as border cities. Kattath is possibly Khirbet Qoteina, northwest of Megiddo. Nahallal is possibly Tell en-Nahl, a place near the Kishon brook. Shimron was a principal city whose king was conquered by Joshua (ch. 12:20). Bethlehem is not Bethlehem-ephrata of Judah, but a place 7 mi. (11.2 km.) northwest of Nazareth, and now called Beit Lahm.

Twelve cities. The 5 cities just mentioned are 7 short of the 12. If all the cities named in connection with the borders of Zebulun are counted, there are more than 12. It may be that some of these cities were merely border cities that did not belong to Zebulun. Some of the names may not have represented cities at all, so that the actual cities would have made up the number 12. From the following verse it would seem that the 12 cities had been enumerated in the preceding list, but which they are is difficult to determine. That all the cities belonging to Zebulun are not set down is clear from ch. 21:34, 35, where Kartah and Dimnah are mentioned as being given to the Levites.

18. Jezreel. Literally, "God sows." This is a town on the south edge of the valley by the same name. The valley is triangular in shape with its base, about 15 mi. (24 km.) in length, facing the Jordan valley. The north side is bounded by the mountains of Nazareth, including Mt. Tabor, and its south side is formed by the hills of Samaria, including the Gilboa Mts. Its apex is a narrow pass through which the brook Kishon makes its way to the Bay of Acre, formerly Accho. The town of Jezreel, now called Zern, is on a northwest spur of the Gilboa Mts. overlooking the plain and commanding a view of the Jordan pass.

Chesulloth. Thought to be the same as Chisloth-tabor of v. 12.

Shunem. The modern SoÆlem, just east of the main north-south road running from Nazareth to Jerusalem. It was about 3 1/2 mi. (5.6 km.) north of Jezreel, the two cities being on either side of the Valley of Jezreel at its western extremity.

19. Haphraim. The writer does not describe the borders on all sides of Issachar, but seems only to set down some of the principal cities, the reason obviously being that its border would be quite sufficiently known, seeing it lay between Manasseh and Zebulun. Most of the cities are unknown.

21. En-gannim. Literally, "fountain of gardens." Probably the "garden house" to which Jehu pursued the fleeing Ahaziah (2 Kings 9:27). It is possibly the modern JenéÆn, which stands at the lower end of the plain, about 6 mi. (9.6 km.) from the slopes of Mt. Gilboa, on the main road from Megiddo through Samaria to Jerusalem.

22. The coast. Rather "the boundary." The Hebrew has the same word that is usually translated "boundary," or "border." From the places mentioned, the reference is probably to the northern boundary.

Tabor. The city probably received its name from Mt. Tabor, on whose plateau it is thought to have been situated. It is identified, probably correctly, with the village of DebuÆriyeh, west of the mountain, on the ridge leading to Nazareth.

Shahazimah. The site of Shahazimah is not definitely known, butt is was probably, like this Beth-shemesh, on the north border of Issachar toward the Jordan, perhaps a little to the northeast.

Beth-shemesh. "House of the sun," not to be confused with a town of the same name in Judah (ch. 15:10) and one in Naphtali (ch. 19:38). It has been identified with el-ÔAbeidiyeh. The number of cities by this name shows the prevalence of sun worship.

Sixteen cities. Including Tabor. Otherwise there would be only 15, which shows that Tabor should be considered as a city rather than a mountain. Their total inheritance was not large, but it contained some of the richest soil of the country. Issachar was quite powerful. When counted at Sinai, the adult males numbered 54,400 (Num. 1:28, 29), and later, on the plains of Shittim, they had increased to 64,300 (Num. 26:25), being exceeded only by Judah and Dan.

24. Asher. This tribe received the fertile region along the Mediterranean coast west and north of Zebulun. It is a little uncertain whether the author, in the description of Asher's inheritance, proceeds to enumerate the border or merely mentions various leading cities, inasmuch as most of the towns mentioned are unknown. However, it would seem that the boundary begins from a point approximately in the center of the territory on the coast and then goes south to the border, turns east to Zebulun, then through a series of towns and valleys on the eastern sector until it comes north to Sidon; then it turns south again, terminating where it began.

25. Helkath. A city given later to the Levites (ch. 21:31). Perhaps the modern Tell el-Harbaj, 11 1/2 mi. (18.4 km.) south of Acre.

Achshaph. Referred to in chs. 11:1 and 12:20. Its location is unknown, but was probably in the vicinity of Helkath.

26. Alammelech. This name may be preserved in the modern Wadi el-Melek, which empties into the Kishon from the northeast.

Carmel. This site, being definitely known, enables us to fix the southern extent of Asher's territory.

Shihor-libnath. Some have interpreted this name as a city, others as a promontory, and still others as a river (see on ch. 13:3). The modern stream, called the Nahr ez-Zerka, which flows into the sea south of Carmel, probably answers best to this description because of the direction in which the author is enumerating the places listed (see also ch. 17:10). This stream empties into the sea a short distance south of Dor. Others take Shihor-libnath to be a town in this area. Still others consider it a town on Mt. Carmel.

27. Beth-dagon. From Shihor-libnath the border turned east to Beth-dagon. The site of Beth-dagon is unknown, but the name indicates the widespread worship of Dagon, the god of the Philistines, an ancient Canaanite deity.

Jiphthah-el. See on v. 14.

Cabul on the left hand. This is understood by some translators as "north to Cabul"; by others as "Cabul on the north." This is the town of Cabul; it is not to be confused with the land of Cabul (1 Kings 9:11-13), which Solomon gave to Hiram. If the verse is describing the east border, Cabul would form the northeast corner, from where the boundary would turn in the direction of Sidon (see Joshua 19:28). Josephus speaks of a Choboulo in his day as being by the seaside, and near to Ptolemaïs (War iii. c. 4).

28. Hammon. This is thought by some to be the present Umm el-ÔAwaµméÆd, 7 mi. north of Achzib, which is the modern ez-ZéÆb, on the seacoast 5 mi. (8 km.) above Acre. Others take Hammon to be a village 3/4 mi. from Umm el-ÔAwaµméÆd.

Kanah. This is thought to be a town southeast of Tyre, probably the modern QaÆnah.

29. The coast turneth. Rather, "the boundary turneth."

Ramah. The site of Ramah is unknown, but has been thought by some to be the present Rameh, 25 mi. (40.3 km.) southeast by south from Tyre.

The strong city Tyre. Literally, "the city of the fortified rock." The famous city on the rock was not built until about 200 years later. Therefore the reference must be either to mainland Tyre or some other fortified rock in Asher.

Coast to Achzib. Literally, "district of Achzib." The sentence means that the boundary just described ends at the sea in the district or region that belonged to Achzib. Achzib has been identified with the modern city of ez-ZéÆb, 8 3/4 mi. (14 km.) above Acre.

30. Aphek. See on ch. 13:4. A town in the north border area.

Twenty and two cities. Not counting Carmel (a mountain) and Jiphthah-el (a valley), 24 places are named. Therefore, at least two of the names were probably border towns, not belonging to Asher.

32. Children of Naphtali. The younger son of Bilhah, the handmaid of Rachel, is preferred before the elder, who was Dan (Gen. 30:6-8), as Zebulun was before Issachar. God values men, not according to who they are but what they are.

33. Heleph. The first part of this verse reads literally, "their boundary was from Heleph, from the oak in Zaanannim." Heleph is unknown, but Judges 4:11 mentions the "plain" (oak) of Zaanannim as near Kedesh, although the exact site remains unknown. It was at this place that Jael, the wife of Heber the Kenite, slew Sisera (Judges 4:21). The name Zaanannim is derived from the Hebrew verb s\aÔan, which means "to wander." This definition indicates a place where the tents of wanderers, nomads, were pitched. Heber was probably such a nomadic herdsman.

Adami, Nekeb. Probably a compound name, Adami-Nekeb.

Jordan. The description of the border begins at the upper Jordan valley above the former Lake Huleh. The eastern boundary was the Jordan, including Lake Huleh and the Sea of Chinnereth. The description is next of the southern boundary.

34. Aznoth-tabor. Literally, "ears of Tabor." The site has been identified with Umm Jebeil, in the vicinity of Mt. Tabor. Beyond Mt. Tabor, Zebulun and Asher would form the southern and western boundaries.

Judah upon Jordan. The inheritance of Judah was not anywhere near the border of Naphtali. How, then, could the border of Naphtali extend to Judah upon Jordan to the east? One explanation notes that on the eastern side of the Jordan, as it leaves the Sea of Chinnereth, were a number of villages of tents called Havoth-jair (Judges 10:3-5). This Jair was a grandson of Hezron, the father of Caleb, by a later wife of the tribe of Manasseh, but the grandfather was of Judah (see 1 Chron. 2:21-23). According to the law of Moses, every one of the children of Israel kept himself to the inheritance of the tribe of his fathers, and thus the possessions of Jair were reckoned as belonging, not to the tribe of Manasseh, but to that of Judah, and this may explain how the territory of Naphtali, which was opposite Havoth-jair, is said to extend "to Judah upon Jordan toward the sunrising."

Perhaps a more plausible explanation would be to have the territory of Issachar extending down the west side of the Jordan to the territory of Benjamin and Judah. Issachar would thus have the west valley of the Jordan as Gad had the east valley (ch. 13:27).

35. Fenced cities. Of these 16 fortified cities named in vs. 35-39, Zer, Adamah, Edrei, and Horem have not been definitely identified.

Ziddim. Signifying "the sides." The Kefar Hattya, "the village of the Hittites," mentioned in the Talmud, now called HattéÆn. It is situated on the plain 5 1/2 mi. (8.8 km.) northwest of Tiberias.

Hammath. Signifying "warm." Believed to have been a village with warm baths a little south of Tiberias. It is probably the present H\ammaÆm T\abaréÆyeh.

Rakkath. Perhaps from the verb "to pound out." Thought by some to have been 1 1/2 mi. (2.4 km.) north of the later Tiberias. Its name would suit the site. At least, it was somewhere in that area.

Chinnereth. Signifying "a lyre," in KJV "a harp." A fortified city on the northwest shore of the Sea of Chinnereth (Galilee). It gave its name to the harp-shaped lake known later as Gennesaret, or Galilee.

36. Hazor. See on ch. 11:1.

37. Kedesh. Generally called Kedesh-naphtali to distinguish it from the other cities by the same name. It is about 4 mi. (7 km.) northwest of the former Lake Huleh. It was the home of Barak (Judges 4:6, 9), and the place where he and Deborah assembled their troops to fight with Sisera.

38. Migdal-el. Signifying "tower of God." Situated west of the Lake Huleh district, possibly Khirbet Mejdel, near Kedesh.

Beth-shemesh. Another of the many cities by the name which signifies "house of the sun," showing the extent of sun worship among the earlier inhabitants of Canaan. The city was situated in the northern part of Naphtali.

40. Dan. The most numerous of the tribes, next to Judah, in each census taken during the Exodus (see Num. 1 and 26). Though holding the important position of commander of the rear guard during the march from Egypt, Dan was the last to receive his inheritance. His lot fell in the southern part of Canaan between Judah on the east and the land of the Philistines on the west, bordered by Ephraim on the north and Simeon on the south.

The author does not describe the lot of Dan by its borders, but mentions only the cities that were in it. Some of these cities were at first given to Judah, but Judah's share being too large, some were given to the Danites as others were to the Simeonites.

41. Zorah. A town probably in the Wadi es\-S\arar about 14.7 mi. (23.6 km.) west of Jerusalem. It was the home of Samson's father, Manoah (Judges 13:2, 25). Here Samson was born, and between Zorah and Eshtaol he was buried (Judges 16:31). Both Zorah and Eshtaol, and probably the Irshemesh mentioned in this verse, were, at first, given to the tribe of Judah (chs. 15:10, 33). Ir-shemesh and Beth-shemesh may have been the same, since they both have the same signification. The first means "the city of the sun," and the second, "the house of the sun."

42. Shaalabbin. Called Shaalbim in Judges 1:35. Perhaps the modern SelbéÆt, a town of central Palestine, between Jerusalem and Lydda. The place was, for a time, held by the Amorites, who would not permit the Danites to occupy it. Later the Hebrews took it (1 Kings 4:9).

Ajalon. A city, probably in the Valley of Aijalon, which the Amorites refused to yield. The valley runs from Jerusalem toward the Mediterranean, cutting across the hills of the Shephelah toward Lydda.

43. Thimnathah. A city first given to Judah (ch. 15:57). Evidently the same as the Timnath of Judges 14:1-5, where Samson took his wife. The city was under the control of the Philistines, at least for some time, and it is doubtful whether the Danites ever took it. The place is most likely Tell el-Batashi, 4 1/2 mi. (7.2 km.) west-northwest of Beth-shemesh, bordering Judah's territory.

Ekron. This was the northernmost of the five important cities belonging to the Philistines. It was about halfway between the Mediterranean and the highlands of Judea (see on ch. 13:3). It is thought to be several miles from ÔAkir, which preserves the ancient name.

44. Gibbethon. Signifying "mound," or "height." It is identified with Tell el-MelaÆt, 7 mi. (11.5 km.) south by east from Japho (Jaffa). The Danites do not seem to have gained possession of it, or if so, the Philistines took it (1 Kings 15:27; 16:15). It was a Levitical city (Joshua 21:23).

45. Gath-rimmon. A Levitical city (Joshua 21:24; 1 Chron. 6:69), possibly to be identified with Tell-ej-JeréÆsheh, 4 1/2 mi. (7 km.) northeast of Japho.

46. Japho. Signifying "beauty." The principal port town in all Judea, later called Joppa. The modern name is Jaffa, which is contiguous with the modern Jewish harbor of Tel-Aviv. It is not definitely stated that Japho was a part of the territory of Dan. The statement seems to imply that the border came up before the city but did not include it.

47. Too little for them. Literally, "the territory of the children of Dan went out from them." That is, it slipped away from them because their powerful neighbors, the Amorites, forced them into the mountains, not permitting them to dwell in the valley (Judges 1:34). This put them into such straits that they had to find different territory where there was not such fierce opposition. Thus the children of Dan refused to occupy the territory assigned them of God, who would have given them complete victory over their enemies if they had cooperated with His plan. Instead, they occupied a territory of their own choosing. It has been suggested that this attitude on the part of Dan accounts for the omission of this tribe from the list of the tribes given in Rev. 7.

Leshem. A town not far from the sources of the river Jordan at the foot of Mt. Lebanon, and called Laish in the book of Judges, before it was taken by the Danites. The town was discovered by five spies whom the Danites had dispatched to spy out the north country. These five spies reported back that the land was very good and that the city was quiet and secure, having no dealings with other cities, being a long distance from Sidon. Immediately 600 armed men set out and took the city and changed its name to Dan (see Judges 18).

Because the conquest of Leshem took place some time after the death of Joshua, some have argued that the book of Joshua was not written by him, but at a much later period. However, this short account of the taking of Leshem was evidently inserted later by some other person, writing under divine guidance, so as to complete the account of the Danites' possessions.

49. Inheritance to Joshua. Joshua was the last to receive his inheritance. We see in this sequence the magnanimity of this great leader. He was not striving to reap all the benefits by virtue of his office, which he could readily have done. He shunned the temptation to which leaders are constantly exposed, namely, to enhance their own coffers with little consideration for those in less favorable positions. Joshua was last served, though the eldest and greatest man in Israel. He sought the good of his country above any private interests of his own. He is a great example to all who serve in public places whether in civil or church leadership. It is further noted that he did not take the inheritance to himself without the people's consent and approbation. The record says that the children of Israel gave it to him. They loved their leader. No wonder the people served the Lord all the days of Joshua and all the days of the elders that outlived Joshua (Joshua 24:31; Judges 2:7). Such unselfish service begets love, which, in turn, prompts obedience. No one really has a right to leadership until he has learned to serve unselfishly. Christ, who pleased not Himself (Rom. 15:3), is the great exemplar of unselfish service.

50. Timnath-serah. Literally, "the remaining portion." Joshua did not choose the best place in all the country, but a convenient place in his own tribe not far from Shiloh, the location of the tabernacle.

51. Door of the tabernacle. The work of division was done in the presence of God and by His direction. It was done publicly, so that all might know that the distribution was not the result of the caprice of men. Such a knowledge would have its influence in curbing any murmuring, but in spite of this there was some discontent (ch. 17:14-18). The lesson is also for us. Every important problem of life should be brought to the "door of the tabernacle" in recognition of God's authority in every phase of life.

Ellen G. White Comments

49, 50 PP 515

Joshua Chapter 20

1 God commandeth, 7 and the children of Israel appoint the six cities of refuge.

2. Cities of refuge. The word "refuge" comes from the Heb. qalat\, which means "to contract," "to draw," "to take in," "to receive." Hence, the idea "asylum," or "refuge." The Hebrew has the article before "refuge," as do also the LXX and the Syriac, thus making the statement more definite in referring back to what God had said before. The law of the cities of refuge is given in full in Num. 35 and Deut. 19. The sacredness of human life is one of the great principles of the Christian religion, which is generally not recognized in pagan and atheistic concepts. Very early God sought to impress upon His people that to put an end to a man's life under any circumstances was a serious matter. The seriousness of it rests in the fact that man was made in the divine likeness and was thus in kinship with God. After the Flood, God emphatically declared that "whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man" (Gen. 9:6; see also Ex. 21:12, 14). God had promised a place where the unintentional manslayer might flee (Ex. 21:13), but no such provision was made for the murderer. God sought to regulate the ancient custom of private vengeance, whereby the punishment of the murderer devolved upon the nearest relative or the next heir of the one who had been murdered. Israel stood alone among the nations in the value set upon human life, and now God was to teach them still further concerning the justice as well as the mercy of God. God leads men only as rapidly as they are able to comprehend divine truth. This principle was characteristic of the Hebrew legislation, given by God through Moses. It adapted itself to the condition of men, but always tended toward a perfection that the people were not at first capable of realizing. Thus slavery, polygamy, free divorce, were for a time tolerated, and laws were enacted regulating these practices, though these practices were neither ordained nor approved by God.

The feeling was deeply rooted in the Hebrew mind that the nearest of kin was the guardian of his brother's life, and for this reason he was bound to avenge his death. Instead of crossing this feeling, or seeking wholly to uproot it, God placed this emotion under temporary, salutary checks, which would prevent it from inflicting great injustice where no crime had really been committed.

Whereof I spake. Spoken by Moses and recorded by him, so that Joshua might have access to the information (Ex. 21:13; Num. 35:9-34; Deut. 19:1-13). Thus the Pentateuch was probably in existence in somewhat the same form as it is today when the book of Joshua was written.

3. Unawares and unwittingly. Literally, "by mistake in not knowing." Num. 35:22-25 and Deut. 19:4, 5, supply illustrations of what is meant here. These terms stand in general for unpremeditated acts that resulted in the death of an individual. The willful murderer, even if he should seek protection in one of these cities, was, after examination, to be promptly punished. God had declared that such should be taken even from His altar, that they might be executed (Ex. 21:14).

Avenger of blood. In the KJV whenever this word go'el, "avenger," in its participial form, as here, appears with the word "blood," it is translated "avenger," or "revenger," but in all other cases it is translated "redeemer," "kinsman," "near kinsman," "next kinsman," "kinsfolk." This word occurs in such texts as Job 19:25; Isa. 47:4; 48:17; 54:5, in reference to the Lord. To the Hebrew mind such a designation of God would call attention to the work of the kinsman in his right of redemption (see on Num. 35:12). To what extent the figure is to be transferred to Christ is not made clear. The cities of refuge themselves were a symbol of the refuge provided in Christ (PP 516).

4. Doth flee. The slayer was to flee with all haste. Every provision possible was made so that he might not be delayed in his flight. The roads leading to these cities were always to be kept in good repair. Wherever there were crossroads, road signs were to be posted pointing toward the city of refuge. Should the avenger of blood overtake him, the avenger was at liberty to take the slayer's life. Upon the fleer rested the responsibility of reaching the city of refuge in time. None of these cities was more than a half day's journey from any part of the land (see PP 515-517).

The ancient plan concerning the cities of refuge presents striking illustrations in the Christian life. The sinner must flee to the refuge Christ Jesus (Heb. 6:18) without delay. Those who know the way are to place signposts along the path. A great responsibility rests upon these guides, and carelessness may result in a sign pointing in the wrong direction and misleading a fleeing sinner.

Gate of the city. It was customary for the judges, or elders, of the city to sit at the entering of the gate to transact all legal business (see Ruth 4:1; 2 Sam. 15:2).

Take him into the city. Literally, "gather him into the city." Having heard the fugitive's story and being satisfied that at least his case demanded a fair trial, the elders were to perform the next act, that of gathering him in under their protection. Later on there would be a more extensive hearing which would decide the case.

6. Congregation. Probably the congregation of his own city rather than that of the city of refuge (see Num. 35:24, 25). If found guilty, the slayer would be delivered up to the avenger of blood; but if he was found innocent of willful murder, the congregation would restore him to the city of refuge, where he would remain until the death of the high priest.

Death of the high priest. As the services for sin centered in the sanctuary and the priest, so, probably, the fugitive's length of exile was made dependent upon circumstances connected with the ritual service. It was necessary to have some event of distinction to mark the termination of the asylum so that the avenger might know, beyond question, when his legal right to vengeance ceased.

7. They appointed. Literally, "they sanctified," that is, they set these cities apart for a sacred use. They were all cities of the Levites in which these ministers of God lived, since they carried out the service of the Lord in courses. These circumstances afforded the fleer the opportunity of study, and communication with the Levites, who were trained in the things of God. Hence, the place of refuge could become at the same time a source of real blessing to the slayer as the priests and Levites taught him the way of Jehovah (see Deut. 17:8-13; 21:5; 33:9, 10).

The cities of refuge were all upon the level plain or in valleys, in well-known areas. They were at convenient distances from one another, for the benefit of all the tribes. Three were west of the Jordan and three were east, one in the north, one in the central area, and one in the south. An anxious, fleeing man, escaping for his life, must have every advantage. He must have no weary mountain to climb in the last stretch of his flight, when he perhaps would be almost exhausted. The roads leading to these centers must be good, and the cities well known. Mothers of Israel may have taught their little children the names of these six cities by heart, so that in years to come, if it became necessary for these children to flee, they would know exactly where to go.

There is a lesson in this for us. There is a place if refuge for guilty sinners today. That refuge is Jesus. The road is always open, there are signpost all along the way and access to the city is easy. "The Lord is nigh unto them who are of broken heart" (Ps. 34:18; cf. Ps. 85:9; 145:18). In this refuge we must continue to abide until the indignation is past.

Kedesh. The name comes from the Heb. qadash, "to be holy," which in its strengthened form means "to sanctify." From this the noun, qodesh, meaning "holiness," is also derived. For the location of this city see on ch. 19:37.

Shechem. Heb. shekem, "the shoulder," thence it has the metaphorical meaning of "government." "The government shall be upon his shoulder [shekem]" (Isa. 9:6). Schechem was in the tribe of Ephraim between the two mounts Ebal and Gerizim. Its site is now known as Tell BalaÆt\ah, 30.5 mi. (48.8 km.) north by east of Jerusalem.

Hebron. This name comes from the verb chabar, meaning "to join," "to associate," "to unite." Hence chebron, meaning "fellowship," "alliance." For the location see on ch. 14:15.

8. Bezer. This name is derived from the verb bas\ar, "to restrain," "to enclose," hence, "to fortify." The noun indicates "a fortified place," that is, "a fortress." The location of Bezer is not definitely known. Some have identified it with the modern Umm el-ÔAmad, northwest of Medebah.

Ramoth. From ra'am, "to be high or exalted." Ra'moth is the plural noun, meaning "heights," figuratively meaning "sublime or unattainable things." For the probable location see on ch. 13:26 (Ramoth-mizpeh).

Golan. from goÆlan, "circuit." Its location thought to be somewhat east of the Sea of Chinnereth (Galilee); possibly Sah\en el-JoµlaÆn.

9. For the stranger. God made provision for the stranger to share sin the spiritual benefits of Israel. When the Israelites came out of Egypt a mixed multitude was permitted to accompany them. When the Gibeonites sought peace Israel made peace with them. When Rahab expressed her faith God accepted her. Thus it has been all through the ages. God is no respecter of persons. All who come to Him He will in no wise cast out (John 6:37). There is a gate that stands ajar, open for all who will come in humility and penitence.

Ellen G. White Comments

1-9PP 515-517

Joshua Chapter 21

1 Eight and forty cities given by lot, out of the other tribes, unto the Levites. 43 God gave the land, and rest unto the Israelites, according to his promise.

1. Heads of the fathers. Chief persons descended from the three branches of the tribe of Levi, that is, from the family of Gershon, Kohath, and Merari, the three sons of Levi.

Levites. This tribe waited to receive its share until all the other tribes had received their inheritance. The delay until the land was divided was necessary so that the Levites might be scattered in Israel, receiving cities from the various tribes. Their request was not arbitrary, for the God of Israel had commanded that the Levites should be well provided for (Num. 35:1, 2).

In like manner God has made arrangements that the ministry of the Christian church shall be adequately supported. "Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel" (1 Cor. 9:14). God perpetuated the system of tithes and offerings for the support of those who today carry forward His work.

Eleazar. He is mentioned first in the list of those to whom the Levites came with their request. God had instructed Joshua to seek counsel from the priest (Num. 27:21), who, in turn, would receive counsel from God. Thus the direct representative of God stood first. The whole history of this period shows how closely Joshua worked together with the priest. Unfortunately, at times Joshua too erred from this plan as in the case of the Gibeonites (Joshua 9).

2. Suburbs. From the Hebrew root garash, which means "to drive," "to chase." Followed by the expression "for our cattle," the word indicates an area where the cattle could be driven, in other words, "pastureland" adjacent to the city (see on ch. 14:4).

3. Children of Israel gave. The Levites' petition was apparently cheerfully granted. Each tribe gave cities according to the extent and value of its inheritance, for God had directed (Num. 35:8) that the tribe that had many cities should give many and the tribe that had few should give few. The method tested the generosity of the people. By the cities that were given it would seem that at least a large number of them were among the best in the land.

In the distribution the people bore in mind God's plan that the Levites were to be scattered in Israel in every part of the land. In this way the Levites were to be in the midst of the people to instruct them in the ways of the Lord both by word and by example, and thus be a restraint to Israel against idolatry.

4. The lot came. It is probable that when the 48 cities were designated by the various tribes, they were divided into 4 lots. Then it was determined to which of the four families of the tribe of Levi these portions would be assigned. Kohath, in this instance, was considered as two families, namely, the Kohathites in the line of Aaron, who were priests, and the remainder who were not priests. The family of Aaron, from which came the priests, had for its share the 13 cities that were given by the tribes of Judah, Simeon, and Benjamin. God, in wisdom, planned that the cities that fell to the priests were those that lay next to Jerusalem, because that was to be, in the process of time, the Holy City, where the Temple would be and where the services of the priests would be needed.

The order in which distribution was made was similar to the order of march in the wilderness. The priests, with Moses and Aaron, who pitched on the east by the entrance of the tabernacle came first; the Kohathites were on the south, and in march carried the sacred vessels; the Gershonites were on the west, and followed the Kohathites carrying the curtains and various fabrics of the tent and tabernacle; the Merarites were pitched on the north, and in line of march came last, carrying the bars and boards.

From the instruction given in Lev. 25:32-34, as well as the record of Biblical history, it is evident that these cities were not exclusively inhabited by the Levites. In view of the purpose of the distribution of the Levites, this would hardly be God's plan. God intended the Levites to be in the midst of Israel and not to be isolated from the people whom they were to instruct and guide. Hence the cities of the Levites were also inhabited by Israelites from other tribes. Gibeah of Benjamin, here given to the Levites (Joshua 21:17), was also peopled by the Benjamites, as appears from the history of the Levite whose wife was so horribly abused by them (Judges 19). Saul dwelt there also. David and his court spent years at Hebron, another city of the Levites. The Levites probably were merely given the right to as many houses as they needed for living quarters in these cities. If they should sell, which they seemingly had a right to do (Lev. 25:32-34), they would perpetually have the right to redeem the property. The rest of the dwellings were occupied by the members of the tribe to which the country belonged. Outside the city was the pastureland for their cattle, extending up to 2,000 cu. beyond the city limits. This land was theirs for use but not for selling. It was permanently considered the Lord's property.

There is record later of priests and Levites living in other cities, as for instance in Nob (1 Sam. 21:1). Evidently, in the course of time, there was a modification of the original plan.

Thirteen cities. This may seem like a large number for the children of Aaron, but it must be borne in mind that these cities were probably not inhabited exclusively by the priests, and that all the cities enumerated were not as yet taken from the Canaanites.

5. Children of Kohath. That is, those that were not of the family of Aaron. These were given cities in the tribes of Ephraim, Dan, and Manasseh. The territory of these tribes was near the territory of the tribes in which the family of Aaron had received its inheritance. Thus the Kohathites were not far separated from one another.

6. Children of Gershon. Gershon was the eldest son of Levi (Ex. 6:16; Num. 3:17), but the inheritance of the children of Kohath was assigned first, likely because the priests were descended from Kohath. The Gershonites received 13 cities; the Kohathites, more in number, received 23.

7. Children of Merari. Merari was the youngest son of Levi and was the last to receive his cities. His descendants were the smallest in number, so he received only 12 cities, 8 of these being east of the Jordan.

8. Gave by lot. Interestingly, in the Hebrew and the LXX the word translated "by lot" comes at the end of the sentence, and from position gives the appearance that it modifies the verb "commanded." This, quite evidently, is not its intended function, however, and the KJV has properly adjusted its position so as to make it modify "gave." The idea is that the Lord commanded Moses that disposition of the cities should be by lot.

9. Of Judah, and ... of Simeon. It is interesting to notice that, with the exception of Ain (v. 16), all the priestly cities were so arranged as to fall ultimately within the kingdom of Judah (1 Kings 12), of which the capital was Jerusalem, the city the Lord had chosen out of all the tribes of Israel to put His name there. Though the Levites of the northern kingdom left their cities and their suburbs in the time of Jeroboam's rebellion (2 Chron. 11:14), and came over to Judah, the fact that all the priests, with the insignificant exception noted in the foregoing, were already settled there, represented a great advantage.

These cities. The catalog of the Levitical cities is given in this chapter, and, with some variations and omissions, in 1 Chron. 6:54-81. Many years had elapsed and some of the cities were probably called by different names. Some adjustments may also have been made in the interval, owing to changing political situations.

11. Arba. See on ch. 14:15.

12. Fields. Literally, "field." This evidently refers to the country that lay beyond the 2,000 cu. expressed in Num. 35:5. The directions were apparently not specific for Hebron alone, but merely an example of the general rule with regard to all the cities.

13. Libnah. See on ch. 10:29.

15. Debir. See on ch. 10:38.

16. Beth-shemesh. See on ch. 15:10.

17. Gibeon. See on ch. 9:3.

Geba. See on ch. 18:24.

18. Anathoth. Famous later as the birthplace of Jeremiah (Jer. 1:1; 11:21). The modern name of the site is RaÆs el-KharruÆbeh, which is 1 1/4 mi. (2 km.) northeast from Mt. Scopus, Jerusalem, and a little southeast of Gibeah. In Jeremiah's day it was still a priestly city (Jer. 1:1). It was also the home of Abiathar and the place to which he was banished for participation in the revolt of Adonijah (1 Kings 2:26).

21. Shechem. See on ch. 20:7.

Gezer. See on ch. 10:33.

22. Beth-horon. See on ch. 10:10.

23. Gibbethon. See on ch. 19:44.

24. Aijalon. See on chs. 10:12 and 19:42.

25. Tanach. See on chs. 12:21 and 17:11.

29. Jarmuth. See on ch. 10:3.

En-gannim. See on ch. 19:21.

32. Kedesh. See on chs. 12:22 and 19:37.

34. Jokneam. See on chs. 12:22 and 19:11.

35. Nahalal. See on ch. 19:15.

36. Bezer. See on ch. 20:8.

38. Ramoth. See on ch. 20:8.

Mahanaim. See on ch. 13:26.

39. Heshbon. The capital of Sihon, the king of the Amorites who fought the Israelites as they came up east of the Dead Sea from Egypt and lost his kingdom to them. The name survives in Tell H\esbaÆn, about 15 1/4 mi. (25.5 km.) east-northeast of the mouth of the Jordan River, and 12 3/4 mi. (20.5 km.) southwest of Rabbath-ammon (Amman).

Jazer. See on ch. 13:25.

41. Forty and eight cities. In the census of Israel recorded in Num. 26:62 the tribe of Levi is numbered at 23,000. It has been thought that proportionately they received more than any other tribe. However, it should be remembered that all the cities of the other tribes were probably not named in the lists under each tribe, whereas the Levites were restricted to these 48 cities and a few hundred acres of pastureland around each. The rest had large territories belonging to their cities.

It has been suggested that each of the four divisions of the house of Levi became a bond to cement 3 of the 12 tribes together. In the case of the Gershonites the two sides of Jordan are bound together, two on the west of Jordan united to one on the east. The Merarites were used to connect two tribes on the east of Jordan with one tribe on the west, and the southeast of the Israelitish territory with the north. Thus they were all knit together that they might grow up together in God. The Levites were divided in Israel, but in their division they became a bond of union, bringing the tribes of Israel together and joining all of them to their God.

When not engaged in performing the religious duties which were apportioned among them, the Levites were the teachers of the young; the readers, transcribers, and expounders of the law; the annalists and chroniclers who preserved the memory of great events and distinguished personages. They were to bring religion into everyday life, mutually helping one another and their neighbors to realize the unseen, and to attain God's standard.

42. These cities. Following v. 42, and before v. 43, the LXX adds the following: "And Joshua ceased dividing the land by their borders: and the children of Israel gave a portion to Joshua because of the commandment of the Lord: they gave him the city which he asked: they gave him Thamnasachar in mount Ephraim; and Joshua built the city, and dwelt in it: and Joshua took the knives of stone, wherewith he circumcised the children of Israel that were born in the desert by the way, and put them in Thamnasachar."

43. All the land. The declaration of this verse may seem like a contradiction, since Israel did not possess all the land until the time of David and Solomon, and even then it is doubtful that it included all that God originally intended that they should possess. However, the statement merely says "the Lord gave unto Israel all the land." The gift was theirs despite the presence of the Canaanites in a part of the territory. It was in the plan of God not to drive these inhabitants out all at once, but only little by little (Ex. 23:30), to prevent the beasts and brambles from taking over until Israel, in process of time, should become numerous enough to occupy these areas.

44. Rest round about. The Hebrew reads, "rest from round about," that is, from the surrounding nations. However, God had in mind more than mere physical rest from warfare. The settlement in Canaan was preliminary to a great missionary program that God was planning to accomplish through Israel. Such a program could be carried forward only by individuals who in their own lives were representatives of that plan. The writer of the book of Hebrews was referring to the attainment of this spiritual objective in the soul and the accomplishment of the missionary objective in the world when he said, "For if Jesus [Joshua] had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day" (Heb. 4:8). When Israel miserably failed to fulfill her high destiny and enter into her "rest," God called upon the Christian church to fulfill the divine purpose. Therefore we should "fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should come short of it" (Heb. 4:1).

Joshua Chapter 22

1 The two tribes and half with a blessing are sent home. 10 They build the altar of testimony in their journey. 11 The Israelites are offended thereat. 21 They give them good satisfaction.

1. Then. Heb. 'az, indicating that the development began at a certain time, growing out of a situation just described; that is, immediately after the donation of the cities to Levi, as recorded in ch. 21. The construction seems to imply that it was not at the end of the war when the 2 1/2 tribes were sent home, as some have thought, but rather after the distribution of the land to the 12 tribes, and of the cities to the Levites.

2. Ye have kept all. The words of vs. 2 and 3 recall the promise of ch. 1:16, and Joshua's charge in v. 5 recalls that which he himself had at first received (ch. 1:7), and finds a further parallel in what he said to Israel before his death as recorded in chs. 23 and 24.

3. These many days. See on ch. 11:18. About six or seven years were occupied in subduing the land. Thus these tribes had been absent from their homes and families for a long period of time while fulfilling their obligation to their brethren (ch. 1:12-16). They had given of their best to be a blessing to their brethren.

It is noteworthy that during all the long years of conquest, with the exception of the request of the tribe of Joseph (ch. 17), no sound of complaint is recorded. This is in contrast to the constant murmuring during the 40 years of wandering in the wilderness. While the Israelites were in the midst of conquest and success and in activity, they were content. So today, when the church is active and carrying forward a progressive program with all of its members participating, there is usually remarkable freedom from criticisms, complaints, and murmurings.

4. Your tents. Perhaps by this time the people were already living in the houses they had inherited or had built (Num. 32:17), but the writer calls them tents because this was the word they were accustomed to use in the wilderness for their dwelling places. It continued in their vocabulary even to a much later date.

5. But take diligent heed. Literally, "only watch you exceedingly." The statements in this verse are very similar in content to the statements found in Deut. 6:5; 10:12; 11:13, 22; 30:6, 16, 20; etc., indicating that these words were already recorded, so that Joshua had access to them. He had become so familiar with them that when he spoke he was using almost the same words as his predecessor, Moses. Joshua dismissed the two and a half tribes with words of spiritual counsel and warning. In strict obedience to all the commandments of God lay their only safety.

Cleave unto him. The Hebrew word here translated "cleave" is rendered "stuck" in Ps. 119:31. It carries with it the idea of firmness, that is, "to stick firmly."

7. Tribe of Manasseh. We are not to understand from this verse that Joshua addressed himself again separately to the half tribe of Manasseh. The statement is rather a repetition, which is a marked characteristic of the OT writers in general, and in particular of Joshua. A modern writer would refer back to what he has already written elsewhere, but the Jewish historian repeats in each instance as much as is necessary to make his account intelligible by itself. As an example of such repetition by our author, four times he repeats that the Levites were not to share in the distribution of the land (chs. 13:14, 33; 14:3; 18:7), and four times he repeats that the tribe of Manasseh was divided into two parts on either side of the Jordan (chs. 13:7, 8; 14:3; 18:7; and here).

8. Divide the spoil. These who had stayed in eastern Palestine to guard the stuff and rebuild the cities and care for the flocks and families were to share in the spoil taken. This was as God had earlier ordained (Num. 31:27), and as David later instructed the people (1 Sam. 30:24).

9. Out of Shiloh. This verse indicates very clearly that the two and a half tribes were not sent to their homes until after the headquarters of Israel had been moved to Shiloh, which move was after some of the tribes had received their inheritance. If they were not to remain until after the distribution of the land, they would likely have been dismissed from Gilgal. The fact that they were not dismissed from there is strong evidence that they stayed until the distribution was finished.

10. Borders of Jordan. Literally, "circuits of Jordan," or, "districts of Jordan." Some have taken the expression to refer to the fertile districts east of the upper Jordan, possibly the fertile meadow areas within the windings of the Jordan River. The river flows about 200 mi. (320 km.) in its windings back and forth in the 65 mi. (104 km.) between the Sea of Galilee and the Dead Sea. However, this identification does not seem to fit the specifications of the narrative. The LXX and the Syriac have the proper name "Gilgal" instead of "borders." This would be the most natural place for the tribes to cross the Jordan. The road past Gilgal led to the border of both Reuben and Gad. Had the tribes journeyed north by the upper Jordan, they would have gone approximately 100 mi. out of their way. Another possible crossing place would have been at Adamah, but this was also an indirect way for Gad and Reuben to return, as well as an unknown way. Thus it is only logical to believe that the tribes returned by way of Gilgal (see PP 518). Having arrived in the "borders" of the Jordan, they built an altar on the height near the stones that Joshua had erected, although, perhaps, on the other side of the river (see on v. 11).

Land of Canaan. Suggesting that the place may have been on the west side of the Jordan, although this is by no means certain.

To see to. Better, "for appearance." The expression indicates a large altar high enough to be seen at a great distance. This word may also convey the meaning that the altar was built for appearance only and not for any other use, such as for sacrifices. Yet it was patterned after the altar of burnt offering at the tabernacle (v. 28), which would make it an effective memorial of the fact that the eastern tribes were a part of the Israel of God.

11. An altar. Literally, "the altar." According to v. 28, it was modeled after the altar of Jehovah, a copy of the one altar that God had given to Israel on which to offer their sacrifices; hence the article in the Hebrew, indicating the one altar.

Over against. Literally, "to the forefront." The Heb. mul means "front," and is so translated in most places. From the standpoint of directions, "front" may mean east as "right" means south, and "left," north. If such is the usage of the word here, then the phrase would refer to the entrance to the land of Canaan from the east, or to the eastern shore itself.

In the borders. This is the same expression as in v. 10, and again the LXX and the Syriac read, "Gilgal."

At the passage. Heb. 'el Ôeber, literally, "unto over." ÔEber also means "ford," or "passage," which seems to confirm what was suggested (see on v. 10) as the most probable place of crossing. The word, however, also has the sense of "across," so again, it cannot be definitely determined on which side of the Jordan the altar was built. It was probably to the east of the river (see PP 519).

12. To war against them. Here is striking proof of Israel's strict obedience to the law and their veneration for it in the days of Joshua. A single deviation from it (Lev. 17:8, 9; Deut. 12:5-7; 13:12-15) was sufficient to arouse the loyalty of the nine and a half tribes and cause them to go to war even against their brethren. When they heard of the erection of an altar in addition to the one at Shiloh, they were ready to take immediate action lest the worship of Jehovah be defiled. It was not Joshua who summoned the tribes; they came together voluntarily. But probably he, together with Eleazar, counseled them to defer action until an embassage had been sent to the two and a half tribes to verify the rumor.

13. Phinehas. The son of the high priest, and well fitted for this task. He was the one who, in a critical moment, had risen up to resist the evil of Baal-peor (Num. 25:7, 8). All were aware of his earnestness, and, perhaps, no better person could have headed the delegation.

14. Ten princes. All the tribes west of the Jordan were represented, together with Phinehas from the tribe of Levi. Everyone who accompanied him was the chief of his father's house, and probably the actual head of the tribe. A deputation of this kind would probably represent the highest court in the land. To Israel the supposed transgression committed by the two and a half tribes was considered a serious breach of divine law, and the personnel constituting the delegation indicated with what gravity they regarded the act.

16. What trespass. This expression means, literally, "what treachery." The matter concerned not only the two and a half tribes but all Israel. Past experiences had shown that transgressions of groups or individuals might be visited upon the people as a whole. To these occasions Phinehas and his companions called attention, fearful that if those who had erected the altar should go unpunished, God might punish all Israel as partners in the guilt. The accusation of the nine and a half tribes was based only on a rumor which ought first to have been investigated. It is easy to put a false construction upon the acts of others. The western tribes were at fault, but so were the eastern tribes, who should have informed their brethren of the plan to erect this memorial. Perhaps they did not anticipate that a false rumor would originate. It is always wise to avoid the possibility, but on the other hand, it is never safe to pass judgment based merely on appearance.

17. Iniquity of Peor. See Num. 25:1-9; Deut. 4:3. The original of the word here translated "iniquity" is Ôawon, which often conveys the idea of the "guilt" of wrongdoing. It is thought to come from the word Ôawah, meaning "to bow down," "to be perverse." The English word "wrong," that is, that which is wrought out of course, gives a similar idea of evil, and is found as the translation of Ôawah in Esther 1:16. Hence Ôawon is that which is out of line with right and propriety, which involves both guilt and punishment.

Not cleansed. Literally, "not cleansed from us." Just what circumstance the author referred to by this statement cannot be definitely known, but the shame, the disgrace, the infamy of the iniquity of Peor must have still remained, and perhaps some tokens of the divine displeasure still continued to linger among the congregation. Twenty-four thousand are reported to have died on that occasion, and it is possible some of the children of those unholy unions were in the camp. No doubt many of the relatives still felt keenly the loss of those 24,000, and broken homes and fatherless children were evidence of the disaster. It may also imply that some measure of that corrupt leaven still remained among them, that the infection was not wholly cured, and that though suppressed for the present, it was still secretly working and was likely to break out again with fresh violence, as is intimated in the words of ch. 24:14, 23. Sin leaves its marks both upon the individual who sins and upon those who are influenced by his sin.

19. Unclean. That is, ceremonially unclean, because the tabernacle was not in the land of these tribes. An opinion was generally prevalent among the ancients that those countries in which there was no place set apart for the worship of God were unhallowed and unclean. If the two and a half tribes entertained such an idea, then it were better by far to abandon the land and dwell with the other tribes in the possession of the Lord. This indicated a very generous and unselfish spirit, a willingness to make sacrifices in order to preserve purity, and consequently peace. In other words, Phinehas and his companions were both willing and anxious to make first things first. "Seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you" (Matt. 6:33). It shows that the western tribes did not contemplate war as an absolute necessity, even if their brethren had sinned, but only if they should prove obdurate.

But rebel not. God had given instructions and commandments for the guidance of His people, and any departure from those commandments, particularly in regard to the erection of altars to false gods, would be nothing short of rebellion against the God of heaven. God is the same today as yesterday (Heb. 13:8), inasmuch as the principles of right never change. Though the punishment for departure from God's laws may be deferred, every transgression will ultimately receive its just recompense of reward.

20. Perished not alone. Achan's case was a demonstration of how one man's sin brought God's displeasure on the whole congregation. He and his whole family perished because of his sin, and so did all the men who fell slain by the army of the city of Ai. How much more would God's displeasure have rested on the congregation in this instance if they condoned this sin of rebellion in worship by having a second altar. The people were acting rightly to be concerned about the matter, but they were acting rather hastily in condemning the act before they had the details of the story.

21. Answered. One cannot help appreciating the mildness of the answer in view of the accusation made against them. In fact, there is much to admire in both sides. When the accusers found themselves mistaken, they did not shift their ground and condemn their brethren for imprudence, although they might rightfully have done this; also when the accused had evinced their innocence, they did not upbraid their accusers with hasty, rash, and unjust surmises. Surely here was a case where a "soft answer turneth away wrath" (Prov. 15:1). How many troubles of life could be avoided if all needed the lessons of this experience.

22. The Lord God of gods. The three designations, 'El, 'Elohim, and Yahweh, are repeated twice in the foregoing order. The phrase could also be translated, "God of gods, Jehovah," but in either case it was a strong adjuration suited to the greatness of the occasion. The two and a half tribes were shocked at the sin of which they had just been accused, and the multiplying of the titles of the Deity and the repetition of the phrase showed their zeal and earnestness in this matter.

23. Require it. The sentence may be translated, "Let Jehovah Himself look into it." Calling on God's triple name (see on v. 22) twice, the tribes were willing to leave the case in God's hands and to accept His demands of them even if it meant their lives. This positive testimony gave assurance to the members of the delegation as to the sincerity of the motives that prompted the building of the altar.

24. Fear of this thing. The word for "fear" is rather "anxious care," and literally the passage would read, "if not from anxious care from a word [thing]." The two and a half tribes proceeded to relate what was the cause of this fear or anxiety. In the process of time their posterity, being situated so far from the tabernacle, might be looked upon and treated as strangers to the commonwealth of Israel. As these tribes were on their way home the idea of this memorial probably suggested itself to their mind. Had they thought of the plan before, they probably would have informed Joshua. They were concerned lest their children should be looked upon by the other tribes as having no interest in the altar of God. True, for the time being, the eastern tribes were considered as brethren and were as welcome at the tabernacle as any other tribe, but what if their children after them should be disowned? Because of the distance, they could not make so frequent visits to the tabernacle as the others, and gradually they might be rejected as not members at all. This would lead to carelessness on the part of their children, and soon they would sink into a state of comparative irreligion. To forestall such a tendency and to be a constant witness of the fact that they were a part of Israel, the tribes decided to erect this large altar near the Jordan, so that it could be seen from both sides.

28. The pattern. The altar was an exact representation of the altar at Shiloh and would be a witness that its builders acknowledged and served the same God as those who worshiped at the original altar. Probably the size was much larger, however, to render it conspicuous, but the construction and proportionate measurements were the same.

30. It pleased them. Literally, "it was good in their eyes." They had gone on this mission for the glory of God and not for their own glory. Now that the guilt had been cleared, even though they themselves had been proved wrong, they were pleased. God is the true bond of brotherhood. If we are true brethren, our brother's shame and pain will be ours also, and the re-established innocence of those suspected of guilt will work in us hearty and sincere gratitude. Had the men from the tribes west of Jordan been actuated by selfish motives, they would have been too proud to rejoice over the exposure of their false accusation, and would have endeavored to find some other ground for complaint. Sometimes Christian brethren are so proud of their own opinions that they desire victory over a supposed antagonist rather than the vindication of right. Those who live near to the Lord are ready and willing to admit their error and are more anxious for truth than to convince others that they are right.

31. Now ye have delivered. The Hebrew word 'az here translated "now" lays stress on the fact that the action has really taken place. It is generally translated "then," but here it could very well be translated "consequently." It implies consequence of action, and the whole sentence could read, "Consequently, instead of bringing us heavy chastisement, which we had feared, you have acted in such a way as to deliver us from the punishment of which we were afraid."

33. Did not intend. Literally, "said not." In 2 Sam. 21:16 there is a similar use of the word "said," in the sentence, "And Ishbi-benob ... thought to have slain David." The Hebrew reads, "said to have slain," that is, purposed or intended. So here. The people renounced the intention of "going up." The statements of their delegates convinced them that there was no necessity for it, and accordingly they abandoned the idea entirely.

34. Ed. The Hebrew word for "witness." However, this word is not found in the original, at least in the common copies, though some of the late MSS are said to contain it, but it occurs in the Arabic and Syriac versions. The LXX reads, "And Joshua gave a name to the altar of the children of Ruben and the children of Gad and of the half tribe of Manasse, and said, ½It is a testimony in the midst of them that the Lord is their God.'" The translators of the KJV have properly supplied the word in italics since it is the word that the sense evidently requires.

Some important lessons may be learned from the incidents of this chapter: first, even the best intentions are often misunderstood and afford cause for suspicion, and therefore, as much as possible, every appearance of evil should be avoided; second, it is far better to be jealous over our brethren with a godly jealousy than to be indifferent to their salvation, even when we are mistaken in our fears; third, even when we are falsely accused, it is well to listen to the accusation calmly and then with the spirit of humility make a careful defense. Those who are in the right can always afford to be calm and considerate.

Ellen G. White Comments

1-34PP 517-520

8 PP 518

34 PP 519

Joshua Chapter 23

1 Joshua's exhortation before his death, 3 by former benefits, 5 by promises, 11 and by threatenings.

1. A long time. See Introduction to the book of Joshua, p. 172, for a discussion of Joshua's age. It can be estimated that he was perhaps 83 years old when the Israelites entered Canaan. If he was 5 years older than Caleb, he was 90 at the end of the conquest of the land. According to ch. 24:29 he was 110 years old when he died. If our estimate is correct, and if the events of this chapter occurred during the last year of Joshua's life, 20 years must have passed since the Lord gave Israel rest (chs. 21:44; 22:4). This length of time permitted Joshua to observe that one of Israel's greatest dangers lay in being corrupted by intimacy with the Canaanites.

2. Their elders. Those summoned represented the four levels, or degrees, of civil distinction: the elders or princes of the tribes, the heads or chiefs of families, the judges who interpreted and made decisions according to the law, the officers or magistrates who executed the decisions of the judges. Eleazar the high priest was there, and Phinehas his son; doubtless Caleb was there in his ripe old age, and perhaps Othniel and many others.

The place of this meeting is not specified, but inasmuch as Shechem is mentioned in the next chapter (v. 1), as the place for the second meeting, it has been thought that the place for the first meeting was Timnath-serah, the home of Joshua. However, it may have been at Shechem, as well, or even some other place, like Shiloh.

I am old. Some years before, God reminded Joshua of his advancing age. "Thou art old and stricken in years," He had declared (ch. 13:1). Now Joshua himself felt the effect of age and the passing of time and himself declared, "I am old and stricken in age," literally, "I am old I have entered into the days." He was probably in his last year, that is, in his 110th year (ch. 24:29).

3. Because of you. Literally, "before your faces," that is, before the Israelites in battle. The Canaanites were slain as Israel marched forward in battle.

4. I have divided. Here, as in ch. 13:1-7, and afterward, in Judges 2:23, the preliminary and partial nature of the conquest achieved by Joshua is distinctly recognized God gave Israel the land to possess and the assurance that He would go before them to drive out the remaining nations as they were able and sufficient to fill in and take their place.

5. Expel them. Joshua here uses the same word for "expel" as is found in Deut. 6:19 and 9:4, a somewhat unusual word used only 11 times in the OT. It may indicate that Joshua was quoting from Deuteronomy, and that the latter existed in written form in Joshua's day.

6. Courageous. Literally the admonition reads, "And ye shall be very strong." Courage comes from strength both physical and spiritual. Courage is essential to all Christian living. It takes courage to confess Christ both by example and word of mouth in the face of ridicule. It takes courage to resist temptation and do good in the midst of a hostile world. It takes courage to overcome selfishness. It takes courage to admit a fault. But the Lord says to us through Joshua, "Ye shall be very strong" to do the thing that is right.

All that is written. Observe the universality of the injunction, "all that is written in the book." There is to be no reservation or exception-- no selection of favorite doctrines or of agreeable duties, but "all that is written" is to be read, believed, and obeyed.

7. Come not among these. Literally, "do not go in unto these nations." The Israelites, though living among these nations, were to have no intercourse with them. Any association, no matter how innocent it might appear, could lead to more intimate contacts which would eventually lure the soul from God. A similar prohibition still obtains. The NT injunction is, "Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers" (2 Cor. 6:14). The baneful results of a willful disregard of this command are often seen in the lives of the young, who, despite counsel, enter into marriage relationships with unbelievers. Besides finding a home in which true harmony can never reign, they often find, too, a growing distaste for religion, which results sooner or later in complete separation from God. "Can two walk together, except they be agreed?" (Amos 3:3).

Neither make mention. For Moses' instruction on this see Ex. 23:13 and Deut. 12:3. The very names of these gods were not to be used, nor even remembered.

Nor cause to swear. To swear by any god was virtually to acknowledge him as a witness and avenger in the case of the violation of contracts, and so in effect a suitable object of religious worship. This would mean, then, that Israel could not make any covenant with idolaters, for the only way to make it binding would be for the idolater to swear by his own god, and that would mean an acknowledgment of this god by the Israelite.

10. One man. Again, in this verse, Joshua is using the words of Moses as found in his song, recorded in Deut. 32:30.

11. Take good heed. Literally, "take heed exceedingly to your souls." Perhaps the danger would be greater now, after the Israelites were settled at ease in the land, that their love for God might turn to something else. The scriptures in both the OT and NT emphasize the pre-eminence of love. Power may be pleasant, wisdom and beauty may be delightful, and riches may give a certain prestige and sense of security, but life is not in these. Love supersedes all. Obedience submits to the voice which cries, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" (Ex. 20:3). But love responds, "O Lord our Lord, how excellent is thy name in all the earth" (Ps. 8:1). Obedience declines to take the name of the Lord in vain, whereas love exclaims, "The desire of our soul is to thy name" (Isa. 26:8). "There is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved" (Acts 4:12). Obedience refuses to break the Sabbath, but love says, "Call the sabbath a delight, the holy of the Lord, honourable" (Isa. 58:13). So it ought to be with all the divine commands. "Love is the fulfilling of the law" (Rom. 13:10).

12. Make marriages. Literally, "become related by marriage." It was a long time before Israel learned the lesson of how to live in the world without being of the world. It was not learned until after the Babylonish captivity, and when learned, it was soon distorted into a pharisaical exclusiveness.

13. Snares and traps. Probably, rather, "a net and a snare" (see Ex. 23:33; Num. 33:55). The implication is that the ultimate evil results are covered over so that they are not observed. Corrupt society is insidious in its attractions. The snares and traps are placed first, and not till the victim is secure do the scourges and the thorns come. Corrupt men lead away the pure by guile. They instinctively conceal their worst elements while they reveal their best, and thus they deceive their prey. The very virtues of the pure sometimes help in the work of destruction. "Charity ... thinketh no evil," and the innocent man is tempted to say of his seducers, "These men have been unfairly spoken of. They are better than the report circulated about them."

Scourges. These would be for driving the Israelites on in the way they would not want to go. But once in the trap they would be driven on as oxen under the yoke.

Thorns. These in the eyes would indicate blindness, since a thorn in the eye would blind the individual. Just so the enemy would put out the eyes of Israel's understanding through idolatry.

14. Way of all the earth. Rather, "in the way of all the earth." Joshua faces this unavoidable end of the road with calmness and confidence. It is not a strange ending, for all men of the past, save Enoch and Elijah, have come to that destination. The only exception in the future will be those who will be translated at the coming of Jesus (1 Cor. 15:51-54). Joshua was dying fully satisfied with God and with what God had done. He was dying with a spiritual interest in the survivors, and the greatness of his character lay in the fact that he himself was so much concealed behind the grandeur of his own exploits, and the God who led him in them. His great question was, "What will they think of my God when I am gone? They know Him now, but will they remember?"

16. When ye have transgressed. Literally "in your transgressing." The idea is, "whenever you transgress," or "if you transgress," and go and serve other gods. God assumes that His people will be faithful. He does not prove them before He blesses them. He gives to men abundantly in the present that He may prepare them to enjoy the still more abundant mercy of the future. Though God foresees coming unfaithfulness, He does not, on that account, withhold His good gifts. To be a recipient of God's mercy and wisdom and blessing is a most wonderful privilege, but it also carries with it a most definite responsibility. To turn from God and His truth, in the face of these gifts, is to incur judgment proportionate to the light received.

Ellen G. White Comments

1-16PP 521, 522

1-3, 5, 6PP 521

14-16PP 522

Joshua Chapter 24

1 Joshua assembleth the tribes at Shechem. 2 A brief history of God's benefits from Terah. 14 He reneweth the covenant between them and God. 26 A stone the witness of the covenant. 29 Joshua's age, death, and burial. 32 Joseph's bones are buried. 33 Eleazar dieth.

1. Joshua gathered. The gathering of ch. 23 had been an assembly of the leaders and people in which Joshua had pressed upon them their responsibility of driving out the enemy, and had warned them of the dangers of neglecting to carry out this command. He reminded them of the promise of God to be with them, and of their responsibility to carry out such a program. Now Joshua gathered the heads and representatives of the tribes to Shechem for a final appeal to them.

There was great appropriateness in the selection of Shechem. Here the covenant was first given to Abram (Gen. 12:6, 7); in the immediate neighborhood Jacob seems to have renewed it (Gen. 33:19, 20), and under an oak at Shechem he had "put away the strange gods" of his family (Gen 35:2-4), as Joshua now reminded the Israelites (Joshua 24:23); here also the covenant had been renewed after the fall of Ai (Joshua 8:30-35). There was no more fitting place than Shechem for Joshua's parting words and where the covenant of Israel with God might be renewed.

Presented themselves. These leaders of Israel, numbering perhaps several hundred, presented themselves before the Lord. The ark had been brought from Shiloh for the occasion (PP 523).

2. Thus saith the Lord. Joshua began his speech in the solemn form used by the prophets and introduced God Himself as speaking in His own person. It would seem from this that Joshua was a prophet as well as a ruler.

Flood. Heb. nahar, "river." The reference is to the Euphrates River, by the waters of which lay Ur of the Chaldees.

Served other gods. Joshua bade the people remember that their forefathers had been idolaters such as the Israelites were now exterminating. It was only by the grace of God that the Israelites were now in such a favored state. There was great danger that they would forget the rock from whence they were hewn and lapse back into idolatry.

3. I took. The Syriac reads, "I led." Throughout this verse, which relates Abraham's experience, God is presented as the one who accomplished all the great acts in Abraham's life. Abraham humbly submitted to the divine control. His life became an example of faith (Rom. 4:1-11; Gal. 3:6-9; cf. James 2:21-23). God was anxious to lead the descendants of Abraham into the same experience of faith.

5. Plagued. Literally, "smote," but usually with the idea of a stroke from God.

7. Your eyes. More than half a century had passed since the exodus of their fathers from Egypt, and it is probable that a considerable number of those present had seen the things that God had done in Egypt and the overthrow of the Egyptians in the Red Sea. Not being 20 years old at the time of the rebellion at Kadesh, they were exempted from the dreadful sentence of destruction passed upon all above that age (Num. 14).

9. Warred against Israel. From the history recorded in Num. 23 and 24, and also from Judges 11:25, it would appear that Balak did not at any time actually engage in conflict with Israel. He is said, therefore, in this place to have "warred" against them because he intended to do it, laying the plans and preparation accordingly. God considers the intent the act. The state of mind that causes the perpetration of a willfully sinful act is the essence of the sin; the act itself is but the execution of the intent (Matt. 5:28).

10. Blessed you still. Rather, "blessed you emphatically." The construction here is similar to the one in Gen. 2:17, "Thou shalt surely die." The emphasis of such a construction is sometimes difficult to translate. The passage seems to mean that, contrary to all expectations and Balaam's firm intention, God caused him to bless Israel emphatically.

11. Men of Jericho. Literally, "lords of Jericho." The seven Canaanitish tribes that follow seem not to be identical with, but rather in addition to, the lords of Jericho. The word for "fought" is the same as the one translated "warred" (v. 9), and must here be considered in a similar sense. The people of Jericho did not fight actively. They confined themselves to defensive operations, which, of course, also, constitute war.

12. The hornet. Or, "the hornets," or, "hornets." In the Hebrew the form is identical with that found in Ex. 23:28 and Deut. 7:20, where God promised to send the hornets before His people to subdue the land. Now Joshua said that God had sent the hornets before His people and had driven out the two kings of the Amorites. The earlier record of this conquest states that these kings and their peoples had been smitten with the sword of Israel (Num. 21:24, 35). It seems clear that the signal victory over these kings was not due to the skill of the sword and bow, but rather to the special blessing of God. Hornets, then, seem to be figurative of the assistance God provided to give success to the armies of Israel. The figure is appropriate. As hornets would produce consternation and panic in a camp, so the Lord would send fear, terror, quaking, and confusion into the camp of the nations to unnerve them for battle (see Deut. 2:25; Joshua 2:11).

Some see in these hornets the Egyptians whom the Lord used to weaken Canaanitish nations so as to make them as easy prey to the Israelites (see on Ex. 23:28).

14. Gods. The LXX and Syriac read, "foreign gods." It was at Shechem, the very place where the tribes were now assembled, that Jacob had put away the strange gods that were in his family, and had buried them under an oak (Gen. 35:2, 4). The Israelites may have preserved some of the idols of the subdued Canaanites as curios or as souvenirs, and hence now stood in danger of regarding them with reverence. The tendency toward idolatry began to develop in Egypt (Eze. 20:6, 7). It continued to be a marked characteristic of the people in the wilderness (see Ex. 32; Amos 5:25, 26; Acts 7:39-43), as it had been in Egypt (Eze. 20:6, 7). Joshua knew that even now idolatry was secretly practiced by some of the Israelites even though outwardly they had only recently expressed great zeal against any appearance of it (Joshua 22). Many who today make high pretensions of Christianity, like the Israelites, cherish some secret idol in their hearts. Eventually such an idol, unless removed, will nullify the whole Christian life and prove ruinous to the soul.

15. Choose you this day. The command to serve the Lord does not preclude choice. Any service that is not voluntary is useless. God sets before men life and death and urges them to choose life, but He does not interfere with their contrary choice, nor does He protect them from its natural results.

My house. Those that are leaders in the cause of God must take special care that those under their charge, particularly those in their own home (1 Tim. 3:4, 5), follow in the way of righteousness. Joshua resolved that he and his house would serve the Lord despite what others did. Sometimes the choice to serve God becomes a singular act. But "thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil" (Ex. 23:2). Those who are bound for heaven must be willing, despite all opposition, to do as the best do and not as the most do. Joshua had been remarkably true to God all his life. He was resolved to remain faithful to the last. His last appeal was for the people to follow his example of consecration, and the dignity and simplicity of his life added powerfully to the weight of his words.

16. God forbid. Literally, "profanation be to us from serving," that is, "if we should forsake Jehovah, may we be profaned or accursed."

19. Ye cannot serve. Grammatically there is some difficulty in connecting the "if" of v. 20 with this statement, yet the sense is appropriate and was probably intended. The meaning then would be, "Surely we cannot serve Jehovah if we forsake Him and serve other gods. He is a jealous God, and cannot share with other gods His place or authority."

On the other hand, the statement of v. 19 was probably intended to have a force of its own. The declaration, "Ye cannot serve the Lord," may have reference to the moral inability of man of himself to render obedience to the divine commands. Joshua was not merely saying, "You cannot serve Jehovah with other gods." He was also asserting, "You cannot serve Jehovah at all in your own strength." In this acknowledgment Joshua, centuries before the apostle Paul, was setting forth the great principle of righteousness by faith. In the attainment of this righteousness both man and God have a part to act. God cannot do anything for us without our consent and cooperation. Likewise, we cannot do anything without the help of God. Faith and works are like the two oars of a boat which we must use equally. It is man's part to choose the right way and then to set about to accomplish it, in full recognition of his complete dependence on God. It is God's part to supply the enabling power. He stands ready at all times to fulfill His part of the contract. The question is, Will we fulfill ours? Will we choose to expel the wrong and adopt the right? Will we actively set about to make the objectives of our choice a reality?

20. He will turn. Affirming the possibility of falling from grace. Were there no such possibility, this verse would be without meaning.

23. Put away. See on v. 14.

24. The people said. Three times the people affirmed their allegiance to Jehovah, thus adding solemnity to their declaration and reconfirming their covenant (see on Ex. 19:8; 24:3, 7).

25. Statute. Derived from a word signifying "to cut," hence the meaning, "what is cut in," or, "what is graven." The word for "ordinance" is more generally translated "judgment." The engraving may have been on the rock that Joshua set up for a memorial.

26. Joshua wrote. That is, the words of the covenant, and the statute and judgment (v. 25). The account was placed with the book of the law in the side of the ark (PP 524).

This is the second "signature" among the sacred writers of the OT. The first is that of Moses, in Deut. 31:9. The next after Joshua's is that of Samuel (1 Sam. 10:25). These men did not think of themselves as writers of distinct books, but as authorized to add their part to the book already written, to write what was assigned to them "in the book of the law of God." The unity of Holy Scripture is thus seen to have been an essential feature of the Bible from the very first.

A great stone. See on v. 25.

Under an oak. This was possibly the oak under which Jacob buried the images (Gen. 35:4).

27. A witness. Stone is enduring. Engraving upon it remains indefinitely as a silent witness, after the engravers have died, to succeeding generations.

29. An hundred and ten years old. See on ch. 23:1. Joshua's name first appeared in history when he was at least 40 years of age (Ex. 17:9). Many eventful years had since passed, and now a great statesman was laying down his life. But eminent or obscure, every life must come to an end. Joshua appointed no successor. None of his family took his place. In fact, his posterity is never mentioned in history, and it may even be that he left no children to carry on his name. But a higher fame is his, a more enduring memorial than any earthly family could convey.

30. Hill of Gaash. Near Timnath-serah. For the location, see on Judges 2:9.

31. Which had known. Future generations neglected to review past history, and so forgot what God had done for their forefathers. Such knowledge would have helped them to realize God's willingness to do the same for His people in their day. So it is today. "We have nothing to fear for the future, except as we shall forget the way the Lord has led us, and His teaching in our past history" (LS 196).

32. Bones of Joseph. The act of burying Joseph's bones, though here related after the account of the death of Joshua, probably took place before it, at the time of the gathering at Shechem described in this chapter. There is nothing in the original to prevent the verb from being translated "had buried," thus implying that the burial had taken place some time before.

33. Eleazar. Probably he died about the same time as Joshua, or soon after.

Pertained to Phinehas. Literally, "hill of Phinehas." As the cities assigned to the priests lay in the lots of Judah, Benjamin, and Simeon, this portion may have been given to the high priest in Mt. Ephraim voluntarily by the people for a place of residence at a convenient distance from Joshua and the tabernacle. The place may have been called the "hill of Phinehas," because Phinehas possibly lived there longer than his father Eleazar.

Ellen G. White Comments

1-33PP 522-524

2 PP 125

10 SR 181

14 PP 523

14, 15 6T 141

15 DA 520; Ed 289; LS 292; MH 176; PP 523; SR 181, TM 63; 2T 565; 4T 351; 8T 120

16, 17 SR 182

16, 19, 21 PP 524

24, 26 SR 182

24-29, 31PP 524

INTRODUCTION

1. Title. The book of Judges takes its name from the titles of the men who governed Israel after the death of Joshua. Moses, in giving directions as to the government of the Israelites after their settlement in Canaan, had ordered, "Judges and officers shalt thou make thee in all thy gates, which the Lord thy God giveth thee" (Deut. 16:18). Accordingly, after Moses no longer lived to exercise legislative, nor Joshua, executive functions, judges were appointed, who constituted the highest civil authority in the land. The book of Judges is the history of the period that immediately followed the death of Joshua. In that period the governing authority in Israel was vested in judges.

The men after whom this book was named filled a larger office than the civil functions of the judges stipulated in the Mosaic law. They were, in most cases, summoned directly to their great work by divine appointment (ch. 3:15; 4:6; 6:12; etc.), and entered upon it more as deliverers from foreign bondage than as civil rulers. In fact, the very necessity for their call and their great deeds arose from the anarchy that rendered all ordinary procedures unavailing against the prevalent apostasy and oppression. The most illustrious of them were national heroes rather than civil or religious guides. "Generals," or "chieftains," would probably be a more accurate title for them inasmuch as their exploits were largely military. However, after each judge "delivered" the people, he ruled over them for the rest of his life. Hence the name Judges seemed most appropriate for the book when it was written. Centuries later in Carthage, where the people were of the same racial and linguistic stock as the Hebrews, a political ruler was also known as a "judge," sufet (Heb. shaphat; cf. English "suffete").

2. Authorship. It is not known who wrote the book of Judges. According to ancient Jewish tradition, it was written by Samuel (see Babylonian Talmud, Baba Bathra 14b, 15a). This is an obvious conjecture, and although it accords with many of the facts, other factors militate against the view. A favorite saying of the author of the Judges was, "In those days there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes" (ch. 17:6; 21:25; cf. ch. 18:1; 19:1). This is thought to suggest that the author may have been in favor of the kingship, as if he had said, in effect, "Such things would not be tolerated, but at that time there was no king in Israel to keep order, and everyone was able to do as he pleased." Because Samuel was opposed to the idea of a king for Israel, some have thought it improbable that he was the author of these words.

Internal evidence points to the possible time limits between which Judges may have been written. The statement quoted above, "In those days there was no king in Israel" (ch. 17:6), indicates that the book was written after the institution of the monarchy under Saul. On the other hand, there is evidence that it must have been written before the reign of David, or at least early in his reign. Chapter 1:21 notes that the Jebusites had not been driven out from Jerusalem, but dwelt there with the children of Benjamin "unto this day." Bible history points out that the Jebusites remained in possession of Jerusalem, or, at least the citadel of Zion, until the time of the capture of the city by David after the conclusion of his seven-year reign at Hebron (2 Sam. 5:6-9; 1 Chron. 11:4-9). The book of Judges, therefore, was possibly written during the first seven years of David's reign prior to his capture of Jerusalem.

3. Historical Setting. Although it is impossible to fix with any real certainty the exact time in the stream of Near Eastern history when the events recorded in the book of Judges took place, one would not miss it far to say that the book covers the period from 1400 to 1050 B.C. The exact time cannot be accurately determined until the date of the Exodus has been definitely fixed, and at the present time sufficient historical data are not available to enable one to decide with absolute certainty between the conflicting theories. For further comment on this point see Vol. I, pp. 188-196; Vol. II, pp. 124-126.

The Amarna tablets and other inscriptions reveal that the Canaanites who held possession of the land had been settled there for centuries preceding the Hebrew invasion. Their civilization was of long standing, and under the influence of the great empires of Mesopotamia and Egypt had attained a considerable degree of development. The people were organized under petty rulers who owed common allegiance to Pharaoh. But despite this they fought constantly among themselves, thus becoming skilled in the art of war. Yet in the face of common danger they would more or less unite under one leader. Their fortified cities protected them in the hills and their chariots of iron made them formidable on the plains, as is evident from the material remains of their civilization that the archeologists have excavated. Art and architecture seem to show an immediate and marked decline after the invasion of the Hebrews. However, in the realm of spiritual truth, and thus in morals and philosophy of life, the Hebrews showed a vast superiority over the native inhabitants. The Canaanites were known all over the Near East as merchants and traders (later on in Hebrew the word Canaanite came to mean "trader"), but they were proficient in agricultural skills as well.

Lacking the requisite faith in God, the Israelites were unable to drive out the Canaanites, so they settled down, after the first few years of war, to live beside them. During all this period the Hebrews were not a solidly united nation. Occasionally two or three tribes were able to form a temporary alliance against a common enemy. The song of Deborah in Judges 5 shows that even in time of great peril it was impossible to unite all the tribes into one federation. Inter-tribal strife was rather common (chs. 8:1-3; 12:1-6; 20:1-48). This was due in part to the lack of communication and intercourse between the tribes because of the chains of Canaanite forts that divided up the land.

Rather quickly the newcomers began to learn from the older inhabitants their methods of agriculture, for the Hebrews had been largely a nomadic people up to this time. The Canaanite religion centered around rites to ensure the fertility of the soil. There were many celebrations honoring agricultural deities for the rich harvests they had granted. In taking over the agricultural methods of the people of the land, many of the Hebrews were led to accept also the religion interlocked with these methods.

4. Theme. This book recounts the varied fortunes of the Hebrew people in the period after the death of Joshua until the time of Samuel, in whose days the monarchy came into existence. Joshua had been, in a special sense, chosen to carry out and bring to completion the program begun by Moses. When Joshua died, the Israelites--deprived of both the authoritative direction of Moses and the executive experience of Joshua--entered upon a period of independent management and attempted consolidation of their newly won homeland.

Prior to this time the Hebrews had existed in a varied condition of unrest and movement, undergoing first enslavement, then prolonged wandering in the desert, and finally the hardships of camp and conquest. The book of Joshua, which is largely a biography of that great leader, recounts the final phases of this conquest. The book of Judges gives the next step in the history of the Israelites, exhibiting them as they met the challenges of making the transition from a migratory, pastoral people into a settled, agricultural nation.

As we open the book we find ourselves in an atmosphere of warlike ardor. We are plunged at once into military preparations as the tribes begin to disperse after the united campaigns under Joshua. Councils of war meet; and then, as the tribes go up from the Jordan valley to take possession of the districts which had fallen to their lot to conquer, the clash of weapons is heard. Battle follows battle. Iron chariots hurtle along the valleys; the hillsides bristle with armed men. The songs are of strife and conquest; the great heroes are those who smite the enemies of Israel hip and thigh. Though the Hebrew tribes win the mountain country, they cannot drive the Canaanites from the plains.

When the din of battle faded away the Canaanites were still in possession of a strong chain of fortified towns running east and west from Mt. Heres through Aijalon, Shaalbim, Gibeon, Beeroth, Kirjath-jearim, and Jerusalem. Farther to the north Issachar, Zebulun, Asher, and Naphtali were separated from the tribes in central Canaan by another barrier of strongholds from the sea through Dor, Harosheth, Megiddo, Taanach, and Ibleam to the Jordan River. The rich Valley of Jezreel leading down to the Jordan by the strong fortress of Beth-shan was still in the hands of the Canaanites. These two chains of strongholds intersected the land and made communication and unity among the tribes virtually impossible. Cut off as they were from one another by these unconquered cities, the Hebrew tribes were exposed to attack and could only with difficulty form partial confederations against their enemies in order to hold onto the centers they had won in the midst of a hostile population.

Constantly recurring invasions of hostile peoples brought strife and bondage to the Hebrew tribesmen. From the northeast came Mesopotamian invaders; from the southeast, the Moabites; from the east, Midianites and Ammonites; and from the southwest, the Philistines. Because apostasy and idolatry had weakened the bonds of national unity that loyalty to their religion had wrought, the Hebrews were unable to resist these onslaughts. However, the sufferings of bondage produced repentance, causing the people to return to the worship of the Lord once more. Then, in pity for them, God would raise up a deliverer or "judge," who would break the yoke of bondage and judge the people until his death. This is the subject material of the book.

The main theme that the author of Judges expounds is that sin and apostasy from true religion bring upon a people the displeasure of God. In order to bring about a turning from sin, God permits suffering and disaster, which can only be averted by genuine repentance and a return to God. When true repentance occurs, God raises up persons or circumstances that bring deliverance and relief. The history of the period is recorded on a framework that sets forth these broad propositions: that righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is the reproach of any people; that evil companions ruin good intentions and training; that moral degeneracy always brings with it national weakness; that the affairs of the chosen people, Israel, were under the immediate care of divine Providence; that national sin brings divine punishment; that the punishment which sin involves is intended by the Lord to be educational, not vindictive; that the retribution is withdrawn when it has produced sincere repentance; that deliverance never comes from unaided human efforts, but from the strength and enthusiasm inspired by the Spirit of God. These principles of God's rule explain, the author tells us, the alternations of apostasy and servitude, repentance and deliverance characteristic of the history of this period.

These propositions, so admirably illustrated by the author in the stories he recounted, elevate the book of Judges from the realm of historical narratives to the position of a sacred philosophy of history. The inspired author of the book was more concerned about pointing out the lessons to be learned from the history he recorded than about the history itself. Even a cursory reading of the book of Judges reveals that the author intended to demonstrate that the hand of God was manifest in the events that befell the Israelites in their new homeland. The outcome was in God's control, and He guided the experiences that came to the people in such a way that they should learn by experience that their only happiness and safety lay in serving Him.

A minor theme in the book is that the troubles of Israel were due in a large measure to the evil influence of their heathen neighbors. Someone might ask why, if the idolatrous inhabitants of the land were agents leading the Hebrews into temptation, God did not drive out the Canaanites and Amorites, and thus prevent the apostasy of His people. The author evidently offers an answer to this objection in one section of the book (ch. 3:1-4). Here he states that the Lord recognizes the value of difficulties in the formation of character. For this reason God left the Canaanites in the land to prove whether Israel would serve Him.

A further purpose of the author was to describe how, under the leadership and blessing of God, a number of small tribes were able to achieve a permanent settlement in a strange and hostile land; how their heroes acquired fame; and how, in the midst of diverse interests and molding influences, loyalty to their one God prevented their absorption by other peoples.

The book of Judges falls into five well-marked sections. It begins with a general historical preface (chs. 1:1 to 2:5) or survey of the partial conquest of the land after it had been parceled out to the different tribes by Joshua. The tribes attacked their particular inheritance alone, or sometimes several of them banded together when confronted by strong resistance. Despite their efforts, the Israelites were only partially successful in taking possession of the portions of the land allotted to them. The author presents the narrative in a way to show that the failure of the people was due to their lack of trust and faithfulness to the Lord. In this way he informs the reader of the basis of all the subsequent troubles of Israel, and why the Canaanites were allowed to remain in the land. The relations of Israel with the remaining Canaanites form the background of the history of the ensuing chapters and explain why the judges were necessary.

This historical sketch is followed with a second introduction (chs. 2:6 to 3:6), the object of which is to show how the religious apostasy that followed the death of Joshua continued unabated. The people sank into idolatry and provoked divine retribution. When the people repented, the Lord sent deliverance by means of successive judges.

Having stated his theme, the author then proceeds to recount the history of the tribes under 12 judges (chs. 3:7 to 16:31). It is a history of sin, ever repeating itself, and of divine grace, constantly devising new means of deliverance. The heroic deeds of six of these deliverers are related fully, and those of six are merely mentioned with brief detail. The episode of Abimelech's usurpations is given at length to warn the people of the peril of choosing a monarch who does not meet the divine specifications (see Deut. 17:15).

The book ends with two appendixes, both of which describe events that happened in the early part of the judges period. The first (chs. 17 and 18) gives the narrative of Micah's idolatry and of the northern sanctuary that housed his images in the tribe of Dan until the death of Eli. The second appendix (chs. 19 to 21) records the vile deed of the Benjamites at Gibeah, and the vengeance inflicted on that tribe by the other tribes. It ends with an account of the means taken to save the tribe of Benjamin from extinction after they were virtually extirpated for their support of the guilty Gibeonites.

5. Outline.

I. General Historical Preface: The State of Affairs When the History Begins, 1:1 to 2:5.

A. The tribes endeavor to consolidate their allotments in Palestine, 1:1-36.

1. Judah and the Kenites, 1:1-20.

2. Benjamin, 1:21.

3. Manasseh and Ephraim, 1:22-29.

4. Zebulun, 1:30.

5. Asher, 1:31, 32.

6. Naphtali, 1:33.

7. Dan (in the south), 1:34-36.

B. The reason for their failure, 2:1-5.

II. Thematic Introduction: The Author's Summary and Interpretation of Hebrew History During This Period, 2:6 to 3:6.

A. A historical prologue tying onto the book of Joshua, 2:6-10.

B. The writer's interpretation of the history that he is now beginning to relate, 2:11 to 3:6.

III. The Story of the Judges, 3:7 to 16:31.

A. Othniel breaks the oppression of invaders from the northeast (Mesopotamians), 3:7-11.

B. Ehud effects deliverance from invaders from the southeast (Moabites), 3:12-30.

C. Shamgar, 3:31.

D. Deborah and Barak throw off the oppression of northern Canaanites, 4:1 to 5:31.

E. Gideon, 6:1 to 8:32.

1. Repels an invasion of Midianites from the east, 6:1 to 8:21.

2. Subsequent events of Gideon's career, 8:22-32.

F. The usurpation of Abimelech, Gideon's son, 8:33 to 9:57.

G. Tola, 10:1, 2.

H. Jair, 10:3-5.

I. Jephthah, 10:6 to 12:7.

1. He destroys the Ammonite invasion from the east, 10:6 to 11:33.

2. He sacrifices his daughter, 11:34-40.

3. Intertribal strife during the judgeship of Jephthah, 12:1-7.

J. Ibzan, 12:8-10.

K. Elon, 12:11, 12.

L. Abdon, 12:13-15.

M. Samson's birth and adventures, 13:1 to 16:31.

IV. A Double Appendix; Two Events That Occurred During the Period of the Judges, 17:1 to 21:25.

A. The origin of Micah's idolatry and of the sanctuary of his idols in Dan (in the north), 17:1 to 18:31.

1. The construction of the images, 17:1-6.

2. A renegade Levite becomes priest, 17:7-13.

3. The transference of the images to Dan (Laish) through the migration of the Danites, 18:1-31.

B. An evil deed of the Benjamites and its terrible consequences, 19:1 to 21:25.

1. The Benjamites of Gibeah abuse and cause the death of the concubine belonging to a Levite, 19:1-28.

2. The punishment of the people of Benjamin by the other tribes, 19:29 to 20:48.

3. The method of circumventing the oath of the tribes so that the tribe of Benjamin could be preserved from extinction, 21:1-25.

Judges Chapter 1

1 The acts of Judah and Simeon. 4 Adoni-bezek justly requited. 8 Jerusalem taken. 10 Hebron taken. 11 Othniel hath Achsah to wife for taking of Debir. 16 The Kenites dwell in Judah. 17 Hormah, Gaza, Askelon and Ekron taken. 21 The acts of Benjamin. 22 Of the house of Joseph, who take Beth-el. 30 Of Zebulun. 31 Of Asher. 33 Of Naphtali. 34 Of Dan.

1. Death of Joshua. The clause, "now after the death of Joshua it came to pass," forms the heading for the entire book. With these words the author takes up the narrative where the book of Joshua left it. Joshua begins in exactly the same way: "Now after the death of Moses the servant of the Lord it came to pass" (Joshua 1:1). The events and incidents that the author of Judges will relate belong to the period or epoch after the death of Joshua. Precisely how long after Joshua's death the first of these events occurred, cannot be determined; but it was probably not long, for the book of Judges opens with an account of the dispersion of the tribes to their respective inheritances after Joshua allotted a portion to each one of them.

Children of Israel. Presumably only the tribes west of the Jordan.

Asked the Lord. The Hebrew word here translated "asked" is frequently also rendered "to inquire of," or "to ask counsel of" (see chs. 18:5; 20:18). The word is used for the priest's inquiry of Urim and Thummim (Num. 27:21), which was possibly the method employed here. It is noteworthy that the Israelites did ask counsel of the Lord. While Joshua was alive they had leaned on him. Now, left leaderless and confronted with danger, they did not rely on their own wisdom, but in harmony with the instruction of Moses, they asked God to direct them (see James 1:5). Theirs was a simple and direct request, devoid of "vain repetitions" (Matt. 6:7). The eloquence of prayer is in its sense of need and its directness. It is as imperative in the 20th century as in the days of the judges that God's people seek divine guidance before making vital decisions. This seeking must not be done hurriedly, carelessly, or with the mind made up and the decision already reached beforehand. Such prayer for guidance is mockery. God honors only those who come to Him sincerely and with an open mind--those who are willing to follow in the path He marks out.

Go up. These words suggest that the tribes were encamped in the low plains around Jericho and Gilgal. This is borne out by the later narrative (chs. 1:16; 2:1). The two cities were 800 ft. below sea level, but some of the places the Israelites were to attack were 2,500 to 3,600 ft. above sea level. The Heb. Ôalah, here translated, "go up," is also often used to express the thought "to go forth to battle." The idea of "go up" in connection with battle may have originated in the fact that the defense usually occupied the high ground.

First. The question, "Who shall go up ... first?" reveals the uncertainty of the group who now had no one person to look to as leader. They recognized that each tribe must launch out on its own to secure the portion of the land granted them by the lot. But which tribe was it that should make the needed progress to give courage to the others? They wanted a divinely appointed leader for the campaign.

2. Judah shall go up. This answer, we would presume, came to them through Phinehas, the high priest, who may have inquired by Urim and Thummim. The men of Judah were to take the lead perhaps because they were the most numerous tribe (Num. 2); they may also have been the most courageous, for they had in their number Caleb, who alone, with Joshua, of all the ten spies wanted to press ahead to invade the land many years before. In the desert wanderings Judah had always marched first. Now they were chosen to open the campaign.

Delivered the land. This is a prophetic statement. That which is sure to happen is expressed as if it were already accomplished. "The land" here means Judah's lot.

3. Come up with me. Both Judah and Simeon were sons of Leah (Gen. 29:33, 35). It was natural that the two tribes should help each other, for their lots were contiguous; indeed, the lot of Simeon is said to lie "within the inheritance of the children of Judah" (Joshua 19:1). The portion of the two tribes fell roughly within two lines drawn to the Mediterranean from the northern and southern extremities of the Dead Sea. Although the federation of southern Canaanites had been defeated during the campaigns of Joshua, there remained many strongholds that the individual tribes needed to conquer.

Cooperation between brethren is the wisest course when there are difficult tasks to do. The strongest should not despise but desire the assistance of others, even of those who may be weaker. Judah was the largest and Simeon the smallest of the tribes, yet Judah asked Simeon's aid. We should also note that those who ask assistance must be ready to give it in return, just as Judah in this instance offered to help Simeon later. Christians should strengthen one another's hands against the destructive devices of Satan's kingdom. Those who thus help one another in the spirit of love have reason to hope that God will graciously bless their combined efforts.

4. Bezek. This place has not been located. It seems to have been near Jerusalem, for immediately after this battle the Israelites attacked that city. Some have thought that it may have been the name of a territory and not of a city, and have suggested the region between Jericho and Jerusalem as its location. There is a town named Bezek, mentioned in 1 Sam. 11:8, but this is probably a different place, for it is northeast of Shechem and lies outside the region of a southern campaign such as Judah was conducting. However, the Perizzites are included as participants in this battle, and are usually mentioned in connection with the wooded highlands north and east of Shechem (Joshua 17:15). The name Perizzite comes from a word meaning "open country," and might be considered an equivalent of our modern word Bedouin, which means "a nomadic tribesman."

5. Adoni-bezek. Literally, "lord of Bezek," that is, the ruler of Bezek.

6. Cut off his thumbs. Anciently hostilities were marked by barbarities such as this to prevent captured prisoners from again engaging in warfare. The Greeks are reported at times to have mutilated the hands of prisoners just enough so that they could not throw a spear or handle a bow but could still work. The punishment inflicted upon Adoni-bezek would deprive him of his kingship. The great toes were cut off to hinder the ability to run, which was an essential qualification for warriors of that time.

7. Threescore and ten kings. The various royal personages that at different times during Adoni-bezek's reign constituted the retinue of subjugated rulers that he supported miserably in his court after having mutilated them. The kingdoms of Palestine were small, often consisting of only a city and the territory around it.

Gathered. A better translation would be "gleaned," or, "picked up crumbs."

As I have done. Adoni-bezek testified that he deserved the punishment that was meted out to him. Like many others since his time, he read his crime in his punishment. Although God does not always immediately requite men according to their deserts, but defers long, hoping for repentance, eventually all will be constrained to admit their guilt before His judgment bar. How much better it is to plead guilty before the mercy seat now, and thus be delivered from the wrath to come

Jerusalem. There is no suggestion that the tribes endeavored to maintain their hold on the city at this time. In fact, the Bible record shows that the city continued in the hands of the Jebusites until captured by David several hundred years later (2 Sam. 5:6, 7). Not until the reign of David did Judah actually dominate southern Palestine. Inasmuch as Jerusalem was not situated within the lot of Judah or Simeon, these tribes probably abandoned the city after they had captured and burned it.

There he died. The author does not say how long Adoni-bezek lived after being brought to Jerusalem. Presumably his death occurred soon after.

9. Went down. In the first part of the campaign they "went up" to battle from the lowland around Jericho and Gilgal into the central highlands. Now, from the hills they "went down" to fight in the three distinctive regions of southern Palestine, the "mountain," the "south" (Negeb), and "valley" (Shephelah).

The mountain. This term is used in the OT for the highlands of Judea, which are a continuation of the central mountain chain that runs throughout the length of the country from north to south.

The south. Heb. negeb. South of Hebron the mountains slope downward and become less rugged, the valleys less deep, and the hills round off and gradually merge with the southern desert. This arid, sparsely settled region extends from north of Beersheba southward to Kadesh-barnea and westward toward the sea. It was often termed negeb in the Hebrew OT, a name that it still bears today. The word itself means a dry, arid land. So familiar was this region of southern Canaan to the Hebrews that they came to use the word negeb as a general expression for "south" (Gen. 24:62; Joshua 15:4, 21; Eze. 47:19). In this verse the word, however, stands for the geographical area described previously.

Valley. Heb. shephelah. Between the highlands of Judah and the Philistine plain that borders the sea there is a region of low, rounded hills a few hundred feet in elevation. This fringe of foothills on the border of Philistia was called the Shephelah, that is, the lowland.

10. Hebron. This city was about halfway between Jerusalem and Beersheba, 20 mi. from either city, in the highest part of the mountains of Judah, 3,040 ft. above sea level. The earlier name of the city was Kirjath-arba, which means "city of Arba." Arba was the father of Anak (Joshua 15:13; 21:11; cf. ch. 14:15). Hebron was the burial place of Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Rebekah, Jacob, and Leah.

The author, in this verse, is evidently making a general statement or survey concerning the capture of Hebron, for later in the chapter he states that Caleb captured Hebron and slew the three sons of Anak (v. 20).

Sheshai. The three giants listed are also mentioned in connection with Caleb's visit to the city years before in company with the ten spies (Num. 13:22, 28). In Judges 1:20 they are called the sons of Anak, which may mean that they were three clans of the Anakim.

11. He went against. The use of the singular personal pronoun here supports what was stated above, that the author is referring to Caleb and his clan rather than to the whole tribe of Judah and Simeon.

Debir. The former name of Debir was Kirjath-sepher (Joshua 15:15), which means "city of books." Because of this meaning scholars have speculated that the city housed a famous library similar to the royal libraries that the Assyrian king Ashurbanipal built up to magnificent proportions. Most scholars agree that the city may be correctly identified as the present Tell Beit Mirsim, excavated by Dr. W. F. Albright. The ruins revealed no library, although the city was not completely excavated. The archeological evidence shows an unusually devastating conflagration, followed by a settlement of Hebrew people who rebuilt the city.

12. Will I give. The city was evidently stubbornly defended, and Caleb endeavored to rouse the ambitious young men among the different clans of the tribe to greater valor by offering his daughter in marriage to the one whose group broke into the city first. From what follows, it appears that the captured city also became the territory of the fortunate victor. This story gives some evidence of the strength of the southern cities in these mountains. Earlier, when Joshua was assigning sections of the land to the tribes, Caleb referred to his unbroken strength, and accordingly gained permission to win the region by the sword (Joshua 14:11).

13. Caleb's younger brother. Grammatically, these words may refer to Kenaz or to Othniel. If they refer to Kenaz, then Othniel was the nephew, not the brother, of Caleb. It is impossible to tell which is correct. The writer specifically uses the word "younger" in order to explain that there was no great disparity in age between Othniel and Achsah. If affection for a woman animates men to such strenuous efforts and perilous adventures, what should love for the Lord lead them to hazard for Him?

14. When she came. Achsah had no doubt been kept far behind the battle area with the other women and children in a place of safety, but now she was doubtless bidden by her father to come and be publicly presented to her husband in honor of his valor and as an example to the troops. In those times parents arranged the marriages and gave their daughters to whomever they wished. However, unless the custom was abused, a maiden was not required to marry someone she could not love (Gen. 24:57, 58; PP 171).

She moved him to ask. Verse 15 records that Achsah was the one who asked her father for a field. It would be more natural here to read, "and he moved her to ask," and this is how the LXX reads. However, the passage could mean that she requested permission from her husband to ask her father for a field or persuaded him that they should ask.

Lighted from. Achsah reverenced her father, and so dismounted when speaking to him. Among the Bedouins of today custom still demands that one asking a favor of a sheik must dismount and approach him on foot.

15. South land. Perhaps, better, "arid land." The Hebrew word for "south" is negeb, a dry, arid land (see on v. 9). Her section was in the dry Negeb, so she was in need of springs for the flocks. Her new husband did not feel disposed to ask for these springs, but, feeling secure as a favored daughter, Achsah made her request immediately as the young couple were about to take over their territory. In response to her petition Caleb gave her the "upper springs and the nether springs." In the territory between Debir and Hebron there is a region today containing about 14 springs in 3 groups. These may be the ones from which Caleb gave two groups to his newly married daughter.

Apparently Achsah's request was fit and proper, and Caleb, recognizing it as such, granted it. Our heavenly Father, who apportions our lot, is surely as reasonable and affectionate as any earthly parent. It is for us to exercise the same wisdom as Achsah, and request that God give us such betterment to our portion in life as is fit and proper. God is willing to give us springs of water to moisten a sun-parched experience. He will bestow upon us exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think, if we call upon Him (Eph. 3:20).

16. The Kenite. Or, "the Midianite" (Num. 10:29). From Moses' time onward the clan was closely allied with Israel without losing its independent and separate existence. Because they were in alliance with Israel and joined with them in the campaign, they were allowed to share in the rewards and settle in the territory of Judah. Later one branch of their clan settled far to the north in the territory of Naphtali (ch. 4:11, 17).

City of palm trees. Jericho is commonly referred to as the "city of palm trees" (Deut. 34:3; 2 Chron. 28:15). But old Jericho had been destroyed and new Jericho had not yet been built (1 Kings 16:34). It is therefore probable that this "city of palm trees" was another city in the same general vicinity (see on Joshua 6:26). The place was once famous for its palms and gardens. Josephus gives a glowing description of its beauty (Wars iv. 8. 3).

Arad. This place, where the Kenites settled, is in the Negeb about 17 mi. (27 km.) south by east of Hebron.

17. Hormah. Signifying "devoted," that is, devoted to utter destruction. This is the new name that the Hebrews gave to Zephath. As yet the site of the city has not been definitely determined by archaeologists. However, Tell esh-SheriÔah (also called Tell el-Mshaµsh), near Beersheba and Ziklag, has been suggested. Hormah was in the territory of Simeon (Joshua 19:4), which accords with the statement of this verse.

18. Judah took Gaza. It seems that the tribe of Judah now carried on the campaign alone. They swung from the Negeb over to the maritime plain and headed north, attacking the coastal cities. The southernmost of these was Gaza, which they captured by storm, along with Askelon and Ekron. Thus three centers of the Philistine confederacy fell before the Israelites. However, it seems that the Hebrews overthrew these strongholds by swift, surprise attacks, but were not able to hold them after the Philistines regrouped and counter-attacked, for the next verse states that Judah could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley (see also ch. 3:3).

19. With Judah. Judah was able to succeed only partially because of a seeming superiority in the weapons of the enemy. Why was this when chariots of iron are nothing before the might of God, whose chariots are ten thousands of angels? Infinite power was available, yet the tribe of Judah was not able to gain complete mastery over its enemies. The author of the book of Judges later explains why (see on ch. 2:14-23).

Chariots of iron. On the mountains where horses and chariots could not maneuver, the mobile, daring bands of Hebrews were victorious; but in the broad valleys of the maritime plain the better armed Canaanites were able to repel their incursions. The use of iron was just becoming common among the Canaanites, who were ahead of the nomadic Hebrews in the art of metal working. They had recently learned the use of chariots and horses from the Hittites and Hurrians, and employed them to good advantage against the foot soldiers of the Hebrews, who were unable to cope with this superior weapon.

21. Inhabited Jerusalem. According to v. 8 the tribe of Judah had already taken Jerusalem. Perhaps the reason they did not consolidate their gains there was that the city really lay in the territory of Benjamin. The boundary line between two tribes ran just south of the city through the Valley of Hinnon (Joshua 15:8). After the Jebusites had been humbled by their defeat at the hands of Judah, they offered no resistance to the men of Benjamin who settled around the city. Lacking the necessary resolution to capture the city, the people of Benjamin mingled together peaceably with the heathen Jebusites. Several hundred years later David, sensing the importance of having the citadel in his hands, assaulted and captured it. Even after this the two groups seemed to live together amicably in the area, for the late in David's reign, Araunah the Jebusite was spoken of in a way that suggests he was a respected citizen; he certainly conducted himself as one (2 Sam. 24:18). However, during the judges period the city was predominantly Jebusite (Judges 19:11, 12). The people of Benjamin failed to take full advantage of their opportunities.

Unto this day. This expression suggests that the book of Judges was written before David's capture of the city.

22. House of Joseph. The tribe of Ephraim and the half tribe of Manasseh in western Palestine. Half of the tribe of Manasseh had settled in Transjordan.

Beth-el. Signifying, "house of God." Situated about 10 1/4 mi. (16.4 km.) north of Jerusalem in the central mountains. This city was celebrated as the place where Jacob had seen his vision of the ladder, from which event it had received its name (Gen. 28:10-22). Later, it was to be famous as a seat of the idolatrous worship established by Jeroboam, who made it one of the national shrines of the northern kingdom of Israel (see 1 Kings 12:29).

Lord was with them. Unlike Benjamin, who never ventured out in faith, these tribes launched out and won victories through God's blessing.

23. Sent to descry Beth-el. That is, they reconnoitered thoroughly before venturing an attack, to find the best way to conquer it. A historical note is added that the former name of the city was Luz. After conquering the town the Hebrews renamed it Bethel in honor of the experience of Jacob there (see on v. 22). The new town evidently was not on the same spot as the old, for in the book of Joshua the two cities are described as different, though adjoining, places (Joshua 16:2). The town was originally in the territory of Benjamin but in close proximity to the border of Ephraim (Joshua 18:13, 21, 22).

24. Spies. Literally, "watchers." Before taking advantage of the terror that gripped the captured man's soul in anticipation of being put to death, the watchers made the traveler an offer of personal safety. Because of his betrayal of a secret entrance to the city, the Hebrews easily captured the place and put its inhabitants to the sword, saving alive only this man and his family.

26. Built a city. Nothing is known of the city that this man founded. Perhaps to quiet his conscience for his deed of betrayal, he went into a far country and built a city that he renamed after the one he had betrayed.

27. Neither did Manasseh. The author advances in his narrative from the southern section of the land, assaulted by Judah, upward to central and northern Palestine. At this point the narrative reveals a new trend. Previously the Hebrews had gained victories as well as suffered defeats. Now there simply follows a list of Canaanite strongholds that the different tribes were unable to capture. The towns whose inhabitants Manasseh was unable to expel, consisted of a chain of fortified cities guarding all the passes.

Beth-shean. At the eastern end of this "Canaanite line" was the ancient city of Beth-shan. It was at the place where the rather level country at the end of the Valley of Jezreel began to fall off toward the Jordan River. It is one of the oldest cities of Palestine, and at various times was the center for the worship of numerous heathen deities. It was an extremely strong fortress situated on a high hill built up by the ruins of previous eras. Because of its strategic location it commanded the roads to Damascus. Excavations at the site reveal that it was an Egyptian garrison city for several centuries, to about the 12th century b.c. In the days of Saul it was in the possession of the Philistines, whose main centers lay far to the south. Later David may have captured it, for it is mentioned as one of Solomon's cities (1 Kings 4:12). For a long time it was known as Scythopolis, after the Scythians who captured it about the time of Jeremiah. Today it is called Tell el H\us\n. The neighboring Arab town of Beisaµn perpetuates the ancient name.

The other fortified cities named in this verse commanded the passes leading from the central mountains of Samaria into the fertile plain of Esdraelon (or Megiddo). Megiddo, on the western end of the line, commanded the great highway between Egypt and Mesopotamia. Because of this it figured prominently in Egyptian campaigns against the great northern and eastern empires. Taanach, which bears the same name today, was 4 3/4 mi. (7.6 km.) southeast of Megiddo.

Her towns. Literally, "her daughters," the small villages clustered around these fortress cities.

Canaanites would dwell. That is, they stubbornly resisted and repelled the attempts of the Hebrews to dislodge them. They realized correctly that if they could hold this chain of fortresses, they could command all the main routes of travel and commerce, and in addition, could separate the different tribes from one another and thus prevent a united confederation of the Hebrews. They applied the military rule of divide and conquer.

28. Tribute. Heb. mas. "Tribute" does not represent the true idea of this Hebrew word, which means "labor gangs." The word signifies a levy of men impressed for taskwork, not the taskwork itself. Both David and Solomon used compulsory labor levies in their building projects and in the work of fortifying cities (1 Kings 5:13; 9:15, 21). At this time the Hebrews, in the areas in which they were dominant, forced the defeated Canaanites to work in rebuilding the captured cities and strengthening fortifications.

Not utterly drive. That is, even in the regions where the Hebrews were strong, a large number of Canaanites who submitted to forced labor for the privilege of living in their villages or on their farms were permitted to remain. The danger of this to Israelite religion and morals is apparent in the later history of this book.

29. Gezer. An ancient Canaanite city on the southwestern border of Ephraim near the Philistine country, 19 1/4 mi. (30.8 km.) northwest of Jerusalem. The Canaanites retained possession of the city (1 Sam. 27:8; 2 Sam. 5:25; 1 Chron. 20:4) until a certain Pharaoh captured it and gave it as a present to his daughter, Solomon's wife (1 Kings 9:16). Solomon then rebuilt it as a border fortress. The excavation of this city has revealed a vast amount of Canaanite household articles, an extensive Canaanite temple, and numerous examples of the Canaanite practice of burying infants in the foundations of houses that were being built.

30. Neither did Zebulun. The author now begins to relate the experiences of the tribes whose portions were situated in northern Palestine beyond the plain of Esdraelon. Nothing is said of the tribe of Isaachar, although in the song of Deborah (ch. 5) it is represented as one of the more aggressive tribes. The story with respect to each of these tribes as given here is about the same. They were not strong enough to attack the fortresses in their allotted territories. Even in the mountains they were unable to gain the mastery as the tribes farther to the south had done. They merely whittled out little sections here and there wherever they could, and thus wedged themselves in among the older settlements.

31. Neither did Asher. The tribe of Asher was no more successful than Zebulun. Its allotment consisted of the maritime plain and the low hills north of Carmel. It was the territory of the Phoenicians, who had not yet risen to fame as sea traders. Having settled down among the Canaanites there, the people of Asher seem to have been exposed to cultural and religious absorption perhaps more than any other tribe. Within a short time they seemed to have lost much of their religious separateness, so that when Deborah called on the tribes to join in a united front against the Canaanites, "Asher," she says, "continued on the sea shore, and abode in his breaches" (ch. 5:17).

Joshua 19:30 states that 22 towns in this region fell to the lot of Asher. The text before us lists at least seven of them that were not taken, including the well-known cities of Acre and Sidon. Thus it is evident that the Asherites did not make much progress toward conquering the territory assigned to them.

32. Dwelt among the Canaanites. Verses 29 and 30 stated that the Canaanites dwelt among the Hebrews, showing that the latter were the more powerful; but here the author changes his phrase and says that the Asherites dwelt among the Canaanites. This seems to indicate that the Canaanites were the dominant power in that area.

33. Neither did Naphtali. The same unhappy narrative is repeated. The places that Naphtali failed to conquer were ancient cities that took their name from the famous temples to the goddess Anath and the sun-god Shamash situated therein. The Hebrews were strong enough, however, to force these cities to tribute. The territory of Naphtali later became known as Galilee, where the heathen element was so numerous that the region was called "Galilee of the nations" (Isa. 9:1), that is, "the foreign district."

34. Children of Dan. The lot of the tribe of Dan was a narrow strip of valley and low hills between the inheritance of Ephraim and Judah. The Danites tried at first to push toward the lowlands, and, under the blessing of God, should have extended their boundaries to the sea. Instead, the native inhabitants drove them back into the hills where they consolidated their position around the towns of Zorah and Eshtaol. It was from this tribe and this district that Samson sallied forth on his exploits against the Philistines (chs. 13 to 16). However, this region was so small that when the tribe grew in population, the main body migrated to the northern part of Palestine around the headwaters of the Jordan, where they captured the city of Laish and renamed it Dan (Judges 18 and 19; see on Joshua 19:47).

it should be noticed that the author of the book here designates the native population as Amorites instead of Canaanites. Some believe that the two names refer to the same people. It is held that the native population, known as the Canaanites, came originally from the same area as the Amorites. But it seems that Amorites represent a later migration. Since they had arrived more recently than the Canaanites, their culture was probably more nomadic than that of the older Canaanite culture. An ancient Sumerian poem describes the Amorites thus:

"The weapon is his companion ...

Who knows no submission,

Who eats uncooked flesh,

Who has no house in his life-time,

Who does not bury his dead companion."

The Amorites of the time of the judges probably had developed a more sedentary culture than that so vividly illustrated in this poem. They were spread all over the Near Eastern area, with Amorite kings ruling over both large and small kingdoms. The famous king of Babylonia, Hammurabi, was an Amorite. The name Amorite means "westerner" and was given this people by the Sumerians, the earliest known inhabitants of Babylonia.

35. Mount Heres. Believed to be the same as Beth-shemesh in the Shephelah.

Aijalon. A town situated about 13 mi. (20.8 km.) west-northwest of Jerusalem (see on Joshua 10:12).

Prevailed. Literally, "rested heavily." The tribe of Dan was unable to hold its own against the native population, gradually being forced back into a restricted area. Seeing this, the Hebrews from the tribe of Ephraim, whose territory was adjacent, came to the aid of the Danites and launched aggressive attacks against the Amorites. So successful were the men of Ephraim that the Amorite and Canaanite towns made treaties of submission to them, supplying labor gangs to the Israelite towns in return for cessation of hostilities. This tributary status continued for several centuries until the towns actually became Israelite territory by the time of Solomon (1 Kings 4:9). Beth-shemesh fell into Israelite hands considerably earlier (1 Sam. 6:12).

36. Coast of the Amorites. Rather, "boundary of the Amorites." This verse has no connection with the preceding one except that, having mentioned the Amorites, the author pauses to explain that the Amorite territory formerly extended as far south as these places, which, in the main, constitute the Edomite frontier. The southern tribes of the Israelites had conquered territory as far south as this old border.

The going up to Akrabbim. Literally, "scorpion pass."

The rock. That is, "the cliff." Many take this as a reference to Petra, the cliff citadel of the Edomites and Nabataeans, but it more likely refers to a landmark on the Judean side of the Arabah. The entire verse is somewhat obscure.

Ellen G. White Comments

27-35PP 543

Judges Chapter 2

1 An Angel rebuketh the people at Bochim. 6 The wickedness of the new generation after Joshua. 14 God's anger and pity towards them. 20 The Canaanites are left to prove Israel.

1. An angel. The following five verses of Judges properly belong to the first chapter. They are a fitting close to the account of the conquest and settlement recorded in ch. 1. In them the author explains why the chosen people were unable to make a complete conquest of the land. The main theme of these verses is a rebuke to the Israelites for mingling the heathen religious practices of the people among whom they settled, with their own God-given religious forms. Instead of destroying the heathen altars, the Israelites worshiped before them.

It is difficult to ascertain of whom the writer is speaking when he refers to "an angel of the Lord." The word "angel" literally means "messenger." The term "messenger of the Lord" may refer to a prophet whom God used to give His message to Israel (Haggai 1:13), but it may also refer to the Lord Himself, who is sometimes referred to by this title (see Ex. 23:20, 23; 33:2). The fact that the message is not introduced with a "Thus saith the Lord," which was the custom of later prophets, suggests that the speaker was the Lord Himself. The use of the first person also supports the latter view.

From Gilgal. The city that had served as the temporary headquarters of the tribes (Joshua 4:19; 9:6; 10:6; etc.). It was at this camp, on the western bank of the Jordan between Jericho and the river, that the mysterious "captain of the host" had appeared to Joshua (Joshua 5:13-15). That captain was Christ (PP 488). It is possible, but by no means certain, that the same visitant is here presented.

Bochim. Literally, "weepers." This name was given to the place following the experience that is now being recorded (see vs. 4, 5). No place by this name is known today, nor is it mentioned elsewhere in the Bible. The LXX, after the word "Bochim" adds the explanation, "and to Bethel." The event may have happened at Bethel, but the fact that they offered sacrifice there (v. 5) suggests that most likely the place was Shiloh, where the tabernacle was pitched at that time. The context indicates a great assembly, and it is possible that these events occurred in connection with one of the great religious assemblies such as the Passover or ingathering festival. In this event the place would have been either Shiloh or a small village near it.

Which I sware. The promise was given in Gen. 12:7; 13:14-16; 15:18; 26:3; 28:13.

My covenant. See Ex. 34:10-16.

2. Make no league. See Ex. 34:12. It is evident from the record of the first chapter of Judges that the Israelites had made many leagues with the heathen inhabitants of Palestine. The Israelites probably argued that these leagues were forced upon them because of their inability to drive the native inhabitants from their strong positions.

Throw down their altars. See Ex. 34:13. These "altars" were the peculiar stone pillar altars so prevalent in Palestine. Social intercourse with the local inhabitants was the first step in Israel's unfaithfulness. The next step was taken when some of the people, through this means, were led to join in festivities around heathen altars, sacred trees, and pillars. Once the barriers were broken down, apostasy, like a flood, swept in among them. In only a short time their course of fusion had wrought havoc with high religious principles. The same results follow a similar course today. The Lord has warned, "Know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God" (James 4:4).

Why have ye done this? The messenger had begun by relating the things God had done for His people by delivering them from Egyptian bondage and establishing them in the Land of Promise. Now the question is raised, What had they done for God in return? Their ingratitude was apparent in the religious apostasy that had become boldly evident within the space of only a few years. Israel had flagrantly disobeyed in important matters that God had specifically commanded. They had broken the compact; therefore God could not fulfill His part of the agreement.

3. I also said. That is, God had given a previous warning (see Num. 33:55; Joshua 23:13). That threat was now to be carried out. God would withdraw His conditional promises made in Ex. 23:31 and other places.

Shall be a snare. The worship of these heathen deities would result in gross corruption, which would cause the ruin of the entire nation (see Ex. 23:33; Ex. 34:12; Deut. 7:16; Joshua 23:13).

The failure to drive out the inhabitants of the land brought its own punishment. So it is with all sin. Lust and corruption not only cut off the grace of God but bring retribution and punishment as a result of the sin itself. God often punishes sin with sin (see PP 728).

5. Bochim. See on v. 1. The stern rebuke administered by the messenger caused the people to break into weeping. It was a weeping of shame, and only partially of repentance. The name served thenceforth to recall the tears of disappointment and disgrace. The place and the incidents connected with it remind us of the modern wailing wall in Jerusalem. Like the Hebrews in this experience at Bochim, many today melt under the preaching of repentance, only to harden again before they can be cast into a new mold.

It is noteworthy how quickly these erring people were touched by the preaching of this messenger. The Word of God has the power to move and convert men, and one who is thus moved may properly weep over his past failures and mistakes. "Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted" (Matt. 5:4). However, it would be much better if, instead of naming the place in such a way as to lay the principal stress on the feelings and demonstrations of sorrow, it might be called "Repentance." It is this latter experience that God is looking for. This expectation is well expressed in the words of Paul: "For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of" (2 Cor. 7:10). Too often religion is an experience of sentiment and emotion rather than of faith and obedience.

6. When Joshua. By narrating the first efforts of the tribes to consolidate their position in Palestine, and the divine rebuke for Israel's failure to obey God's directions, the author has given the historical background that explains why it was that God raised up judges. Now he turns to the main theme of the book, namely, to show how the alternating periods of oppression followed by deliverance were the result of God's efforts to turn Israel from idolatry to loyal obedience to God and His law. Before beginning the fluctuating history of oppressions and deliverances, the author ties his narrative to that of the book of Joshua. Verses 6-10 are a recapitulation that picks up the story at the time of Joshua's death and briefly fills in the history until the experience at Bochim related previously.

7. Served the Lord. At least with outward deference and on a national basis. The memory of the mighty interpositions of God in their behalf for a time held the Israelites outwardly loyal to their faith.

Joshua. It is gratifying to realize how far-reaching the influence of a godly leader may be. His weight and influence over Israel were such that while Joshua lived they sufficed to keep the people loyal to their promises to the Lord.

Elders. The elders were the headmen of families and clans. They held official authority in social and religious matters and took a leading part in maintaining loyalty to the customs and religion defined by Moses. When they died, religious apostasy set in quickly. This passage helps us to realize that not only great, renowned leaders may wield an influence for good but lesser officers as well may mold the pattern of religious life.

8. Hundred and ten years. The record does not state how long Joshua lived after the assembly at Shechem. His death probably occurred soon thereafter, for he was "old and stricken in age" (Joshua 23:1, 2) when he called this meeting of the heads and representatives of the tribes. The occasion for calling the assembly was probably his realization that death was near. After telling of the breakup of the gathering, the narrator reports that Joshua died (Joshua 24:29), thus indicating he lived but a short time thereafter.

9. In Timnath-heres. Literally, "portion of the sun." In Joshua 19:50 and 24:30, Timnath-serah, "extra portion" (first and last letters of the second part transposed). It cannot be definitely known which represents the correct spelling. The town was named Timnath, and because it was situated in a mountainous section known as Heres (see Judges 1:35), it is thought that the latter name may have been added to keep it from being confused with other towns named Timnath. The place is now called Khirbet Tibneh and is 9 3/4 mi. (15.6 km.) northwest of Bethel in the central highlands.

10. Another generation. This was a generation that had grown up in the land of Canaan subject to the corrupting influences of social and religious association with the idolatrous people of the land. The children were reaping in abundant measure what their parents had sown.

Knew not the Lord. They did not know from experience the mighty working of God, and their environment, with its corrupting influences, had not developed in them independent strength of character. Joshua and the elders of the former day had served as buttresses for their weak faith. When those buttresses were taken away by death, the people stumbled and fell because they had no strong religious foundation.

It is imperative that all Christians examine well the foundations of their faith to see whether their experience is a personal and direct relationship with God, or merely an outward endeavor based upon the experience of another. Unless the former is true, they may suffer the same fate as these second-generation Israelites. Moreover, Christians do well to remember what Israel forgot, namely, the providential leadings of God in the past. "We have nothing to fear for the future, except as we shall forget the way the Lord has led us, and His teaching in our past history" (LS 196).

11. Baalim. This is a plural form of the Heb. ba'Ôal, which is variously rendered "husband," "man," "master," "lord." The term is also applied to heathen deities. At that time the Baal that was the most widely worshipped in Canaan was a god of agricultural fertility. He was thought to be the giver of rain, whose energizing power caused plants and animals to grow. He was worshiped in many places and under different guises. The name gave rise to various terms such as Baal-peor, Baal-hermon, Baal-zebub, etc. In the myths of the Canaanite people Baal was an opponent of the god Death (Mot). He was aided and abetted by two female deities, Anath, his sister, and the sun-god Shamash. Sometimes Baal was equated with Hadad, the Syrian rain or storm god. Since Canaan was predominantly an agricultural country, the worship of Baal under different titles was the supreme form of worship. Sometimes the Hebrew writers used his name as the equivalent of any heathen deity, and that may be the case here.

The Israelites must have known of the terrible results of such worship, and of the eventual punishment to be meted out to those who took part in it. They could hardly be ignorant of the experience of Baal-peor, when the plague carried off 24,000 people as a result of Baal worship and practices connected with it (Num. 25:3-9).

12. Forsook the Lord. Their sin consisted not only of forsaking the God they had covenanted to worship but also of base ingratitude for their deliverance from abject servitude in Egypt from which God had delivered them. From this servitude they could never have become free by their own power. They owed worship to the true God for what He was and for what He had done. His works for His people gave Him a right to their allegiance.

Gods of the people. Not only the deities of the peoples among whom they dwelt in Canaan, but, perhaps, the deities of the surrounding nations as well. When men forsake God there seems to be no limit to the extent to which they will go in their apostasy.

13. Baal. See on v. 11.

Ashtaroth. The plural of Ashtoreth. This goddess was known also by the name of Astarte. In Babylonia she was called Ishtar. She was the goddess of sexual love, maternity, and fecundity. In the Ras Shamra tablets she appears also as a goddess of war and of the chase. Her worship was widespread all over the Near Eastern world, from Moab (her name is found on the Moabite Stone) to Babylonia. She was worshiped in Canaan in the days of Abraham (Gen. 14:5); Saul's armor was placed by the Philistines in her temple as a trophy of their victory (1 Sam. 31:10); Solomon paid homage to her in his heyday (1 Kings 11:5). The numerous female figurines found by archeologists in Hebrew and Canaanite dwellings are thought to be representations of her in her role of mother goddess. In the OT the names Baal and Ashtoreth are used almost synonymously for all the false gods and goddesses of Palestine. The Hebrew language has no word for goddess. Ashtoreth was apparently used instead for the concept.

14. Spoilers. This word is a general summary of the various nations within Canaan and around its borders that raided, invaded, oppressed, or otherwise molested Israel. The Hebrew word used here is the same that the Egyptians used of the Bedouin robber bands that harrassed their borders.

15. Whithersoever they went. That is, whenever they went out to fight or embarked upon a military campaign, they were beaten because God was no longer with them. Victories might have been interpreted as the sanction of God upon their sinful course and would thus have served only to confirm and to harden the Israelites in their apostasy. This was one of the reasons why God allowed the heathen peoples to win and thus to punish His disobedient people. Yet in all this the purposes of God were salutary. His punishments were corrective, designed to lead the Israelites back to their God.

16. Judges. Their experience makes their name synonymous with "deliverer." They were champions or leaders whom the Lord called to meet special situations (see Introduction, p. 301). After a period of punishment God would give the Israelites respite by enduing a chosen man with power and leadership sufficient to drive off the oppressors. Later experiences would reveal whether or not the people had learned the lessons from the consequences of their religious apostasy.

17. Would not hearken. Their defeats at the hands of enemies and the consequent oppression did not avail to teach the Hebrew people obedience. In God's efforts to save them He had allowed disaster to strike them. When He caused a lessening of their misery by the work of the judges, He found the people as impenitent as ever.

Went a whoring. This is a frequent metaphor in the Bible for religious apostasy. Inasmuch as the worship of heathen deities in the Near East was often accompanied by sexual immorality in their temples and groves, the term was not only metaphorically but literally exact.

18. It repented the Lord. That is, the Lord was grieved that they had to suffer oppression. The basic meaning of the word translated "repented" is "to be grieved," "to have compassion," "to pity." It does not mean that God changed His mind. God allowed the punishment for their good. When the punishment brought forth desired effects, God's pity raised up deliverance for the oppressed. God's purpose was to have the suffering bring about a change in conduct. When the objective was achieved, the oppression was removed or mitigated. This was entirely consistent with His original purpose.

19. They returned. That is, they returned to their former apostasies. They left off the worship of God and turned to the worship of heathen deities and the practice of corrupting idolatries. In the setting of these facts the writer of the book of Judges presents his thesis, namely, that God allowed trouble to come as a result of sin to arouse His people to see the evil of their ways. These troubles produced a form of sorrow and repentance. Then the Lord raised up a deliverer. During the respite, He provided for a test of the genuineness of Israel's repentance. After the death of the judge the ungrateful people soon fell back into their former ways. It is this viewpoint that makes the book of Judges more than a mere history. It is a philosophy of history. The author is not interested in merely recounting what happened after the settlement in Canaan. He is a preacher more than a historian. He wants the reader to see why these things happened. He says that the period after the entrance to Canaan was unsettled, and in the main, disastrous for the Hebrews. For a time they would be free; then again they would be in servitude or suffering invasion. Why was this? It was because the people had turned from God, and He, in an effort to bring them back, allowed disaster to come. In other words, the author tells us that the hand of God was shaping history to bring about His desired ends. The author of Judges was one of the first real historians. He sought to record for future generations the meaning of events.

More than their fathers. One of the striking characteristics of sin is the way it mushrooms. Allow it a little beginning, and it soon chokes the ability to resist it, and overwhelms the entire life.

Ceased not. The sentence reads literally, "they let nothing fall of their deeds." They were unwilling to put off any of their evil habits and practices. Their hearts had not really been changed. If they had actually received a new spirit, it would have forced off these old practices as the rising sap in a tree forces off the dead leaves.

20. Anger of the Lord. The passage is intended to portray God's hatred of sin. The anger is not that of impulse, but expressive rather of God's abhorrence of evil, an abhorrence that has its foundation in the holiness of His character. Man's anger is a fire, burning with impulsive and selfish passion; God's anger springs from eternal principles of righteousness and benevolence. If God is infinitely good and holy, and if He knows the full misery that sin has brought into His creation, with what other sentiment can He regard sin than that of hatred and indignation that will ultimately doom it to annihilation? In the meantime, God is seeking to save the sinner lest he too be consumed in the purifying fires (Eze. 33:11; 2 Peter 3:9).

Transgressed my covenant. God's displeasure was not without cause. The fact that the people had taken part in and agreed to the covenant made at Sinai imposed on them obligations that were tantamount to commands. The specific obligation they were so flagrantly ignoring was that which forbade the worship of any other god.

21. Not henceforth drive. The only victories they had gained had been won by the help of the Lord. Israel had broken the terms of the covenant by worshiping other gods, so the Lord was free from His part of the contract and not under obligation to fulfill His promise to drive out the remaining native inhabitants of the land (Ex. 23:27, 31).

22. Prove Israel. The object of leaving these heathen nations was not to ascertain whether Israel, thus exposed to close and constant contact with heathenism, would remain faithful to its own religion. "God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man" (James 1:13). Rather, from the first it was evident that Israel was not remaining faithful. God left the nations as instruments to afflict the Israelites, to punish them, and to teach them that the way of apostasy does not pay. Through the afflictions God was endeavoring to turn the minds of His people back to Him. This seems to be the connotation the word "prove" holds here. It means "to try" in the sense of bringing trying experiences that will awaken the people to their true state.

Similar experiences have been the lot of men in all ages. Periods of suffering and disappointment have served to turn the thoughts of the tempted back upon the seriousness of duty and the great purpose of God in their existence. These experiences were not to show up men's characters to God, for He knows their hearts, but rather to "prove" to them their true estate.

Notwithstanding the repeated failures of Israel during this period, the discipline was not an entire failure. The chastisements by foreign nations must have wrought salutary changes in the lives of some of the Hebrews. The stern and consistent punishments, no doubt, instilled in many the feeling that the way of sin was a way of sorrow. To borrow Bunyan's phrases, God made "By-path Meadow" rougher than the "King's highway." After having been seized by "Giant Despair" several times, the Israelites were often glad to return again by the way they had departed. These chastisements taught the people sufficiently hard lessons so that by the time of Samuel the Israelites seem to have made some progress spiritually. At the end of the period of the judges, when Samuel's judgeship was ushered in, we hear less of apostasies than formerly. Furthermore, all these troubles tended to cause different tribes to draw closer together, so that by Samuel's time a strong nationalistic feeling was discernible.

Keep the way. The natural tendency to do "every man whatsoever is right in his own eyes" (Deut. 12:8; cf. Judges 17:6; 21:25) was fully demonstrated by Israel during the centuries they were ruled over by the judges, and later under the monarchy. The ways of a man are usually "right in his own eyes" (Prov. 21:2). As a result, "all we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way" (Isa. 53:6).

23. Left those nations. Obstacles are necessary to the development of character. It was well for the Israelites to learn how to live a holy life in the midst of a corrupt environment. Continued conflict with the powers of evil would, if correctly met, develop true faith in God. Because of this God had not fully prospered the first efforts of the tribes to consolidate their allotments. It was for the same cause that He had not allowed Joshua to obtain absolute mastery of all the Canaanite territory. The Lord had helped the Israelites to drive out as many of the Canaanites as were necessary in order to provide room for the tribes to settle. His plan was that as the people increased in number and learned the lessons of obedience and faith, they were to be given power to drive out the remaining Canaanites. In the history of Israel under David and Solomon this objective was, to a degree, at least, accomplished.

Ellen G. White Comments

2 MYP 432

7 PP 544

10-19PP 545

22 AH 205, 221; LS 323

Judges Chapter 3

1 The nations which were left to prove Israel. 6 By communion with them they commit idolatry. 8 Othniel delivereth them from Chushan-rishathaim. 12 Ehud from Eglon. 31 Shamgar from the Philistines.

1. These are the nations. The writer, having finished his interpretation of the history of the entire period of the judges, now turns to enumerate the different peoples that were left in Canaan with whom the Israelites had to contend. In doing so, he adds another reason why these Canaanites were left, and also shows how social and religious fusion with the heathen went on apace (vs. 1-6).

2. Teach them war. The ones who belonged to the new generation of Israel did not know the horrors of war, nor were they personally acquainted with the mighty deliverances that God had wrought for their forefathers. Having grown up in comparative ease, they turned their backs upon the God in whom their fathers had trusted for deliverance from a numerically superior enemy. God purposed through the nations that remained in and around Canaan, to repeat the lessons of His former mighty deliverances and of the impotency of heathen gods. By the wars that ensued, the younger generation of Israelites learned from bitter experiences that they could fight and conquer these numerous and warlike people only with the aid of the God of their fathers.

3. Lords. Heb. seren. Used in the Bible of the rulers of these Philistine cities, with but one exception (1 Kings 7:30). It was evidently a Philistine word or title, inasmuch as it is generally used only of these rulers, and does not appear elsewhere. There were five main centers of the Philistine confederacy: Gaza, Ashdod, Ekron, Gath, and Askelon (1 Sam. 6:16-18). Three of the cities had been overrun by Judah (Judges 1:18), but evidently were lost again.

All the Canaanites. That is, the groups of Canaanites that remained in all parts of the land. Much of their territory had, of course, been overrun.

Hivites. See Joshua 11:3. Elsewhere the Hivites are mentioned in connection with cities in the central part of Palestine, at Shechem (Gen. 34:2) and Gibeon (Joshua 9:7). Archeologists are unable definitely to identify these people. It has been suggested that the Hivites were a segment of the Horites or Hurrians (see on Joshua 9:3).

Mount Lebanon. The Hivites are here described as living in the area around Mt. Hermon (in northern Palestine) up to the entering in of Hamath. The latter expression was frequently used in the Bible to designate the northern boundary of Canaan. The city of Hamath itself was on the Orontes River about 140 mi. north of Mt. Hermon. However, its territory stretched a number of miles to the south of the city.

The entering in of Hamath. See or Num. 34:8.

4. To prove Israel. See on ch. 2:22, 23.

5. Amorites. See on ch. 1:35, 36.

Perizzites. See on ch. 1:4.

Jebusites. See on ch. 1:21.

6. Took their daughters. Intermarriage between those who honored God and those who did not is mentioned in the book of Genesis as one factor that accounts for the wickedness that prevailed on the earth prior to the Flood (Gen.6:2-4). Yahweh had strictly forbidden intermarriage with the unbelieving nations of Canaan (Deut. 7:3), but the people often ignored this precept. The results of such intermarriage are evident from Solomon's experience (1 Kings 11:1-8). The danger of similar tragic results exists today. Too often the marriage of a believer and unbeliever corrupts the faith of the believing party. It could hardly be otherwise (see 2 Cor. 6:14-17).

7. The groves. Heb. 'asheroth, or in the singular, 'asherah. The meaning is not conveyed by the translation "groves" (see 2 Kings 23:6). A "grove" could hardly be carried out of the house of the Lord. These 'asheroth (frequently 'asherim) apparently were wooden poles or tree trunks, one of which was generally set up beside heathen altars and venerated as an object of worship. Perhaps it was regarded as the dwelling place of the deity (see Deut. 16:21; 2 Kings 17:10). Such images were common in Canaanite sanctuaries and gradually came to be used in connection with Hebrew worship. We read of one by the altar of Baal in Gideon's home town (Judges 6:25), of others located in Samaria, Jerusalem, and Bethel (2 Kings 13:6; 23:6, 15). They seemed to have derived their name from a famous goddess of the Canaanites by the name of Asherah, who, in the Ras Shamra tablets, is described as the mother of the gods and frequently called the Lady of the Sea. It is not known how a tree trunk or wooden pole became her symbol.

8. He sold them. That is, permitted them to be defeated and to be made a subject people who retained their territories only by paying tribute.

From this point begins the actual narrative of the book of Judges. Thus far the book has, by means of two prefaces (chs. 1:1 to 2:5 and 2:6 to 3:7), laid the historical background and stated the principle, that the sins of the people led to oppression, but that God provided a deliverance through a "judge" to grant a further opportunity for Israel to accept her high destiny. The narrative of the judge Othniel, like that of the other judges, is given to illustrate this truth.

Chushan-rishathaim. Historical records contain no information about the invasion of Canaan by a Mesopotamian king by this name. The title means "Chushan of double wickedness." The latter part of the name was probably added by the Israelites to show their aversion for him. The invasion came from the northeast, from 'Aram Naharayim, as it is given in the Hebrew. The word means "Aram of the two rivers." This was the common designation for the region between the upper Euphrates and the KhaµbuÆr rivers. The word Mesopotamia later came to signify all the region between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. Inasmuch as 'Aram Naharayim was at that time ruled by kings of Mitanni, it is probable that Chushan-rishathaim was a Mitanni king.

9. Cried unto the Lord. With self-confidence gone, illusive dreams of pleasure vanished, the people at last turned to their God. They suddenly came to the realization that idolatry had betrayed them and that heathen idols were entirely impotent to help them. With this realization, they turned again to the God of their fathers.

It has been aptly remarked that affliction makes those cry to God with importunity who before would scarcely speak to Him. Yet that is the divine purpose of trials. That the people did turn to the Lord in their trouble is to their credit. No sincere cry for help is ever lost. Though the affliction is not in every case removed, yet to those who love God, to those who are completely surrendered to Him, He will work all things for their good (Rom. 8:28). Nevertheless there will come a time when, though men "shall cry unto me, I will not hearken unto them" (Jer. 11:11). Therefore we should call on the Lord while He is near (Isa. 55:6). Today is the day of salvation.

Raised up a deliverer. When the Israelites cried to God in their distress, He heard and raised up for them a national deliverer, Othniel, the son-in-law of Caleb (ch. 1:13).

10. Spirit of the Lord. God did not reserve the special endowments of the Holy Spirit for NT times alone. Anciently, as well, He equipped His servants for their tasks through the bestowal of the Holy Spirit.

Othniel is truly an outstanding judge in that no indiscretion or unhallowed deed is recorded of him. On many of the other judges, notwithstanding their victories, fell the shadow of error, of grief, or of a tragic end.

Judged Israel. When the Spirit of the Lord came upon Othniel, he first judged Israel and then went out to war. This indicates that he put things right among the people before he essayed to fight the enemy. This is as it should be. Sin, the worst of all enemies, needs first to be conquered. Only with this foe subdued can we expect victory over the enemies abroad.

Went out to war. We do not conquer by sitting still even if the Spirit of the Lord has come upon us. Action is required by those who have the presence of God's Spirit with them. The Spirit of the Lord is the originator of everything good and of all great achievements, but He works through human agencies.

His hand prevailed. No details are given of this war, but it must have been a struggle of no mean magnitude considering the status of the oppressing king. However, now that the Lord was again helping the Israelites, their efforts were crowned with victory.

12. Did evil again. Upon the death of the faithful judge Othniel, the Israelites gradually succumbed to their propensity for idolatry. Thus it is seen how powerful the presence of one good man in a church or state may be. A just and honest leader is one of the greatest blessings a nation can have, not only for the decisions he makes, but for the influence he exerts, by the example of his life, upon others. The world today needs men like Othniel--men filled with the Spirit--to direct it back to God.

The Lord strengthened. This is the beginning of the second period of oppression. When Othniel was gone and the nation had returned to its sinful ways, God allowed other peoples to oppress the Hebrews again. The oppression was designed to be salutary.

Eglon. The Moabites were close relatives of the Hebrews (Gen. 19:36-38). Prior to this time the two peoples had never engaged in active warfare with each other. Eglon allied himself with the Ammonites (whose kingdom lay to the north of Moab) and with the Amalekites (migrant Bedouins to the south). The first attack of Eglon was launched against Jericho, the city of palm trees (see on Judges 1:16), and resulted in his conquering that city and the territory of Benjamin round about. Probably about 60 years had passed after the invading Hebrews had destroyed the city. Either the city had been rebuilt, at least to some extent, or another city had arisen in its environs.

15. Ehud. After serving this foreign king for 18 years the Israelites became sufficiently weary of their status to realize again that their troubles were due to their religious apostasy, and with a degree of contrition they cried to God for help. Although they had betrayed His trust once, God responded by raising up a deliverer for them from the tribe of Benjamin. The first judge had been from Judah, the leading tribe. Now Judah seemingly has no champion for the oppressed people. At least the Lord used a man from the smallest tribe, the tribe that had borne the brunt of the Moabite oppression.

Lefthanded. Ehud, whom the Lord chose as deliverer, is described as left-handed (literally, "bound as to his right hand"). This fact has a bearing on what follows, for a left-handed person would bind his dagger on the opposite side to that on which it was usually carried, a distinct aid in concealing the weapon.

A present. Likely the payment of the yearly tribute. It was probably paid in kind, and therefore required a number of Israelites to carry it and to guard it from robbers on the way.

16. Cubit. The Hebrew word here used for "cubit" is found nowhere else in the OT. It is therefore difficult to determine how long this unit of measure was. From what follows, we may conclude that it was about a foot long.

17. Very fat man. A fact of importance in the sequel, being introduced parenthetically here in anticipation of the climax of the narrative.

18. Sent away. After having delivered the tribute Ehud and the Israelite carriers who were with him departed for home. When they were a safe distance away, Ehud sent the porters on while he returned to try to carry out his dangerous mission. The record does not state the location of the king's residence. The setting indicates that it was in a town of Moab not far across the Jordan from Gilgal.

19. Quarries. Literally, "graven images," or, "engraved stones." These may have been engraved boundary stones or perhaps a heathen sanctuary erected near Gilgal by the Moabites. Either would have been considered idolatrous by the Israelites. The translation "quarries" dates back to the Jewish Targums, which rendered the Hebrew word thus, perhaps, to avoid the possibility of an inference that Ehud might have lingered around the idols, or an inference that they were the stones set up by Joshua (Joshua 4:20). To this monument the description "carved stones" would not apply. They are, perhaps, mentioned merely as a familiar landmark.

Servitude Under Cushan (Judges 3)

Servitude Under Eglon (Judges 3)

Servitude Under Jabin (Judges 4)

Secret errand. Or, "secret message." The pretext appeared valid, and the king probably accepted it without suspicion inasmuch as Ehud had brought the tribute and the king probably supposed that he was about to betray some secret concerning conditions among the Israelites. The king had probably been informed that Ehud had sent his companions on ahead, and he would naturally conclude that Ehud had acted thus in order not to be observed by them as he delivered the secret message. Naturally Ehud could not have been expected to deliver such a message at the earlier public audience.

Keep silence. The Hebrew word imitates a sound. It corresponds to our English hush or ssh The command was addressed to Eglon's retinue. Ehud would not dare ask that the attendants of the court withdraw; hence he probably acted as if he were on the point of telling his secret before all. Of course, the king would not want a secret message to be delivered thus. He therefore dismissed his attendants, using this expression.

20. Summer parlour. Literally, "an upper chamber of cooling." In modern Arabic, this room is still called by the same name as is used here in the Hebrew. It is an additional story, ordinarily a third, raised above the flat roof of the house at one corner, or upon a towerlike annex to the building. Its high elevation and latticed windows on all sides rendered it well ventilated and comfortable even in hot weather.

It is apparent that some details of the narrative have been omitted. Evidently after ordering the servants to leave, the king retired to his private chamber, where he bade Ehud follow, or perhaps the first words of Ehud (v. 19) were conveyed to the king by messengers.

Message from God. This statement was a shrewd ruse on the part of Ehud to enable him to get close to the king. At these words the king stood up as a sign of respect for the divine oracle.

21. His left hand. The natural circumstance of being left-handed helped prevent the king from getting suspicious as he reached under his robe to remove the dagger. The mighty thrust pierced the monarch's abdomen with such force that the whole dagger disappeared from view. The king's extreme obesity, probably due to lasciviousness and luxury, rendered him incapable of defending himself.

23. Porch. The Hebrew word here rendered "porch" occurs only this once in the OT. It comes from a root word meaning "to arrange" and hence may mean a "colonnade." All that can be known with certainty is that it referred to some part of the building.

Locked them. Likely made possible only by the fact that the servants had withdrawn completely to another section of the house. However, we infer that they saw Ehud leaving the house, for they returned to the room where the king was. Upon finding the doors locked, they decided that the king desired privacy for awhile.

24. Covereth his feet. A euphemism for having a bowel movement. The same expression is found in 1 Sam. 24:3. Naturally attendants were hesitant about knocking on the locked door of their king.

26. Escaped. The indecision and waiting on the part of the king's attendants gave Ehud enough of a head start to enable him to make his escape. Likely, too, the royal residence was near the Jordan, permitting Ehud soon to be safely on the other side.

Seirath. Location not known. It seems to have been in the nearby highlands of Ephraim.

27. Mountain of Ephraim. In view of the fact that Ehud was of the tribe of Benjamin, it may seem strange that he did not go to the nearer settlements of his own tribe. Either strong Moabite garrisons were stationed there, or he felt the Benjamites were too cowed to respond to his call to battle. The tribe of Ephraim, the most numerous and most aggressive of the tribes, responded quickly to his battle call.

28. Fords of Jordan. The fords directly east of Jericho near Gilgal seem to be the ones indicated. This move was to prevent reinforcements being sent from Moab and also to cut off the escape of the Moabite garrisons on the Israelite side of the river.

29. Escaped not a man. So general and immediate was the uprising of the Hebrews that the Moabite garrisons, consisting of picked men, were completely destroyed.

30. Moab was subdued. The Moabite power on the Israelite side of the Jordan was broken to such a degree that there was no longer any danger from that quarter.

31. Shamgar. Evidently he was the next national hero to come on the scene of action. His exploits were only local, being directed against the Philistines in southern Palestine. He probably lived at the same time that Deborah and Barak were fighting the Canaanites in the northern part of the country. Chapter 4:1 states that Deborah and Barak performed their deliverance after Ehud was dead, but makes no reference to Shamgar. Deborah implies that Shamgar was a contemporary (ch. 5:6). This fact is further suggested by the observation that Shamgar is not included in the chronological scheme of the narrative, no years being assigned to him at all. By his daring feats he saved the Israelites in his area from being oppressed and enslaved by the Philistines. He was a deliverer, a national hero, but he was not called a judge of Israel.

The name Shamgar appears to be foreign and has been thought probably to be Hurrian or Hittite. The foreign name may be due to the fact that his mother was an Israelite married to a Hurrian or Canaanite. The author has already observed that intermarriages were common. His father was named Anath, the name of a pagan goddess, and it is thought unlikely that a Hebrew would be given this name, unless by backslidden parents.

Ox goad. An instrument for urging oxen forward. These were often as much as 8 ft. long so that the one holding the plow could reach the oxen. Pointed as they were on one end with a metal tip, and having a chisel-shaped blade on the other for scraping the plowshare, such goads could effectively be used in place of a spear. It was a humble weapon, yet an "ox goad," with God's blessing, accomplishes infinitely more than a "sword of Goliath" without His blessing. And sometimes God chooses to work by such unlikely means, that the power may truly stand revealed as of God.

Judges Chapter 4

1 Deborah and Barak deliver them from Jabin and Sisera. 18 Jael killeth Sisera.

2. Jabin. Following the 80 years of peace that ensued after Ehud broke the Moabite oppression, the Israelites grew careless in their spiritual life and again forsook their God. To awaken His people, the Lord allowed the Canaanite ruler commanding the strong chain of fortresses in northern Palestine to oppress the northern Hebrew tribes for a period of 20 years. The story of how this yoke of oppression was broken by Deborah and Barak is told twice, once in prose form in ch. 4 and again in poetic form in ch. 5.

The book of Joshua mentions a Jabin as king of Hazor (Joshua 11:1-9). The city was captured by the Israelites at that time, but it had probably since been retaken by the Canaanites before the Israelites could consolidate their position in this region. Another Jabin, possibly the grandson of the king Joshua had destroyed, now held a loose suzerainty over the entire Canaanite forces of northern Palestine.

Sisera. From this point onward in the narrative we hear no more of Jabin, except for a brief mention in v. 23. He had turned supervision of his forces over to a field commander by the name of Sisera. This general may have been a king in his own right, ruling over the city in which he dwelt. Harosheth was 16 mi. northwest of Megiddo, where the plain of Jezreel narrows down before joining the coastal plain of Acre. The plain represented a natural terrain for Sisera's formidable task force of 900 chariots of iron (ch. 4:3). Against such a threatening foe the Israelites, in their state of sinful rebellion, could not stand, and they were soon overcome and forced to pay tribute.

Harosheth. Tell ÔAmr, on the Kishon.

4. Deborah. Literally, "bee." Of the judges whose exploits are recorded in this book she is the only one mentioned as possessing the prophetic gift.

Lapidoth. Signifying "torches" or "flashes." Some have thought the phrase "wife of Lapidoth" should be translated "woman of fiery spirit," which indeed may not have been too inapplicable an appellative in the light of the sequel.

She judged. Perhaps not as a princess by any civil authority conferred upon her, but as a prophetess, correcting abuses and redressing grievances.

5. She dwelt. Literally, "she sat," that is, on the judge's seat. Her favorite place for hearing cases was under a tree between Ramah and Bethel (see on 1 Sam. 1:1). This seems to have been in the vicinity of the famous "tree of mourning," under which Rachel's nurse, Deborah, was buried (Gen. 35:8). This type of courtroom allowed people the freest access to her, and thither they "came up to her for judgment."

6. Kedesh-naphtali. Perhaps the modern Tell Qades, 4 mi. (6.4 km.) northwest of the now drained Lake Huleh in upper Galilee. Kedes-naphtali had been a Canaanite fortress. Ruins cover the picturesque site of Qades today.

Draw toward. That is, "converge upon," in small groups.

Mount Tabor. A prominent hill (1,929 ft.; 588 m.) many miles to the south of Tell Qades, in the territory of Issachar, about 5 1/2 mi. (8.8 km.) east of Nazareth. It commanded the main road through the narrow valley leading from the plain of Esdraelon down to the plain where the Jordan leaves the Sea of Galilee. Its central location made it the natural rallying place of the northern tribes, and its height made it easy to defend against the chariots of Sisera. The summit, an oblong platform nearly 3,000 ft. (915 m.) from east to west and 1,300 ft. (396 m.) at the widest point, was an excellent marshaling area. Centuries later Antiochus Epiphanes, and later still, Josephus, used this plateau for the same purpose.

Naphtali and ... Zebulun. Chapter 4 mentions only these two tribes as taking part in the battle. In ch. 5, six tribes are mentioned as participants. Naphtali and Zebulun probably furnished the bulk of the troops, and the other four tribes may have sent only small contingents.

7. Kishon. Sisera's march from his headquarters at Harosheth to engage the Israelites at Mt. Tabor would lead him along the partly dry river bed of the Kishon. It was here that the Lord promised to bring about his defeat. It was necessary for the overthrow to take place on the plain, not on Mt. Tabor, in order to effect the destruction of the chariots.

8. Go with me. Barak probably realized that by himself he could not sustain the morale of the Hebrews. Deborah's presence would serve to make clear that the undertaking was of God. He probably wanted it to be clearly understood by all that it was she, the prophetess, who was initiating the campaign, and not he himself. It is to the credit of Barak that he followed prophetic guidance in the dangerous undertaking. It is also worthy of note that Deborah did not draw back from the course she had prescribed for others. As for Barak, he preferred the humbler role of one who was executing the command that had come from the Lord. He voluntarily retired behind the authority of a woman whom God had animated and inspired. The need today is for men who will obey the divine voice as Barak did.

God does not confine Himself to the male six in His choice of prophets. Both the OT and the NT mention prophetesses (Ex. 15:20, 21; Num. 12:2; 2 Kings 22:12-20; Luke 2:36; Acts 21:9).

9. Hand of a woman. Deborah consented to go along on the military expedition, but before leaving her home in Mt. Ephraim to accompany Barak into northern Palestine, she prophesied that the victory that would ensue would not redound to Barak's glory but to that of a woman. She was not referring to herself, but to Jael (vs. 18-21), who was to slay Sisera.

10. Went up. The phrase here means "to advance for battle."

At this feet. The expression means "following him," or, "under his command."

11. Heber the Kenite. This verse explains the circumstances by which some of the Kenites happened to be living in this northern area when, according to the author's earlier statement (ch. 1:16), they had settled in southern Palestine. The reason was that these Kenites had separated from the rest of the tribe and sought a home in the lot of Zebulun and Naphtali. One of them named Heber had settled as far north as the region of Kedesh.

Hobab. See on Num. 10:29.

Plain. This Hebrew word means "oak" not "plain." The place was near Kedesh, the home of Barak.

12. They shewed Sisera. The "they" should be understood impersonally as, "it was told Sisera." Some think the informants were the Kenites, who were on good terms with Jabin, the Canaanite overlord.

13. His chariots. The 900 chariots were the aggregate from all the Canaanite cities in the alliance.

Kishon. The Kishon River itself, though very short, is the largest river in this part of Palestine, fed by numerous small tributaries which traverse the plain of Esdraelon and drain the surrounding hills. From the vicinity of Tabor a northern tributary joins the main stream near Megiddo. It was likely this tributary to which Sisera led his armed chariots, and near which they encamped on the plain along the river.

15. Discomfited Sisera. The means God used are not precisely given. The parallel account in ch. 5 states that the river Kishon, along whose banks the Canaanite army had encamped, swept the army away (ch. 5:20, 21). God may have sent a sudden rainstorm soon after the army of Sisera had arrived. Under such rain the clay soil of the plain would be turned into a quagmire of sticky mud in which the chariots of the Canaanites would be unable to maneuver. An excavator, working on the excavation of the ancient city of Megiddo near this site, tells how on rainy days it was virtually impossible to go anywhere even on horseback, because of the mud.

Torrent waters contributed to the defeat of the Turks on this very spot in April, 1799, when numbers of their fleeing troops were swept away and drowned. In World War I, English troops found that even a quarter hour of rain on the clay soil rendered cavalry maneuvers impossible.

16. Barak pursued. The line of retreat led down the valley, for in the hills on either side of the valley were the Hebrew settlements. The valley became progressively more confined as it approached the narrow pass that led to Harosheth. Before the Canaanites could struggle back to their headquarters at Harosheth, their army was wiped out. Not one lived to reach the safety of its walls.

Harosheth. This place seems to have been at the opposite end of the plain of Esdraelon, where the Kishon passes through the mountains into the maritime plain (see on v. 2). The song of Deborah speaks of phases of the battle taking place near Taanach and Megiddo (ch. 5:19).

17. The Kenite. The camp of this tribe was perhaps 30 or 40 mi. (38-64 km.) north of the scene of battle. It may have been a day or two after the battle when the once-proud army commander, hungry and exhausted, reached the tents of these people he considered friendly.

18. Jael. Heber was probably away from home, leaving his wife Jael in charge of the tent encampment. Servants may already have brought word that Jabin's army commander was approaching on foot. Perhaps word of the Hebrew victory had preceded Sisera's coming. Inasmuch as there were peaceful relations between the Kenites and the Canaanites, Sisera would naturally expect to find sustenance and rest among the Kenites.

Fear not. The words suggest probable suspicion, which Jael sought to allay.

Mantle. Sisera lay down and Jael covered him with some sort of blanket or rug. The Hebrew word translated "mantle" occurs only here in the Bible, and its exact meaning is unknown. The context, nevertheless, shows that it describes a covering.

19. Give me. It is an ancient Oriental practice common to all Bedouins that whoever has eaten or drunk anything in the tent is received into the peace of the house. A mortal enemy could rest securely in the tent of his adversary if he had drunk with him. Sisera's request showed him to be cautious and wary. Though exhausted, he dared not sleep until he had some guarantee of Jael's intentions. When Jael opened the goatskin and gave him milk to drink, the army commander felt he could safely yield to sleep.

21. A nail. This was the wooden tent stake by which the cords were fastened to the ground. It must have been with mixed emotions that Jael picked up the sharp stake and the heavy mallet that she was accustomed to use in pitching the tents. As far as we know, she had no personal wrong to avenge, and it is possible that her deed was prompted by the recognition that Sisera was the oppressor of the people of God, with those fortunes her own and those of her family had become identified.

22. Sisera lay dead. We do not know how long it was after the death of Sisera that Barak and some of his band arrived in hot pursuit. Perhaps herdsmen living in the hills had observed the fleeing general and had informed Barak and his men of the direction of his flight. As Barak's eager group followed the trail to the encampment of Heber, great must have been their astonishment when Jael conducted them into her tent and showed them their slain enemy. Thus the narrative that begins with a woman's courage ends on the same note.

23. God subdued. The author does not attribute the Israelite victory to Barak or to Deborah or to Jael, but to God, whose power had enabled the Hebrews to put their foes to rout.

24. Prospered, and prevailed. This battle of the Kishon was the beginning of the complete deliverance of Israel from the yoke of the Canaanites. In subsequent engagements the Hebrews exerted more and more pressure upon Jabin's kingdom until the power of this Canaanite king was completely broken.

Judges Chapter 5

The song of Deborah and Barak.

1. Then sang. It has been a favorite method of many nations to celebrate national victories by martial songs. The national anthems of many countries illustrate the type of song found in ch. 5. In a day when textbooks were rare or non-existent this song was doubtless an effective instrument in preserving the narrative of the victory of Israel over Jabin. It stands as one of the greatest martial poems ever written.

The statement is made that Deborah and Barak sang the song. Some have thought that the poem was written originally by Deborah to be sung as a duet in which Deborah would sing first and then Barak would answer in song. However, it cannot be definitely known that this was the case.

This song is one of the most difficult passages of the whole Bible to translate. It embodies many Hebrew words that have since dropped out of use; hence, their meaning is difficult to ascertain. The song was probably handed down unchanged from its original composition and thus incorporated into the book of Judges when this book was written, perhaps a long time afterward. As in the case today, languages anciently underwent changes, so that in the course of a few centuries, many words were dropped from common usage.

The poem begins with words of praise to God for victory (vs. 2-5), followed by a description of the state of affairs that preceded the battle (vs. 6-8). There is rich praise for the tribes that took part in the uprising, while reproaches are hurled at those who failed to respond in the crisis hour (vs. 14-17). This is followed by a description of the battle (vs. 18-22), the death of Sisera at the hand of Jael (vs. 24-27), and the anxiety of Sisera's mother as she awaits his return from the engagement (vs. 28-31).

2. Avenging. Heb. peroaÔ peraÔoth. Both of these words come from the root paraÔ which signifies "to lead." Hence these Hebrew words may be translated, "the leading of the leaders," which is similar to the rendering found in several versions. "The leaders took the lead" (RSV).

3. Hear, O ye kings. This verse exhibits clearly the parallelism that marks Hebrew poetry. The verse is divided into two parts, the division being made after the word "princes." Each part states the same thought twice in slightly different words. Where our English Bible repeats the word "sing" in the second half of the verse, the Hebrew has two words for the idea, the second having the added connotation of singing accompanied by stringed musical instruments.

4. Seir. The mountainous region that extends from the east of the Dead Sea southward toward the Red Sea. The reference to this mountain seems to be with the object of showing God's presence with the Israelites on their journey toward Canaan. This presence was manifested in miraculous ways; for example, in the supernatural supply of food and water, and in the presence of Christ in the pillar of fire and the cloud that accompanied them. The God who anciently had worked so wonderfully had again intervened and wrought marvelously for His people. In this instance Mt. Tabor, rather than Seir, had been the scene of His exploits.

5. Mountains melted. A figure of speech for the quaking of Mt. Sinai at the time of the giving of the law. The memory of this miraculous event is recalled also as an illustration of God's power.

6. The days of Shamgar. See on ch. 3:31.

Highways were unoccupied. This and the next two verses describe the miserable plight of the land under Canaanite rule. The state of war disrupted travel and commerce to the extent that the highways were unused and those who had to travel were forced to use unfrequented paths through the countryside. This suspension of travel arose from the presence of Canaanite garrisons situated at strategic places along the main roads. From these the Canaanite were able to hinder the movements of the Hebrews, and thus prevent possible guerrilla warfare and, at the same time, disrupt trade and commerce.

7. Villages ceased. Perhaps a better rendering would be, "the villages disappeared." The words "the inhabitants of" are not in the original as is shown by the italics in the KJV. The idea is that people who lived in unwalled hamlets deserted them to dwell in walled towns where they could be protected from indiscriminate plundering, whether by Canaanites or by robbers who multiply in periods of anarchy like this.

8. Chose new gods. This statement seems to have been included to explain the reason why the Israelites had been reduced to this state.

Then was war. The Hebrews were given no peace. The Canaanites began to attack the Israelite walled towns, hemming in the people. Evidently the Canaanites, like the Philistines later, had proscribed the trade of the smith and all armament making among the Hebrews, so that there was hardly an effective shield or spear among 40,000 men of military age. This policy effectively eliminated any danger of retaliation by the Hebrews.

9. Governors. After depicting the troubles of Israel the poet turns in vs. 9 to 11 to ask various categories of Hebrew citizens to give thanks for those who had helped to put an end to their Canaanite overlords. First of these were the "governors" or, literally, the "lawgivers" or "law enforcers." These were princes like Barak who risked their lives for Israel's victory. They were men in the government of Israel whose duty it was to stand for law and national order, and on this occasion they showed themselves to be worthy of their trust. Deborah could well call upon the people to thank God for the part such men had played in the defeat of their enemies, the Canaanites.

There are many faithful leaders in the churches of today, both lay and clergy, who have given the best years of their lives fully and willingly for the sake of the well-being of the church. Such men deserve the appreciation of the church and of society. We may well bless God for them and their labors, as Deborah did for the leaders who helped to fire with zeal the uprising against the Canaanites.

10. Ye that ride. Men of wealth and influence, as indicated by the mounts--choice animals that only such a class could afford. In other words, let the wealthy, those that sit on rich tapestries (this rendering is a suggested alternative for "ye that sit in judgment"), and those that now can travel along the once unfrequented highways, meditate upon and speak of the marvelous victory God wrought for His people upon this memorable occasion.

11. Rehearse. Those who lived now under conditions of peace were to pause amid their tranquil surroundings to rehearse this narrative and to give thanks to God for His assistance in defeating the enemy and restoring peace to Israel. The people could now move about unafraid, carrying on the pursuits of everyday life. However, they should remember that their state of peace was due to the righteous acts of God, whose power aided the brave Israelite leaders to throw off the bondage and oppression of the Canaanites.

12. Awake. In poetic terms the call is given to Deborah to rouse herself and summon the tribes.

Utter a song. Not the song of praise for victory but a war song to stir up the tribes and fire them for battle.

Arise, Barak. As the recognized military leader of the Hebrews, Barak is addressed and urged to launch out on a campaign that would result in the captors' being captured.

14. Ephraim. Formerly only the tribes of Naphtali and Zebulun were named as rallying behind Barak (ch. 4:10). Here it is shown that there were contingents from Ephraim in the central highlands and from Benjamin still farther to the south as well.

Machir. Son of Manasseh (Gen. 50:23). Head of the chief family of the tribe. The family received its inheritance in Gilead, to the east of Jordan. Here, however, the name is thought to be used poetically for the whole tribe of Manasseh (see also Num. 32:40; Deut. 3:15).

Pen of the writer. Literally, "the staff of the scribe." Thought to refer to the insigne of the officer whose duty it was to muster the troops, keeping the count of how many men reported from each place.

15. Issachar. Another participant tribe. However, not all the tribes rallied to Deborah and Barak when they issued the call to battle. Some tribes had refused outright to join in the battle, and others hesitated and pondered until the battle was over.

For the divisions. Better, "among the divisions [clans]."

Great thoughts. What probably happened when the summons to battle reached the various clans of the tribe of Reuben, living not so far away across the Jordan River, was a hurried discussion about what to do. Each clan kept sounding out the others to discover their sentiments as to whether the tribe should go to battle or not. Around the folds of their flocks they talked and talked. They reflected on the necessity and feasibility of acting till the time for it was past. They were apparently still hesitating and discussing what they should do when the news of the victory reached them.

17. Gilead. The country across the Jordan east and south of the Sea of Galilee. Here spoken of as if it were one of the tribes. The writer apparently used the word "Gilead" in place of Gad, the tribe that inhabited a part of this territory.

Remain in ships. Evidently the migration of the Danites to the north, recorded in Judges 18, had taken place prior to the time of Deborah. The phrase suggests a degree of amalgamation with the seagoing Phoenicians, or, at least, association with them to the degree that the Danites lost their interest in the efforts of their Israelite brethren to regain independence.

Asher continued. Asher, apparently, was also experiencing absorption by the Canaanites and seafaring Phoenicians of Tyre and Sidon to such an extent that they did not feel inclined to join in the Hebrew revolt. Union with the world, breathing its spirit and aims, takes away the desire of many Christians to join in the warfare against the hosts of darkness. While their brethren engage actively in Christian missionary endeavor, they sit back unmoved and uninterested.

In his breaches. Literally, "in his landing places." The phrase has been explained as describing the appearance of the boat piers and the spaces or "breaches between them."

18. High places. These words probably refer to small elevations, or hillocks, on which the hosts of Sisera endeavored to regroup and defend their lines. The men of Zebulun and Naphtali, who, as observed from ch. 4:10, formed the main body of the Israelites, evidently carried these centers of resistance by storm, and thus brought about the complete rout of Sisera's formidable army.

19. Kings of Canaan. Sisera's army may possibly have included kings of the neighboring fortified Canaanite cities like Taanach and Megiddo, two cities on the southern bank of the river; but the daring attacks of the men of Zebulun and Naphtali apparently overran these strongholds in the confusion of battle.

No gain. In the place of receiving rich war booty as a result of joining Sisera's campaign, these kings lost both their cities and their lives.

20. Stars. That is, the forces of nature, either literally or poetically as representing the power of God, who controls the forces of nature.

21. Swept them away. See on ch. 4:15.

Trodden down. The verb may also be translated as an imperative, making the sentence read, "Tread down, O my soul, strength [that is, the mighty]." Deborah seems to imagine herself as present on the battlefield, and with these words encourages herself to press on with courage until victory is assured.

22. Horsehoofs broken. The terror and confusion of the rout evidently caused the horses to stampede wildly over the plain, breaking their unshod hoofs and thereby rendering the horses lame and useless.

23. Meroz. Not identified with any certainty, but apparently near the scene of the battle. In sharp contrast to the patriotic and brave men from the other tribes who dared to oppose the Canaanites, the Israelite inhabitants of Meroz, on the path of the retreating hosts of Sisera, refused to render assistance in any form. With the aid of these men the pursuing Israelites could probably have prevented any of the Canaanites, perhaps even Sisera, from escaping the field of battle. Because of their refusal to help, the angel of the Lord pronounced a curse upon them. Theirs was not a sin of commission but of omission. Their transgression in this instance was that they did nothing in the hour of need, and for this the curse of God fell upon them.

No other verse in the book of Judges constitutes so severe a warning to the members of the church today as the one that here curses those who refuse to help in time of crisis. In the face of a crying need for laborers, many professed Christians are content to follow their leisurely, selfish course, refusing to render any assistance to the church of God as it engages in battle with Satan. They say that the work of the church is to be performed by the ministers, and accept no responsibility for themselves. The curse of Meroz rests upon these unfaithful Christians unless they turn from their listless non-cooperation.

24. Blessed above women. The Hebrew word here translated "blessed" is often used in the sense of "to praise," "to speak highly of," "to celebrate." In contrast with the refusal of the inhabitants of Meroz to help their kindred is Jael, a woman who was not racially connected with the Israelites, who was, in fact, politically allied with their enemies.

Women in the tent. That is, Jael would be the most prominent of all Bedouin women.

25. Lordly dish. A bowl appropriate for men of rank, perhaps one of the exquisite bowls from Crete.

26. With the hammer. By combining this poetic account of Jael's act with the literal account of ch. 4:21 the following picture emerges. While Sisera was fast asleep Jael approached quietly and struck him a terrific blow with the hammer, thus crushing his head. Though mortally wounded he struggled partly to his feet. Then, according to ch. 5:27, he went down on his knees (Heb. karaÔ, "to bow down upon the knees"), and lay there slaughtered (literally, "treated with violence"). Then it was that Jael drove the tent peg through his temples, fastening him to the ground. Yet it is difficult to know how literally the language of this poem should be regarded.

28. Mother of Sisera. It has been fittingly remarked that this passage of dramatic irony, describing the worry and fear of Sisera's mother, could, most likely, have been written only by a woman. Over against the delight in the deed of one woman is presented the misery of another, trying vainly to stifle the presentiment of disaster. While Sisera lies in ignominious death, in his distant capital his mother anxiously wonders what keeps him so long. Filled with worry, she stands looking out of the window down the road for the distant cloud of dust announcing the return of the commander's party. She peers and listens, but the rolling of the victorious chariots is not heard, and this strikes fear to her heart.

30. Divided the prey. To quiet the forebodings of his mother the wise ladies in waiting gave assurances. The mother also sought to reassure herself and them with the thought that their army was delayed in gathering the booty. They picture to themselves the fine garments, the embroidered cloth, the captive maidens, with the distribution of which their men are occupied and so are delayed in their return home. The irony of the appellative "wise ladies" is obvious, for their conjecture was far from the truth. The author of the poem dramatically does not describe the disappointment of the proud women, but leaves the reader, who knows the narrative, to imagine the scene when the message of Sisera's defeat arrives--no booty, no victory; the hero is dead, the army is shattered All is lost No more fearful picture of the utter defeat of an enemy could be given.

31. So let all. The striking word in this passage is "so." It brings the whole drama before our eyes again-the proud confidence of the Canaanites, the terrific onslaught of the Hebrews, the terror of the rout, the fleeing Sisera, his death at the hand of a woman, the anxiety of his mother. The song ends with the expressed desire that with like finality all the enemies of God may perish--as indeed they will eventually.

The fearful slaughter of the enemy described in this chapter must be understood in the light of the age in which the events occurred. For a further consideration of the problem see on Deut. 14:26.

As the sun. The glorious picture here presented of those who love and serve the Lord is reflected by the prophets Isaiah (ch. 60:1), Daniel (ch. 12:3), and Malachi (ch. 4:2; cf. GC 632). Christ Himself used similar language to describe those who become citizens of the kingdom (Matt. 13:43). John saw an angel ascending from the east, like the sun, with the seal of God to affix upon those prepared to receive it (Rev. 7:2, 3). Those sealed by this angel "appeared as if the sun had just risen from behind a cloud and shone upon their countenances, causing them to look triumphant, as if their victories were nearly won" (EW 89).

Land had rest. How fitting it would have been if the people, in this period of rest, had walked in the ways of the Lord. There is a lesson for the church of God today. In this time of comparative peace, we are challenged to live up to the light of present truth, and thereby hasten the finishing of God's work and the consummation of the glorious destiny of the remnant people.

Ellen G. White Comments

23 CE 70; CH 529; ChS 36; CS 49; CT 210; Ev 112, 237, 397; 2T 166, 216, 217, 247, 284, 395, 427, 626; 3T 57, 525; 5T 77, 381; 6T 40, 461, 464, 475; 7T 237; 8T 41, 80, 246; 9T 133, 140; WM 139

Judges Chapter 6

1 The Israelites for their sin are oppressed by Midian. 8 A prophet rebuketh them. 11 An angel sendeth Gideon for their deliverance. 17 Gideon's present is consumed with fire. 25 Gideon destroyeth Baal's altar, and offereth a sacrifice upon the altar Jehovah-shalom. 28 Joash defendeth his son, and calleth him Jerubbaal. 33 Gideon's army. 36 Gideon's signs.

1. Midian. The Midianites were a nomadic people who ranged from the southern part of the peninsula of Sinai (Ex. 3:1) northward to the Gulf of Aqabah (1 Kings 11:18) and as far as the plains east of Moab (Gen. 36:35; Num. 22:4; 25:1, 6; Joshua 13:21). They were kinsmen of the Hebrews inasmuch as Midian was a son of Abraham by his second wife, Keturah (Gen. 25:1-6). The father of Moses' wife was called the priest of Midian (Ex. 2:15-21).

So strong were the influences of their heathen neighbors, and so weak were their own religious convictions, that the Israelites soon forgot God's wonderful intervention in their behalf on Mt. Tabor and turned to their former evil ways. In a further effort to awaken the people to their sin, the Lord again allowed their territory to be overrun, this time by the Midianites.

2. Dens. for self-preservation the Hebrews left their homes and lived in mountain hide-outs and caves.

3. When Israel had sown. Inasmuch as the Midianites were nomadic tribes, they did not conquer the land and settle down permanently. Like the Bedouins today, they preferred that the settled peoples should do the work of sowing. Then in a series of raids they would sweep over the land, confiscating the crops and driving off all the farm animals they could find. According to custom, they left the houses undestroyed in order that the farmers would be tempted to return and sow the fields once more.

Servitude Under Midian (Judges 6-8)

Servitude Under Ammon (Judges 11, 12)

Samson Under Philistine Servitude (Judges 13-16)

Amalekites. Also nomadic peoples of the deserts south of Palestine (Ex. 17:8).

Children of the east. Literally, "the children of Kedem." "Kedem" means "east," but here, apparently, it should be considered a proper name designating the great Syrian Desert to the east of Moab and Ammon. Chapter 8:26 pictures the chiefs of the people of this region in gorgeous robes and golden earrings, mounted on dromedaries and camels, the necks of which were hung with moonshaped ornaments of gold. Inasmuch as the incursions described here were made by quite a number of different tribes, it is thought likely that this was a general movement of nomads caused by a lack of rain in their own districts.

4. Unto Gaza. The route of the plunderers was probably the following: after crossing the Jordan at the fords of Beth-shan at harvesttime these marauding bands would devastate the rich plain of Jezreel and the whole Shephelah as far south as Gaza, which, being a walled town (ch. 16:3), stopped them.

5. As grasshoppers. A pertinent comparison, for the marauders swiftly swept over the land, leaving it stripped and bare (see on Ex. 10:4-15).

6. Cried unto the Lord. After losing their harvest for seven successive years, the Israelites were on the verge of starvation. In this desperate plight they remembered God's help in decades past and called upon Him for assistance. Although they had grievously neglected God and refused to call upon Him until driven to do so by extremity, God still heard their cries. This shows how ready God is to forgive and how inclined He is to hear prayer. Such mercy on God's part should be a great encouragement for sinners to repent and turn to Him.

In all these circumstances the distinction should be borne in mind between God's dealings with the nation of Israel and His relationship to the individual Israelite. National calamity and judgment did not mean the rejection of the individuals comprising the nation. The guilt that brought the disaster rested upon the individual Israelite only in so far as he personally had been a participant in the apostasy. Despite national rejection, the door of mercy stood as wide open for personal salvation as before. Many, no doubt, found their God during these perilous times, and their individual acceptance was in nowise dependent upon the restoration of the nation to divine favor. In other words, the relationship of a nation to God is a matter quite distinct from the personal relationship of the individual citizen to his God, except in so far as God's attitude toward the nation may be determined by the number of individuals in the nation who are seeking to follow out the divine program.

8. A prophet. Whether this prophet spoke to the people when they were assembled at some great religious festival, or traveled from town to town and village to village, we do not know. His message must have met a favorable response, for soon afterward God sent deliverance. His message chided the people for their ingratitude to God, who had done so much for them. However, there is encouragement in God's chidings. They are far better than silence. They remind the recipient that God is still thinking about him, and suggest that His reproofs are designed to bring men back to Him, not to drive them away.

10. Amorites. See on ch. 1:34 (see Joshua 24:15; 1 Kings 21:26).

11. Under an oak. Literally, "under the terebinth." The Hebrew word used here designates the terebinth, or turpentine tree, which resembles the oak when leafless, except that it grows singly and not in clusters. This terebinth was the property, we are told, of Gideon's father.

Ophrah. Although the exact site of this city is unknown, it seems, from the narrative of ch. 9, that it must have been in the vicinity of Shechem. It belonged to the clan of Abiezerites (ch. 6:24), who were of the tribe of Manasseh (Joshua 17:2).

By the winepress. The usual location of threshing floors was in the open fields. But such locations were too vulnerable to attack (1 Sam. 23:1). To avoid detection, Gideon resorted to a wine press, a vat dug out of the ground, hoping that the wandering groups of Midianites would not search in such an unlikely place. Working thus in the wine press, he would be able to thresh only a little at a time.

Mighty man of valour. These words may suggest that Gideon had already distinguished himself by bravery in war. In the statement of ch. 8:18 there is a hint of some earlier clash with the Midianites on Mt. Tabor. Gideon, at this time, was probably nearing middle age, inasmuch as he had a son in his teens (ch. 8:20). He may also have been a man of means as indicated by the fact that he had many servants and even a personal attendant, or armorbearer (ch. 7:10). But the fact that he may have been a person of means and reputation did not make him feel that the performance of the menial tasks of a farmer was beneath him. It is worthy of note that when God appears to men to call them to a task, or to give them a message from heaven, He generally calls on those who are busy, perhaps with their common everyday tasks, such as the apostles at fishing, or the shepherds keeping their flocks. A person employed in honest business is more likely to receive heavenly visitors than one who spends his time in idleness, for God cannot use lazy men in His cause.

13. All this befallen us. Gideon was not only a man of valor and means but a thinking man. It is apparent that he had been reflecting on the inability of the Israelites to defend their country, and trying to formulate plans to drive the invaders out. No doubt that is why the heavenly messenger chose to open the conversation with the words, "The Lord is with thee," as if to say, "God is with you in your brave projects, Gideon." "If God is with us," Gideon asks ironically, "why am I forced to beat out a little wheat in a wine press, when I should be threshing an abundant harvest in the fields?"

Where be all his miracles? The Exodus from Egypt was always the glorious starting point in a recital of God's mighty works in behalf of the Israelites. "At that time," Gideon says, "God was with us, but apparently He is not now, or the same miracles would be wrought to help us." Gideon recognized that the sins of the people had caused God's presence to leave the nation, but his faith did not seem to grasp the truth that when the people cry out to God, He gladly returns to held them.

It was difficult for Gideon to reconcile painful circumstances with the messenger's statement of God's presence. His faith was weak. He wanted to see miracles without launching out by faith. The angel tried to build up his faith by assurances of God's presence. Similarly today many give a false interpretation to events in their lives. "The Lord hath forsaken us," Gideon declared, "and delivered us into the hands of the Midianites." The fact is that neither of these statements was entirely true. God had not forsaken His people, but they had forsaken Him. Furthermore, Israel's own weakness, resulting from their willful departure from the source of their strength, had delivered them into the hands of the Midianites. It is true that God did not work a miracle to keep the Midianites away, but God is limited in the extent to which He can interfere in the affairs of men. He never coerces the will, and when men choose a course contrary to His plan, He does not prevent the natural consequences of such a course. Men have no right in such circumstances to blame God for not intervening in their behalf. On the other hand, when men choose to work with God, He is again able to work in their behalf and accomplish great things for them.

14. This thy might. That is, use the might now being expended in threshing wheat, the abilities exercised in eluding the Midianites, yea, the sum total of your human abilities, for the noble task of delivering your people. God will be with you, and supply the enabling power.

15. Poor. The word may also be translated "weak" or "small." These meanings seem to fit the context better (see on v. 12). Literally, then, the passage may read, "my family is the weak one," that is, of all the families of the tribe. Repeatedly we find a similar humility and diffidence in those whom God calls to His service (see Ex. 4:10; Jer. 1:6).

The least. Gideon probably meant that he was the youngest son in the family, and doubted that it would be prudent for him to assume leadership in the expedition above older brothers or others.

16. As one man. Gideon was to destroy the Midianites by one powerful encounter, just as effectually as if the enemy were only one person.

17. Shew me a sign. It seems from v. 22 that Gideon may not have been fully convinced that his visitor was a heavenly being. His request, then, was for a miracle to demonstrate that the messenger had power and authority sufficient to back up his assertion that the Midianites could be destroyed.

Present. The word may mean either "offering" "present." It is used in the latter sense in ch. 3:15, 17, although its more common use is for an offering made to God. Gideon may have purposely intended to be vague. He may have used this ambiguous word, suspecting, but not yet convinced, that the stranger under the terebinth was more than human. If his visitor were merely a man, he would eat the food provided; if he were a heavenly being, he would accept it as a sacrificial offering and not as food.

A kid. In v. 6 it was stated that all Israel was impoverished by the Midianite incursions. The fact that Gideon provided his guest with a roasted kid, and cakes made from more than half of a bushel (our equivalent of an ephah) of flour shows that he sensed the importance of his visitor, and from his scant store he wished to provide a bountiful meal. The cakes were unleavened because they could be made quickly. Even at that, an hour or two may have been required for this preparation.

20. Upon this rock. The rock served as a temporary altar.

22. Have seen an angel. The miracle immediately dispelled Gideon's doubt, and he recognized that his visitor was a heavenly messenger. Now fear and consternation swept over him. He probably remembered the words of God to Moses, "There shall no man see me, and live" (Ex. 33:20), and feared that death would be the result of looking on the divine being (see Judges 13:22; Gen. 32:30; Deut. 5:24; Heb. 12:29).

24. Jehovah-shalom. To commemorate God's words of favor to him, Gideon built that night an altar which he named "the Lord is peace," or "the Lord spoke peace." The name was an allusion to the words of an angel in v. 23. The altar was intended not alone for the purpose of sacrifice but also to memorialize the divine appearance (see Gen. 33:20; Gen. 35:7; Ex. 17:15). The building of the altar is described in vs. 25-27.

Yet in Ophrah. When the author wrote the book of Judges several centuries later, the altar was still standing to witness to the fact that the Lord speaks peace to those who love and serve Him.

25. Said unto him. We are not told by what means God spoke to Gideon, but Gideon recognized the divine voice. No doubt up till this moment he had been pondering what course to pursue.

Grove. Heb. 'asherah, a sacred pole set up beside the altar (see on ch. 3:7). First, Baal's altars must be destroyed. God would not honor a sacrifice to Himself until the idols were overthrown. So it is today. Every idol must be removed from the heart if we would claim God's blessing today.

26. Build an altar. The following statement gives the reason why God could issue a command contrary to His previous solemn charge (Lev. 17:8, 9): "The offering of sacrifice to God had been committed to the priests, and had been restricted to the altar at Shiloh; but He who had established the ritual service, and to whom all its offerings pointed, had power to change its requirements" (PP 547).

Ordered place. Perhaps better as in the margin, "orderly manner."

27. By night. Gideon was as prudent as he was energetic. He chose to do this deed by night, not because he was cowardly, but because he feared he would not be able to complete the task if he essayed to do it by day. During the daylight hours an outcry and a contest would have been inevitable. This would terrify the undecided. An accomplished fact makes an impression and gives courage. His task was not only to tear down Baal's altar, which may have been massive, but to erect on the rock where the sacrifice had been consumed an ordered, dignified altar to the Lord. This task may have taken most of the night.

Although Gideon was cautious, he did not allow prudence to deter him from doing the will of God even though he knew the consequences might be disastrous to himself. In this respect Gideon put to shame many in our day who allow the fear of man to deter them from doing bold exploits for God.

29. Who hath done this thing? We do not know who betrayed his secret. Suspicion might naturally fall upon Gideon, whose tendencies toward the true worship of God may have been well known.

30. He may die. It is difficult to understand how Israelites could become so attached to Baal worship that they were willing to execute a fellow Israelite who courageously destroyed the altar of Baal and built an altar of the Lord in its place. The altar of Baal belonged to Gideon's father (v. 25), yet the men of the village felt entitled to sit in judgment on the insult offered to this heathen deity. They demanded that the father himself deliver up Gideon to them so they could slay him without incurring a deadly feud.

31. Will ye plead for Baal? Gideon's father, who had been told of the angel's visit (PP 547), had been inspired with courage by his son's daring act. Now he fearlessly took Gideon's part. "If Baal is indeed a deity, he can take care of himself," he reasoned with the angry mob. "Why do you poor villagers have to take Baal's part? You have worshiped him as the Lord of heaven. Is he not able to take care of himself? By taking his part you would indicate that Baal has no power of himself; so by your own reasoning you are the ones that should be put to death. As for my son who destroyed Baal's altar, grant Baal a little time for an opportunity to avenge himself." With this reasoning Gideon's father persuaded the men to wait and see what Baal would do. He knew that in popular outbreaks like this the intense feeling would die down and the opposition vanish if a little time could be gained. He was probably fully convinced that Baal was powerless to harm his son. His stratagem worked. Popular feeling, which is so changeable, soon swung to the side of Gideon, and he was justified and accepted as a leader in Manasseh.

32. Jerubbaal. Literally, "let Baal fight," or, "let Baal be an adversary" (see ch. 7:1). The name was a standing rebuke and challenge to Baal worship, for Gideon's continued life and prosperity was a daily witness to the impotence of the heathen deity to avenge himself. It showed that fear of Baal was groundless. A later writer calls him Jerubbesheth, literally, "let shame contend" (2 Sam. 11:21).

33. All the Midianites. They and the other desert tribes "went over," that is, the Jordan, perhaps for their usual annual raid to steal the wheat that thousands besides Gideon were doubtless threshing in secret places as soon as it was barely ripe, but probably also because news of an uprising headed by Gideon had reached their ears. Crossing the Jordan at the fords near Bethshan, they encamped, not in the wide plain west of Jezreel, but in the valley east of Jezreel leading from the Jordan between Mt. Gilboa and the Hill of Moreh up to the broad, fertile plain of Esdraelon. This valley and the broad plain into which it leads divide the central highlands of Palestine from the hills of Galilee.

34. Came upon. Literally, "clothed." Gideon did not begin the campaign "clothed" only in the armor of soldiers, but "clothed" with God's power. Whom God calls to do His work He also qualifies for it.

Blew a trumpet. Since destroying the altar of Baal, Gideon had, no doubt, been pondering the instructions of the angel to smite the Midianites. Now that the enemies of Israel had entered the country, the Spirit of the Lord moved upon Gideon's heart to begin the struggle to deliver his people. Taking a shophar, or ram's horn, he sounded the battle signal, and sent messengers throughout his tribe of Manasseh and three other tribes, Asher, Zebulun, and Naphtali, urging them all to join him in the fight against the common enemy. Strong forces from all of these tribes assembled; and Gideon's own clan, the Abiezerites, backed him to the full.

36. If thou wilt save. Gideon recognized that by human strength alone the Israelites would be unable to repel the large host of marauders. He had already demonstrated his faith by calling the Israelites to battle, but now he needed fresh encouragement. One can hardly censure Gideon for desiring reassurance, and yet he had the word of the heavenly messenger, and that attested by a miracle. A mature faith would not have asked for another sign. The experience of the Roman centurion stands over against this experience of Gideon. This heathen soldier asked for no miracle on which to rest his faith. Concerning him, Jesus declared, "I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel" (Luke 7:9). If Gideon had possessed such an experience, he would not have asked for an additional sign after having received convincing evidence in the fire that sprang from the rock. However, God makes use of the best instruments available, and when those who are weak in faith ask for a sign He often honors the request. However, as faith develops, God expects men to take Him at His word and depend less and less upon confirmatory signs. Many have spoiled their religious experience by persistently following chance methods of guidance (see on Joshua 7:14).

39. Let me prove. The first sign that Gideon asked was granted. The fleece gathered water, and the ground around it was dry. After thinking it over, Gideon felt that this was, after all, what one would expect, since wool naturally draws water. Hence it might not be a sign at all. He may thus have felt as uncertain as before.

Gideon's experience is frequently reproduced today. There are some who are continually deciding great issues, not on the basis of the teaching of the Bible or of what is logical and reasonable, but on the basis of signs that they themselves set up. Often the sign asked for may be explainable as a coincidence, rather than as an undeniable miracle. Then men begin to doubt. This was the case with Gideon. He feared that this might be so in his case, so he asked that the sign might be reversed. Recognizing Gideon's limited faith, the Lord condescended to work a miracle to give him the sign for which he asked. How much better it would have been if Gideon had confidently done what God had asked him to do without hesitation.

Ellen G. White Comments

1-40PP 545-548

1 PP 545

2-13PP 546

11-16GW 333

12 PP 555

14, 17-21PP 547

22, 23 1T 410

25-31PP 547

33-40PP 548

Judges Chapter 7

1 Gideon's army of two and thirty thousand is brought to three hundred. 9 He is encouraged by the dream and interpretation of the barley cake. 16 His stratagem of trumpets and lambs in pitchers. 24 The Ephraimites take Oreb and Zeeb.

1. Well of Harod. This abundant spring, under another name, still issues from a cave at the foot of a hill along the edge of Mt. Gilboa. A small stream flows from it toward the east. The same fountain is probably alluded to in 1 Sam. 29:1 Harod means "trembling," and the well may have received its name from the panic and trembling that seized the Midianites when Gideon attacked.

Hill of Moreh. On the opposite side of the valley approximately 4 mi. away. On the north side of this hill was the cave of Endor, where Saul visited the witch. The line of battle was, therefore, the same a at the time Saul and the Hebrews faced the Philistines before that eventful battle of Gilboa many years later (1 Sam. 31).

2. Too many. Gideon had 32,000 men (v. 3), the Midianites, 135,000 (ch. 8:10). Gideon's faith must have been severely tested when the Lord told him that those who were with him were too many.

3. Proclaim. The proclamation was a part of the announcement Moses had commanded to be made (Deut. 20:5-9), prior to a battle inviting the fearful to leave the ranks lest their desertion in the midst of battle cause others to flee also. Because his army was so small in comparison with that of the Midianites, Gideon had refrained from making the usual proclamation (PP 549). Many of the men had enlisted because of the stirring appeals of Gideon, but in their hearts they were fearful and unbelieving. Lest they flee when the battle began, or take the glory of victory to themselves, the Lord asked that they be sent back. The two thirds who left constitute a sad commentary on the extent to which idolatry had destroyed Israel's faith in God.

Gilead. Some have taken this to be a misreading of Gilboa, because Gilead was on the east side of Jordan, far from the scene of this battle. However, there may have been a mountain by this name abutting the Valley of Jezreel. A suggestion of the name may be found in the name of a stream in this area, now known as Nahr el-Jaµluµd.

5. Lappeth of the water. The people, having been led to the brook, evidently expected to cross immediately and advance to the camp of the enemy some distance on the opposite side. A few were eager to begin the engagement, and as they crossed the brook they merely scooped up a little water in their hands and immediately passed forward. Others, fearful of the impending battle and with but little hope in victory, saw here an excuse for tarrying. They knelt down and leisurely drank their fill. Those who hurriedly took a little water in their hand, and sucked it up as they pressed forward toward the camp of the enemy, numbered only 300. With these the Lord promised to bring about the defeat of the Midianites. The sifting had served to remove those who were tainted with idolatry, and to single out those who were men of courage and faith--men whose confidence in God had not been vitiated by idolatrous worship and practices. They had the faith to believe that with God on their side success could be theirs even though their number was small. As Jonathan later reminded his armor-bearer, their number was of small moment in God's sight (see 1 Sam. 14:6).

9. The same night. Perhaps the test at the brookside took place at evening, and the bulk of the Israelite forces departed for their homes under cover of darkness. At any rate, the Midianites did not seem to know that the major part of the Israelite force had gone away.

10. If thou fear. God was willing to give added reassurance. Because Gideon was afraid to attack, the Lord offered to give him a sign of encouragement if he would stealthily approach the Midianite camp and listen to what the Midianite soldiers were talking about.

11. The outside. That is, to the outposts, or sentries. The Midianite camp probably included women and children. Around the outskirts of the camp the armed men would naturally be posted.

12. Lay along. The valley here was not very wide; consequently, the multitude of people which made up the camp were spread out in a long thin line stretching up and down the valley perhaps for several miles. The narrowness of their campground may have made their number appear even larger than it was, like "the sand by the sea side for multitude."

13. That told a dream. Inasmuch as Midian was a son of Abraham, these people no doubt spoke a language similar to that of the Hebrews. In any event, God enabled Gideon to understand both the dream and its interpretation. Thus he was inspired with confidence to fulfill the commission entrusted to his care.

A cake. Heb. salil, a word found only here in the Bible. The exact meaning is not certain, but the word seems to come from a verb that means "to bake," although others equate it with a similar verb that means "to be round," or "to roll." Barley bread was the food of the very poor. This may be a veiled reference to the Israelites who were impoverished from the seven consecutive years of Midianite oppression.

A tent. Literally, "the tent." Either representing the main tent of the encampment in which the leading general or king lived, or perhaps the tent in which the two men were, or symbolic of the whole encampment.

15. Worshipped. Heb. shachah, "to bow down," "to prostrate," "to pay adoration." At the recognition of so signal an evidence of the divine presence in his undertaking, Gideon responded as it is proper to do on all such occasions--he worshiped. No doubt his prayer expressed freely the thankfulness of his heart. So often those who are especially blessed of God forget to return the gratitude due Him. Gideon might have reasoned that, with the urgency of the assignment and the need for immediate action, he could properly put off until after the victory his worship of praise. But such postponements often lead to the utter neglect of praise to God.