# commentaries

text:
<p>The seventh lot came out for the tribe of the children of Dan according to their families- </p><p>For "according to their families", see on :8. Naphtali marched in the wilderness side by side with Dan and Asher (<a href='B:40 2:25-31'>Num 2:25-31</a>), and now they are chosen "by lot" to again be near them. See on :24.</p>


text:
<p>The border of their inheritance was Zorah, Eshtaol, Irshemesh- </p><p>Zorah, Samson's home town, was originally Judah's inheritance (<a href='B:60 15:33-36'>Jos 15:33-36</a>), but they spurned it, and passed it to Dan (<a href='B:60 19:41'>Jos 19:41</a>), who also weren't interested; for they migrated to the north and too over the land belonging to the less warlike Sidonians (<a href='B:70 18:2'>Jdg 18:2</a>; <a href='B:70 18:7-10'>Jdg 18:7-10</a>). Their selfishness is reflected by the way they chide with him: "What is this that thou hast done unto us?" (<a href='B:70 15:11'>Jdg 15:11</a>). "They had become reconciled to the dominion of sin since it did not appear to do much harm. They could still grow their crops etc."</p>


text:
<p>Shaalabbin, Aijalon, Ithlah- </p><p>Shaalabbin, “the place of foxes", may have been named in memory of <a href='B:70 15:4'>Jdg 15:4</a>, which incident occurred in this area.</p>


text:
<p>Elon, Timnah, Ekron- </p><p>The aim of Samson's marriage was to dispossess the Philistines and take their possession for Israel. It seems no accident that he chose Timnath, 'a portion assigned'- to Israel. This was part of the land promised to Dan, but which they had allowed the Philistines to overrun (<a href='B:60 19:43'>Jos 19:43</a>; <a href='B:60 19:47'>Jos 19:47</a>). And Samson would have seen himself as 'Samson-of-Zorah', the hornet- symbol of the Egyptian tribes which drove out the Canaanites in preparation for Israel's later victories (<a href='B:50 7:20'>Deu 7:20</a>; <a href='B:60 24:12'>Jos 24:12</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Eltekeh, Gibbethon, Baalath- </p><p>"Baalath" is another example of the spiritually disappointing retention of paganic names; see on :3.</p>


text:
<p>Jehud, Bene Berak, Gath Rimmon- </p><p>Gath Rimmon was given to the Levites (<a href='B:60 21:24'>Jos 21:24</a>). Although the choice of priestly cities was supposedly taken by lot, it is significant that many of them were in territory which was unattractive to the tribes, such as in the mountains, or on the very edge of their tribal canton, or in territory which was never really subjugated by Israel. They failed to learn the principle of <a href='B:100 24:24'>2Sa 24:24</a>, that we are not to apparently sacrifice to God that which cost us nothing. See on :47.</p>


text:
<p>Me-Jarkon and Rakkon, with the border over against Joppa- </p><p>We wonder why Joppa itself isn't recorded as being Dan's, although the suburbs around it were. Perhaps here again we have an example of there being great fluidity in the assignment of areas, with some tribes taking areas which the other tribes didn't want, often from fear of the local inhabitants.</p>


text:
<p>The border of the children of Dan went out beyond them; for the children of Dan went up and fought against Leshem and took it, and struck it with the edge of the sword and possessed it and lived therein, and called it Leshem Dan after the name of Dan their father-</p><p><a href='B:140 2:14'>2Ch 2:14</a> says "Hiram" was "son of a woman of the daughters of Dan", whereas 1 King 7:14 says he was "the son of a widow of the tribe of Naphtali". Dan may refer to the town called Dan or Laish which was in the territory of Naphtali, but inhabited by Danites (<a href='B:60 18:27'>Jos 18:27</a>; <a href='B:60 19:47'>Jos 19:47</a>; <a href='B:70 18:7'>Jdg 18:7</a>). Here we see how an apparent discrepancy on a surface level reveals a deep evidence of the way the records do not contradict but dovetail perfectly, as we would expect of a Divinely inspired writing. But this is only apparent to those who respectfully search the entire scriptures, rather than bandying around a surface level contradiction with an eagerness which speaks more of their own fears the Bible is inspired than of deep factual persuasion.</p><p>God here speaks so positively about spiritually weak Dan. See on :9. "The coast of the children of Dan went out too little for them" (<a href='B:60 19:47'>Jos 19:47</a>), although actually "The Amorites forced the children of Dan into the mountain: for they would not suffer them to come down to the valley" (<a href='B:70 1:34'>Jdg 1:34</a>). When Dan fought against Leshem, this one act of obedience is so magnified in <a href='B:60 19:47'>Jos 19:47</a> to sound as if in their zeal to inherit their territory they actually found they had too little land and therefore attacked Leshem. But actually it was already part of their allotted inheritance. Yet God graciously comments: "all their inheritance had not fallen unto them among the tribes of Israel" (<a href='B:70 18:1'>Jdg 18:1</a>).</p><p>LXX adds: "The children of Dan did not drive out the Amorite who afflicted them in the mountain; and the Amorite would not suffer them to come down into the valley, but they forcibly took from them the border of their portion". If Dan didn't have in their possession their border towns, and yet these were supposedly given by them to the Levites, then this 'gift' was meaningless. See on :45.</p>


text:
<p>This is the inheritance of the tribe of the children of Dan according to their families, these cities with their villages- </p><p>For "according to their families", see on :8. LXX adds: "The Amorite continued to dwell in Edom and in Salamin: and the hand of Ephraim prevailed against them, and they became tribute to them". This shows the weakness of Dan in even deeper emphasis; for Ephraim subdued those in their area whom they wouldn't.</p>


text:
<p>So they made an end of distributing the land for inheritance by its borders. The children of Israel gave an inheritance to Joshua the son of Nun in their midst- </p><p>The inheritance was ultimately given by God. So Israel 'gave' it to Joshua in that what would otherwise have been their inheritance because theirs. I have suggested on :8 that each family was given a specific inheritance which they were to build up; and Joshua set the parade example to his people in doing this (:50).</p>


text:
<p>According to the commandment of Yahweh, they gave him the city which he asked, even Timnathserah in the hill country of Ephraim; and he built the city, and lived there-</p><p>This was an example of spiritual ambition. Perhaps like Caleb he had noticed this city whilst spying out the land 40 years before, and was given his request. There is an element to which our experiences in this life lead us to desire or request things which we shall receive in the Kingdom.</p>


text:
<p>These are the inheritances, which Eleazar the priest, Joshua the son of Nun, and the heads of the fathers’ houses of the tribes of the children of Israel, distributed for inheritance by lot in Shiloh before Yahweh, at the door of the Tent of Meeting. So they made an end of dividing the land-</p><p>LXX "and they went to take possession of the land". Again we note that being "before Yahweh" doesn't mean being in Heaven itself; for His representatives are spoken of as Him, and therefore coming before Him meant coming before them. It could be that the Angel of Yahweh dwelt over the mercy seat of the ark, in the shekinah glory between the cherubim; and this therefore made coming before the tabernacle a coming before Yahweh.</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh spoke to Joshua saying- </p><p>Having given the people their inheritances, they are now asked to set some aside as cities of refuge. But as noted several times in Joshua 19, some of these cities they had not even taken from enemy hands:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>Speak to the children of Israel saying, ‘Assign the cities of refuge, of which I spoke to you by Moses- </p><p>"Assign" is the usual word for "give". The tribes were to give these cities. But several of them they had not even bothered to take from the local inhabitants.</p>


text:
<p>that the manslayer who kills any person accidentally or unintentionally may flee there. They shall be to you for a refuge from the avenger of blood- </p><p>We are all in the position of the man who unintentionally committed manslaughter and must therefore die. We are under sentence of death by reason of being human, as well as for our actual sins. The avenger of blood could be seen as God, for it is He alone who has the right to execute judgment for sin. And we must note that the word ga'al translated "avenger" is also that translated "redeemer" or 'ransomer'. The cities of refuge are therefore understood in <a href='B:650 6:18'>Heb 6:18</a> as looking ahead to refuge in the Lord Jesus: "Who have fled for refuge to lay hold on the hope set before us". The allusion is to how the person who found they had committed a sin worthy of death, yet without as it were wishing to have done so, could flee to a city of refuge and be saved there by the death of the high priest. The curse upon Levi was that the members of this tribe were to be scattered in Israel (<a href='B:10 49:7'>Gen 49:7</a>). However, this resulted in the cities of the Levites being scattered throughout the land, thus providing accessible cities of refuge to all who wished to escape the consequences of sin. Those cities were evidently symbolic of the refuge we have in Christ. Again and again, the curses and consequences of human sin are used by the Father to mediate blessing. It is the sure hope before us which is our refuge. "Hope", elpis, is a confident knowledge of a future reality, rather than a hoping for the best. We should be confident in our salvation. The 'guilty' person was made free totally through the death of the High Priest, clearly looking forward to the significance of the death of the Lord Jesus.</p><p>LXX adds: "until he have stood before the congregation for judgment". In this case we note that the person was to be assumed innocent until proven guilty- a principle to always live by.</p>


text:
<p>He shall flee to one of those cities, and shall stand at the entrance of the gate of the city and declare his cause in the ears of the elders of that city. They shall take him into the city with them and give him a place, that he may live among them- </p><p>The cities of refuge represented salvation in the Lord Jesus (<a href='B:650 6:18'>Heb 6:18</a>). But most of them were situation in remote or mountainous areas, Hebron being an exception. The idea was that those wishing for salvation from sin they had unintentionally committed must make quite some conscious effort and choice to get there, as is true today. And more such cities were promised, but Israel didn't take up that offer. This would have made salvation more easily accessible, as it were, had they done so.</p>


text:
<p>If the avenger of blood pursue after him, then they shall not deliver up the manslayer into his hand; because he struck his neighbour unintentionally, and didn’t hate him beforehand- </p><p>This is assuming that the elders find the man's case consistent and genuine. They were to judge that according to whether he 'hated him in time past' (<a href='B:50 19:6'>Deu 19:6</a>). We note that hatred of a neighbour was to be the reason for death. John appears to have this in mind when he reasons that hatred of our brother is effectively a living death sentence (<a href='B:690 2:11'>1Jn 2:11</a>; <a href='B:690 4:20'>1Jn 4:20</a>). It was to be that "whoever hates his brother is a murderer", not a manslaughterer (<a href='B:690 3:15'>1Jn 3:15</a>). And that hatred can be in someone's heart, even if they have not killed the object of their hatred. This is the principle which is taught here.</p>


text:
<p>He shall dwell in that city until he stands before the congregation for judgment, until the death of the high priest that shall be in those days. Then the manslayer shall return, and come to his own city, and to his own house, to the city he fled from’- </p><p>The death of the High Priest was paralleled with a man standing before the judgment for his crime in <a href='B:60 20:6'>Jos 20:6</a> RV. This surely prefigured how Christ's death was and is effectively our judgment. Further connection between the cross and the judgment is found in considering <a href='B:450 12:10'>Zec 12:10</a>, which states that men would look upon the pierced (i:e. crucified) Saviour, and mourn in recognition of their own sinfulness. This verse is quoted as having fulfilment both at the crucifixion (<a href='B:500 19:37'>Joh 19:37</a>) and also at the final judgment (<a href='B:730 1:7'>Rev 1:7</a>). There is strong connection between these two events.</p>


text:
<p>They set apart Kedesh in Galilee in the hill country of Naphtali, Shechem in the hill country of Ephraim, and Kiriath Arba (the same is Hebron) in the hill country of Judah- </p><p>But Kedesh was listed in Joshua 19 as a city not yet taken by Naphtali; yet it was commanded to be given by them to the Levites as a city of refuge (<a href='B:60 20:7'>Jos 20:7</a>). So their refusal or 'being slack' to take the city meant they had no wider vision, of providing a place of refuge for the needy within Israel as a whole. And there is no real evidence that this wonderful system of salvation and justice ever really worked in practice.</p>


text:
<p>Beyond the Jordan at Jericho eastward, they assigned Bezer in the wilderness in the plain out of the tribe of Reuben, Ramoth in Gilead out of the tribe of Gad, and Golan in Bashan out of the tribe of Manasseh- </p><p>But Ramoth Gilead passed in and out of Israelite possession; and it is doubtful whether Manasseh ever bothered securing Golan from the local inhabitants. The cities were generally in the wilderness or mountainous areas; perhaps the idea was that they should not be used casually, but the person had to make quite some effort to get there.</p>


text:
<p>These were the appointed cities for all the children of Israel, and for the alien who lives among them, that whoever kills any person unintentionally might flee there, and not die by the hand of the avenger of blood, until he stands before the congregation- </p><p>Again we note that the person was to be assumed innocent until proven guilty- a principle to always live by. The cities were "appointed", this gracious system of salvation was carefully worked out in practice for the people. But the cities were not all "given" by the people, so the system didn't work in practice.</p>


text:
<p>Then the heads of fathers’ houses of the Levites came near to Eleazar the priest, to Joshua the son of Nun and to the heads of fathers’ houses of the tribes of the children of Israel- </p><p>They would have listened to all the descriptions of the cantons of the other tribes, and would have been deeply aware that they had not been provided for by their brethren.</p>


text:
<p>They spoke to them at Shiloh in the land of Canaan saying, Yahweh commanded Moses to give us cities to dwell in, with their suburbs for our livestock- </p><p>This implies that the Levites had livestock with them when they entered the land, and we assume that they also had animals with them on the wilderness journey. Hence we are told that Achan had his own flocks of animals at the time when they first crossed the Jordan and entered the land. The manna was clearly supplemented by their own food products taken from the animals they had with them. They did this to satisfy their craving for meat in addition to manna, which had nearly led to their destruction. We wonder whether the Levites ought to have had such livestock in the desert, or whether they ought to have been satisfied with the manna.</p>


text:
<p>The children of Israel gave to the Levites out of their inheritance, according to the commandment of Yahweh, these cities with their suburbs- </p><p>I pointed out throughout Joshua 19, and later here in this chapter, that many of the Levitical cities were 'given' to them by the tribes, when they had not driven out the tribes. Although the choice of priestly cities was supposedly taken by lot, it is significant that many of them were in territory which was unattractive to the tribes, such as in the mountains, or on the very edge of their tribal canton, or in territory which was never really subjugated by Israel. So this 'giving to the Levites' was giving in word but not in deed.</p>


text:
<p>The lot came out for the families of the Kohathites. The children of Aaron the priest, who were of the Levites, had thirteen cities by lot out of the tribe of Judah, out of the tribe of the Simeonites, and out of the tribe of Benjamin- </p><p>I will suggest later in this chapter, as on :3, that the tribes tended to give the Levites the cities which they didn't really possess or which were unimportant to them. It could mean that the "lot" was therefore interfered with. However, it could be that the tribes decided which towns they were going to "give", and the lot was not to decide which towns were given, but to which of the three families of the Levites the towns were to be given, i:e. the Gershonites, Kohathites and Merarites.</p>


text:
<p>The rest of the children of Kohath had ten cities by lot out of the families of the tribe of Ephraim, out of the tribe of Dan, and out of the half-tribe of Manasseh- </p><p>The parable of <a href='B:490 19:10'>Luk 19:10</a> describes the reward of the faithful in terms of being given ten or five cities. This idea of dividing up groups of cities was surely meant to send the mind back to the way Israel in their wilderness years were each promised their own individual cities and villages, which they later inherited. The idea of inheriting "ten cities" occurs in <a href='B:60 15:57'>Jos 15:57</a>; <a href='B:60 21:5'>Jos 21:5</a>; <a href='B:60 21:26'>Jos 21:26</a>; <a href='B:130 6:61'>1Ch 6:61</a> (all of which are in the context of the priests receiving their cities), and "five cities" in <a href='B:130 4:32'>1Ch 4:32</a>. As each Israelite was promised some personal inheritance in the land, rather than some blanket reward which the while nation received, so we too have a personal reward prepared. The language of inheritance (e:g. <a href='B:670 1:4'>1Pe 1:4</a>) and preparation of reward (<a href='B:470 25:34'>Mat 25:34</a>; <a href='B:500 14:1'>Joh 14:1</a>) in the NT is alluding to this OT background of the land being prepared by the Angels for Israel to inherit (<a href='B:20 15:17'>Exo 15:17</a>; 23:20; <a href='B:230 68:9-10'>Psa 68:9-10</a>). We must be careful not to think that our promised inheritance is only eternal life; it is something being personally prepared for each of us. The language of preparation seems inappropriate if our reward is only eternal life.</p>


text:
<p>The children of Gershon had thirteen cities by lot out of the families of the tribe of Issachar, out of the tribe of Asher, out of the tribe of Naphtali, and out of the half-tribe of Manasseh in Bashan- </p><p>As explained on :3,4, the Levites were 'given' these cities only in theory. They did not at that time 'have' them, as several of them were not even in Israelite hands.</p>


text:
<p>The children of Merari according to their families had twelve cities out of the tribe of Reuben, out of the tribe of Gad, and out of the tribe of Zebulun- </p><p>The law of Moses reasons as if each family of Israel had a specific inheritance which was not to be sold or moved outside the family. Hence the sin of Ahab in obtaining Naboth's vineyard. It would seem that there was some unrecorded list made of each family and which land they were to be given. This looks forward to our very personal and unique inheritance in God's Kingdom, possibly based around spiritual family units.</p>


text:
<p>The children of Israel gave these cities with their suburbs by lot to the Levites, as Yahweh commanded by Moses- </p><p>In other words, Joshua ensured that there was a strictly legal granting of these cities to the Levites. But as explained on :3, the spirit of all this was rather lacking seeing that several of the cities were not even possessed by the Israelites at this time. Joshua was very good at obedience to clear commandments (<a href='B:60 4:10'>Jos 4:10</a>; <a href='B:60 4:17'>Jos 4:17</a>; <a href='B:60 8:27'>Jos 8:27</a>; <a href='B:60 10:40'>Jos 10:40</a>). But when he had to articulate his faith in God in unexpected situations, e:g. when the ambassadors from Gibeon arrived, or when the first attack on Ai failed, he seems to have performed poorly. Legalistic obedience is no use in those cases when principles need to be applied. <a href='B:60 5:13-14'>Jos 5:13-14</a> can be read as a rebuke of Joshua, wanting to boil everything down to black and white, wanting to see God as either personally for him or against him; when the essence is to seek to discern and do God’s will. He very strictly adhered to God’s commandments with legalistic obedience, e:g:, about how to approach and deal with Jericho, or how to cross the flooded Jordan and build an altar; and time and again, we read in Joshua of how he strictly relayed and obeyed the Divine commandments given by Moses (<a href='B:60 8:31'>Jos 8:31</a>; <a href='B:60 8:33'>Jos 8:33</a>; <a href='B:60 8:35'>Jos 8:35</a>; <a href='B:60 11:12'>Jos 11:12</a>; <a href='B:60 11:15'>Jos 11:15</a>; <a href='B:60 11:20'>Jos 11:20</a>; <a href='B:60 14:2'>Jos 14:2</a>; <a href='B:60 14:5'>Jos 14:5</a>; <a href='B:60 17:4'>Jos 17:4</a>; <a href='B:60 21:2'>Jos 21:2</a>; <a href='B:60 21:8'>Jos 21:8</a>):&nbsp; Yet as with any literalistic or legally minded person, it was hard for Joshua to apply the principles behind the laws to situations which weren’t specifically addressed by Divine revelation, where legalistic obedience wasn't what was required.</p>


text:
<p>They gave out of the tribe of the children of Judah, and out of the tribe of the children of Simeon, these cities which are mentioned by name- </p><p>"Mentioned" is literally to call out, as if the names of the cities were read out, along with the result of the lots, i:e. to which clan of the three sons of Levi they should be given.</p>


text:
<p>They were for the children of Aaron, of the families of the Kohathites, who were of the children of Levi; for theirs was the first lot- </p><p>The Kohathites had their cities in Judah and Ephraim, which were not neighbouring tribes. This fulfilled the promise that Levi was to be scattered in Israel, although this curse was intended to turn out as a blessing, in that the knowledge of God would be further spread amongst the people.</p>


text:
<p>They gave them Kiriath Arba, named after the father of Anak (the same is Hebron), in the hill country of Judah, with its suburbs around it- </p><p>Joshua had taken Hebron (<a href='B:60 10:36'>Jos 10:36</a>) but Israel had not followed up his victory, and the Philistines had returned; Caleb then took it (<a href='B:60 15:13'>Jos 15:13</a>), but again, by Samson's time, the Philistines were back. A study of these place names reveals the tragic weakness of God's people.</p>


text:
<p>But they gave the fields of the city and its villages to Caleb the son of Jephunneh for his possession- </p><p>Perhaps rather speculatively, Kiel concludes from this “that the Levites only received as many houses in the cities assigned them, as their numerical strength required, and that it was these which remained in their hands as an inalienable possession”.</p>


text:
<p>To the children of Aaron the priest they gave Hebron with its suburbs, the city of refuge for the manslayer, Libnah with its suburbs- </p><p>We are all in the position of the man who unintentionally committed manslaughter and must therefore die. We are under sentence of death by reason of being human, as well as for our actual sins. The avenger of blood could be seen as God, for it is He alone who has the right to execute judgment for sin. And we must note that the word ga'al translated "avenger" is also that translated "redeemer" or 'ransomer'. The cities of refuge are therefore understood in <a href='B:650 6:18'>Heb 6:18</a> as looking ahead to refuge in the Lord Jesus: "Who have fled for refuge to lay hold on the hope set before us". The allusion is to how the person who found they had committed a sin worthy of death, yet without as it were wishing to have done so, could flee to a city of refuge and be saved there by the death of the high priest. The curse upon Levi was that the members of this tribe were to be scattered in Israel (<a href='B:10 49:7'>Gen 49:7</a>). However, this resulted in the cities of the Levites being scattered throughout the land, thus providing accessible cities of refuge to all who wished to escape the consequences of sin. Those cities were evidently symbolic of the refuge we have in Christ. Again and again, the curses and consequences of human sin are used by the Father to mediate blessing. It is the sure hope before us which is our refuge. "Hope", elpis, is a confident knowledge of a future reality, rather than a hoping for the best. We should be confident in our salvation. The 'guilty' person was made free totally through the death of the High Priest, clearly looking forward to the significance of the death of the Lord Jesus.</p>


text:
<p>Jattir with its suburbs- </p><p>Jattir was given to the priests but was in Philistine territory (<a href='B:60 15:48'>Jos 15:48</a> and context). Although the choice of priestly cities was supposedly taken by lot, it is significant that many of them were in territory such as this Philistine territory which was never really subjugated by Israel. They failed to learn the principle of <a href='B:100 24:24'>2Sa 24:24</a>, that we are not to apparently sacrifice to God that which cost us nothing.</p><p>Eshtemoa with its suburbs-</p><p>Eshtemoa was a priestly city; it would seem the priests were largely supportive of David when on the run from Saul, perhaps due to Samuel's influence (<a href='B:90 30:28'>1Sa 30:28</a>; <a href='B:60 15:50'>Jos 15:50</a>; <a href='B:60 21:14'>Jos 21:14</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Holon with its suburbs, Debir with its suburbs- </p><p>"Now the name of Debir before was Kiriath Sepher" (<a href='B:60 15:15'>Jos 15:15</a>). "Debir" is the word usually translated "oracle", referring to the sanctuary, which was centered around the word of God in the ark. The previous name also means something similar, 'Place of the scroll / books'. It's as if faithful Caleb renamed an idol shrine to a more Yahweh centered name. This confirms the suggestion made on <a href='B:60 15:9-10'>Jos 15:9-10</a> that the names associated with pagan worship were renamed by the faithful, but not renamed by the unfaithful.</p>


text:
<p>Ain with its suburbs, Juttah with its suburbs, and Beth Shemesh with its suburbs; nine cities out of those two tribes- </p><p>In the Hebrew text of <a href='B:130 6:55-60'>1Ch 6:55-60</a> we have eleven names of priestly towns, but thirteen towns are stated as having been 'given' in <a href='B:130 6:60'>1Ch 6:60</a>. Juttah and Gibeon were promised (<a href='B:60 21:16-17'>Jos 21:16-17</a>), but were not possessed. But as also experienced in <a href='B:130 6:81'>1Ch 6:81</a>, and as often happens with God's people, they do not take all the blessing that God promised and intended for them.</p>


text:
<p>Out of the tribe of Benjamin, Gibeon with its suburbs, Geba with its suburbs- </p><p>The Gibeonites had made peace with Joshua and by all accounts remained faithful to Yahweh for generations, as the Nethinim. It was appropriate that Gibeon be made a priestly city. But see on :16.</p>


text:
<p>Anathoth with its suburbs, and Almon with its suburbs; four cities-</p><p>Anathoth was the birthplace of Jeremiah, and means 'place of answers', perhaps because the prophetic word was given there. Almon was only one mile from Anathoth, so we get the impression the tribes were just trying to make two priestly cities out of one; which fits with the theme of them giving the Levites marginal towns or those they didn't possess.</p>


text:
<p>All the cities of the children of Aaron, the priests, were thirteen cities with their suburbs- </p><p>This sounds a large number of towns for this group, given their population at the time. But many of the "cities" were tiny settlements like Almon (see on :18).</p>


text:
<p>The families of the children of Kohath, the Levites, even the rest of the children of Kohath, had the cities of their lot out of the tribe of Ephraim- </p><p>The children of Kohath (i:e. here those apart from those of the priestly order), were give four cities in Ephraim, four in Dan and two in Western Manasseh. This fulfilled the promise that Levi was to be scattered in Israel, although this curse was intended to turn out as a blessing, in that the knowledge of God would be further spread amongst the people.</p>


text:
<p>They gave them Shechem with its suburbs in the hill country of Ephraim, the city of refuge for the manslayer, and Gezer with its suburbs- </p><p>The cities of refuge were generally in the wilderness or mountainous areas; perhaps the idea was that they should not be used casually, but the person had to make quite some effort to get there. See on :13.</p>


text:
<p>Kibzaim with its suburbs, and Beth Horon with its suburbs; four cities- </p><p>Kibzaim is Jokmeam in <a href='B:130 6:68'>1Ch 6:68</a>. Any student of the Hebrew text will soon perceive that proper nouns can be expressed in various ways, and that people and towns often had more than one name. It is nothing but intellectual desperation which would try to forge from this a claim that the record contradicts itself. Such differences surely reflect the fact that these records were written by different people at different times, and yet don't contradict because the records are all inspired by the same Spirit of God.</p>


text:
<p>Out of the tribe of Dan, Elteke with its suburbs, Gibbethon with its suburbs-</p><p>These cities were in Dan (<a href='B:60 21:23-24'>Jos 21:23-24</a>), but were given by Ephraim to the Levites (<a href='B:130 6:66'>1Ch 6:66</a>; <a href='B:130 6:69'>1Ch 6:69</a>). This continues the theme that the tribes of Israel may have somehow manipulated the lots so that they gave less valuable cities to the Levites, or even cities which weren't theirs, thereby breaking the foundation principle of <a href='B:100 24:24'>2Sa 24:24</a>.</p>


text:
<p>Aijalon with its suburbs, Gath Rimmon with its suburbs; four cities- </p><p>Gath Rimmon was one of the towns which Dan didn't take (<a href='B:60 19:45'>Jos 19:45</a>). Although the choice of priestly cities was supposedly taken by lot, it is significant that many of them were in territory which was unattractive to the tribes, such as in the mountains, or on the very edge of their tribal canton, or in territory which was never really subjugated by Israel. See on :23.</p>


text:
<p>Out of the half-tribe of Manasseh, Taanach with its suburbs, and Gath Rimmon with its suburbs; two cities-</p><p>&nbsp;In the list of cities given to the Levites, this is called "Bileam". "Bileam" means 'not of the people', called Ibleam, <a href='B:70 1:27'>Jdg 1:27</a>; <a href='B:120 9:27'>2Ki 9:27</a>, and in <a href='B:60 21:25'>Jos 21:25</a>, Gath-rimmon. Perhaps it is called "Bileam" in <a href='B:130 6:70'>1Ch 6:70</a> because it continues the theme that the tribes of Israel may have somehow manipulated the lots so that they gave less valuable cities to the Levites, or even cities which weren't theirs, thereby breaking the foundation principle of <a href='B:100 24:24'>2Sa 24:24</a>.</p>


text:
<p>All the cities of the families of the rest of the children of Kohath were ten with their suburbs- </p><p>For "ten cities", see on :5.</p>


text:
<p>They gave to the children of Gershon, of the families of the Levites, out of the half-tribe of Manasseh: Golan in Bashan with its suburbs, the city of refuge for the manslayer, and Beeshterah with its suburbs; two cities- </p><p>Golan was one of the cities of refuge on the east of Jordan. Those cities of refuge could have been increased in number (<a href='B:50 19:9'>Deu 19:9</a>), thereby making salvation that much 'easier' or accessible; but there is no evidence Israel availed themselves of this. </p><p>Beeshterah is Ashtaroth in <a href='B:130 6:71'>1Ch 6:71</a>, a shortened for of 'house of Ashtaroth'. We note the retention of the old pagan name. There is no record at all of Israel's obedience to the commands to destroy the local idols of the land, although the change of name of Kiriath Baal (<a href='B:60 15:60'>Jos 15:60</a>; <a href='B:60 18:14'>Jos 18:14</a>) is evidence enough that there was some local attempt to stamp out the name of Baal in that case. Instead the historical record is full of evidence that they worshipped these gods. Although the name of Baal Meon had been changed in <a href='B:40 32:38'>Num 32:38</a>, by the time of <a href='B:60 13:17'>Jos 13:17</a> the old name was still being used. Clearly Israel did not detest idolatry as they ought to have done. Just as the names of idols should not have passed the lips of Israel, so for us, the things of sexual impurity are not to be named amongst us (<a href='B:560 5:3'>Eph 5:3</a>). The allusion shows how Paul understood such things to be the equivalent of idolatry in his day, and that remains a fair interpretation even in our age.</p>


text:
<p>Out of the tribe of Issachar, Kishion with its suburbs, Daberath with its suburbs-</p><p>This is called Kedesh in <a href='B:60 13:22'>Jos 13:22</a>.</p>


text:
<p>Jarmuth with its suburbs, En Gannim with its suburbs; four cities-</p><p>Ramoth in <a href='B:130 6:73'>1Ch 6:73</a> is called Jarmuth in <a href='B:60 21:28-29'>Jos 21:28-29</a>, and perhaps Remeth in <a href='B:60 19:21'>Jos 19:21</a>. Anem of <a href='B:130 6:73'>1Ch 6:73</a> is&nbsp; En-gannim in <a href='B:60 19:21'>Jos 19:21</a>; <a href='B:60 21:29'>Jos 21:29</a>.</p>


text:
<p>Out of the tribe of Asher, Mishal with its suburbs, Abdon with its suburbs- </p><p>Mishal was in the mountains on the very edge of Asher's inheritance, which they had not possessed&nbsp; (<a href='B:60 19:25'>Jos 19:25</a>). See on :31; and for Abdon, on <a href='B:60 19:28'>Jos 19:28</a>.</p>


text:
<p>Helkath with its suburbs, and Rehob with its suburbs; four cities- </p><p>Helkath was in the mountains on the very edge of Asher's inheritance (<a href='B:60 19:25'>Jos 19:25</a>). Although the choice of priestly cities was supposedly taken by lot, it is significant that many of them were in territory which was unattractive to the tribes, such as in the mountains, or on the very edge of their tribal canton, or in territory which was never really subjugated by Israel. They failed to learn the principle of <a href='B:100 24:24'>2Sa 24:24</a>, that we are not to apparently sacrifice to God that which cost us nothing.</p>


text:
<p>Out of the tribe of Naphtali, Kedesh in Galilee with its suburbs, the city of refuge for the manslayer, Hammothdor with its suburbs, and Kartan with its suburbs; three cities- </p><p>Hammath was a "fortified city" (<a href='B:60 19:35'>Jos 19:35</a>), fortified by the local population and considered too strong for Naphtali to take. But it was given by them to the Levites (<a href='B:60 21:32'>Jos 21:32</a>). As noted elsewhere, the tribes "gave" to the Levites the cities which were on the very edges of their cantons, or held by the enemy, or in mountainous, remote areas. I therefore suggest that the process of distributing the priestly cities by "lot" was interfered with. They failed to learn the principle of <a href='B:100 24:24'>2Sa 24:24</a>, that we are not to apparently sacrifice to God that which cost us nothing.</p>


text:
<p>All the cities of the Gershonites according to their families were thirteen cities with their suburbs- </p><p>The children of Gershon had thirteen cities, two in Eastern Manasseh, four in Issachar, four in Asher and three in Naphtali. This fulfilled the promise that Levi was to be scattered in Israel, although this curse was intended to turn out as a blessing, in that the knowledge of God would be further spread amongst the people.</p>


text:
<p>To the families of the children of Merari, the rest of the Levites, out of the tribe of Zebulun, Jokneam with its suburbs, Kartah with its suburbs- </p><p>The law of Moses reasons as if each family of Israel had a specific inheritance which was not to be sold or moved outside the family. Hence the sin of Ahab in obtaining Naboth's vineyard. It would seem that there was some unrecorded list made of each family and which land they were to be given. This looks forward to our very personal and unique inheritance in God's Kingdom, possibly based around spiritual family units.</p>


text:
<p>Dimnah with its suburbs and Nahalal with its suburbs; four cities-</p><p>Rimmono and Tabor in <a href='B:130 6:77'>1Ch 6:77</a> are in <a href='B:60 21:35'>Jos 21:35</a> as Dimnah and Nahalai.</p>


text:
<p>Out of the tribe of Reuben, Bezer with its suburbs, Jahaz with its suburbs-</p><p>Jahaz, like Heshbon, Jazer and Mephaath, was taken by the Moabites and was in their long term possession (<a href='B:290 15:1-9'>Isa 15:1-9</a>; <a href='B:290 16:1-14'>Isa 16:1-14</a>; <a href='B:300 48:21'>Jer 48:21</a>; <a href='B:300 48:34'>Jer 48:34</a>). This continues the impression that the cities given to the Levites were often in marginal areas which were liable to attack and loss to Gentile powers. See on :37.</p>


text:
<p>Kedemoth with its suburbs and Mephaath with its suburbs; four cities- </p><p>Kedemoth was given to the Levites (<a href='B:60 21:37'>Jos 21:37</a>) but was in fact a town which had not been captured from the local population (<a href='B:60 13:18'>Jos 13:18</a>). They failed to learn the principle of <a href='B:100 24:24'>2Sa 24:24</a>, that we are not to apparently sacrifice to God that which cost us nothing.</p>


text:
<p>Out of the tribe of Gad, Ramoth in Gilead with its suburbs, the city of refuge for the manslayer, and Mahanaim with its suburbs- </p><p>But Ramoth Gilead passed in and out of Israelite possession. The cities of refuge were generally in the wilderness or mountainous areas; perhaps the idea was that they should not be used casually, but the person had to make quite some effort to get there.</p>


text:
<p>All these were the cities of the children of Merari according to their families, even the rest of the families of the Levites. Their lot was twelve cities- </p><p>The children of Merari has twelve cities, four in Zebulun, four in Reuben, four in Gad. This fulfilled the promise that Levi was to be scattered in Israel, although this curse was intended to turn out as a blessing, in that the knowledge of God would be further spread amongst the people.</p>


text:
<p>All the cities of the Levites in the midst of the possession of the children of Israel were forty-eight cities with their suburbs- </p><p>The idea was that the Levites would live "in the midst" of the people, teaching them God's way. But Israel's apostacy is often blamed upon the failure of the priesthood; and yet that in turn was partly due to Israel not providing for the Levites.</p>


text:
<p>Each of these cities included their suburbs around them. It was this way with all these cities-</p><p>"Suburbs" is translated by some as "cattle drives".</p>


text:
<p>So Yahweh gave to Israel all the land which He swore to give to their fathers. They possessed it, and lived in it- </p><p>The Lord gave them the land, i:e. potentially, but they failed to possess it; the language here is that of potential achievement by Joshua, rather than by Israel in practice. "Drive out" is s:w. "possess". We must note the difference between the&nbsp; Canaanite peoples and their kings being "struck" and their land "taken" by Joshua-Jesus; and the people of Israel permanently taking possession. This is the difference between the Lord's victory on the cross, and our taking possession of the Kingdom. Even though that possession has been "given" to us. The word used for "possession" is literally 'an inheritance'. The allusion is to the people, like us, being the seed of Abraham. The Kingdom was and is our possession, our inheritance- if we walk in the steps of Abraham. But it is one thing to be the seed of Abraham, another to take possession of the inheritance; and Israel generally did not take possession of all the land (<a href='B:60 11:23'>Jos 11:23</a>; <a href='B:60 13:1'>Jos 13:1</a>; <a href='B:60 16:10'>Jos 16:10</a>; <a href='B:60 18:3'>Jos 18:3</a>; <a href='B:60 23:4'>Jos 23:4</a>). The language of inheritance / possession is applied to us in the New Testament (<a href='B:560 1:11'>Eph 1:11</a>; <a href='B:560 1:14'>Eph 1:14</a>; <a href='B:580 3:24'>Col 3:24</a>; <a href='B:510 20:32'>Act 20:32</a>; <a href='B:510 26:18'>Act 26:18</a>; <a href='B:670 1:4'>1Pe 1:4</a> etc:). Israel were promised: "You shall possess it" (<a href='B:50 30:5'>Deu 30:5</a>; <a href='B:50 33:23'>Deu 33:23</a>). This was more of a command than a prophecy, for sadly they were "given" the land but did not "possess" it. They were constantly encouraged in the wilderness that they were on the path to possessing the land (<a href='B:50 30:16'>Deu 30:16</a>; <a href='B:50 30:18'>Deu 30:18</a>; <a href='B:50 31:3'>Deu 31:3</a>; <a href='B:50 31:13'>Deu 31:13</a>; <a href='B:50 32:47'>Deu 32:47</a>), but when they got there they didn't possess it fully.</p><p>But Joshua's achievements are presented as a primary fulfilment of the promises to Abraham. In a sense, the promises that the seed would inherit the land, and that God would be their God were fulfilled straight after God said them. He became Isaac's God (<a href='B:10 31:42'>Gen 31:42</a>; <a href='B:10 31:53'>Gen 31:53</a> refer to this), the God of Abraham's son. Time and again God reminds Israel that He is their God. And that land in a sense was given to the Jewish fathers (<a href='B:10 15:18'>Gen 15:18</a>; <a href='B:50 28:63'>Deu 28:63</a>; <a href='B:50 30:5'>Deu 30:5</a> NIV; <a href='B:60 1:2-9'>Jos 1:2-9</a>; <a href='B:60 21:43'>Jos 21:43</a>; <a href='B:110 4:20-21'>1Ki 4:20-21</a>). David could praise God simply because He was ''my God'' (<a href='B:230 118:28'>Psa 118:28</a>)- an allusion back to the Abrahamic promise. Of course, the main fulfillment of this promise will be in the Kingdom; but in principle, the promise has already been fulfilled to Abraham's seed- i:e:, us!</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh gave them rest all around, according to all that He swore to their fathers-</p><p><a href='B:650 3:8'>Heb 3:8</a> is clear that Joshua did not give them "rest" as intended, and so his work was reapplied and rescheduled to his namesake the Lord Jesus. So the language here is that of potential achievement by Joshua, rather than by Israel in practice.</p><p>Not a man of all their enemies stood before them. Yahweh delivered all their enemies into their hand- </p><p>But their enemies did stand before them, they didn't possess all the land. Yet God puts it over so positively, as if it's a story with a happy ending- when actually it's a tragedy. Even when rebuking them, God sees Israel as in some ways " perfect" (<a href='B:290 42:18-20'>Isa 42:18-20</a>). Israel were like Sodom, and yet they weren't treated like Sodom (<a href='B:290 1:9-10'>Isa 1:9-10</a>). They were Jeshurun, the upright one, but they kicked at God (<a href='B:50 32:15'>Deu 32:15</a>). See on <a href='B:60 19:9'>Jos 19:9</a>.</p>


text:
<p>Nothing failed of any good thing which Yahweh had spoken to the house of Israel; all came to pass- </p><p>Literally, 'a word from all the good word'. Every word of promise concerning every town, field, cattle drive and suburb didn't fail. God's prophecies do not fail of themselves; it is human weakness which fails to realize the prophetic potential. Indeed as concluded in <a href='B:60 24:18'>Jos 24:18</a> "Yahweh drove out from before us all the peoples". But Israel failed to make good on that, for they didn't drive out all the peoples. This all speaks of the tragic wasted potential which there is in all that the Lord Jesus achieved. He won the victories over every aspect of sin, every obstacle between us and possessing the Kingdom. But we are slow and lazy to believe and act upon that. See on <a href='B:60 24:15'>Jos 24:15</a>.</p>


text:
<p>Then Joshua called the Reubenites, the Gadites and the half-tribe of Manasseh-</p><p>Clearly Joshua called the representatives of those tribes. This is a major theme in the Bible- that the representative of a person or entity is spoken of as being that person. Understanding this helps us easily understand the verses wrested to support the mistaken doctrine of the Trinity.</p>


text:
<p>and said to them, You have kept all that Moses the servant of Yahweh commanded you, and have listened to my voice in all that I commanded you-</p><p>Moses had told the Reubenites and Gadites that they could return to their possessions when “the Lord have given rest unto your brethren, and they also possess the land” (<a href='B:50 3:20'>Deu 3:20</a>). But Joshua tells them to go to their possessions simply because their brethren were now at “rest” (<a href='B:60 22:4'>Jos 22:4</a>). He significantly omits the proviso that their brethren must also possess the land- because much of the land wasn’t possessed. Was this Joshua getting slack, thinking that the main thing was that people were living in peace, even though they weren’t possessing the Kingdom? Or is it a loving concession to human weakness? Indeed, the conditions of <a href='B:50 3:20'>Deu 3:20</a> were in their turn an easier form, a concession to, the terms of the initial agreement in <a href='B:40 32:20-32'>Num 32:20-32</a>. </p><p>Joshua didn’t give the people rest (<a href='B:650 4:8'>Heb 4:8</a>); although he potentially enabled it (<a href='B:60 22:4'>Jos 22:4</a>; <a href='B:60 23:1'>Jos 23:1</a>). He failed to fulfil the potential of <a href='B:60 1:13-15'>Jos 1:13-15</a> - that he would lead the people to “rest”. The Messianic Kingdom could, perhaps, have come through Joshua-Jesus; but Israel would not. And so his work was rescheduled and reapplied to the Lord Jesus, who does give "rest" to the true people of God (<a href='B:650 4:8'>Heb 4:8</a>). See on <a href='B:60 21:43-44'>Jos 21:43-44</a>; <a href='B:60 23:4'>Jos 23:4</a>; <a href='B:60 24:14'>Jos 24:14</a>; <a href='B:60 24:23'>Jos 24:23</a>. Or is all this rooted in his love for them, not seeing iniquity in Jacob?</p>


text:
<p>You have not left your brothers these many days to this day, but have performed the duty commanded by Yahweh your God- </p><p>I would consider the book of Joshua to have largely been written by Joshua, under Divine inspiration, although edited [again under Divine inspiration] for the exiles. And the book of Judges likewise. For the exiles too were set to reestablish God's Kingdom in the land and to inherit it again as the Israelites first did. The phrase "to this day" occurs several times in Joshua / Judges, and appears to have different points of historical reference (<a href='B:60 4:9'>Jos 4:9</a>; <a href='B:60 5:9'>Jos 5:9</a>; <a href='B:60 6:25'>Jos 6:25</a>; <a href='B:60 7:26'>Jos 7:26</a>; <a href='B:60 8:28-29'>Jos 8:28-29</a>; <a href='B:60 9:27'>Jos 9:27</a>; <a href='B:60 10:27'>Jos 10:27</a>; <a href='B:60 13:13'>Jos 13:13</a>; <a href='B:60 14:14'>Jos 14:14</a>; <a href='B:60 15:63'>Jos 15:63</a>; <a href='B:60 16:10'>Jos 16:10</a>; <a href='B:60 22:3'>Jos 22:3</a>; <a href='B:60 23:8-9'>Jos 23:8-9</a>; <a href='B:70 1:26'>Jdg 1:26</a>; <a href='B:70 6:24'>Jdg 6:24</a>; <a href='B:70 10:4'>Jdg 10:4</a>; <a href='B:70 15:19'>Jdg 15:19</a>; <a href='B:70 18:12'>Jdg 18:12</a>). I would explain this by saying that the book was edited a number of times and the remains of those edits remain in the text. For God's word is living and made relevant by Him to every generation.</p>


text:
<p>Now Yahweh your God has given rest to your brothers, as He spoke to them. Therefore now return and go to your tents, to the land of your possession, which Moses the servant of Yahweh gave you beyond the Jordan- </p><p>This is a timeless principle- that our own inheritance of the Kingdom requires our efforts to help our brethren inherit it also. For in a sense, salvation is collective; the body of Christ receive His resurrection life, the Israel of God inherit Canaan. Whilst relationship with God is ultimately personal, the essence of that relationship is love. And love in its ultimate term is the desire to eternally save others.</p>


text:
<p>Only take diligent heed to do the commandment and the law which Moses the servant of Yahweh commanded you, to love Yahweh your God, to walk in all His ways, to keep His commandments, to hold fast to Him and to serve Him with all your heart and with all your soul-</p><p>If we love the Lord Jesus Christ, we will keep His words (<a href='B:500 14:15'>Joh 14:15</a>; <a href='B:500 14:21'>Joh 14:21</a>; <a href='B:500 15:10'>Joh 15:10</a>). This is evidently alluding to the many Old Testament passages which say that Israel's love for God would be shown through their keeping of His commands (<a href='B:20 20:6'>Exo 20:6</a>; <a href='B:50 5:10'>Deu 5:10</a>; <a href='B:50 7:9'>Deu 7:9</a>; <a href='B:50 11:1'>Deu 11:1</a>; <a href='B:50 11:13'>Deu 11:13</a>; <a href='B:50 11:22'>Deu 11:22</a>; <a href='B:50 30:16'>Deu 30:16</a>; <a href='B:60 22:5'>Jos 22:5</a>). Israel were also told that God's commands were all&nbsp;related to showing love (<a href='B:50 11:13'>Deu 11:13</a>; <a href='B:50 19:9'>Deu 19:9</a>). So there is a logical circuit here: We love God by keeping His commands, therefore His commands are fundamentally about love. Thus love is the fulfilling of the law of God; both under the Old and New covenants (<a href='B:520 13:10'>Rom 13:10</a>). It is all to easy to see our relationship with God and Christ as a question of obedience to their words, as if this is somehow a test of our spirituality. This is to humanize God too far, to see God as if He were a fallible man; for if we were God, we would institute some kind of written test for our creatures: 'Do this, and if you don't, then I know you don't love me'. The God of glory is beyond this kind of thing. He is His word. If we love Him, we will be eager to know His words, we will dwell upon them, we will live them out in our daily experience as far as we can.</p><p>Yahweh was to be loved with all the heart, soul and mind (<a href='B:50 6:5'>Deu 6:5</a>). This is understood by Joshua as meaning that those who loved Yahweh would not "mix with" and intermarry with the nations and accept their gods (<a href='B:60 23:11-12'>Jos 23:11-12</a>; <a href='B:60 23:16'>Jos 23:16</a>). "Love" for God was not therefore a feeling; Joshua said that they must "take good heed therefore to yourselves, that you love Yahweh" (<a href='B:60 23:11'>Jos 23:11</a>). This is the love of conscious direction of the mind, the love which is a choice rather than an emotion.</p>


text:
<p>So Joshua blessed them and sent them away; and they went to their tents- </p><p>The agreement in <a href='B:60 1:14'>Jos 1:14</a> had been that "Your wives, your little ones and your livestock shall live in the land which Moses gave you beyond the Jordan; but all your mighty men of valour shall pass over before your brothers, armed, and shall help them". This was no small sacrifice, because it left their much beloved flocks, as well as their women and children, without protection. That is the significance of the agreement that "all" their soldiers were to pass over Jordan. And they were to be in the front line, "before your brothers", forming the vanguard. Further, their inheritances east of Jordan were huge, and included areas inhabited by giants and strong enemies. So the agreement required them to live by faith in God's protection far more than did the other tribes. Their attempted short cut to the Kingdom didn't work, it ended up with far greater challenge to their faith. And that is true to this day.</p>


text:
<p>Now to the one half-tribe of Manasseh Moses had given inheritance in Bashan; but to the other half gave Joshua among their brothers beyond the Jordan westward. Moreover when Joshua sent them away to their tents he blessed them- </p><p>Division between brethren is not God's ideal intention. We wonder whether this arrangement was God's curse, if that is not too strong a word, upon Manasseh's desire for the immediate inheritance east of Jordan. We note that Dan also, a tribe associated with much spiritual failure, was likewise given two areas of inheritance, one in the south and one in the north.</p>


text:
<p>and spoke to them saying, Return with much wealth to your tents, with very much livestock, with silver, gold, brass, iron and with very much clothing. Divide the spoil of your enemies with your brothers- </p><p>The enemies of Israel west of Jordan were still their enemies, and they were to divide the spoil they had taken there with their brothers east of Jordan. Although God arranged their disunity in response to their wish (see on :7), He also worked to minimize it.</p>


text:
<p>The children of Reuben and the children of Gad and the half-tribe of Manasseh returned, and departed from the children of Israel out of Shiloh which is in the land of Canaan to go to the land of Gilead, to the land of their possession which they owned, according to the commandment of Yahweh by Moses-</p><p>"Which they owned" is a reminder that God accepted the situation, as discussed on :6,7. He had given them their inheritance as they requested, even if it was not His idea intention. But He didn't wish for that to be revisited and caviled against by the other tribes. This was legitimately their inheritance. After less than ideal behaviour from others, we need to move on, the lines remain drawn where they have been- but we must move on with our brethren and not seek to endlessly revisit the issue:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>When they came to the region about the Jordan, that is in the land of Canaan, the children of Reuben and the children of Gad and the half-tribe of Manasseh built there an altar by the Jordan, a great altar to look at- </p><p>This altar was right on the edge of their territory, and was not therefore intended as a central place of worship. It was perhaps built opposite the altar that been built when Israel first crossed the Jordan. See on :11. Their desire to settle east of Jordan meant they would be separated from the sanctuary by the river Jordan. The law required that three times / year their men were to appear at the sanctuary. We recall from <a href='B:60 3:15'>Jos 3:15</a> that the Jordan was very hard to cross at the time of Passover. So their decision was going to make spiritual devotions and obedience to the law far harder to keep. But God went along with their request, as did the Father of the prodigal son. And as He did with Israel's request for a human king and a temple- even though those things made devotion to Him that much harder to achieve.</p>


text:
<p>The children of Israel heard a report that the children of Reuben and the children of Gad and the half-tribe of Manasseh had built an altar in the forefront of the land of Canaan, in the region about the Jordan, on the side that pertains to the children of Israel- </p><p>Or "at the passage of the children of Israel". This would confirm the suggestion on :10, that it was built opposite the altar that been built when Israel first crossed the Jordan. And this too would be the sense of "the forefront of the land of Canaan". For Israel had first entered Canaan at this point, in the plains opposite Jericho, and they considered that area to be the 'forefront' of Canaan:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>When the children of Israel confirmed this, the whole congregation of the children of Israel gathered themselves together at Shiloh, to go up against them to war- </p><p>We have the impression that they did the right thing on hearing a report (:11); they confirmed it to be true by investigation. But then they fail completely in going to war against their brethren who only recently had been fighting for them in the vanguard of the Israelite army, in order to secure their inheritance west of Jordan. There were clearly underlying jealousy and personality issues. They were twisting the Mosaic commandment of <a href='B:50 13:12-16'>Deu 13:12-16</a> about investigating whether or not idolatry was being committed in a city, and if it was, then attacking and destroying the city. As often happens in these kinds of controversies, there is a semblance of obedience to Divine commands [they confirmed that an altar had been built], but not in fact. For no idolatry was being committed upon the altar which had been built. They found no evidence of that but still wanted to attack and destroy their brethren. The scenario has repeated countless times within the body of Christ. And the western tribes could hardly consistently claim such a scrupulous level of obedience to Divine law, when they had not driven out the Canaanite tribes and were starting to worship their gods. They were transferring their own guilt onto others. This is why brethren guilty of a certain sin will zealously accuse others [even falsely] of that very sin, and seek to punish them for it. This is not simply a case of hypocrisy. It is psychological transference of their own sin onto others, and seeking to punish them with the judgment they themselves deserve.</p>


text:
<p>The children of Israel sent to the children of Reuben, and to the children of Gad, and to the half-tribe of Manasseh, into the land of Gilead. They sent Phinehas the son of Eleazar the priest- </p><p>Phinehas had become well known for saving Israel by murdering the apostates (<a href='B:40 25:7'>Num 25:7</a>). But as explained on :12, here he was going too far. He was assuming the existence of idolatry, when in fact there was none. He was of the personality type which was judgmental, and had made his name, as it were, from this. But on this occasion he was allowing the natural human desire to be judgmental to consume him, when he ought to have controlled it. There are so many people like him in the body of Christ today. See on :17.</p>


text:
<p>and with him ten princes, one prince of a fathers’ house for each of the tribes of Israel; and they were each one of them head of their fathers’ houses among the thousands of Israel-&nbsp; </p><p>This would have included a prince for the other half of the tribe of Manasseh which was west of Jordan. We wonder how enthusiastic he really was, or like many a member of committees of brethren who are directed to attack other brethren::. he maybe secretly disliked this direction, but succumbed to group pressure. Or perhaps the western half tribe were jealous of the apparently better possession which the eastern half apparently had.</p>


text:
<p>They came to the children of Reuben and to the children of Gad and to the half-tribe of Manasseh, to the land of Gilead, and they spoke with them saying- </p><p>Gilead was the very area where Jacob and Laban had built a mound of rocks to symbolize their separation from each other, although with Yahweh watching between them (<a href='B:10 31:23'>Gen 31:23</a>; <a href='B:10 31:25'>Gen 31:25</a>). It was also the area where Esau came to slay his brother Jacob, but was stopped in his tracks by God, and by Jacob's repentance. Perhaps something like that was going on here. The eastern tribes may well have had something to repent of; and the hypocritical western tribes were acting as Esau rather than Jacob. Perhaps the eastern tribes, despite fighting for their western brethren against the Canaanites, had fallen out with their brethren. And they had built this altar in the spirit in which Jacob and Laban had built their altar in the same area. But division between brethren is not the same as idolatry, in this context. The fact brethren are separated doesn't make one party idolatrous. Gilead had been specifically given to Machir son of Manasseh in <a href='B:40 32:40'>Num 32:40</a>, so it was quite wrong for the eastern tribes to imply this land was unclean (:19), and that the eastern tribes ought to come and live with the western tribes- with such "unity" enforced at sword point! Terrible abuse has been performed by Christians in the name of "unity within Israel", and we see it all prefigured here.</p>


text:
<p>Thus says the whole congregation of Yahweh, ‘What trespass is this that you have committed against the God of Israel, to turn away this day from following Yahweh, in that you have built yourselves an altar, to rebel this day against Yahweh?- </p><p>They considered themselves as those on the west of Jordan to be "the whole congregation of Yahweh". They considered geographical issues, and the unwise choices of seven years previously, to have cut off the eastern tribes from Yahweh's congregation. This is typical of the kind of wrong reasoning which goes on within the body of believers to this day; considering that they alone are the body of believers, and reasoning onwards further from that false assumption and perspective. We also note that half of the tribe of Manasseh were also west of Jordan. So by reasoning like this, they were pitting brother against brother. See on :18.</p>


text:
<p>Is the iniquity of Peor of little consequence for us, from which we have not cleansed ourselves to this day, although there came a plague on the congregation of Yahweh- </p><p>Phinehas is alluding to how he had saved Israel from destruction at that time by destroying the apostates (see on :13). He implies that although he cleansed Israel at the time, they were still unclean from it in that idolatry was still ongoing. But his hypocrisy is in the way that he is ignoring that the idolatry was not simply in the eastern tribes; it was clearly amongst his own western tribes, as indicated by later commentary upon their spiritual state. Defending the fait against perceived possible idolatry can become obsessive- exactly because it appeals to the flesh. Otherwise fairly lax believers eagerly get caught up in a feeding frenzy of judgment against their own brethren, because it is all a transference onto others of their own weakness and liability to judgment.</p>


text:
<p>that you must turn away this day from following Yahweh? It will be, since you rebel today against Yahweh, that tomorrow He will be angry with the whole congregation of Israel- </p><p>Their logic is wrong all the way through. They had just reasoned that they alone were the congregation of Israel (see on :16). But now they reason that if those in the congregation east of Jordan sin, then they on the west of Jordan will be punished for it, because all the congregation will suffer together. Yet they have just reasoned that those on the east were not in the congregation of Yahweh. This is the kind of serious error in logic found in nearly all division and aggression within the body of believers today. These ancient records speak so relevantly to our day, for God's word is in this sense a living word.</p>


text:
<p>However, if the land of your possession is unclean, then pass over to the land of the possession of Yahweh, in which Yahweh’s tabernacle dwells, and take possession among us; but don’t rebel against Yahweh, nor rebel against us, in building an altar other than the altar of Yahweh our God-</p><p>Clearly the western tribes considered the land east of Jordan to be unclean. They were ignoring the fact God had given the eastern tribes their inheritance there, calling it the "good land", and defining clearly their borders and cities, even asking for cities of refuge and priestly cities there. They were reasoning in a very parochial way. For the land right up to the Euphrates had been promised to them; indeed the majority of the land promised to Abraham was east of Jordan. God had made a concession to their weakness by recalculating "the river" as the Jordan rather than the Euphrates. They were psychologically transferring their perception [that the land east of Jordan was unclean] onto these people. Likewise they equate rebelling "against us" with rebellion "against Yahweh". They were playing God, assuming that anyone not with them was against them and thus against God. It was just this mentality amongst His followers which the Lord rebuked sternly in <a href='B:490 9:50'>Luk 9:50</a>. See on :31.</p><p>As we will see on :29, this is very similar to the exaggerated challenge made by Joshua to the hypocritical western tribes in <a href='B:60 24:15'>Jos 24:15</a> "If it seems evil to you to serve Yahweh::.". &nbsp;Joshua was speaking to the western tribes as they had spoken to the eastern tribes- and accusing them of idolatry, as they had [perhaps falsely, but hypocritically] accused the eastern tribes. The western tribes were being made to feel how they had made the eastern tribes feel; and were being reminded of their own idolatry. God likewise works with men today, often confronting those who confront their brethren, and trying to help them perceive their hypocrisy and repent.</p>


text:
<p>Didn’t Achan the son of Zerah commit a trespass in the devoted thing, causing wrath to fall on all the congregation of Israel? That man didn’t perish alone in his iniquity’- </p><p>Again, Biblical precedent is being used wrongly, in order to justify participation in a feeding frenzy of judgmentalism. In the same way as Daniel, Isaiah, Ezra, Israel at the time of Achan etc. were reckoned as guilty but were not personally responsible for the sins of others, so the Lord Jesus was reckoned as a sinner on the cross; He was made sin for us, who knew no sin personally (<a href='B:540 5:21'>2Co 5:21</a>). He carried our sins by His association with us, prefigured by the way in which Israel's sins were transferred to the animal; but He personally was not a sinner because of His association with us.</p><p>This is no evidence for guilt by association. The situation here has been misinterpreted by some to mean that we therefore cannot associate with sinners of the Achan category, lest we become defiled by association with them. But the point is that all the community of believers are in a sense considered at fault because of the failings of some of them. So if there is guilt by association, then it cannot be avoided by not associating with sinful people within the community. For the people of God, the community, is indivisible. We are in it and cannot quit it, if we wish to remain God's people. And in fact the Lord Jesus time and again turned all this around to the opposite- by willingly seeking association with sinners, eating with them, touching the leper etc. He was not thereby condemned, but rather sought to highlight His association with unclean people of God. It was through that willing association that we are saved.</p>


text:
<p>Then the children of Reuben and the children of Gad and the half-tribe of Manasseh answered and spoke to the heads of the thousands of Israel- </p><p>The style of the record is very slow and deliberate, to focus our attention upon the words spoken, and to perceive for ourselves where truth really lay in this matter.</p>


text:
<p>The Mighty One, God, Yahweh, the Mighty One, God, Yahweh, He knows; and Israel shall know if it was in rebellion, or in trespass against Yahweh (don’t save us this day)- </p><p>The repeated usage of the covenant Name is to show that they were faithful to Yahweh and had not at all turned away to idols; and therefore the harnessing of <a href='B:50 13:12-16'>Deu 13:12-16</a> to slay them was quite inappropriate. Their argument in :22,23 seems appropriate to those who are genuinely taken aback by a false accusation of idolatry. They seem to be saying that God knows, and He will judge- and these incensed brethren ought to leave it to Him, and not act for Him. And that is really all we can say to people who are utterly obsessed with finding fault with us and condemning us.</p>


text:
<p>He knows whether we have built us an altar to turn away from following Yahweh; or to offer burnt offering or meal offering, or sacrifices of peace offerings-</p><p>As discussed on :33, the altar they had built was symbolic and not for actual usage in worship.</p><p>Let Yahweh Himself decide-</p><p>"Decide" is the word for searching of requiring. The judgment will be the time when God 'requires' of us our behaviour. And yet the Hebrew word is used about our enquiring / searching to God in prayer now (<a href='B:10 25:22'>Gen 25:22</a>; <a href='B:20 18:15'>Exo 18:15</a>; <a href='B:50 4:29'>Deu 4:29</a>; <a href='B:50 12:5'>Deu 12:5</a>; <a href='B:110 22:5'>1Ki 22:5</a>), as well as His 'requiring' / searching of us at the last day (<a href='B:50 18:19'>Deu 18:19</a>; <a href='B:50 23:21'>Deu 23:21</a>; <a href='B:60 22:23'>Jos 22:23</a>; <a href='B:90 20:16'>1Sa 20:16</a>; <a href='B:140 24:22'>2Ch 24:22</a>; <a href='B:330 3:20'>Eze 3:20</a>; <a href='B:330 33:6'>Eze 33:6</a>; <a href='B:330 33:8'>Eze 33:8</a>). There is a mutuality between a man and his God. We must keep and seek for His commandments and He will seek / search our hearts in response (<a href='B:130 28:8-9'>1Ch 28:8-9</a> - the same original words are used). The wicked don't seek for God because they don't think He will require their deeds of them; but because He will require them, we should enquire / seek for Him (<a href='B:230 10:4'>Psa 10:4</a>; <a href='B:230 10:13'>Psa 10:13</a>; <a href='B:230 10:15'>Psa 10:15</a> - the same word occurs three times). We enquire of Him and He enquires of us, both now and in the last day. This entering into 'enquiry' with our God is what goes on in prayer. In it we have a foretaste of judgment to come.</p>


text:
<p>if we have not out of concern done this, and for a reason, saying, ‘In time to come your children might speak to our children saying, What have you to do with Yahweh, the God of Israel?- </p><p>The eastern tribes had already effectively started to say this, by implying that the eastern tribes were living in an unclean land and were not part of the congregation of Yahweh; see on :16,19.</p>


text:
<p>For Yahweh has made the Jordan a border between us and you, you children of Reuben and children of Gad. You have no portion in Yahweh’. So your children might make our children cease from fearing Yahweh- </p><p>Yahweh had indeed established the Jordan as a border between the tribes of Reuben and Gad. Eastern Manasseh didn't have the Jordan as a border. We note the absolute internal consistency of the records. "No portion" is the term often used of how the Levites had "no portion", no tribal canton allotted to them. The eastern tribes foresaw that the western tribes were reasoning toward a position whereby everything east of the Jordan was not the inheritance of Yahweh; see on :19. By so doing, they were totally overlooking the Abrahamic covenant promise of all the land east of Jordan up to the Euphrates. The western tribes were only harnessing a few scriptures out of context, and were overlooking the overall tenor of scriptural teaching.</p>


text:
<p>Therefore we said, ‘Let’s now prepare to build ourselves an altar, not for burnt offering, nor for sacrifice- </p><p>They stress that like the altar built opposite on the other side of Jordan to commemorate the crossing of Jordan, and like the altar built by Jacob in this place, they intended just a memorial and not an active functioning altar. See on :27.</p>


text:
<p>but it will be a witness between us and you, and between our generations after us- </p><p>This continues the allusion to the altar made by Jacob and Laban in the same area, as a "witness" of their positions (<a href='B:10 31:48'>Gen 31:48</a>), just as the altar built on the western side of Jordan was likewise intended as a teaching tool and witness (<a href='B:60 4:6-7'>Jos 4:6-7</a>).</p><p>That we may perform the service of Yahweh before Him with our burnt offerings, with our sacrifices and with our peace offerings;’ that your children may not tell our children in time to come, ‘You have no portion in Yahweh’- </p><p>So they appear to mean in :26 that they did not then at that time intend to use it, but they would use it if later their descendants were banned from worshipping at the sanctuary to the west of Jordan. The idea would be that the altar was a witness of their intentions, and this is another example of the language of inanimate objects speaking and witnessing. This is not literally true, just as demons don't exist, yet the New Testament uses the language of demons as then understood.</p>


text:
<p>Therefore we said, ‘It shall be, when they tell us or our generations this in time to come, that we shall say, Behold the pattern of the altar of Yahweh, which our fathers made, not for burnt offering, nor for sacrifice-&nbsp; </p><p>We note their calm response to monstrous false accusation- that they were already using the altar for idol worship and therefore must be violently destroyed by their brethren. In fact the altar's meaning [at least, as they explained it] was the very opposite of what the ten tribes had willfully misinterpreted it to mean. LXX "Behold the likeness of the altar of the Lord" suggests they intentionally copied the altar before the tabernacle, because they wanted this altar to be used for sacrifice if they were denied access to that in the sanctuary west of Jordan.</p><p>But it is a witness between us and you’-</p><p>See on :27.</p>


text:
<p>Far be it from us that we should rebel against Yahweh, thus turning away this day from following Yahweh to build an altar for burnt offering, for meal offering, or for sacrifice, in competition with the altar of Yahweh our God that is before His tabernacle!- </p><p>The accusation was that they had rebelled against Yahweh (:16,18,19). The western tribes claimed they had evidence for this, and they use the words of Joshua himself found in <a href='B:40 14:9'>Num 14:9</a> "Only don’t rebel against Yahweh". But that verse continues: "Neither fear the people of the land; for they are bread for us. Their defence is removed from over them, and Yahweh is with us. Don’t fear them". But the western tribes did fear the Canaanites, and did not drive them out of their territories. So again we see how they justified their jealousy of the eastern tribes by grabbing half of a Bible verse out of context. The rest of that verse shows that it was they who were the rebels against Yahweh. Indeed all Israel were rebellious against Yahweh from the day He knew them (<a href='B:50 9:24'>Deu 9:24</a>), and <a href='B:160 9:26'>Neh 9:26</a> specifically states that after entering the land, they "were disobedient and rebelled against You". <a href='B:60 24:23'>Jos 24:23</a> is specific that there was idolatry going on amongst the western tribes at this time, so their attempt to exterminate the eastern tribes for unproven accusations of idolatry is to be seen as hypocritical.</p><p>These are pretty much the words of the western tribes in <a href='B:60 24:16'>Jos 24:16</a>. The western tribes were hypocritical in implying that they were so totally devoted to Yahweh alone that they had to slay their eastern brethren because of their possible idolatry. In Joshua 24, they are effectively accused of idolatry by Joshua in the same way as they accused the eastern tribes of it. And they are answering in the same way- even though they were guilty of idolatry themselves, and needed to "put away" their idols (<a href='B:60 24:14'>Jos 24:14</a>). Phinehas (:30) is revealed here as somewhat hypocritical, for surely he was aware of the situation in Israel. For Joshua himself clearly knew that idolatry was widespread amongst them, as his speech in Joshua 24 makes clear.</p>


text:
<p>When Phinehas the priest, and the princes of the congregation, even the heads of the thousands of Israel that were with him, heard the words that the children of Reuben and the children of Gad and the children of Manasseh spoke, it pleased them well- </p><p>What "pleased" or 'was good in the eyes of' the elders was likewise 'good in the eyes of' the peoples of the western tribes (s:w. :33). Major decisions about the fate of many people, going to war or not, were based upon what seemed good in the eyes of 11 men. I suggest on :32 that there must have been other issues going on here beneath the surface.</p>


text:
<p>Phinehas the son of Eleazar the priest said to the children of Reuben, to the children of Gad, and to the children of Manasseh, Today we know that Yahweh is in the midst of us, because you have not committed this trespass against Yahweh. Now you have delivered the children of Israel out of the hand of Yahweh- </p><p>Yahweh's hand was not against the tribes east of Jordan. The hand that was against them was the hand of the western tribes, motivated by personal dislike and jealousy. Again they make the mistake of playing God, assuming that their positions are God's; see on :19. And Phinehas offers no apology for his wrong assumption that the altar was idolatrous; he seeks to save face by implying they had in fact repented, and thereby saved the rest of Israel from being punished by Yahweh. Again we note the contradiction in logic. The western tribes had just reasoned that they alone were the congregation of Israel (see on :16). But now they reason that if those in the congregation east of Jordan sin, then they on the west of Jordan will be punished for it, because all the congregation will suffer together. Yet they have just claimed that those on the east were not in the congregation of Yahweh.</p>


text:
<p>Phinehas the son of Eleazar the priest, and the princes, returned from the children of Reuben, and from the children of Gad, out of the land of Gilead, to the land of Canaan, to the children of Israel, and brought them word again- </p><p>We see here the fickleness of people. One moment they were intent on destroying their brethren, claiming to have researched the matter and found them guilt of idolatry. And now they are all "pleased" with the words of the men of the eastern tribes. Given the massive problem with idolatry throughout Israel at this time, one suspects that some unrecorded deal was cut between the two sides, and that there were ulterior motives for wanting to fight against the eastern tribes.</p>


text:
<p>The thing pleased the children of Israel; and the children of Israel blessed God, and spoke no more of going up to destroy in warfare the land in which the children of Reuben and the children of Gad lived- </p><p>Israelites from the western tribes were later to be persecuted for their faithlessness and crossed the Jordan into the territory of Gad (<a href='B:90 13:7'>1Sa 13:7</a>). This is fair commentary upon the situation in <a href='B:60 22:19'>Jos 22:19</a>; <a href='B:60 22:25'>Jos 22:25</a>, where the Israelites accused Gad of falling away from Yahweh worship, and the people of Gad explained that they feared that the other Israelites would make the Jordan a boundary which they would use to exclude them from Yahweh worship. All these fears and speculations about the future are here shown to be inappropriate. Actually the very opposite worked out. And this is the problem with so many divisions between brethren; they are based upon fears of possible futures, and the passage of time often shows the opposite working out.</p>


text:
<p>The children of Reuben and the children of Gad named the altar ‘A Witness Between Us that Yahweh is God’- </p><p>The implication of course was that "We will serve Yahweh alone". If Yahweh is God, which the Bible states on about every page of the Old Testament in the phrase "Yahweh God", then it is axiomatic that we are to serve Him with unique loyalty.</p>


text:
<p>It happened after many days, when Yahweh had given rest to Israel from their enemies all around and Joshua was old and well advanced in years- </p><p>Joshua didn’t give the people rest (<a href='B:650 4:8'>Heb 4:8</a>); although he potentially enabled it (<a href='B:60 22:4'>Jos 22:4</a>). He failed to fulfil the potential of <a href='B:60 1:13-15'>Jos 1:13-15</a> - that he would lead the people to “rest”. The Messianic Kingdom could, perhaps, have come through Joshua-Jesus; but Israel would not. And so his work was rescheduled and reapplied to the Lord Jesus, who does give "rest" to the true people of God (<a href='B:650 4:8'>Heb 4:8</a>). See on <a href='B:60 21:43-44'>Jos 21:43-44</a>; <a href='B:60 23:4'>Jos 23:4</a>; <a href='B:60 24:14'>Jos 24:14</a>; <a href='B:60 24:23'>Jos 24:23</a>.</p>


text:
<p>that Joshua called for all Israel, for their elders, their heads, their judges and for their officers and said to them, I am old and well advanced in years-</p><p>He invited "all Israel", but it seems from :4 that only those west of Jordan came. Already the unwisdom of settlement to the east of Jordan was apparent. They put secular advantage before spiritual fellowship, and suffered for it.</p>


text:
<p>You have seen all that Yahweh your God has done to all these nations because of you; for it is Yahweh your God who has fought for you-</p><p><a href='B:160 9:26'>Neh 9:26</a> specifically states that after entering the land, they "were disobedient and rebelled against You":&nbsp;&nbsp;Given the very quick descent into idolatry we read of in Judges, it is clear that Yahweh fought for Israel because of Joshua's faith and His loving grace towards them- and not because of their spirituality.</p>


text:
<p>Behold, I have allotted to you these nations that remain to be an inheritance for your tribes, from the Jordan, with all the nations that I have cut off, even to the great sea toward the going down of the sun- </p><p>The Lord Jesus may allude here in saying that He has appointed unto us a Kingdom (<a href='B:490 22:29'>Luk 22:29</a>). Joshua enabled the Kingdom, overcame all obstacles to it, and appointed it to Israel. But he couldn't drag them in to possess it and experience it, and neither will the Lord Jesus do. Joshua seems here to be addressing the western tribes- for he speaks of inheritance from the Jordan to the Mediterranean:&nbsp; See on :2.</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh your God will thrust them out from before you, and drive them from out of your sight. You shall possess their land, as Yahweh your God spoke to you- </p><p>"Drive out" is s:w. "possess". We must note the difference between the&nbsp; Canaanite peoples and their kings being "struck" and their land "taken" by Joshua-Jesus; and the people of Israel permanently taking possession. This is the difference between the Lord's victory on the cross, and our taking possession of the Kingdom. Even though that possession has been "given" to us. The word used for "possession" is literally 'an inheritance'. The allusion is to the people, like us, being the seed of Abraham. The Kingdom was and is our possession, our inheritance- if we walk in the steps of Abraham. But it is one thing to be the seed of Abraham, another to take possession of the inheritance; and Israel generally did not take possession of all the land (<a href='B:60 11:23'>Jos 11:23</a>; <a href='B:60 13:1'>Jos 13:1</a>; <a href='B:60 16:10'>Jos 16:10</a>; <a href='B:60 18:3'>Jos 18:3</a>; <a href='B:60 23:4'>Jos 23:4</a>). The language of inheritance / possession is applied to us in the New Testament (<a href='B:560 1:11'>Eph 1:11</a>; <a href='B:560 1:14'>Eph 1:14</a>; <a href='B:580 3:24'>Col 3:24</a>; <a href='B:510 20:32'>Act 20:32</a>; <a href='B:510 26:18'>Act 26:18</a>; <a href='B:670 1:4'>1Pe 1:4</a> etc:). Israel were promised: "You shall possess it" (<a href='B:50 30:5'>Deu 30:5</a>; <a href='B:50 33:23'>Deu 33:23</a>). This was more of a command than a prophecy, for sadly they were "given" the land but did not "possess" it. They were constantly encouraged in the wilderness that they were on the path to possessing the land (<a href='B:50 30:16'>Deu 30:16</a>; <a href='B:50 30:18'>Deu 30:18</a>; <a href='B:50 31:3'>Deu 31:3</a>; <a href='B:50 31:13'>Deu 31:13</a>; <a href='B:50 32:47'>Deu 32:47</a>), but when they got there they didn't possess it fully.</p>


text:
<p>Therefore be very courageous to keep and to do all that is written in the book of the law of Moses, that you not turn aside from it to the right hand or to the left-</p><p>See on <a href='B:60 1:7-8'>Jos 1:7-8</a>. Because God gave them the land of Canaan, a land for which they did not labour, didn't do any 'work' to receive, but were given because "You did a favour unto them" (<a href='B:230 44:3'>Psa 44:3</a>)- therefore they were to keep the law (<a href='B:50 26:15-16'>Deu 26:15-16</a>; <a href='B:50 29:8-9'>Deu 29:8-9</a>; <a href='B:60 23:5-6'>Jos 23:5-6</a>). David said that he loved keeping the law because God's testimony to him was so miraculous (<a href='B:230 119:129'>Psa 119:129</a> Heb:). There is an awesomeness to God's grace in all this. Hence the paradox of <a href='B:20 20:20'>Exo 20:20</a>: "Fear not::. that the fear of God may be before your faces". We are not to fear Him, for such perfect love casts out fear::. yet it is exactly because of the wonder of all this that we live life in some fear / awe of misusing and abusing that grace.</p><p>As Joshua had been told to be strong and of good courage in order to take the land, so he had to tell others (<a href='B:60 10:25'>Jos 10:25</a>). As God charged him to be courageous and obedient to the book of the Law, so Joshua on his deathbed charged his people (<a href='B:60 1:7-8'>Jos 1:7-8</a> cp. 23:6). Joshua had faithfully followed, and now he became the leader who was to be faithfully followed.</p>


text:
<p>that you not mingle with these nations, these that remain among you; neither make mention of the name of their gods, nor cause to swear by them, neither serve them, nor bow down yourselves to them-</p><p>'Don’t even make mention of their gods' is alluded to in <a href='B:560 5:3'>Eph 5:3</a>; Paul understands idolatry in our age as referring to the perversions and pleasures of the world around us.</p><p><a href='B:60 23:7'>Jos 23:7</a> made a concession regarding the nations left in the land. The ideal standard was to destroy them. But the concession was made that they should not socialize with them or worship their gods. But inevitably they did mix with those nations and learned their religions. Likewise the early Jewish Christians were allowed to keep the Mosaic law (in concessions to human weakness like that of Acts 15), but this really implied a lack of faith in Christ's sacrifice, with the result that many of them seem to have drifted back to Judaism. Concessions to human weakness [we think of God allowing them to have a human king and a temple, which were not His will, and His permission for the eastern tribes to settle far from His sanctuary] are made because God wants by all means to continue relationship with us; but they actually make the path to relationship with Him more difficult.</p>


text:
<p>but hold fast to Yahweh your God, as you have done to this day- </p><p>We wonder whether this was really true. "Hold fast" is the word for "cleave" used of marriage (<a href='B:10 2:24'>Gen 2:24</a>). Israel's faithfulness to God's covenant is likened to marital faithfulness. Their associations with other gods were therefore adultery. It rather seems that Joshua's faith had led to blessing for the people. For they very soon turned after the gods of the land. I would consider the book of Joshua to have largely been written by Joshua, under Divine inspiration, although edited [again under Divine inspiration] for the exiles. And the book of Judges likewise. For the exiles too were set to reestablish God's Kingdom in the land and to inherit it again as the Israelites first did. The phrase "to this day" occurs several times in Joshua / Judges, and appears to have different points of historical reference (<a href='B:60 4:9'>Jos 4:9</a>; <a href='B:60 5:9'>Jos 5:9</a>; <a href='B:60 6:25'>Jos 6:25</a>; <a href='B:60 7:26'>Jos 7:26</a>; <a href='B:60 8:28-29'>Jos 8:28-29</a>; <a href='B:60 9:27'>Jos 9:27</a>; <a href='B:60 10:27'>Jos 10:27</a>; <a href='B:60 13:13'>Jos 13:13</a>; <a href='B:60 14:14'>Jos 14:14</a>; <a href='B:60 15:63'>Jos 15:63</a>; <a href='B:60 16:10'>Jos 16:10</a>; <a href='B:60 22:3'>Jos 22:3</a>; <a href='B:60 23:8-9'>Jos 23:8-9</a>; <a href='B:70 1:26'>Jdg 1:26</a>; <a href='B:70 6:24'>Jdg 6:24</a>; <a href='B:70 10:4'>Jdg 10:4</a>; <a href='B:70 15:19'>Jdg 15:19</a>; <a href='B:70 18:12'>Jdg 18:12</a>). I would explain this by saying that the book was edited a number of times and the remains of those edits remain in the text. For God's word is living and made relevant by Him to every generation.</p>


text:
<p>For Yahweh has driven great and strong nations out from before you. But as for you, no man has stood before you to this day-</p><p>And yet even at this time, Israel felt the nations to be too strong for them (<a href='B:70 1:1'>Jdg 1:1</a>); despite every evidence that they would win if they tried to fight them. Likewise the Lord Jesus, the greater Joshua, has won every victory, and therefore anything that appears an obstacle between us and possession of the Kingdom is going to soon crumble. If we fight it. But like Israel, we tend to not even seriously try.</p>


text:
<p>One man of you shall chase a thousand; for it is Yahweh your God who fights for you, as He spoke to you- </p><p>Joshua is recalling the reversal at Ai, when Israel had been chased by their enemies for disobedience to the covenant. And likewise he recalls how it was God who had fought for Israel during the multiple victories against the Canaanites.</p><p>Samson is to be read as a symbol of Israel: "Be therefore very courageous to keep and to do all that is written in the book of the law of Moses::. that you come not among these nations, these that remain among you (true in Samson's time):::but cleave unto the Lord your God::. no man has been able to stand before you (this was Samson)::. one man of you shall chase a thousand (cp. <a href='B:70 15:16'>Jdg 15:16</a>): for the Lord your God, He it is that fights for you (this was exactly true of Samson in <a href='B:70 15:18'>Jdg 15:18</a>)::. take good heed unto yourselves::. else if you do at all go back, and cleave unto the remnant of these nations, even these that remain among you, and make marriages with them (as Samson did), and go in unto them, and they to you (cp. <a href='B:70 15:1'>Jdg 15:1</a>; Judges 16 :, where Samson went in to the Philistine women): know for a certainty that the Lord your God will no more drive out any of these nations from before you (cp. 16:20); but they shall be snares and traps unto you (Delilah!)::. and thorns in your eyes, until you perish" (<a href='B:60 23:6-13'>Jos 23:6-13</a>). This passage would associate Samson's God-given strength and victory over the Philistines with his obedience to God's word.</p>


text:
<p>Take good heed therefore to yourselves, that you love Yahweh your God- </p><p>Yahweh was to be loved with all the heart, soul and mind (<a href='B:50 6:5'>Deu 6:5</a>). This is understood by Joshua as meaning that those who loved Yahweh would not "mix with" and intermarry with the nations and accept their gods (<a href='B:60 23:11-12'>Jos 23:11-12</a>; <a href='B:60 23:16'>Jos 23:16</a>). "Love" for God was not therefore a feeling; Joshua said that they must "take good heed therefore to yourselves, that you love Yahweh" (<a href='B:60 23:11'>Jos 23:11</a>). This is the love of conscious direction of the mind, the love which is a choice rather than an emotion.</p>


text:
<p>But if you do at all mix with and hold fast to the remnant of these nations, even these who remain among you, and make marriages with them, and go in to them and they to you-</p><p>In this context of marriage out of the Faith, we read that God will destroy "him that hates Him" (<a href='B:50 7:2-11'>Deu 7:2-11</a>), and repay him to his face. On the other hand, not marrying Gentiles was part of loving God (<a href='B:60 23:11-12'>Jos 23:11-12</a>):&nbsp;Joshua's warning that those who married the surrounding tribes would find them "a snare and a trap for you::. thorns in your eyes" (<a href='B:60 23:12-13'>Jos 23:12-13</a> RSV) was fulfilled in Samson being tied up and blinded by Delilah; and yet it also had an element of fulfillment with his first wife. The similarity is such as to suggest that Samson's marriage out of the Truth was definitely wrong because it was a fulfillment of the words of Joshua 23. But God worked through it, so eager is He to work with less than ideal choices of His children.</p>


text:
<p>know for a certainty that Yahweh your God will no longer drive these nations from out of your sight; but they shall be a snare and a trap to you, a scourge in your sides and thorns in your eyes, until you perish from off this good land which Yahweh your God has given you- </p><p>This is explicit that it was because of marriage out of the faith that Israel lost their inheritance in the Kingdom, and the Gentile nations there remained a thorn in their eyes. Because of the seriousness of it, the prohibitions against intermarriage are often accompanied with an unmistakable threat of judgment: "The Lord will cut off the man that does this" (<a href='B:460 2:11'>Mal 2:11</a>); "destroy them::. (the Lord) will not be slack::. He will repay him to his face" (<a href='B:50 7:2'>Deu 7:2</a>; <a href='B:50 7:10'>Deu 7:10</a>); "know for a certainty::. that God will expel you from the land" if you intermarry (<a href='B:60 23:12-13'>Jos 23:12-13</a>); "him shall God destroy" (<a href='B:540 6:14-16'>2Co 6:14-16</a> cp. <a href='B:530 3:13'>1Co 3:13</a>). If we deny our covenant with God by marrying into the world, we have effectively cut ourselves off from Him.</p><p>We are to be renewed in knowledge, finding full assurance of our salvation in understanding (<a href='B:580 2:2'>Col 2:2</a>; <a href='B:580 3:10'>Col 3:10</a>). The Hebrew word for “understanding” is also that for “certainty”- e:g. <a href='B:60 23:13'>Jos 23:13</a> “Know for a certainty…” [s:w. “understanding”]. To understand is to be sure, in God’s language. Understanding, "being filled with the knowledge of his will", does have a place in determining our daily walk in Christ. What and how we understand, and thereby what we believe, does therefore matter.</p>


text:
<p>Behold, today I am going the way of all the earth. You know in all your hearts and in all your souls that not one thing has failed of all the good things which Yahweh your God spoke concerning you. All have happened to you, not one thing has failed of it- </p><p>Literally, 'not a word from all the good word'. Every word of promise concerning every town, field, cattle drive and suburb didn't fail. God's prophecies do not fail of themselves; it is human weakness which fails to realize the prophetic potential. Indeed as concluded in <a href='B:60 24:18'>Jos 24:18</a> "Yahweh drove out from before us all the peoples". But Israel failed to make good on that, for they didn't drive out all the peoples. This all speaks of the tragic wasted potential which there is in all that the Lord Jesus achieved. He won the victories over every aspect of sin, every obstacle between us and possessing the Kingdom. But we are slow and lazy to believe and act upon that. See on <a href='B:60 24:15'>Jos 24:15</a>.</p>


text:
<p>It shall happen that as all the good things have come on you of which Yahweh your God spoke to you, so Yahweh will bring on you all the evil things until He has destroyed you from off this good land which Yahweh your God has given you- </p><p>Joshua alludes to how they had read the blessings and cursings at mount Ebal. As it happened, Israel did worship other gods consistently. And yet it took centuries before God removed them from the land. His patient grace was wonderful. Likewise the experience of "good things" was by God's grace, giving the rewards for obedience to those who were disobedient. Much of it was achieved by Joshua, and this, it seems, was counted to the people.</p>


text:
<p>if you disobey the covenant of Yahweh your God which He commanded you, and go and serve other gods and bow down yourselves to them. Then the anger of Yahweh will be kindled against you, and you will perish quickly from off the good land which He has given to you- </p><p>Joshua is making the same point time and again. He obviously sensed the tendency towards idolatry, which makes the apparent zeal of the western tribes to destroy the eastern tribes in Joshua 22 so deeply hypocritical.</p>


text:
<p>Joshua gathered all the tribes of Israel to Shechem and called for the elders of Israel, for their heads, their judges and their officers; and they presented themselves before God- </p><p>"Before God" means before Joshua&nbsp; or before the tabernacle. This is a major theme in the Bible- that the representative of a person or entity is spoken of as being that person. Understanding this helps us easily understand the verses wrested to support the mistaken doctrine of the Trinity.</p>


text:
<p>Joshua said to all the people, Thus says Yahweh the God of Israel, ‘Your fathers lived of old time beyond the River, even Terah the father of Abraham, and the father of Nahor: and they served other gods- </p><p>The meanings of Abraham's immediate ancestors all have associations with idolatry, confirming the note here that Abram and his ancestors were idolaters. Out of that background, God chose a man who had the potential to be different. Another reading of "Terah" is that it means "One who tarries / remains", which would fit with his remaining in Haran and not going further towards Canaan.</p>


text:
<p>I took your father Abraham from beyond the River, and led him throughout all the land of Canaan and multiplied his seed, and gave him Isaac- </p><p>Note that God took Abram, when Abram had been asked to leave of his own volition. He didn't do this, and so God as it were muscled in and dragged him out. God made him obedient to the call. <a href='B:10 20:13'>Gen 20:13</a> LXX has "when God brought me forth out of the house of my father"; we see the emphasis upon God bringing him out to separation from his relatives, rather than his obedience to the call to do so. By saying this, he would be growing closer to appreciating grace; that God caused him to be obedient when he of himself was not. This is the same work of the Spirit which continues in our days. The Gentile believers are in this sense 'made obedient' by the Spirit's work (<a href='B:520 15:18'>Rom 15:18</a>; <a href='B:670 1:2'>1Pe 1:2</a>). Truly our salvation is not of works of obedience, lest any man should boast (<a href='B:560 2:9'>Eph 2:9</a>).</p><p>Our own calling out of this world is likewise a matter of God’s grace; He wishes to save us, and leads us out of situations and into new ones, when we ourselves ought to have made the moves of our own volition. He makes us wander from our father’s house (<a href='B:10 20:13'>Gen 20:13</a>). This is all part of the “blessing” to Abraham, which involves turning us away from sin (<a href='B:510 3:25-26'>Act 3:25-26</a>). God was the one who brought about Abraham’s obedience. "From thence [Haran]::. God removed him into (Canaan)" (<a href='B:510 7:4'>Act 7:4</a> R:V:).</p>


text:
<p>I gave to Isaac Jacob and Esau. I gave to Esau Mount Seir, to possess it. Jacob and his children went down into Egypt- </p><p>We note the stress is on how Isaac was given children, the seed; whereas Esau was given possessions. This is a difference between the believer and the world. Esau as the direct grandson of Abraham could have had the promises of inheritance of the eretz relevant to him; but he chose to go out of that land. Mount Seir was just outside the promised land (<a href='B:60 15:10'>Jos 15:10</a>). And so God accepted that and gave him an inheritance in Seir, although without the promises of eternal inheritance and of the saviour seed. He wanted a possession immediately in this life, and God gave Esau what he really wanted. And this is part of a big theme, both in the Bible and in life- that we get what we truly want. And so what is so critical is a spiritual mind that wants the things of the Kingdom above all.</p>


text:
<p>I sent Moses and Aaron, and I plagued Egypt according to that which I did in its midst: and afterward I brought you out- </p><p>The idea is that this was all done by God with a view to bringing His people into Canaan, and their serving Him exclusively, with no worship of other gods. The plaguing of Egypt is mentioned in this context; for the plagues were each one targeting a specific idol (<a href='B:20 12:12'>Exo 12:12</a>). And it seems from <a href='B:60 24:14'>Jos 24:14</a> that Israel had taken those gods with them, and were worshipping the very idols which Yahweh had plagued. This points up the hypocrisy of the western tribes in appearing so hyper zealous to destroy the eastern tribes because of their suspected, although unproven, idolatry.</p>


text:
<p>I brought your fathers out of Egypt: and you came to the sea. The Egyptians pursued after your fathers with chariots and with horsemen to the Red Sea- </p><p>They were brought out of Egypt just as Abraham was "taken" from Ur (see on :3). This was all by grace. Although the pursuit of Israel by the Egyptians was a historical act at a specific time, caused by God's direct action upon the hearts of the Egyptians (<a href='B:20 14:8'>Exo 14:8</a>), the pursuit and their destruction is described as ongoing "to this day" (<a href='B:50 11:4'>Deu 11:4</a>). God's word and His actions according to that word are somehow alive to this day. This is the unique nature of Biblical history. All the incidents within it speak to us of later generations. And so in Joshua 24; Joshua 6 and often, Israel are bidden understand their history as speaking directly to them, to perceive God's grace to them in history, and respond now. <a href='B:230 114:5-6'>Psa 114:5-6</a> RV describes the Red Sea as even now fleeing before God’s people. And thus because of the records of God's past activities, we should be motivated in our decisions now. <a href='B:60 24:13-14'>Jos 24:13-14</a> reminds Israel of the record of their past history with God, and then on this basis exhorts them: "Now therefore fear the Lord and serve Him::." .</p><p>This Divine speech relayed by Joshua is clearly repeating the argument and some phrases from <a href='B:50 11:2-9'>Deu 11:2-9</a>, which climaxes in the appeal to not serve idols but obey Yahweh exclusively. This was to be the power of history in human life. Yet human nature has a tendency to declare history as bunk, reflecting our preference to live for the immediate present and disregard the past.</p>


text:
<p>When they cried out to Yahweh, He put darkness between you and the Egyptians and brought the sea on them, and covered them; and your eyes saw what I did in Egypt; and you lived in the wilderness many days- </p><p>Darkness was believed to be somehow demonic and under the control of the gods. But those gods didn't exist, and therefore they should not worship them. For the darkness was controlled by God. "Your eyes saw::." could suggest that Joshua was particularly addressing the generation who were under 20 when they had left Egypt. But still they were worshipping the idols of Egypt (:14), and at least one of them was the god of darkness, whom Yahweh had targetted in the plague of darkness, and shown His supremacy over at the Red Sea crossing.</p>


text:
<p>I brought you into the land of the Amorites that lived beyond the Jordan; and they fought with you; and I gave them into your hand. You possessed their land; and I destroyed them from before you- </p><p>This conflict had been intended as a foretaste of their far larger scale victories against the Canaanites, and possession of Canaan. God gently leads us through one experience to prepare us for the next, larger one. AV "That you might possess their land". "Drive out" is s:w. "possess". We must note the difference between the&nbsp; Canaanite peoples and their kings being "struck" and their land "taken" by Joshua-Jesus; and the people of Israel permanently taking possession. This is the difference between the Lord's victory on the cross, and our taking possession of the Kingdom. Even though that possession has been "given" to us. The word used for "possession" is literally 'an inheritance'. The allusion is to the people, like us, being the seed of Abraham. The Kingdom was and is our possession, our inheritance- if we walk in the steps of Abraham. But it is one thing to be the seed of Abraham, another to take possession of the inheritance; and Israel generally did not take possession of all the land (<a href='B:60 11:23'>Jos 11:23</a>; <a href='B:60 13:1'>Jos 13:1</a>; <a href='B:60 16:10'>Jos 16:10</a>; <a href='B:60 18:3'>Jos 18:3</a>; <a href='B:60 23:4'>Jos 23:4</a>). The language of inheritance / possession is applied to us in the New Testament (<a href='B:560 1:11'>Eph 1:11</a>; <a href='B:560 1:14'>Eph 1:14</a>; <a href='B:580 3:24'>Col 3:24</a>; <a href='B:510 20:32'>Act 20:32</a>; <a href='B:510 26:18'>Act 26:18</a>; <a href='B:670 1:4'>1Pe 1:4</a> etc:). Israel were promised: "You shall possess it" (<a href='B:50 30:5'>Deu 30:5</a>; <a href='B:50 33:23'>Deu 33:23</a>). This was more of a command than a prophecy, for sadly they were "given" the land but did not "possess" it. They were constantly encouraged in the wilderness that they were on the path to possessing the land (<a href='B:50 30:16'>Deu 30:16</a>; <a href='B:50 30:18'>Deu 30:18</a>; <a href='B:50 31:3'>Deu 31:3</a>; <a href='B:50 31:13'>Deu 31:13</a>; <a href='B:50 32:47'>Deu 32:47</a>), but when they got there they didn't possess it fully.</p>


text:
<p>Then Balak the son of Zippor king of Moab arose and fought against Israel. He sent and called Balaam the son of Beor to curse you- </p><p>This conflict with Balak, and their salvation from him and Balaam by grace, had been intended as a foretaste of their far larger scale victories against the Canaanites, and possession of Canaan. God gently leads us through one experience to prepare us for the next, larger one.</p>


text:
<p>but I would not listen to Balaam; therefore he blessed you still. So I delivered you out of his hand- </p><p>Balaam, in his heart, didn't want to bless Israel; he wanted to curse them so he could get his hands on the riches Balak promised him if he did so. Balaam knew if God had told him to bless Israel, there was no way of changing things. But God says that He refused to hear Balaam's prayer to curse Israel. It seems that Yahweh read Balaam's latent, unexpressed desires as prayer to Him. It is our dominant desire which is read as prayer. For otherwise the efficacy of prayer would be related to how good we are at verbalizing things, and not everyone is good at that. Our innermost desires are read as prayer; hence Elijah was understood as praying against Israel in his heart, and God refused to hear that too (<a href='B:520 11:2'>Rom 11:2</a>). There is another example of this kind of thing in :11.</p>


text:
<p>You went over the Jordan and came to Jericho. The men of Jericho fought against you, the Amorite, the Perizzite, the Canaanite, the Hittite, the Girgashite, the Hivite, and the Jebusite; and I delivered them into your hand-</p><p>There is no record of the men of Jericho fighting against Israel; perhaps their intention to do so was read by God as if they had done it. Shutting the gates against Israel and not submitting to the call to repentance which was implicit in the jubilee trumpet blasts was perhaps read as actively resisting Israel. For passivity can also be a form of 'fighting against' in aggression. This continues the theme discussed on :10, that internal attitudes are read by God as far more than that.</p>&nbsp;<p>We note there are typically seven nations listed as dwelling in the land, as here. This sets up the basis for understanding the 'kings of the earth / land' in later Biblical prophecy as referring to leaders within the eretz promised to Abraham.</p>


text:
<p>I sent the hornet before you, which drove them out from before you, even the two kings of the Amorites- </p><p>The fear amongst the Canaanites prior to Israel's approach and the weakness of those nations was due to "the hornet" being sent before Israel (<a href='B:50 7:20'>Deu 7:20</a>; <a href='B:60 24:12'>Jos 24:12</a>); it would seem that this is a reference to the Angels softening up the Canaanite tribes, perhaps through inciting the Egyptians to raid them and ruin the economy. And specifically, the two kings of the Amorites attacking the other Canaanites. "The hornet" could also refer to the Phoenician raiders, who had hornets as totems; they too weakened Canaan before the Israelites arrived, and would have been manipulated to do so by an Angel. In <a href='B:20 23:27'>Exo 23:27</a> God says He will "send My fear before you, and will destroy all the people to whom you shall come". Jacob likens his guardian Angel to "the God before whom my fathers walked" (<a href='B:10 48:16'>Gen 48:16</a>), who is called "the fear of&nbsp;Isaac" (<a href='B:10 31:42'>Gen 31:42</a>; <a href='B:10 31:53'>Gen 31:53</a>) when Jacob describes the personal presence of God in his life. So the "fear of God" is associated with an Angel; God sent His fear, an Angel, before Israel into Canaan, as promised explicitly in Exodus 23. "The hornet" could have referred to literal hornets, used by God to destroy the nations of Canaan. For they were indeed a problem in the land; "Zorah" in Judah means "place of hornets". But I prefer the idea that the Angel manipulated Gentile nations to soften up the Canaanites before Israel's arrival. The same figure is found in <a href='B:290 7:18'>Isa 7:18</a>, where God whistled for the "fly that is in Egypt and the bee that is in Assyria". We note that this was all built in to God's wider plan; for had Israel entered Canaan 40 years before they did, they would've found the Canaanites that much stronger than they were after "the hornet" had weakened them for 40 years. It's as if God recalculated the program according to the great weakness of Israel. They didn't enter when they could have done, and so He used the period of their wilderness wanderings to make their entrance to the land that much easier than it would otherwise have been.</p><p>Not with your sword, nor with your bow-</p><p>"Bow" and "sword" often occur together as almost an idiom for human strength (<a href='B:10 48:22'>Gen 48:22</a>; <a href='B:60 24:12'>Jos 24:12</a>; <a href='B:120 6:22'>2Ki 6:22</a>; <a href='B:130 5:18'>1Ch 5:18</a>; <a href='B:350 1:7'>Hos 1:7</a>). Right at the very end of Jacob’s life, he lets slip a comment which would seem more appropriate to his earlier life: "Shechem::. which I took out of the hand of the Amorite with my sword and with my bow" (<a href='B:10 48:22'>Gen 48:22</a>). The wrongness of this attitude seems to be alluded to in <a href='B:60 24:12'>Jos 24:12</a>, which says that God drove out the tribes "but not with your sword, neither with your bow". And <a href='B:230 44:3'>Psa 44:3</a>; <a href='B:230 44:6'>Psa 44:6</a> also: "They got not the land in possession by their own sword::. I will not trust in my bow, neither shall my sword save me". So Jacob, right at the end of his life, still hadn't completely overcome that besetting weakness of self-reliance. This is, of course, a dangerous road to go down. In no way can we be complacent about our urgent need for spiritual growth. But on the other hand, we will never reach the stature of Christ without righteousness being imputed to us.</p>


text:
<p>I gave you a land whereon you had not laboured-</p><p>The spies' comment that not all the people needed to "toil" or "labour" to capture Ai betrays a wrong idea that victory was through their labour, rather than God's grace (<a href='B:60 7:3'>Jos 7:3</a>). And so <a href='B:60 24:13'>Jos 24:13</a> uses the word in saying that Israel were given a land for which they did not "labour" (s:w:). They were taught through Achan's sin that they were not defeating the Canaanites by their strength, but by God's undeserved grace. Their inheritance of the Kingdom was not according to works.</p><p>And cities which you didn’t build, and you live in them. You eat of vineyards and olive groves which you didn’t plant- </p><p>This continues the repeated reminder that they had been shown grace and a place in the Kingdom not according to works. This emphasis upon grace now leads up to the appeal to quit any other gods (:14)- because Yahweh alone is the God of grace. The other gods had no concept of this; it was unique to Yahweh. And true grace is likewise the unique feature of true Christianity.</p><p><a href='B:390 2:8'>Jon 2:8</a> reflects Jonah's understanding of this: "Those who regard lying vanities forsake their own mercy". This is a profound truth; true grace ["mercy" is hesed] and salvation is only found in Yahweh the God of Israel. To forsake Him is to forsake our own access to mercy and grace. Jonah was surely reflecting upon how the sailors had begged their idols and gods for salvation, and not found it. Only Yahweh had provided such saving grace, both to them and to Jonah. This reflection was surely to motivate Jonah to now go and try to persuade the Ninevites of Yahweh's grace. Jonah is constantly quoting from the Psalms, and here he may have in mind <a href='B:230 31:6'>Psa 31:6</a>: "I have hated them that regard lying vanities". But now Jonah doesn't hate the idolaters personally, but rather perceives the tragedy of the fact that they are rejecting their own access to Yahweh's grace. Yahweh is all about mercy, or grace; again, <a href='B:230 59:17'>Psa 59:17</a> "the God of my mercy" is in mind. But we preclude His grace if we trust in the lying vanities of this world.</p>


text:
<p>Now therefore fear Yahweh, and serve Him in sincerity and in truth- </p><p>God's living word places us in their position; for the appeal to serve Him in "sincerity and in truth" applies to us (<a href='B:530 5:8'>1Co 5:8</a>; <a href='B:540 1:12'>2Co 1:12</a>; <a href='B:540 2:17'>2Co 2:17</a>).</p><p>Put away the gods which your fathers served beyond the River and in Egypt, and serve Yahweh-</p><p>See on :13. Compare Joshua's earlier over positive statements. Now it seems he came to a final sense of realism about sin, obedience and Israel’s failure. They had taken the idols of Egypt with them (<a href='B:330 20:6-8'>Eze 20:6-8</a> also mentions this), even though God had judged those idols (:5). They worshipped that which had afflicted them, and they were to continue worshipping the idols of their enemies. <a href='B:510 7:43'>Act 7:43</a> speaks of them carrying another tabernacle with them through the wilderness, and the star of Remphan along with the standards of the tribes. This is the idiocy of idol worship; but when it comes to spiritual matters, we act without attention to even basic logic.</p>


text:
<p>If it seems evil to you to serve Yahweh- </p><p>As we will see on :16, this is very similar to the exaggerated challenge made by the hypocritical western tribes to the eastern tribes in <a href='B:60 22:19'>Jos 22:19</a> "However, if the land of your possession is unclean, then pass over to the land of the possession of Yahweh". Joshua was speaking to the western tribes as they had spoken to the eastern tribes- and accusing them of idolatry, as they had [perhaps falsely, but hypocritically] accused the eastern tribes. The western tribes were being made to feel how they had made the eastern tribes feel; and were being reminded of their own idolatry. God likewise works with men today, often confronting those who confront their brethren, and trying to help them perceive their hypocrisy and repent.</p><p>Choose this day whom you will serve- </p><p>Elijah uses the same logic in <a href='B:110 18:21'>1Ki 18:21</a>, offering Israel an 'all or nothing' choice between total devotion to Yahweh, and idolatry.</p><p>Whether the gods which your fathers served that were beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you dwell-</p><p>Joshua asks them to make two choices. Firstly, to decide whether they want to serve Yahweh exclusively, and any other choice apart from that would be "evil". And then, if they did choose other gods, they were to decide which of them they preferred, and serve them exclusively- either the gods of Abraham's family, or those of the land of Canaan. This second choice was surely sarcastic, but it was inviting them to see the seriousness of the situation. Israel however were to be characterized by serving many gods of many nations, whereas as the prophets point out, a nation usually only served one set of gods and didn't change their gods unless they were forced to by domination by other nations. But Israel were, as Hosea says, like a sexually addicted woman, ever seeking new religious experiences. See on :19.</p><p>As for me and my house, we will serve Yahweh-</p><p>Joshua perhaps feels that he and his family alone have chosen to exclusively serve Yahweh. In the context of his argument in this verse, any other choice apart from total devotion to Yahweh is "evil". This is the logic of total commitment to the things of Yahweh. Joshua appears to be alluding to <a href='B:10 18:19'>Gen 18:19</a>, as if raising a family devoted to Yahweh is the sign of being a true seed of Abraham. I will note on :19 that as in :15, Joshua almost encourages Israel not to try serving Yahweh whilst worshipping idols; and is perhaps implying that God's purpose with His people can continue through him and his family, as God had once offered to do with Moses.</p>


text:
<p>The people answered, Far be it from us that we should forsake Yahweh to serve other gods- </p><p>These are pretty much the words of the eastern tribes in <a href='B:60 22:29'>Jos 22:29</a> (see on :15). The western tribes were hypocritical in implying that they were so totally devoted to Yahweh alone that they had to slay their eastern brethren because of their possible idolatry. They are effectively accused of idolatry by Joshua in the same way as they accused the eastern tribes of it. And they are answering in the same way- even though they were guilty of idolatry themselves, and needed to "put away" their idols (<a href='B:60 24:14'>Jos 24:14</a>).</p>


text:
<p>for it is Yahweh our God who brought us and our fathers up out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage, and who did those great signs in our sight, and preserved us in all the way in which we went, and among all the peoples through the midst of whom we passed- </p><p>The people repeat the words of Joshua, as if they assent to all he has said, and recognize Yahweh's grace and care toward them. And yet there is no evidence that they actually quit their idols, as demanded in :14. We expect and hope to read that they offered up their idols to Joshua and he destroyed them. But nothing like that happens; there is just an intellectual assent to being Yahweh worshippers, and an acceptance of His power in history. But they failed to translate that into present reality. And so it can easily be, as week by week God's people sing words and assent to such statements; and yet keep their idols.</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh drove out from before us all the peoples, even the Amorites who lived in the land. Therefore we also will serve Yahweh; for He is our God- </p><p>See on :18. They insist that Yahweh "is our God"; not "will be". They are arguing that Yahweh has always been their God and still is, and by implication, they have not wickedly departed from him, and are all set to continue with Him. They seem to be saying that they believe in His existence and in His historical actions for His people, but we expect to read a heartfelt repentance in response to the demand in :14 that they quit their idols. But that is not forthcoming. They refuse to engage with Joshua's accusation against them. What they say is disappointing for what it doesn't say. Their words therefore become nothing but a cultural and historical acceptance of "Yahweh", whilst refusing to engage with His demands upon His people. It was mere religion, and not spirituality.</p>


text:
<p>Joshua said to the people, You can’t serve Yahweh-</p><p>The Lord Jesus alludes to this in <a href='B:470 5:24'>Mat 5:24</a>, warning His followers that they "cannot serve" God and mammon. He thereby interprets idols as "mammon", wealth and the good life. We will read in :31 that they did "serve Yahweh", but Joshua here says that they could not do so acceptably, unless they ditched their idols. Which they didn't. The people understood serving Yahweh as doing the rituals of His religion, whereas Joshua understood it as serving Him exclusively with no place in their hearts for any idolatry.</p><p>For He is a holy God. He is a jealous God. He will not forgive your disobedience nor your sins-</p><p>As in :15, Joshua almost seems to be encouraging them to devote themselves to their idols, and to stop claiming to be Yahweh's servants. This presumably was because he understood the principle that knowledge brings responsibility. They would be terribly punished if they continued to claim to serve Him and yet served idols; it were better for them in the long term to accept how they were, and to leave Him. Joshua seems to imply in :15 that God's purpose with His people can continue through him and his family, as God had once offered to do with Moses.</p><p>Joshua alludes to the words of warning to Israel in <a href='B:20 23:21'>Exo 23:21</a>. The jealousy of God is a natural result of the depth of His love and unique commitment to His people, as the prophets often state. Israel's adultery was going to provoke His jealousy and anger with them. And yet although the things stated here about God are absolutely true on one level, the passages which speak of God as the betrayed lover (Jeremiah 2, Ezekiel 16, 23 and all Hosea) reveal that despite this, He so loves Israel that He wants to save them and love them all the same. This is the inexplicable paradox of God's love for His people.</p>


text:
<p>If you forsake Yahweh and serve foreign gods, then He will turn and do you evil and consume you, after He has done you good- </p><p>As discussed on :19, this was true, and yet God's love was such that He ever sought their return, and in wrath He remembered amazing mercy. Joshua also states things in rather too simple terms here, as if they would be consumed if they were to serve other gods. The reality was that they were serving foreign gods then at that time, just as they had in Egypt and throughout the wilderness journeys (:14). And still God had given them the Kingdom, and amazing victories against their enemies. He did eventually turn and consume them (<a href='B:290 63:10'>Isa 63:10</a>). "After He has done you good" was a reminder that no matter how much blessing they had received at that point, it is never a case of 'once saved always saved'. Despite all that, He could still destroy them.</p>


text:
<p>The people said to Joshua, No, but we will serve Yahweh- </p><p>We expect to read a heartfelt repentance in response to the demand in :14 that they quit their idols. But that is not forthcoming; there is no word of repentance or regret, no admission of wrongdoing. They refuse to engage with Joshua's accusation against them. What they say is disappointing for what it doesn't say. Their words therefore become nothing but a cultural and historical acceptance of "Yahweh", whilst refusing to engage with His demands upon His people. It was mere religion, and not spirituality.</p>


text:
<p>Joshua said to the people, You are witnesses against yourselves that you yourselves have chosen Yahweh, to serve Him. They said, We are witnesses- </p><p>"You have chosen Yahweh" in the context means that out of the range of gods in their possession, they had chosen Yahweh. This is why Joshua goes on :23 to beg them therefore to put away their idols. "Witnesses against yourselves" suggests Joshua was confident, perhaps by Divine revelation, that they would not be uniquely loyal to Yahweh, and would suffer for it. There would be a future day of judgment, and they would be the witnesses called up to testify against them.</p>


text:
<p>Now therefore put away the foreign gods which are among you- </p><p>See on :22. This is specific that there was idolatry going on amongst the western tribes at this time, so their attempt to exterminate the eastern tribes for unproven accusations of idolatry is to be seen as hypocritical (Joshua 22).</p><p>And incline your heart to Yahweh, the God of Israel- </p><p>This shows that the essence of idolatry, as well as service of God, is the heart. They were asked to make a conscious mental effort to incline their hearts to God, but Solomon prays that God will do this to His people (<a href='B:110 8:58'>1Ki 8:58</a> s:w:). God is capable of working directly on the human heart and we can ask for His Holy Spirit to effect this; to give us a heart for Him, to incline our hearts to Him. And yet the same phrase is used of how Solomon's wives inclined his heart to idols (<a href='B:110 11:2'>1Ki 11:2</a>; <a href='B:110 11:4'>1Ki 11:4</a>; <a href='B:110 11:9'>1Ki 11:9</a>). Although God will work upon our hearts and deepest psychology, He will not force us, and will allow us to allow others to also incline our hearts away from Him.</p>


text:
<p>The people said to Joshua, We will serve Yahweh our God, and we will listen to His voice- </p><p>Again, we are disappointed by their lack of engagement with the call to put away their gods (:14,23). We expect to read their words of repentance, and pulling out their idols and burning them. But they instead just state that they will serve Yahweh and respect His word. This can be what His people say today, in the words of songs sung, liturgies recited, and loyalty to the church proclaimed. Whilst we are totally refusing to engage with the call to quit our idolatry.</p>


text:
<p>So Joshua made a covenant with the people that day, and made for them a statute and an ordinance in Shechem- </p><p>The covenant on Sinai (<a href='B:20 19:20'>Exo 19:20</a>) was reaffirmed in the plains of Moab (<a href='B:50 29:1'>Deu 29:1</a>) and on Joshua's death (<a href='B:60 24:25'>Jos 24:25</a>), and was to be reaffirmed every seven years (<a href='B:50 31:9-11'>Deu 31:9-11</a>; <a href='B:50 31:25-26'>Deu 31:25-26</a>). It is this reaffirmation of covenant relationship which we make in the breaking of bread service.</p>


text:
<p>Joshua wrote these words in the book of the law of God; and he took a great stone, and set it up there under the oak that was by the sanctuary of Yahweh- </p><p>The oak in Shechem (:1) was that of <a href='B:10 35:4'>Gen 35:4</a>, at which the sons of Jacob / Israel had reaffirmed their covenant with God and had buried their idols. We eagerly hope to read that Israel likewise buried their idols there. But there is no word of that. They reaffirm the covenant, but don't ditch their idols. And this has poignant warning for we who regularly reaffirm the covenant through the breaking of bread service. The question is, have we buried our idols, or are we just reaffirming a covenant in words only?</p>


text:
<p>Joshua said to all the people, Behold, this stone shall be a witness against us; for it has heard all the words of Yahweh which He spoke to us. It shall be therefore a witness against you, lest you deny your God- </p><p>Some of the Bible’s language refers to pagan superstitions which are evidently untrue; thus stones listen (<a href='B:60 24:27'>Jos 24:27</a>), trees talk (<a href='B:70 9:8-15'>Jdg 9:8-15</a>), corpses speak (<a href='B:290 14:9-11'>Isa 14:9-11</a>). These ideas are clearly nonsense. And yet they are picked up and used by the Spirit in order to express God’s word to people in contemporary terms. The language of demons is used likewise in the New Testament.</p>


text:
<p>So Joshua sent the people away, every man to his inheritance-</p><p>The law of Moses reasons as if each family of Israel had a specific inheritance which was not to be sold or moved outside the family. Hence the sin of Ahab in obtaining Naboth's vineyard. It would seem that there was some unrecorded list made of each family and which land they were to be given. This looks forward to our very personal and unique inheritance in God's Kingdom, possibly based around spiritual family units.</p>


text:
<p>It happened that, after these things, Joshua the son of Nun, the servant of Yahweh, died, being one hundred and ten years old- </p><p>Numbers and ages in Hebrew literature are not necessarily to be taken literally. This was the age at which Joseph is recorded as reaching (<a href='B:10 50:26'>Gen 50:26</a>), and we will read in :32 of the burial of Joseph's bones at Shechem, at the same time as Joshua is buried. We are clearly invited to see a connection between the two men, both of them maintaining spirituality and hope in the Kingdom whilst surrounded by unspirituality and terrible failure by God's people to realize their potential.</p>


text:
<p>They buried him in the border of his inheritance in Timnathserah, which is in the hill country of Ephraim, on the north of the mountain of Gaash- </p><p>"In the border" may mean that they believed even then that one day he would be resurrected, and then immediately enter into his eternal inheritance. LXX adds: "There they put with him into the tomb in which they buried him, the knives of stone with which he circumcised the children of Israel in Galgala, when he brought them out of Egypt, as the Lord appointed them; and there they are to this day".</p>


text:
<p>Israel served Yahweh all the days of Joshua, and all the days of the elders who outlived Joshua and had known all the work of Yahweh that He had worked for Israel- </p><p>This serving of Yahweh is not to say that they served Him exclusively. The idea may be that they did His "service" as required by the law of Moses in the sanctuary. Joshua in :19 had said that they could not 'serve Yahweh' acceptably, unless they ditched their idols. Which they didn't. The people understood serving Yahweh as doing the rituals of His religion, whereas Joshua understood it as serving Him exclusively with no place in their hearts for any idolatry.</p>


text:
<p>They buried the bones of Joseph, which the children of Israel brought up out of Egypt, in Shechem, in the parcel of ground which Jacob bought of the sons of Hamor the father of Shechem for a hundred pieces of money. They became the inheritance of the children of Joseph- </p><p>See on :29. Like Jacob, Joseph's heart was in the land of promise. Joseph's bones were 'carried up' with them when Israel left Egypt. The New Testament emphasizes the paradox: that the patriarchs bought land in the land which was their eternal inheritance. They couldn't bury their dead nor pitch their tent without having to realize that the land wasn't theirs. The same paradox was taught in Jacob having to call Esau his "lord", the younger serving the elder; but in faith that things would not eternally be that way. Joseph's bones were buried here later (<a href='B:60 24:32'>Jos 24:32</a>), which suggests that Jacob bought it with a view of it becoming a burial place and Israelite sanctuary. Yet <a href='B:510 7:16'>Act 7:16</a> says that Abraham bought this land as a burial place; perhaps the paradox deepens in that they were deceived out of their "own" land and had to pay for it twice, even though it was eternally theirs.</p>


text:
<p>Eleazar the son of Aaron died. They buried him in the hill of Phinehas his son, which was given him in the hill country of Ephraim- </p><p>LXX adds: "In that day the children of Israel took the ark of God, and carried it about among them; and Phinees exercised the priest's office in the room of Eleazar his father till he died, and he was buried in his own place Gabaar: but the children of Israel departed every one to their place, and to their own city: and the children of Israel worshipped Astarte, and Astaroth, and the gods of the nations round about them; and the Lord delivered them into the hands of Eglom king of Moab and he ruled over them eighteen years".</p><p>Judges: New European Christadelphian Commentary</p>


text:
<e>Judges: New European Christadelphian Commentary</e><p>Duncan Heaster</p><p>Carelinks</p><p>PO Bo 152, Menai NSW 2234</p><p>AUSTRALIA</p><p>www:carelinks:net</p><p>Copyright © 2018 by Duncan Heaster.</p><p>All rights reserved. This book or any portion thereof may not be reproduced or used in any manner whatsoever without the express written permission of the publisher except for the use of brief quotations in a book review or scholarly journal.</p><p>First Printing: 2018</p><p>ISBN 978-0-244-72629-4</p><e>PREFACE</e><p>This commentary is based around the New European Version of the Bible, which is generally printed with brief commentary on each chapter. Charities such as Carelinks Ministries and the Christadelphian Advancement Trust endeavour to provide totally free copies worldwide according to resources and donations available to them. But there is a desire by many to go beyond those brief comments on each chapter, and delve deeper into the text. The New European Christadelphian commentary seeks to meet that need. As with all Divine things, beauty becomes the more apparent the closer we analyze. We can zoom in the scale of investigation to literally every letter of the words used by His Spirit. But that would require endless volumes. And academic analysis is no more nor less than that; we are to live by His word. This commentary seeks to achieve a balance between practical teaching on one hand, and a reasonable level of thorough consideration of the original text. On that side of things, you will observe in the commentary a common abbreviation: “s:w.". This stands for “same word”; the same original Greek or Hebrew word translated [A] is used when translated [B]. This helps to slightly remove the mask of translation through which most Bible readers have to relate to the original text.</p><p>Are there errors of thought and intellectual process in these volumes? Surely there are. Let me know about them. But finally- don’t fail to see the wood for the trees. Never let the wonder of the simple, basic Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ and His Kingdom become obscured by all the angst over correctly interpreting this or that Bible verse. Believe it, respond to it, be baptized into Him, and let the word become flesh in you as it was so supremely in Him.</p><p>If you would like to enable the NEV Bible and associated material to remain freely available, do consider making a donation to Carelinks Ministries or The Christadelphian Advancement Trust. And please pray that our sending forth of God’s word will bring back glory to His Name and that of His dear Son whom we serve.</p><p>Duncan Heaster</p><p>dh@heaster:org</p>


text:
<p>After the death of Joshua the children of Israel asked Yahweh, Who should go up for us first against the Canaanites, to fight against them?- </p><p>Biblical history is unlike any other national history of a people in that it seems to emphasize the spiritual weakness of Israel. The heroes are nearly all flawed rather than spotlessly glorious- and that, surely, is so as to give us realistic inspiration to rise up to their spirit, knowing how flawed we also are. And yet there's a tendency amongst some of us to idealize these men, in the same way as the Catholic and Orthodox churches portray them as white faced, haloed saints. Judaism has done the same. Despite the evident weaknesses of Samson (and other judges, e:g. Gideon) as revealed in the inspired record, later Jewish commentary sought to idealize them. Take Sir_46:11-12: "The judges too::. all men whose hearts were never disloyal, who never turned their backs on the Lord::.". Perhaps the psychological basis for this tendency is that we simply don't want to be personally challenged by the fact that heroes of faith were so much like us::.</p><p>After the leadership of Moses, there came that of Joshua. See on <a href='B:60 23:9'>Jos 23:9</a>. When he died, Israel expected that another such leader would be raised up: “After the death of Joshua it came to pass, that the children of Israel asked the Lord, saying, Who shall go up for us against the Canaanites first?”. They expected a man to be named. But instead, they were told that the whole tribe of Judah must go up. The reality would have sunk home- no more charismatic leaders, now the ordinary people must take responsibility.</p><p>When faced with the prospect of driving out the tribes, they procrastinated by asking "Who shall go up for us?". They wanted someone else to do the job, just as all religious [rather than spiritual] people want a leader to do their spiritual work for them. God could have responded: 'I have already gone before you, all of you have a duty to go up and possess the land, and to help your brethren. The question of who goes first is totally faithless and irrelevant!'. But He didn't say this. He told Judah to go up first (1:3).</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh said, Judah shall go up. Behold, I have delivered the land into his hand-</p><p>The fact we fail to realize our potentials doesn’t mean God quits working with us. Reflect how Judah was given the potential to possess the whole land, and yet they selfishly only focused upon their own inheritance (<a href='B:70 1:2-3'>Jdg 1:2-3</a>). And yet God still worked with them, giving them victory in what battles they did fight (<a href='B:70 1:4'>Jdg 1:4</a>). Yet even then, Judah didn’t follow through with the help God was so eager to give them. They took Jerusalem, but later we read that the Jebusites were soon back living there (<a href='B:70 1:8'>Jdg 1:8</a>; <a href='B:70 1:21'>Jdg 1:21</a>). But see on :22.</p><p><a href='B:10 49:8'>Gen 49:8</a> had prophesied that Judah would defeat their enemies. But this was yet another example of conditional prophecy. For Judah didn't take the whole land, although potentially it was "delivered::. into his hand". God had worked through Joshua to subdue all the land, but they had failed to follow up on this. The soldiers of the eastern tribes had been intended to subdue the land for their brethren; but that had not worked out. Now God tries another path; the tribe of Judah were given potential power to subdue the land for the other tribes. But again they failed. The whole Divine-human relationship has been one of tragically missed potentials, and God by all means trying different methods to achieve His purpose- of giving His people the Kingdom.</p><p>Just as all the animals and everything in the eretz promised to Abraham was 'delivered into the hands' of Noah (s:w. <a href='B:10 9:2'>Gen 9:2</a>), so the nations of that eretz were delivered into the hands of Israel (s:w. <a href='B:20 6:8'>Exo 6:8</a>; <a href='B:20 23:31'>Exo 23:31</a>; <a href='B:50 2:24'>Deu 2:24</a>; <a href='B:50 3:2-3'>Deu 3:2-3</a>; <a href='B:50 7:24'>Deu 7:24</a>; <a href='B:50 21:10'>Deu 21:10</a>; <a href='B:60 2:24'>Jos 2:24</a>; <a href='B:70 1:2'>Jdg 1:2</a>). Tragically, like Adam in Eden [perhaps the same eretz promised to Abraham] and Noah in the new, cleansed eretz, Israel didn't realize this potential. What was delivered into the hand of Joshua (<a href='B:60 2:24'>Jos 2:24</a>) actually wasn't delivered into their hand, because they disbelieved (<a href='B:70 2:23'>Jdg 2:23</a>); and this looks ahead to the disbelief of so many in the work of the Lord Jesus, who has indeed conquered the Kingdom for us. They considered the promise of the nations being delivered into their hand as somehow open to question, and only a possibility and not at all certain (<a href='B:70 8:7'>Jdg 8:7</a>; <a href='B:40 21:2'>Num 21:2</a> cp. <a href='B:40 21:34'>Num 21:34</a>). Some like Jephthah (s:w. <a href='B:70 11:32'>Jdg 11:32</a>; <a href='B:70 12:3'>Jdg 12:3</a>), Ehud (<a href='B:70 3:10'>Jdg 3:10</a>; <a href='B:70 3:28'>Jdg 3:28</a>), Deborah (<a href='B:70 4:14'>Jdg 4:14</a>), Gideon (<a href='B:70 7:15'>Jdg 7:15</a>) did, for a brief historical moment; but as individuals, and their victories were not followed up on. Instead they were dominated by the territory. And so instead, they were delivered into the hands of their enemies within the eretz (s:w. <a href='B:30 26:25'>Lev 26:25</a>; <a href='B:70 13:1'>Jdg 13:1</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Judah said to Simeon his brother, Come up with me into my designated portion so that we can fight against the Canaanites, and I likewise will go with you into yours. So Simeon went with him- </p><p>Judah refused to believe the promise of :2 that the whole land had been given to him. Instead, Judah chose to wilfully misunderstand this as meaning that just their tribal canton had been given into their power. And even then, they thought they needed the human help of Simeon, as Simeon thought too about their inheritance.</p>


text:
<p>Judah went up and Yahweh delivered the Canaanites and Perizzites into their hand. They killed ten thousand men in Bezek- </p><p>"Thousand" when used of conflicts often refers not to a literal 1,000 but to a military subdivision. Bezek, 'place of lightning', could mean that God used natural causes, lightning, to destroy these people. For such seems His preferred style in defeating His enemies at the hands of His people, lest they be tempted to think it was their power which had won the victories. He is so sensitive to our temptations, and ever seeks to keep us from pride.</p>


text:
<p>They found Adoni-Bezek in Bezek and fought against him, and they killed the Canaanites and the Perizzites- </p><p>"They found" implies he had hidden. This verse summarizes the preceding and following verses. Bezek has not been located as a town; that of <a href='B:90 11:8'>1Sa 11:8</a> is too far north to be the same place. But they buried Adonibezek in Jerusalem (:7), and Adonizedek king of Jerusalem (<a href='B:60 10:1'>Jos 10:1</a>; <a href='B:60 10:3'>Jos 10:3</a>) is called Adonibezek in the LXX. It could refer to the same individual.</p>


text:
<p>But Adoni-Bezek fled, and they pursued him, caught him and cut off his thumbs and his great toes- </p><p>This kind of humiliation of a vanquished foe was common at the time, but seems inappropriate for God's people acting in faith that any victory was by His grace. This treatment was typically given to those who would later become the servants of the conquerors (<a href='B:70 16:21'>Jdg 16:21</a>; <a href='B:90 11:2'>1Sa 11:2</a>; <a href='B:120 25:7'>2Ki 25:7</a>). But Judah's intention was thwarted by the man dying (:7). God did not intend His people to humiliate others, not even their enemies.</p>


text:
<p>Adoni-Bezek said, Seventy kings, having their thumbs and their great toes cut off, scavenged under my table. As I have done, so God has requited me. They brought him to Jerusalem and he died there- </p><p>See on :6. He had supposedly vanquished 70 tribal chiefs, probably only rulers of very small areas. He treated them like dogs (cp. <a href='B:470 15:27'>Mat 15:27</a>). We wonder whether this king came to repentance at the very end of his life, and accepted the God of Israel.</p>


text:
<p>The men of Judah fought against Jerusalem and took it, putting it to the sword, and set the city on fire-</p><p>Insofar as Israel followed their Angel, they had success. We repeatedly read that the cities they conquered were 'sent up in flames' (<a href='B:70 1:8'>Jdg 1:8</a>; <a href='B:60 6:24'>Jos 6:24</a>; <a href='B:60 8:8'>Jos 8:8</a>; <a href='B:60 11:11'>Jos 11:11</a>), surely because they were following the Angel who was himself as a devouring pillar of fire (<a href='B:50 9:3'>Deu 9:3</a>). Yet quite naturally we balk at the height of our calling, to follow the Angel. Their victory however was like those of Joshua- not followed up on. For soon the Jebusites were entrenched in Jerusalem (<a href='B:70 1:21'>Jdg 1:21</a>). They failed to possess the Kingdom; all they did was prove themselves in the right as having the rightful, Divinely given title to it. And there is a challenge to us here, winning theological victories to prove ourselves right, but not possessing the Kingdom.</p>


text:
<p>Afterwards the men of Judah went down to fight against the Canaanites who lived in the hill country, in the South and in the lowland- </p><p>These three areas are how the area of Judah was divided up topographically. Judah had been given the power and potential victory throughout the land, but instead they focused only upon their own place in the Kingdom rather than seeking it for their brethren too (see on :2).</p>


text:
<p>Judah went against the Canaanites who lived in Hebron (the name of Hebron before was Kiriath Arba), and they struck Sheshai and Ahiman and Talmai- </p><p>We must compare this and :11 with the record of what actually happened in <a href='B:60 15:13-15'>Jos 15:13-15</a>: "And unto Caleb the son of Jephunneh he [Joshua] gave Hebron. And Caleb drove out thence the three sons of Anak, Sheshai, and Ahiman, and Talmai, the children of Anak. And he went up thence against the inhabitants of Debir". It was Caleb who took Hebron and went against Debir. But the record here speaks as if the "he" was the tribe of Judah. We would expect to read "they went::." in :11, but the "he" clearly alludes to how it was Caleb who did this. We can conclude therefore that Caleb's victory was assumed by Judah as theirs, in their attempt to show that they had won victories against the local inhabitants within their tribal canton. This attempt to personally claim the spiritual conquests of others is not unknown amongst God's people today.</p>


text:
<p>From there he went against the inhabitants of Debir. The name of Debir before was Kiriath Sepher- </p><p>See on :10. "Now the name of Debir before was Kiriath Sepher" (<a href='B:60 15:15'>Jos 15:15</a>). "Debir" is the word usually translated "oracle", referring to the sanctuary, which was centered around the word of God in the ark. The previous name also means something similar, 'Place of the scroll / books'. It's as if faithful Caleb renamed an idol shrine to a more Yahweh centered name. This confirms the suggestion made on <a href='B:60 15:9-10'>Jos 15:9-10</a> that the names associated with pagan worship were renamed by the faithful, but not renamed by the unfaithful.</p>


text:
<p>Othniel the son of Kenaz, Caleb’s younger brother, took it; and he gave him Achsah his daughter as wife- </p><p>As noted above, Caleb was then 85, so Othniel was not a young man at all; and Achsah was presumably a virgin. So valiant young, faithful men were apparently not to be found:&nbsp; For surely they were the kind of candidate Caleb was looking for.</p><p>Caleb was head of a household within the tribe of Judah. It could be argued that he was directly related to Judah through Hezron and Pharez (<a href='B:130 2:5'>1Ch 2:5</a>; <a href='B:130 2:18'>1Ch 2:18</a>; <a href='B:130 2:25'>1Ch 2:25</a>). But "Kenizzite" (also <a href='B:40 32:12'>Num 32:12</a>) could refer to the Gentile tribe of <a href='B:10 15:19'>Gen 15:19</a>; or to a man called Kenaz, memorialized by Caleb naming his son with that same name (<a href='B:130 4:15'>1Ch 4:15</a>). And <a href='B:70 1:13'>Jdg 1:13</a> could mean that Caleb's father was called Kenaz. Caleb means "dog", and this is apparently alluded to when he is commended for faithfully following Yahweh, as a dog would follow its master (<a href='B:40 14:24'>Num 14:24</a>). The genealogies are constructed in such a way that they don't preclude Caleb having been a Gentile who was fully accepted into the tribe of Judah. Perhaps the note at :16 about the descendants of the Kenites coming to live with Caleb's family is included to clarify the point that Caleb was a Kenite or Kenizzite.</p>


text:
<p>When she came, she got him to ask her father for a field, and she alighted from off her donkey and Caleb said to her, What would you like?- </p><p>Examples of spiritual ambition are inspirational; just as soldiers inspire each other by their acts of bravery. Achsah followed her father Caleb’s spiritual ambition in specifically asking for an inheritance in the Kingdom (<a href='B:60 14:12'>Jos 14:12</a>; <a href='B:60 15:18'>Jos 15:18</a>); and this in turn inspired another woman to ask for an inheritance soon afterwards (<a href='B:60 17:4'>Jos 17:4</a>). And so it ought to be in any healthy congregation of believers. Ponder the parallel between <a href='B:290 51:1'>Isa 51:1</a>; <a href='B:290 51:7'>Isa 51:7</a>: “Hearken to me, ye that follow after righteousness, ye that seek the Lord… hearken unto me, ye that know righteousness”. To know God’s righteousness is to seek / follow it; of itself, it inspires us to ambitiously seeking to attain it.</p>


text:
<p>She said to him, Give me a blessing, for that you have set me in the land of the South; give me also springs of water. Then Caleb gave her the upper springs and the lower springs- </p><p>The idea of being given a blessing is of receiving an inheritance, as in <a href='B:60 14:13'>Jos 14:13</a> AV: “And Joshua blessed him, and gave unto Caleb… Hebron for an inheritance”. "A south land" presumably refers to Debir, which was apparently without a good water supply. Debir is on a hill, and there is a valley at the foot of the hill with springs. The territory made presumably been conquered by Caleb and was his own- but he gave away what he had conquered.</p>


text:
<p>The descendants of the Kenite, Moses’ father-in-law, went up out of the city of palm trees with the men of Judah into the wilderness of Judah, which is in the south of Arad, and they went and lived with those people- </p><p>This note may be inserted at this point to support the idea that Caleb was also a Kenite / Kenizzite. See on :13. "These people" may refer to the people of Caleb, which would make sense if Caleb was ethnically related to them. LXX "with the people of Amalek" would corroborate with the connection between the Amalekites and Kenizzites made in <a href='B:90 15:6'>1Sa 15:6</a>; <a href='B:40 24:20-22'>Num 24:20-22</a>.</p>


text:
<p>Judah went with Simeon his brother and they attacked the Canaanites who inhabited Zephath, and utterly destroyed the town. The name of the town was Hormah-</p><p>Hormah ["devoted"] was the Canaanite Zephath ["watchtower"]. The strength of the Canaanites was devoted to Yahweh, and they were supportive of David when on the run from Saul (<a href='B:90 30:30'>1Sa 30:30</a>). What was taken from the world was devoted to Yahweh by the faithful Israelites involved in this area. And that is an abiding principle.</p>


text:
<p>Also Judah took Gaza with its border and Ashkelon with its border and Ekron with its border- </p><p>LXX says the opposite, "and Judah did not dispossess::.". But that is perhaps an attempt to reconcile this statement with the reality that these Philistine areas remained in Philistine hands (<a href='B:70 3:3'>Jdg 3:3</a>). But <a href='B:70 1:18'>Jdg 1:18</a> says that "Judah took Gaza with its border and Ashkelon with its border and Ekron with its border". I suggest the answer is that their victory was like those of Joshua- not followed up on. And like the victory over Jerusalem recorded in <a href='B:70 1:8'>Jdg 1:8</a>, soon after which the Jebusites were soon again entrenched in Jerusalem (<a href='B:70 1:21'>Jdg 1:21</a>). They failed to possess the Kingdom; all they did was prove themselves in the right as having the rightful, Divinely given title to it. And there is a challenge to us here, winning theological victories to prove ourselves right, but not possessing the Kingdom.</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh was with Judah and drove out the inhabitants of the hill country, for he could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley because they had chariots of iron- </p><p>The inhabitants of the valley had been defeated by Joshua. But Judah would not 'drive them out'. "Drive out" is s:w. "possess". We must note the difference between the&nbsp; Canaanite peoples and their kings being "struck" and their land "taken" by Joshua-Jesus; and the people of Israel permanently taking possession. This is the difference between the Lord's victory on the cross, and our taking possession of the Kingdom. Even though that possession has been "given" to us. The word used for "possession" is literally 'an inheritance'. The allusion is to the people, like us, being the seed of Abraham. The Kingdom was and is our possession, our inheritance- if we walk in the steps of Abraham. But it is one thing to be the seed of Abraham, another to take possession of the inheritance; and Israel generally did not take possession of all the land (<a href='B:60 11:23'>Jos 11:23</a>; <a href='B:60 13:1'>Jos 13:1</a>; <a href='B:60 16:10'>Jos 16:10</a>; <a href='B:60 18:3'>Jos 18:3</a>; <a href='B:60 23:4'>Jos 23:4</a>). The language of inheritance / possession is applied to us in the New Testament (<a href='B:560 1:11'>Eph 1:11</a>; <a href='B:560 1:14'>Eph 1:14</a>; <a href='B:580 3:24'>Col 3:24</a>; <a href='B:510 20:32'>Act 20:32</a>; <a href='B:510 26:18'>Act 26:18</a>; <a href='B:670 1:4'>1Pe 1:4</a> etc:). Israel were promised: "You shall possess it" (<a href='B:50 30:5'>Deu 30:5</a>; <a href='B:50 33:23'>Deu 33:23</a>). This was more of a command than a prophecy, for sadly they were "given" the land but did not "possess" it. They were constantly encouraged in the wilderness that they were on the path to possessing the land (<a href='B:50 30:16'>Deu 30:16</a>; <a href='B:50 30:18'>Deu 30:18</a>; <a href='B:50 31:3'>Deu 31:3</a>; <a href='B:50 31:13'>Deu 31:13</a>; <a href='B:50 32:47'>Deu 32:47</a>), but when they got there they didn't possess it fully.</p>


text:
<p>They gave Hebron to Caleb, as Moses had promised, and he drove out from there the three sons of Anak- </p><p>As discussed on :10, it was Caleb who had taken Hebron. But then Judah made out that they were so righteously granting it to him, as if they had won the victory. It was in any case given to Caleb by God through Moses and Joshua, not by them:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>The children of Benjamin did not drive out the Jebusites who inhabited Jerusalem, but the Jebusites dwell with the children of Benjamin in Jerusalem to this day- </p><p><a href='B:60 15:63'>Jos 15:63</a> says that "As for the Jebusites, the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the children of Judah couldn’t drive them out; but the Jebusites live with the children of Judah at Jerusalem to this day". It seems that as Jerusalem was on the border between Judah and Benjamin, they both had the opportunity to possess Jerusalem, but both chose not to. See on :19. As explained on :8, Judah defeated the king of Jerusalem. But they failed to possess his territory. They failed to possess the Kingdom; all they did was prove themselves in the right as having the rightful, Divinely given title to it. And there is a challenge to us here, winning theological victories to prove ourselves right, but not possessing the Kingdom.</p>


text:
<p>The house of Joseph went up against Bethel, and Yahweh was with them- </p><p>This term "house of Joseph" presumably refers to Ephraim and eastern Manasseh, but the term is used to describe a Benjamite in <a href='B:100 19:16'>2Sa 19:16</a>; <a href='B:100 19:20'>2Sa 19:20</a>. God's intention was that each family within each tribe had a specific inheritance, from which they drove out the local inhabitants and lived there with His blessing. But it seems that contrary to this intention, they often moved to other tribes, ever seeking for a better deal some place other than that which God intended for them.</p><p>"Yahweh was with them" is LXX "And Judah was with them", reflecting the one Hebrew letter difference between the two words Yahweh and Judah in the original. In this case, we would have some evidence that some in Judah saw the potential of :2, that all the land, for all the tribes, had been given into the possibility of Judah to conquer for them.</p>


text:
<p>The house of Joseph sent to spy out Bethel. The name of the city before was Luz- </p><p>Although Luz was called Bethel (<a href='B:10 35:6'>Gen 35:6</a>; <a href='B:70 1:23'>Jdg 1:23</a>), <a href='B:60 16:2'>Jos 16:2</a> implies a difference between them. Perhaps Luz was the city, and "Bethel" refers specifically to the altar of Jacob there. But Keil suggests Bethel refers to the "southern range of mountains belonging to Bethel, from which the boundary ran out to the town of Luz, so that this town, which stood upon the border, was allotted to the tribe of Benjamin (<a href='B:60 18:22'>Jos 18:22</a>)".</p>


text:
<p>The spies saw a man come out of the city and they said to him, Please show us the entrance into the city and we will deal kindly with you-</p><p>They were perhaps seeking to emulate Joshua's victory over Jericho, and the preservation of Rahab (<a href='B:60 6:23'>Jos 6:23</a>). The word translated “keep” in <a href='B:20 23:20'>Exo 23:20</a> is that translated “spies” here. The spies were the keepers in the way of Israel, to bring them in to the land. And yet the Angel at the exodus was their ‘keeper’ to bring them into the land. The spies were working in harmony with their Angels; and thus they succeeded. Israel’s guardian Angel was to “keep” them in the way (<a href='B:20 23:20'>Exo 23:20</a>), clearly echoing how the Angels kept the way to the tree of life in Eden. The same Hebrew word for “keep” occurs very often in Exodus in the context of Israel being told to keep God’s commands; but their freewill effort was to be confirmed by the Angel keeping them in the way of obedience. They were to “keep” themselves in the way (<a href='B:50 4:9'>Deu 4:9</a> and many others; s:w. “take heed”, “observe” etc:), but the Angel would keep them in it. This mutuality is developed in <a href='B:20 23:21'>Exo 23:21</a>, where having said the Angel will keep them, Israel are told “Beware of him, and obey his voice”. “Beware” translates the same Hebrew word as “keep”. The Angel would keep them:, but they were to keep to the Angel. This is an example of how we are intended to have a mutual relationship with our guardian Angel, leading to Him strengthening us in the one way.</p>


text:
<p>He showed them the entrance into the city and they put the city to the sword, but they let the man go and all his family- </p><p>The conquests of Joshua were nearly all as a result of the local inhabitants coming against him. Even the men of Jericho are described as proactively fighting against Israel (<a href='B:60 24:11'>Jos 24:11</a>). These later conflicts are a result of not having possessed the land as God intended, and so they seem to feature Israel now attacking the local peoples. This was it seems not God's ideal intention; His intention was that those peoples came against Israel and were therefore defeated.</p>


text:
<p>The man went into the land of the Hittites and built a city and called it Luz, which is its name to this day-</p><p>I would consider the book of Joshua to have largely been written by Joshua, under Divine inspiration, although edited [again under Divine inspiration] for the exiles. And the book of Judges likewise. For the exiles too were set to reestablish God's Kingdom in the land and to inherit it again as the Israelites first did. The phrase "to this day" occurs several times in Joshua / Judges, and appears to have different points of historical reference (<a href='B:60 4:9'>Jos 4:9</a>; <a href='B:60 5:9'>Jos 5:9</a>; <a href='B:60 6:25'>Jos 6:25</a>; <a href='B:60 7:26'>Jos 7:26</a>; <a href='B:60 8:28-29'>Jos 8:28-29</a>; <a href='B:60 9:27'>Jos 9:27</a>; <a href='B:60 10:27'>Jos 10:27</a>; <a href='B:60 13:13'>Jos 13:13</a>; <a href='B:60 14:14'>Jos 14:14</a>; <a href='B:60 15:63'>Jos 15:63</a>; <a href='B:60 16:10'>Jos 16:10</a>; <a href='B:60 22:3'>Jos 22:3</a>; <a href='B:60 23:8-9'>Jos 23:8-9</a>; <a href='B:70 1:26'>Jdg 1:26</a>; <a href='B:70 6:24'>Jdg 6:24</a>; <a href='B:70 10:4'>Jdg 10:4</a>; <a href='B:70 15:19'>Jdg 15:19</a>; <a href='B:70 18:12'>Jdg 18:12</a>). I would explain this by saying that the book was edited a number of times and the remains of those edits remain in the text. For God's word is living and made relevant by Him to every generation.</p>


text:
<p>Manasseh did not drive out the inhabitants of Beth Shean, Taanach, Dor, Ibleam or Megiddo and their surrounding settlements; the Canaanites continued to dwell in that land- </p><p>In the list of cities given to the Levites,&nbsp; "Bileam" meaning 'not of the people', is called Ibleam, <a href='B:70 1:27'>Jdg 1:27</a>; <a href='B:120 9:27'>2Ki 9:27</a>, and in <a href='B:60 21:25'>Jos 21:25</a>, Gath-rimmon. Perhaps it is called "Bileam" in <a href='B:130 6:70'>1Ch 6:70</a> because it continues the theme that the tribes of Israel may have somehow manipulated the lots so that they gave less valuable cities to the Levites, or even cities which weren't theirs, thereby breaking the foundation principle of <a href='B:100 24:24'>2Sa 24:24</a>.</p><p>Dor was in Asher (<a href='B:60 11:1-2'>Jos 11:1-2</a>; <a href='B:60 12:23'>Jos 12:23</a>; <a href='B:60 17:11'>Jos 17:11</a>; <a href='B:70 1:27-28'>Jdg 1:27-28</a>). Taanach was within either Issachar or Asher (<a href='B:60 17:11-12'>Jos 17:11-12</a>; <a href='B:70 5:19'>Jdg 5:19</a>). But these towns were also given to Ephraim (<a href='B:130 7:29'>1Ch 7:29</a>). As each Israelite was promised some personal inheritance in the land, rather than some blanket reward which the while nation received, so we too have a personal reward prepared. But the precise nature of that reward is as it were negotiable by us now, according to our spiritual ambition. Just as Caleb chose Hebron and secured it for himself.</p>


text:
<p>When Israel had grown strong they put the Canaanites to forced labour and did not utterly drive them out-</p><p>For "forced labour", see on :30. For "drive out", see on :19. To 'grow strong' can be a technical term for having military superiority (s:w. <a href='B:110 20:22'>1Ki 20:22</a>; <a href='B:140 17:1'>2Ch 17:1</a>; <a href='B:140 21:4'>2Ch 21:4</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Ephraim didn’t drive out the Canaanites who lived in Gezer, but the Canaanites lived in Gezer among them- </p><p>Living together meant that there was a reconciliation of cultures between them. If the Israelites had been truly devoted to Yahweh's ways in practice, such reconciliation would not have been practicable; or we would be reading that the Canaanites accepted Yahweh. But the opposite happened. We read that the Israelites 'dwelt among' the Canaanites in some areas and vice versa, and this would have been as a result of making a covenant with those "inhabitants of this land" (<a href='B:70 2:2'>Jdg 2:2</a>), which in turn abrogated their exclusive covenant with Yahweh.</p>


text:
<p>Zebulun didn’t drive out the inhabitants of Kitron or Nahalol, but the Canaanites lived among them and became subject to forced labour- </p><p>One reason why Israel failed to drive out the tribes, and thereby lost the Kingdom, was simply because they wanted to take tribute from them (<a href='B:60 17:13'>Jos 17:13</a>). <a href='B:330 7:19'>Eze 7:19</a> defines “silver and gold” as Israel’s stumblingblock- moreso than idols. They just so loved wealth. The men of Bethshemesh looked into the ark to see if there were any more jewels left in it (<a href='B:90 6:19'>1Sa 6:19</a> cp. 6,15); they trampled upon the supreme holiness of God in their crazed fascination with wealth.</p>


text:
<p>Asher didn’t drive out the inhabitants of Acco, Sidon, Ahlab, Achzib, Helbah, Aphik, or Rehob- </p><p>According to the definition of Asher's territory in <a href='B:60 19:24-31'>Jos 19:24-31</a>, these were their border towns. Perhaps they settled down to inherit the territory in the midst of their canton, and just couldn't be bothered to subjugate the peripheral towns. For "drive out", see on :19. Many of the towns which weren't subjugated by the tribes were on the very edges of their tribal cantons. They were therefore literally thorns in their sides (<a href='B:70 2:3'>Jdg 2:3</a>).</p>


text:
<p>but the Asherites lived among the Canaanites, the inhabitants of the land, for they did not drive them out- </p><p>Living among the Canaanites would imply that Asher were a minority amongst a majority. The extent of disobedience to the commands to slay the inhabitants of the land is quite astounding. We read that the Israelites 'dwelt among' the Canaanites in some areas, and this would have been as a result of making a covenant with those "inhabitants of this land" (<a href='B:70 2:2'>Jdg 2:2</a>), which in turn abrogated their exclusive covenant with Yahweh.</p>


text:
<p>Naphtali didn’t drive out the inhabitants of Beth Shemesh or Beth Anath, but he lived among the Canaanites, the inhabitants of the land who became subject to forced labour- </p><p>Living among the Canaanites would imply that Naphtali were a minority amongst a majority. For "forced labour", see on :30. For "drive out", see on :19. The two towns mentioned here were idol sanctuaries, 'house of the sun god' and 'house of Anath', another Canaanite idol. These ought to have been destroyed, and not doing so was tantamount to breaking covenant with Yahweh (<a href='B:70 2:2'>Jdg 2:2</a>).</p>


text:
<p>The Amorites forced the children of Dan into the hill country, for they would not allow them to come down to the valley- </p><p>Even when God punished Israel, He seems to later almost take the blame for their judgments; thus He says that He left some of the Canaanite nations in the land to teach Israel battle experience (<a href='B:70 3:2'>Jdg 3:2</a> NIV). His grace is so positive about them in the way He writes about them. Yet elsewhere the presence of those remaining nations is clearly linked to Israel's faithlessness, and their survival in the land was actually part of God's punishment of Israel. He almost excuses Israel's apostasy by saying that they had not seen the great miracles of the Exodus (<a href='B:70 2:7'>Jdg 2:7</a>). "The portion of the children of Judah was too much for them" (<a href='B:60 19:9'>Jos 19:9</a>) almost implies God made an error in allocating them too much; when actually the problem was that they lacked the faith to drive out the tribes living there. Likewise "the border of the children of Dan went out too little for them" (<a href='B:60 19:47'>Jos 19:47</a>), although actually "the Amorites forced the children of Dan into the mountain: for they would not suffer them to come down to the valley" (<a href='B:70 1:34'>Jdg 1:34</a>). When Dan fought against Leshem, this one act of obedience is so magnified in <a href='B:60 19:47'>Jos 19:47</a> to sound as if in their zeal to inherit their territory they actually found they had too little land and therefore attacked Leshem. But actually it was already part of their allotted inheritance. Yet God graciously comments: "all their inheritance had not fallen unto them among the tribes of Israel" (<a href='B:70 18:1'>Jdg 18:1</a>).</p>


text:
<p>but the Amorites continued to dwell in Mount Heres, in Aijalon and in Shaalbim. Yet the hand of the house of Joseph prevailed, so that they became subject to forced labour- </p><p>For "forced labour", see on :30. Mount Heres is ‘mount of the sun,’ probably the same as Ir-shemesh, ‘city of the sun’, in <a href='B:60 19:41'>Jos 19:41</a>. As noted on :33, these pagan sanctuaries ought to have been destroyed.</p>


text:
<p>The border of the Amorites was from the ascent of Akrabbim, from the rock and upward- </p><p>"The rock" may be that at Kadesh of <a href='B:40 20:8'>Num 20:8</a>, or Petra / Sela ["the rock", <a href='B:380 1:3'>Oba 1:3</a>]. The point is that the local population drew a boundary line in the area which was supposed to be Israel's, and defended and enforced it. This was how weak Israel were from the beginning.</p>


text:
<p>The angel of Yahweh came up from Gilgal to Bochim. He said, I brought you up out of Egypt- </p><p>The salvation from the Egyptians was at the Red Sea, long ago (<a href='B:20 14:30'>Exo 14:30</a>). The Israelites were repeatedly reminded of this (<a href='B:70 2:1'>Jdg 2:1</a>; <a href='B:70 6:8'>Jdg 6:8</a>; <a href='B:70 10:11'>Jdg 10:11</a>). But they failed to perceive that God's actions in history were in fact their personal salvation, an act of grace shown to them also. David grasped that point, and his Psalms often thank God for the exodus, as if it had happened to him personally. But the problem is that Israel like all people tended to only see what was before their face at that moment. They had no sense of God's historical salvation of them, and the guarantee that He would likewise come through for them, if they remained faithful to Him.</p><p>And have brought you to the land which I swore to your fathers, and I said, ‘I will never break My covenant with you-</p><p>The promises made to Abraham were made by an Angel. This is implied in the Genesis account and repeated later- e. g. <a href='B:70 2:1'>Jdg 2:1</a> describes the Angel which led the people of Israel out of Egypt and into Canaan reminding them of "the covenant which I sware unto your fathers; and I said, I will never break My covenant with you". Thus when we read passages talking of the covenant God made with them and with Abraham, let us watch out for further allusions to Angelic work. When we read of God breaking His covenant, are we to understand that the Angels can speak like this, but God Himself doesn’t and can’t? Or that God has such passion and emotion that He can say ‘contradictory’ things like this?</p><p></p><p>Consider the following examples of God 'repenting'. For each, try to explain it in terms of God Himself changing His mind, and then think how an understanding of Angels could do better: <a href='B:20 4:24'>Exo 4:24</a>; <a href='B:40 14:34'>Num 14:34</a> AVmg:; <a href='B:20 32:11'>Exo 32:11</a> mg:; <a href='B:350 12:4'>Hos 12:4</a>; <a href='B:70 2:1'>Jdg 2:1</a> cp. <a href='B:450 11:10-11'>Zec 11:10-11</a>. If you like this line of approach, consider the following examples, of where 'God' says He won't do something; and then does: <a href='B:20 33:3'>Exo 33:3</a> cp. 34:9; <a href='B:50 4:31'>Deu 4:31</a>; <a href='B:50 31:6'>Deu 31:6</a>; <a href='B:50 31:8'>Deu 31:8</a> cp. 31:17. See on <a href='B:450 11:10-11'>Zec 11:10-11</a>.</p><p>Although the idea of Angels changing their minds has some attraction, my own conviction is that God as it were limits His omniscience and omnipotence in order to enter into real relationship with His people. He has emotions, and speaks in the fire of His wrath, as we do, who are made in His image. And so He utters judgments which by grace He didn't totally follow through on. Perhaps the repentance or intercession of a minority ameliorated His judgments; or perhaps the pole of grace and love is stronger within Him than that of judgment. For mercy rejoices against judgment, even within His personality.</p><p>God promised that even if Israel sinned, He would never break His covenant with them (<a href='B:30 26:44'>Lev 26:44</a>; <a href='B:70 2:1'>Jdg 2:1</a>). But He did (<a href='B:450 11:10'>Zec 11:10</a> cp. <a href='B:300 14:21'>Jer 14:21</a>), as witnessed by the termination of the Law of Moses, which was the basis of His covenant with Israel. His love creates yet another Bible paradox. Israel broke the covenant by their disobedience (<a href='B:30 26:15'>Lev 26:15</a>; <a href='B:50 31:16'>Deu 31:16</a> and many others). God therefore broke His part of the covenant. Yet God made His promises concerning the unbreakable covenant because He chose to speak in words which did not reflect His foreknowledge that Israel would sin. The apparent contradiction is resolvable by realizing that God did not set His mind upon Israel's future apostasy when He made the 'unbreakable' covenant with them. And yet the paradox still ultimately stands; that He broke His covenant with them when they sinned. He worked through this punishment in order to establish an even more gracious new covenant.</p>


text:
<p>and you must make no covenant with the inhabitants of this land; break down their altars’. But you have not listened to My voice; why have you done this?- </p><p>As discussed on :1, their covenant with the inhabitants of the land was an undoing and abrogation of the exclusive covenant with Yahweh which they had signed up to. And yet He still remained in covenant. We read that the Israelites 'dwelt among' the Canaanites in some areas, and this would have been as a result of making a covenant with those "inhabitants of this land" (<a href='B:70 2:2'>Jdg 2:2</a>), which in turn abrogated their exclusive covenant with Yahweh (:1). The existence of pagan place names throughout the record of the conquest, e:g. Bath Dagon, house of Dagon, Beth Shemesh, house of the sun god, all demonstrates that they didn't break down the altars.</p>


text:
<p>Therefore I tell you that I will not drive them out from before you, but they shall be thorns in your sides-</p><p>I noted on Judges 1 that many of the towns which weren't subjugated by the tribes were on the very edges of their tribal cantons. They were therefore literally thorns in their sides (<a href='B:70 2:3'>Jdg 2:3</a>).</p><p>And their gods will be a snare to you- </p><p>Twice in 1 Timothy, Paul speaks about a snare; the snare of the devil (<a href='B:610 3:7'>1Ti 3:7</a>), and the snare of wanting wealth (6:9). The desire for wealth in whatever form is the very epitome of the devil, our inherent sin which we must struggle against. The idea of a snare is that it results in a sudden and unexpected destruction. The unexpectedness of the destruction should set us thinking: surely the implication is that those who are materialistic don't realize that in fact this is their besetting sin, and therefore their rejection in the end because of it will be so tragically unexpected. It's rather like pride; if you're proud and you don't know it, then you really are proud. And if we're materialistic and don't know it, we likewise really have a problem. The idea of riches being a snare connects with copious OT references to idols as Israel's perpetual snare (<a href='B:20 23:33'>Exo 23:33</a>; <a href='B:50 7:16'>Deu 7:16</a>; <a href='B:70 2:3'>Jdg 2:3</a>; <a href='B:70 8:27'>Jdg 8:27</a>; <a href='B:230 106:36'>Psa 106:36</a>; <a href='B:350 5:1'>Hos 5:1</a>). Paul's point is surely that the desire of wealth is the equivalent of OT idolatry.</p>


text:
<p>When the angel of Yahweh spoke these words to all the children of Israel, the people lifted up their voice and wept- </p><p>As in their response to Joshua's speech challenging their idolatry, we rather wait with expectant hope to read that like Jacob's sons, they bring out their idols and bury or burn them. If only we could achieve a second naivety in reading the records, we would at this point be on the edge of our seats, waiting for them to now ditch their idols. But we read only of their tears, the emotion of a religious moment, rather than any lasting response to the blunt warning they had been given.</p>


text:
<p>They called the name of that place Bochim; and they sacrificed there to Yahweh-</p><p>We notice that they had the opportunity to rename or name places in Israel. But they retained so many place names which have clear associations with Baal and Dagon. As noted on :4, they went through the motions of religious worship and repentance- but there is no record of them actually ditching their idols.</p>


text:
<p>Now when Joshua had sent the people away, the children of Israel went every man to his inheritance to possess the land- </p><p>They were to quit their idolatry and then possess the land in God's strength. They went forward to possess the land, but with no record of having ditched their idols. "Drive out" is s:w. "possess". We must note the difference between the&nbsp; Canaanite peoples and their kings being "struck" and their land "taken" by Joshua-Jesus; and the people of Israel permanently taking possession. This is the difference between the Lord's victory on the cross, and our taking possession of the Kingdom. Even though that possession has been "given" to us. The word used for "possession" is literally 'an inheritance'. The allusion is to the people, like us, being the seed of Abraham. The Kingdom was and is our possession, our inheritance- if we walk in the steps of Abraham. But it is one thing to be the seed of Abraham, another to take possession of the inheritance; and Israel generally did not take possession of all the land (<a href='B:60 11:23'>Jos 11:23</a>; <a href='B:60 13:1'>Jos 13:1</a>; <a href='B:60 16:10'>Jos 16:10</a>; <a href='B:60 18:3'>Jos 18:3</a>; <a href='B:60 23:4'>Jos 23:4</a>). The language of inheritance / possession is applied to us in the New Testament (<a href='B:560 1:11'>Eph 1:11</a>; <a href='B:560 1:14'>Eph 1:14</a>; <a href='B:580 3:24'>Col 3:24</a>; <a href='B:510 20:32'>Act 20:32</a>; <a href='B:510 26:18'>Act 26:18</a>; <a href='B:670 1:4'>1Pe 1:4</a> etc:). Israel were promised: "You shall possess it" (<a href='B:50 30:5'>Deu 30:5</a>; <a href='B:50 33:23'>Deu 33:23</a>). This was more of a command than a prophecy, for sadly they were "given" the land but did not "possess" it. They were constantly encouraged in the wilderness that they were on the path to possessing the land (<a href='B:50 30:16'>Deu 30:16</a>; <a href='B:50 30:18'>Deu 30:18</a>; <a href='B:50 31:3'>Deu 31:3</a>; <a href='B:50 31:13'>Deu 31:13</a>; <a href='B:50 32:47'>Deu 32:47</a>), but when they got there they didn't possess it fully.</p>


text:
<p>The people served Yahweh all the days of Joshua and all the days of the elders who outlived Joshua, who had seen all the great work of Yahweh that He had worked for Israel- </p><p>As discussed on Joshua 24, I suggest that the 'service of Yahweh' in view here refers to the operation of the tabernacle rituals. For 'serving Yahweh' can be a technical term which refers to this and nothing else. This is not to say that they were faithful nor exclusively committed to Him. Joshua in <a href='B:60 24:19'>Jos 24:19</a> had said that they could not 'serve Yahweh' acceptably, unless they ditched their idols. Which they didn't. The people understood serving Yahweh as doing the rituals of His religion, whereas Joshua understood it as serving Him exclusively with no place in their hearts for any idolatry.</p><p>Even when God punished Israel, He seems to later almost take the blame for their judgments; thus He says that He left some of the Canaanite nations in the land to teach Israel battle experience (<a href='B:70 3:2'>Jdg 3:2</a> NIV). His grace is so positive about them in the way He writes about them. Yet elsewhere the presence of those remaining nations is clearly linked to Israel's faithlessness, and their survival in the land was actually part of God's punishment of Israel. He almost excuses Israel's apostasy by saying that they had not seen the great miracles of the Exodus (<a href='B:70 2:7'>Jdg 2:7</a>). "The portion of the children of Judah was too much for them" (<a href='B:60 19:9'>Jos 19:9</a>) almost implies God made an error in allocating them too much; when actually the problem was that they lacked the faith to drive out the tribes living there. Likewise " the coast of the children of Dan went out too little for them" (<a href='B:60 19:47'>Jos 19:47</a>), although actually "The Amorites forced the children of Dan into the mountain: for they would not suffer them to come down to the valley" (<a href='B:70 1:34'>Jdg 1:34</a>). When Dan fought against Leshem, this one act of obedience is so magnified in <a href='B:60 19:47'>Jos 19:47</a> to sound as if in their zeal to inherit their territory they actually found they had too little land and therefore attacked Leshem. But actually it was already part of their allotted inheritance. Yet God graciously comments: "all their inheritance had not fallen unto them among the tribes of Israel" (<a href='B:70 18:1'>Jdg 18:1</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Joshua the son of Nun, the servant of Yahweh, died, being one hundred and ten years old- </p><p>Numbers and ages in Hebrew literature are not necessarily to be taken literally. This was the age at which Joseph is recorded as reaching (<a href='B:10 50:26'>Gen 50:26</a>), and we will read in <a href='B:60 24:32'>Jos 24:32</a> of the burial of Joseph's bones at Shechem, at the same time as Joshua is buried. We are clearly invited to see a connection between the two men, both of them maintaining spirituality and hope in the Kingdom whilst surrounded by unspirituality and terrible failure by God's people to realize their potential.</p>


text:
<p>They buried him in the border of his inheritance in Timnah Heres, in the hill country of Ephraim, on the north of the mountain of Gaash- </p><p>"In the border" may mean that they believed even then that one day he would be resurrected, and then immediately enter into his eternal inheritance. LXX adds: "There they put with him into the tomb in which they buried him, the knives of stone with which he circumcised the children of Israel in Galgala, when he brought them out of Egypt, as the Lord appointed them; and there they are to this day".</p>


text:
<p>Also all that generation were gathered to their fathers; and there arose another generation after them who didn’t know Yahweh, nor yet the work which He had done for Israel- </p><p>The "fathers" served other gods (<a href='B:60 24:2'>Jos 24:2</a>), but the Bible describes death as a gathering to the fathers. Clearly the differentiation between good and bad men is not made at death. Death is unconsciousness, and the ultimate division and reward will be at the return of the Lord Jesus and the judgment seat He will then set up:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>The Israelites did what was evil in the sight of Yahweh and served the Baals- </p><p>Serving Yahweh was to be exclusive. Any worship of Baals was to break that exclusive covenant they had made with Yahweh and therefore to forsake Yahweh (:12,13). But 'forsaking Yahweh' is how He saw it. They themselves never became atheists or formally abrogated their relationship with Yahweh. They believed that they could worship Yahweh through worshipping Baal, and that they were doing nothing wrong to Him by this infidelity.</p><p>"The children of Israel did evil in the sight of Yahweh" is a refrain which occurs seven times in Judges (<a href='B:70 2:11'>Jdg 2:11</a>; <a href='B:70 3:7'>Jdg 3:7</a>; <a href='B:70 3:12'>Jdg 3:12</a>; <a href='B:70 4:1'>Jdg 4:1</a>; <a href='B:70 6:1'>Jdg 6:1</a>; <a href='B:70 10:6'>Jdg 10:6</a>; <a href='B:70 13:1'>Jdg 13:1</a>), recalling how Israel both over history and in the last days were to be punished "seven times" for their sins (<a href='B:30 26:23-24'>Lev 26:23-24</a>).</p>


text:
<p>They forsook Yahweh the God of their fathers who brought them out of the land of Egypt, and followed other gods of the peoples who were around them and bowed themselves down to them- </p><p>See on :11.</p><p>And they provoked Yahweh to anger-</p><p>God can be grieved [s:w. 'provoke to anger']. He has emotions, and His potential foreknowledge doesn't mean that these feelings are not legitimate. They are presented as occurring in human time, as responses to human behaviour. This is the degree to which He has accommodated Himself to human time-space limits, in order to fully enter relationship and experience with us. As He can limit His omnipotence, so God can limit His omniscience, in order to feel and respond along with us.</p>


text:
<p>They forsook Yahweh and served Baal and the Ashtaroth- </p><p>As explained on :11, this was how Yahweh felt. They themselves didn't think they had forsaken Him. The Bible at times speaks from God's viewpoint, at others from the perspective of the people whose actions are being described. To forsake Yahweh was to break covenant with Him (<a href='B:50 31:16-17'>Deu 31:16-17</a>). Israel did forsake Yahweh (<a href='B:70 2:13'>Jdg 2:13</a>), but still He remained faithful to them, as Hosea remained faithful to Gomer despite her infidelity to their marriage covenant. Instead of forsaking them as He threatened, He instead by grace sent them saviours, judges, looking forward to His grace in sending the Lord Jesus, Yah's salvation.</p><p>The punishment for forsaking Yahweh was that "Yahweh will send on you cursing, confusion and rebuke in all that you put your hand to do, until you are destroyed and until you perish quickly, because of the evil of your doings by which you have forsaken Him. Yahweh will make the pestilence cleave to you until He has consumed you from off the land into which you now go in to possess it" (<a href='B:50 28:20-21'>Deu 28:20-21</a>). We expect these things to therefore happen at this time; but we note God's amazing patience and gentleness in not bringing these things immediately, and instead raising up judges as saviours for this wayward people.</p>


text:
<p>The anger of Yahweh was kindled against Israel and He delivered them into the hands of raiders who plundered them, and He sold them into the hands of their enemies all around so that they could no longer stand before their enemies- </p><p>As noted on :13, this was a very restrained response from Yahweh, and not actually according to the judgments threatened for forsaking Him in <a href='B:50 28:20-21'>Deu 28:20-21</a>. The judgments of <a href='B:50 29:23-27'>Deu 29:23-27</a> were likewise the prophesied outcome of Israel forsaking Yahweh; and this too didn't happen at this time, by grace alone: "The whole land is sulphur, salt and burning, that it is not sown nor giving produce and no grass grows therein, like the overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrah, Admah and Zeboiim, which Yahweh overthrew in His anger and in his wrath. They and all the nations shall say, Why has Yahweh done thus to this land? What does the heat of this great anger mean? Then men shall say, Because they forsook the covenant of Yahweh the God of their fathers, which He made with them when He brought them forth out of the land of Egypt, and went and served other gods and worshipped them, gods that they didn’t know and that He had not given to them. Therefore the anger of Yahweh was kindled against this land, to bring on it all the curse that is written in this book". But instead we are to read that although God punished them, He raised up saviours to save them from the judgments; and this looks forward to His grace in the Lord Jesus, 'Yah's salvation'.</p>


text:
<p>Wherever they went the hand of Yahweh was against them for evil, as Yahweh had spoken and as Yahweh had sworn to them; and they were very distressed- </p><p>See on :18. But as noted above, He did not bring upon them all the things which He had spoken, in wrath He remembered mercy. This "distress" is the word used of the distress of the historical Jacob / Israel (<a href='B:10 32:7'>Gen 32:7</a>), when like Israel he was confronted with his sins and led to cast himself upon God's grace.</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh raised up judges who saved them from those who plundered them- </p><p>The judgments for forsaking Yahweh were of total destruction- see on :13,14. We expect these things to therefore happen at this time; but we note God's amazing patience and gentleness in not bringing these things immediately, and instead raising up judges as saviours for this wayward people. And those saviours look forward to the Lord Jesus.</p>


text:
<p>Yet they didn’t listen to their judges; for they played the prostitute after other gods and bowed themselves down to them. They turned aside quickly out of the way in which their fathers walked, who had obeyed the commandments of Yahweh. They didn’t do so- </p><p>Israel is so often set up as the bride of God (<a href='B:290 54:5'>Isa 54:5</a>; <a href='B:290 61:10'>Isa 61:10</a>; <a href='B:290 62:4-5'>Isa 62:4-5</a>; <a href='B:300 2:2'>Jer 2:2</a>; <a href='B:300 3:14'>Jer 3:14</a>; <a href='B:350 2:19-20'>Hos 2:19-20</a>). This is why any infidelity to God is spoken of as adultery (<a href='B:460 2:11'>Mal 2:11</a>; <a href='B:30 17:7'>Lev 17:7</a>; <a href='B:30 20:5-6'>Lev 20:5-6</a>; <a href='B:50 31:16'>Deu 31:16</a>; <a href='B:70 2:17'>Jdg 2:17</a>; <a href='B:70 8:27'>Jdg 8:27</a>; <a href='B:70 8:33'>Jdg 8:33</a>; <a href='B:350 9:1'>Hos 9:1</a>). The very language of Israel 'selling themselves to do iniquity' uses the image of prostitution. This is how God feels our even temporary and fleeting acts and thoughts of unfaithfulness. This is why God is jealous for us (<a href='B:20 20:15'>Exo 20:15</a>; <a href='B:20 34:14'>Exo 34:14</a>; <a href='B:50 4:24'>Deu 4:24</a>; <a href='B:50 5:9'>Deu 5:9</a>; <a href='B:50 6:15'>Deu 6:15</a>)- because His undivided love for us is so exclusive. He expects us to be totally His.</p>


text:
<p>When Yahweh raised up judges for them- </p><p>God Himself 'arose and saved' Israel from Egypt (<a href='B:230 76:9'>Psa 76:9</a>, s:w. "raised up a saviour"), and the phrase is also used of Moses in <a href='B:20 2:17'>Exo 2:17</a>. But the people didn't want this radical deliverance from their enemies, because like the generation saved from Egypt, they were with their enemies in their hearts, and worshipped their gods as Israel had taken the idols of their Egyptian enemies with them, through the Red Sea (<a href='B:330 20:17'>Eze 20:17</a>). So the potential possible in these raised up saviours / judges was never totally realized.</p><p>Yahweh was with the judge and saved them out of the hand of their enemies all the days of the judge, for it grieved Yahweh because of their distress because of the oppression- </p><p>The hand of their enemies was effectively Yahweh's hand (:15). Yet God's grace worked as it were against His own judgment. We see here the tension between mercy and judgment deep within the personality of God; and the pole of grace wins out over that of necessary judgment. And this God is our God. "Grieved" is the word for "repent" (as AV); He changed His mind, because He was grieved for them. And so we read in <a href='B:350 11:8'>Hos 11:8</a> of how His repentings were kindled together deep within Him.</p>


text:
<p>But when the judge was dead they turned back and behaved more corruptly than their fathers in following other gods to serve them and to bow down to them. They didn’t cease from their evil practices or from their stubborn ways-</p><p>The book of Judges reflects this grace of God- showing, incidentally, that grace isn't only a New Testament theme. We are so wrong if we imagine that Judges is all about a cycle of sin, judgment, repentance, raising up a judge-saviour, salvation and restoration to God. For one thing, the cycles are never the same- for God is in passionate relationship with His people, and passionate love doesn't work to the 'same ole same ole' plan every time. Time and again we find that Israel sin, do not repent (<a href='B:70 2:19'>Jdg 2:19</a>)- and yet all the same God sends them a Saviour. They are saved without repentance, simply because God pities them (<a href='B:70 2:15-16'>Jdg 2:15-16</a>). They do the very things which God predicted in Deuteronomy would result in Him breaking the covenant with them (see on :13,14)- and yet He does not break His side of the covenant (<a href='B:70 3:1'>Jdg 3:1</a>). In all this we see an altogether profound grace, arising out of God's passionate love for His people. We simply don't 'get' how passionate is God's love for us!</p><p>After each judge they did "more corruptly" than the previous generation. We get the same impression in the record of the kings. It all gives the impression of an ever downward slide into the final apostacy which elicited the captivities in Assyria and Babylon. These are therefore presented as only happening after an amazing display of patient grace over many generations.</p>


text:
<p>The anger of Yahweh was kindled against Israel and He said, Because this nation has transgressed My covenant which I commanded their fathers and has not listened to Me- </p><p>To keep covenant was thus paralleled with listening / being obedient to God. The covenant was broken, because they had broken it rather than God. And yet for generations (see on :19), He still kept His side of it. <a href='B:60 23:16'>Jos 23:16</a> had said that when Israel "transgressed [My] covenant", then they would "perish quickly from off the good land". But as noted on :19, this didn't happen "quickly". God's grace waited many generations before exiling them from their land. He changed His mind, or 'repented', because of His grace; see on :18.</p>


text:
<p>I also will no longer drive out from before them any of the nations that Joshua left when he died- </p><p>Israel were told to work with God to drive out the nations who lived in Canaan, because if those people remained there, they would be a spiritual temptation for Israel. But Israel sinned, they willfully followed the idols of Canaan rather than the God of Israel. And therefore God said that He would not help Israel in driving out the nations any more (<a href='B:70 2:20-21'>Jdg 2:20-21</a>). It was as if He was confirming them in their desire to succumb to the temptations of the surrounding nations. He as it were 'led them into temptation', and we are to pray in the words of the Lord's prayer that we are not led as they were.</p>


text:
<p>So by them I may prove Israel, whether they will keep the way of Yahweh to walk therein as their fathers did, or not- </p><p>As discussed on :21, the test of Israel was really leading them further down the downward spiral which they themselves wanted. We note Yahweh graciously considered that "their fathers" had "kept the way of Yahweh", clearly alluding to Abraham and the patriarchs (<a href='B:10 18:19'>Gen 18:19</a>). But this too was an imputation of righteousness by grace, for the patriarchs often strayed from that covenant, Jacob especially.</p>


text:
<p>So Yahweh left those nations without driving them out quickly and didn’t deliver them into the hand of Joshua-</p><p><a href='B:60 23:16'>Jos 23:16</a> had said that when Israel "transgressed [My] covenant", then they would "perish quickly from off the good land". But as noted on :19, this didn't happen "quickly" when they now transgressed the covenant. God's grace waited many generations before exiling them from their land. Instead, God puts it so positively by saying that He didn't drive out the nations "quickly". The positive nature of His grace is seen all through this sad record of human failure.</p><p>The implications that we should respond ‘quickly’ to the Gospel surely mean that we should not have any element of indifference in our response to the call of God, and yet the foundations of a true spiritual life cannot be laid hastily. The Father drove out the tribes from Canaan slowly, not immediately- or at least, He potentially enabled this to happen (<a href='B:70 2:23'>Jdg 2:23</a>). But Israel were to destroy those tribes “quickly” (<a href='B:50 9:3'>Deu 9:3</a>). Here perhaps we see what is meant- progress is slow but steady in the spiritual life, but there must be a quickness in response to the call of God for action in practice. Compare this with how on one hand, God does not become quickly angry (<a href='B:230 103:8'>Psa 103:8</a>), and yet on the other hand He does &nbsp;get angry quickly in the sense that He immediately feels and responds to sin (<a href='B:230 2:12'>Psa 2:12</a>); His anger ‘flares up in His face’.</p><p>Just as all the animals and everything in the eretz promised to Abraham was 'delivered into the hands' of Noah (s:w. <a href='B:10 9:2'>Gen 9:2</a>), so the nations of that eretz were delivered into the hands of Israel (s:w. <a href='B:20 6:8'>Exo 6:8</a>; <a href='B:20 23:31'>Exo 23:31</a>; <a href='B:50 2:24'>Deu 2:24</a>; <a href='B:50 3:2-3'>Deu 3:2-3</a>; <a href='B:50 7:24'>Deu 7:24</a>; <a href='B:50 21:10'>Deu 21:10</a>; <a href='B:60 2:24'>Jos 2:24</a>; <a href='B:70 1:2'>Jdg 1:2</a>). Tragically, like Adam in Eden [perhaps the same eretz promised to Abraham] and Noah in the new, cleansed eretz, Israel didn't realize this potential. What was delivered into the hand of Joshua (<a href='B:60 2:24'>Jos 2:24</a>) actually wasn't delivered into their hand, because they disbelieved (<a href='B:70 2:23'>Jdg 2:23</a>); and this looks ahead to the disbelief of so many in the work of the Lord Jesus, who has indeed conquered the Kingdom for us. They considered the promise of the nations being delivered into their hand as somehow open to question, and only a possibility and not at all certain (<a href='B:70 8:7'>Jdg 8:7</a>; <a href='B:40 21:2'>Num 21:2</a> cp. <a href='B:40 21:34'>Num 21:34</a>). Some like Jephthah (s:w. <a href='B:70 11:32'>Jdg 11:32</a>; <a href='B:70 12:3'>Jdg 12:3</a>), Ehud (<a href='B:70 3:10'>Jdg 3:10</a>; <a href='B:70 3:28'>Jdg 3:28</a>), Deborah (<a href='B:70 4:14'>Jdg 4:14</a>), Gideon (<a href='B:70 7:15'>Jdg 7:15</a>) did, for a brief historical moment; but as individuals, and their victories were not followed up on. Instead they were dominated by the territory. And so instead, they were delivered into the hands of their enemies within the eretz (s:w. <a href='B:30 26:25'>Lev 26:25</a>; <a href='B:70 13:1'>Jdg 13:1</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Now these are the nations which Yahweh left to test Israel, those who had not known all the wars of Canaan-</p><p>Israel do the very things which God predicted in Deuteronomy would result in Him breaking the covenant with them- and yet He does not break His side of the covenant. In all this we see an altogether profound grace, arising out of God's passionate love for His people. We simply don't 'get' how passionate is God's love for us! See on <a href='B:70 2:19'>Jdg 2:19</a>. <a href='B:70 2:23'>Jdg 2:23</a> says that "Yahweh left those nations without driving them out quickly and didn’t deliver them into the hand of Joshua". <a href='B:60 23:16'>Jos 23:16</a> had said that when Israel "transgressed [My] covenant", then they would "perish quickly from off the good land". But as noted on <a href='B:70 2:19'>Jdg 2:19</a>, this didn't happen "quickly" when they now transgressed the covenant. God's grace waited many generations before exiling them from their land. Instead, God puts it so positively by saying that He didn't drive out the nations "quickly". The positive nature of His grace is seen all through this sad record of human failure.</p>


text:
<p>so that the later generations of the children of Israel might learn battle experience, those who before knew nothing of it- </p><p>As discussed on :1, this is putting it so positively. For the reason He didn't drive out the nations was because they had broken covenant with Him (<a href='B:70 2:19-23'>Jdg 2:19-23</a>). Even when God punished Israel, He seems to later almost take the blame for their judgments; thus He says that He left some of the Canaanite nations in the land to teach Israel battle experience. His grace is so positive about them in the way He writes about them. Yet elsewhere the presence of those remaining nations is clearly linked to Israel's faithlessness, and their survival in the land was actually part of God's punishment of Israel. He almost excuses Israel's apostasy by saying that they had not seen the great miracles of the Exodus (<a href='B:70 2:7'>Jdg 2:7</a>). "The portion of the children of Judah was too much for them" (<a href='B:60 19:9'>Jos 19:9</a>) almost implies God made an error in allocating them too much; when actually the problem was that they lacked the faith to drive out the tribes living there. Likewise " the coast of the children of Dan went out too little for them" (<a href='B:60 19:47'>Jos 19:47</a>), although actually " The Amorites forced the children of Dan into the mountain: for they would not suffer them to come down to the valley" (<a href='B:70 1:34'>Jdg 1:34</a>). When Dan fought against Leshem, this one act of obedience is so magnified in <a href='B:60 19:47'>Jos 19:47</a> to sound as if in their zeal to inherit their territory they actually found they had too little land and therefore attacked Leshem. But actually it was already part of their allotted inheritance. Yet God graciously comments: "all their inheritance had not fallen unto them among the tribes of Israel" (<a href='B:70 18:1'>Jdg 18:1</a>).</p>


text:
<p>the five lords of the Philistines and all the Canaanites, the Sidonians and the Hivites who lived on Mount Lebanon, from Mount Baal Hermon to the entrance of Hamath- </p><p>But <a href='B:70 1:18'>Jdg 1:18</a> says that "Judah took Gaza with its border and Ashkelon with its border and Ekron with its border". I suggest the answer is that their victory was like those of Joshua- not followed up on. And like the victory over Jerusalem recorded in <a href='B:70 1:8'>Jdg 1:8</a>, soon after which the Jebusites were soon again entrenched in Jerusalem (<a href='B:70 1:21'>Jdg 1:21</a>). They failed to possess the Kingdom; all they did was prove themselves in the right as having the rightful, Divinely given title to it. And there is a challenge to us here, winning theological victories to prove ourselves right, but not possessing the Kingdom:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>They were left to test Israel, to know whether they would listen to the commandments of Yahweh which He commanded their fathers by Moses- </p><p>Israel were told to work with God to drive out the nations who lived in Canaan, because if those people remained there, they would be a spiritual temptation for Israel. But Israel sinned, they willfully followed the idols of Canaan rather than the God of Israel. And therefore God said that He would not help Israel in driving out the nations any more (<a href='B:70 2:20-21'>Jdg 2:20-21</a>). It was as if He was confirming them in their desire to succumb to the temptations of the surrounding nations. He as it were 'led them into temptation', and we are to pray in the words of the Lord's prayer that we are not led as they were.</p>


text:
<p>The Israelites lived among the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Amorites, the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites- </p><p>Living together meant that there was a reconciliation of cultures between them. If the Israelites had been truly devoted to Yahweh's ways in practice, such reconciliation would not have been practicable; or we would be reading that the Canaanites accepted Yahweh. But the opposite happened. We read that the Israelites 'dwelt among' the Canaanites in some areas and vice versa, and this would have been as a result of making a covenant with those "inhabitants of this land" (<a href='B:70 2:2'>Jdg 2:2</a>), which in turn abrogated their exclusive covenant with Yahweh.</p>


text:
<p>and they took their daughters to be their wives and gave their own daughters to their sons, and served their gods- </p><p>Many passages make the connection between marriage out of the covenant, and adopting idolatry: <a href='B:20 34:12-16'>Exo 34:12-16</a>; <a href='B:50 7:2-9'>Deu 7:2-9</a>; <a href='B:70 3:6-7'>Jdg 3:6-7</a>; <a href='B:110 11:2-3'>1Ki 11:2-3</a>; <a href='B:460 2:11'>Mal 2:11</a>; <a href='B:540 6:14'>2Co 6:14</a>. <a href='B:50 7:4'>Deu 7:4</a> RV dogmatically predicts that a Gentile man will definitely turn away the heart of his Hebrew son-in-law… So certain is it that marriage to Gentiles leads to accepting their idols that <a href='B:150 9:1-2'>Ezr 9:1-2</a> reasons that Israel hadn't separated from idols because they had married Gentiles. Time and again, those who marry out of the covenant claim that they feel strong enough to cope with it, that marriage is only a human thing, and that their spiritual relationship with God is between them and God, and unaffected by their worldly partner. Yet this is exactly the opposite of what God's word says. It's not true that you can marry into the world and be unaffected in your own spirituality. Solomon thought he could handle it; and apparently, he did- for the first 20 years or so. But his Gentile wives were his spiritual ruin at the end.</p>


text:
<p>The Israelites did what was evil in the sight of Yahweh and forgot Yahweh their God, and served the Baals and the Asherahs- </p><p>Serving Yahweh was to be exclusive. Any worship of Baals was to break that exclusive covenant they had made with Yahweh and therefore to forsake or forget Yahweh (<a href='B:70 2:12-13'>Jdg 2:12-13</a>). But 'forsaking / forgetting Yahweh' is how He saw it. They themselves never became atheists or formally abrogated their relationship with Yahweh. They believed that they could worship Yahweh through worshipping Baal, and that they were doing nothing wrong to Him by this infidelity.</p><p>"The children of Israel did evil in the sight of Yahweh" is a refrain which occurs seven times in Judges (<a href='B:70 2:11'>Jdg 2:11</a>; <a href='B:70 3:7'>Jdg 3:7</a>; <a href='B:70 3:12'>Jdg 3:12</a>; <a href='B:70 4:1'>Jdg 4:1</a>; <a href='B:70 6:1'>Jdg 6:1</a>; <a href='B:70 10:6'>Jdg 10:6</a>; <a href='B:70 13:1'>Jdg 13:1</a>), recalling how Israel both over history and in the last days were to be punished "seven times" for their sins (<a href='B:30 26:23-24'>Lev 26:23-24</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Therefore the anger of Yahweh was kindled against Israel and He sold them into the hand of Cushan Rishathaim king of Mesopotamia. The Israelites served Cushan Rishathaim for eight years.</p><p>The pattern of 'serving' their Canaanite conquerors and then 'crying unto the Lord' (<a href='B:70 3:8-9'>Jdg 3:8-9</a>; <a href='B:70 3:14-15'>Jdg 3:14-15</a>) recalls their servitude to the Egyptians, resulting in Israel 'crying to the Lord' (<a href='B:20 2:23'>Exo 2:23</a>), and being answered by the Passover deliverance - which looked forward to the events of the Lord’s second coming. Their deliverances by the judges therefore also typify this. "Saviours (judges) shall come up upon mount Zion to judge the mount of Esau (so that) the Kingdom shall be the Lord's" (<a href='B:380 1:21'>Oba 1:21</a>). “Saviours / judges" may be an intensive plural referring to the one true saviour / judge, Jesus. </p><p></p><p>The phrase " the Lord sold them into the hand of::." , which occurs here in <a href='B:70 3:8'>Jdg 3:8</a>, runs as a refrain throughout the record of Israel's punishment at the hand of her enemies:&nbsp;The force of what this will mean in practice is brought out in <a href='B:50 32:30'>Deu 32:30</a>:&nbsp; "How should one chase a thousand (Jews), and two put ten thousand to flight, except their Rock (protecting Angel) had sold them:::?". Given the huge numerical superiority of Israel's Islamist enemies, this shows a total military collapse by the Israelites in the face of this aggression:&nbsp;&nbsp; This is a far cry from the arrogance, confidence, bravery and 'fight to the death' attitude of modern Israelis.</p>


text:
<p>When the Israelites cried to Yahweh, Yahweh raised up a saviour for them, Othniel the son of Kenaz, Caleb’s younger brother- </p><p>God Himself 'arose and saved' Israel from Egypt (<a href='B:230 76:9'>Psa 76:9</a>, s:w. "raised up a saviour"), and the phrase is also used of Moses in <a href='B:20 2:17'>Exo 2:17</a>. But the people didn't want this radical deliverance from their enemies, because like the generation saved from Egypt, they were with their enemies in their hearts, and worshipped their gods as Israel had taken the idols of their Egyptian enemies with them, through the Red Sea (<a href='B:330 20:17'>Eze 20:17</a>). So the potential possible in these raised up saviours / judges was never totally realized:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>The Spirit of Yahweh came on him and he judged Israel. He went out to war and Yahweh delivered Cushan Rishathaim king of Mesopotamia into his hand; and his hand prevailed against Cushan Rishathaim- </p><p>Just as all the animals and everything in the eretz promised to Abraham was 'delivered into the hands' of Noah (s:w. <a href='B:10 9:2'>Gen 9:2</a>), so the nations of that eretz were delivered into the hands of Israel (s:w. <a href='B:20 6:8'>Exo 6:8</a>; <a href='B:20 23:31'>Exo 23:31</a>; <a href='B:50 2:24'>Deu 2:24</a>; <a href='B:50 3:2-3'>Deu 3:2-3</a>; <a href='B:50 7:24'>Deu 7:24</a>; <a href='B:50 21:10'>Deu 21:10</a>; <a href='B:60 2:24'>Jos 2:24</a>; <a href='B:70 1:2'>Jdg 1:2</a>). Tragically, like Adam in Eden [perhaps the same eretz promised to Abraham] and Noah in the new, cleansed eretz, Israel didn't realize this potential. What was delivered into the hand of Joshua (<a href='B:60 2:24'>Jos 2:24</a>) actually wasn't delivered into their hand, because they disbelieved (<a href='B:70 2:23'>Jdg 2:23</a>); and this looks ahead to the disbelief of so many in the work of the Lord Jesus, who has indeed conquered the Kingdom for us. They considered the promise of the nations being delivered into their hand as somehow open to question, and only a possibility and not at all certain (<a href='B:70 8:7'>Jdg 8:7</a>; <a href='B:40 21:2'>Num 21:2</a> cp. <a href='B:40 21:34'>Num 21:34</a>). Some like Jephthah (s:w. <a href='B:70 11:32'>Jdg 11:32</a>; <a href='B:70 12:3'>Jdg 12:3</a>), Ehud (<a href='B:70 3:10'>Jdg 3:10</a>; <a href='B:70 3:28'>Jdg 3:28</a>), Deborah (<a href='B:70 4:14'>Jdg 4:14</a>), Gideon (<a href='B:70 7:15'>Jdg 7:15</a>) did, for a brief historical moment; but as individuals, and their victories were not followed up on. Instead they were dominated by the territory. And so instead, they were delivered into the hands of their enemies within the eretz (s:w. <a href='B:30 26:25'>Lev 26:25</a>; <a href='B:70 13:1'>Jdg 13:1</a>):&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>This king of Cush (also featured in <a href='B:330 38:5'>Eze 38:5</a>, N:I:V:) has the epithet 'Rishathaim', meaning 'double wickedness':&nbsp;These things point forward to the conflicts of the latter days between the Lord Jesus, Israel's ultimate judge / saviour, and the latter day enemies of Israel within the land promised to Abraham. This serves to emphasize how the latter day invasion will be headed up by an individual who is unashamedly a 'man of sin', a true anti-Christ:&nbsp;He was "king of Mesopotamia" (<a href='B:70 3:8'>Jdg 3:8</a>), literally meaning 'Aram (Syria) of the two rivers" , i:e. Tigris and Euphrates:&nbsp;This would point to a geographical location in modern Iran/Iraq. </p>


text:
<p>The land had rest forty years. Othniel the son of Kenaz died- </p><p>The forty years rest of <a href='B:70 3:11'>Jdg 3:11</a>; <a href='B:70 5:31'>Jdg 5:31</a>; <a href='B:70 8:28'>Jdg 8:28</a> may not be a literal period. I have elsewhere noted that the forty year reigns of Saul, David and Solomon create chronological problems if read literally. The idea may be that forty years was a time of testing, as it was for Israel in the wilderness. We think of the Lord's 40 days of testing too. In this case, they were tested by peace. And they consistently failed, as God's people often do.</p>


text:
<p>The Israelites again did what was evil in the sight of Yahweh. Yahweh strengthened Eglon the king of Moab against Israel, because they had done what was evil in the sight of Yahweh- </p><p>This hints, perhaps, at a relatively sudden revival / strengthening of Israel's enemies, allowed by God in order to punish His people. They dominate Israel, they repent, and then cry to Yahweh for a saviour- and the Lord Jesus will be sent:&nbsp; It could be argued that this has indeed occurred since the discovery of oil in the Arab states;&nbsp; alternatively it could refer to a sudden revival after a dramatic defeat by Israel and/or her Western allies. <a href='B:300 48:47'>Jer 48:47</a> NIV clearly speaks of a revival of Moab's fortunes in the last days.</p><p>The repeated mention of Edom, Moab and Ammon in the prophets is hard to interpret specifically, seeing that these nations covered relatively small geographical areas which are now in Jordan and Syria:&nbsp;&nbsp; It may be that it is from these nations that the latter day onslaught is launched. We can, perhaps,&nbsp;therefore look&nbsp; to those countries becoming increasingly radicalized against Israel:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>He gathered to him the Ammonites and Amalek and he went and struck Israel; and they took possession of the city of palm trees- </p><p>This should be seen against the background of many Scriptural indications that the latter-day&nbsp; entity dominating Israel in their land will comprise a confederacy of surrounding nations, united by the single desire of attacking Israel. Psalms 83 is a notable example of this. We note these attackers came from the east, over Jordan, and took Jericho (<a href='B:50 34:3'>Deu 34:3</a>), perhaps making it their headquarters on the west bank of the Jordan. However, "the city of palm trees" could also have been En-gaddi, since Jericho had been destroyed by Joshua and wasn't rebuilt until the time of Ahab (<a href='B:110 16:34'>1Ki 16:34</a>):&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>The Israelites served Eglon king of Moab for eighteen years- </p><p>"Eglon" means 'calf', the same word used of the calves later worshipped by Israel. He was named after his idol, and yet Yahweh strengthened him (:12) in order to punish His people. God may use people, but that usage doesn't mean that He therefore approves of them. We too may be used by God, but this is no evidence of our accpetability with Him.</p>


text:
<p>But when the Israelites cried to Yahweh, Yahweh raised up a saviour for them, Ehud the son of Gera the Benjamite, a left-handed man. The children of Israel sent tribute by him to Eglon the king of Moab-</p><p>It seems from <a href='B:130 8:6'>1Ch 8:6</a> that Ehud's family were carried captive to Mahanath, a place in Moab. And this would explain his motivation in fighting to free Israel from Moabite domination. The Ehud of <a href='B:130 8:6'>1Ch 8:6</a> was also a Benjamite [from Geba] who was related to Gera; see note there. Left handed people were considered strange and often relegated to the periphery of society in primitive societies; we see again how almost all the judges had something which made them despised and rejected. And yet it was exactly that group which God delighted to use to save His people (<a href='B:70 3:15'>Jdg 3:15</a>). We notice how God used left handed people to give David victory (<a href='B:130 12:2'>1Ch 12:2</a>), and to punish their hypocritical brethren (<a href='B:70 20:16'>Jdg 20:16</a>), and also the left handed Jael (<a href='B:70 5:26'>Jdg 5:26</a> LXX). He seems to rejoice in using those whom man despises. See on :21.</p>


text:
<p>Ehud made himself a sword which had two edges, a cubit in length; and he wore it under his clothing on his right thigh- </p><p>This is presumably measuring by the "short cubit," i:e. the length from the elbow to the knuckles, about 13 inches or 33 cm. The idea of a saviour with a two edged sword looks ahead to the Lord Jesus and His latter day deliverance of His people from the same neighbouring peoples (<a href='B:730 1:16'>Rev 1:16</a>):&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>He offered the tribute to Eglon king of Moab. Now Eglon was a very fat man- </p><p>There is a strange emphasis on Eglon's physical form. "Eglon was a very fat man" is supported by the detailed and gory record of his death by stabbing:&nbsp; "Ehud::. thrust it (the dagger) into his belly: and the haft also went in after the blade;&nbsp;and the fat closed upon the blade, so that he could not draw the dagger out of his belly" (<a href='B:70 3:17'>Jdg 3:17</a>; <a href='B:70 3:21-22'>Jdg 3:21-22</a>):The men of Moab are likewise described as "lusty" (<a href='B:70 3:29'>Jdg 3:29</a>), the Hebrew word meaning literally 'oily, greasy', and implying fatness:&nbsp;All this emphasis - and it is that - must be for a reason:&nbsp;Surely it suggests that the Moabites had indulged themselves in the good life, eating and drinking to excess - doubtless at the expense of the Israelites whom they were then dominating:&nbsp;This would indicate that the latter day enemies of Israel will be enjoying great material prosperity, yet most standard-of-living indicators show that Israel's neighbours generally are far from having this:&nbsp;A massive redistribution of wealth brought about by revolutions, coupled with holding the West to ransom with oil prices and pillaging the wealth of Israel, would easily bring about this situation.</p>


text:
<p>When he had finished offering the tribute he sent away the people who carried the tribute- </p><p>This could have happened at Eglon's palace in Moab, or at his field headquartes in the "city of Palm trees" (:13), which I suggested was En-gaddi or Jericho (see on :28). It seems Ehud wanted to operate totally alone; possibly because there was nobody of exactly the same mind in the group of Israelites accompanying him. This would be a sad reflection on how willing they were to be subjugated; and also a parade example in serving God alone, even if our brethren are weak; see on :19.</p>


text:
<p>but he himself turned back from the idols that were by Gilgal and said, I have a secret errand to you, king. The king said, Keep silence! All his attendants left him- </p><p>This language could suggest that "he himself" turned away from idolatry, but his brethren were happy to remain with the idols. The assassination had to be carried out by himself alone because he had nobody of a similar mind to support him. See on :26.</p>


text:
<p>Ehud came to him as he was sitting alone in the cool upper room. Ehud said, I have a message from God to you. He arose out of his seat- </p><p>The cameraman of Divine inspiration is zoomed close in here upon the two men. We are told that the room is an upper room, and cool; we see Eglon arising out of his seat, perhaps with some difficulty if he were obese.</p>


text:
<p>Ehud put forth his left hand and took the sword from his right thigh and thrust it into his body- </p><p>Again there is the stress on the fact that Ehud used his left hand; see on :15. He presumably was grasping the king, about to whisper in his ear a message from God. And perhaps he did indeed have a message from God which he whispered as he stabbed him:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>The handle also went in after the blade and the fat closed on the blade, for he didn’t draw the sword out of his body, and it came out behind- </p><p>It would seem that AV "and the dirt came out" may be correct. Ehud knew he only had one chance, to kill the man immediately without him screaming in agony to attract attention. So he would have struck him with full force. But the idea may also be that the man was as it were pierced right through; the image of total victory used several times of God's piercing through of His latter day enemies. Or we could render the phrase to the intent that he immediately went out into the parshedon, or inner chamber, and thence to the next chamber (:23). This would continue the very fine attention to detail noted on :20.</p>


text:
<p>Then Ehud went out into the porch and shut the doors of the upper room on him and locked them- </p><p>As noted on :20, we have a very close attention to detail here. He managed to make the door lock after he closed it.</p>


text:
<p>Now when he had gone out, the servants came and saw that the doors of the upper room were locked, and they said, Surely he is covering his feet in the upper room- </p><p>Covering the feet is an idiom for sleeping (<a href='B:90 24:3'>1Sa 24:3</a>), but it could be that it also means 'to go to the toilet'. His obesity may have been such that he had frequent bowel problems, of which he was embarassed, and they assumed he had locked the doors for the sake of his own privacy.</p>


text:
<p>They waited until they were ashamed; but still he didn’t open the doors of the upper room, therefore they took the key and opened them and behold, their lord was fallen down dead on the earth- </p><p>"Still he didn’t open the doors of the upper room" is written from the perspective of the servants. For we know, as the readers, that their king is lying there dead. But the Bible chops and changes in whose perspective it adopts, and this is helpful to remember when assessing the language of demons in the New Testament.</p>


text:
<p>Ehud escaped while they waited and passed beyond the idols and escaped to Seirah- </p><p>This was a daring, single handed assassination that reflected a deep faith within Ehud. I suggested on :19 that the assassination had to be carried out by himself alone because he had nobody of a similar mind to support him. His brethren were happy to remain with the idols (:19), but Ehud passed beyond them- to true relationship with Yahweh. "Seirah" has not been defined as a town, and may be the name for the forests of the hill country of Ephraim (:27):&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>When he had arrived, he blew a trumpet in the hill country of Ephraim, and the Israelites went down with him from the hill country, and he went before them- </p><p>I suggested on :19 and :26 that Ehud was pretty much alone in his high level of devotion to Yahweh. But although the other Israelites were spiritually weak, they still had some potential strength; and Ehud's example inspired them to come forward for the Lord. If [like Elijah] he had despised them for their unspirituality, then they would not have rallied to him:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>He said to them Follow me, for Yahweh has delivered your enemies the Moabites into your hand. They followed him and took the fords of the Jordan opposite the Moabites and didn’t allow any man to pass over- </p><p>I suggest that Eglon was based at "the city of palms" which he had made his headquartes on the western side of Jordan. Now he had been slain, the Moabites wanted to flee back over the Jordan to Moab. Ehud guessed this would happen, and so took the fords of Jordan. "Opposite the Moabites" would then mean "before the Moabites arrived":&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>They struck down about ten thousand Moabite men at that time, every strong man and every man of valour, and none escaped- </p><p>See on :17. The word for "thousand", especially when used in a military context, doesn't necessarily refer to a literal 1,000. Rather can it mean some kind of military subdivision.</p>


text:
<p>So Moab was subdued that day under the hand of Israel. The land had rest for eighty years- </p><p>The nations in the land being "subdued" was the outcome of Israel being obedient to the covenant (s:w. <a href='B:50 9:3'>Deu 9:3</a>). We read this word "subdued" used of how the land was at times subdued before Israel (<a href='B:70 3:30'>Jdg 3:30</a>; <a href='B:70 4:23'>Jdg 4:23</a>; <a href='B:70 8:28'>Jdg 8:28</a>; <a href='B:70 11:33'>Jdg 11:33</a>). But each time it is clear that the people generally were not obedient to the covenant. One faithful leader was, and the results of his faithfulness were counted to the people. This is what happened with the Lord's death leading to righteousness being imputed to us.</p>


text:
<p>After him came Shamgar the son of Anath, who killed six hundred Philistine men with an ox goad, and he also saved Israel-</p><p>The Hebrew phrase "attack::. and save" is used in <a href='B:90 23:2'>1Sa 23:2</a> when David is uncertain about whether to attack the Philistines. David is being pointed back by this allusion to the zeal of Shamgar the son of Anath, 'the answer'. The answer to David's question was in Shamgar. David was spiritually and mentally exhausted at this time, and God's way forward for him at this time was to get up and be proactive for others. That is not always the right answer for us in our low moments, but when it is, we will be directed to it by God, perhaps through allusion to Biblical characters.</p><p>Samson's victory at Lehi may have inspired Shammah to slay the Philistines at the same place, years later (<a href='B:100 23:11'>2Sa 23:11</a>; AV "into a troop" is Heb. "Lehi"). And yet Samson's victory with a donkey jawbone would have been inspired by Shamgar's victory with an ox goad (<a href='B:70 3:31'>Jdg 3:31</a>). This is how the body of Christ should function; one spiritual victory inspiring another.</p>


text:
<p>The children of Israel again did that which was evil in the sight of Yahweh, when Ehud was dead- </p><p>This is the intentionally repeated cycle of all the historical records, both of the judges and kings. Israel's apparent loyalty to Yahweh was only seen at the time of strong individual reformist leaders. Immediately the leader died, they returned to unashamed idolatry. Clearly the message is that no matter what strong leadership there may be amongst God's people, or what truly spiritual ethos and culture is inculcated by them- the hearts of individuals can still be untouched by it. And so without that culture, if the church closes or the individual moves away geographically or cannot attend due to health issues, or the leader dies::. the commitment of the individual will be shown to have been meaningless. We must ask ourselves how our faith would really be, if we were taken away from the Godly influences and cultures in our lives. If individual believers were forcibly removed from their churches and spiritual networks- would their faith stand? This is why we must continue our appeal for personal Bible reading, indeed Bible study, and serious personal prayer and witnessing.</p><p>"The children of Israel did evil in the sight of Yahweh" is a refrain which occurs seven times in Judges (<a href='B:70 2:11'>Jdg 2:11</a>; <a href='B:70 3:7'>Jdg 3:7</a>; <a href='B:70 3:12'>Jdg 3:12</a>; <a href='B:70 4:1'>Jdg 4:1</a>; <a href='B:70 6:1'>Jdg 6:1</a>; <a href='B:70 10:6'>Jdg 10:6</a>; <a href='B:70 13:1'>Jdg 13:1</a>), recalling how Israel both over history and in the last days were to be punished "seven times" for their sins (<a href='B:30 26:23-24'>Lev 26:23-24</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh sold them into the hand of Jabin king of Canaan who reigned in Hazor- Yahweh sold them, but the record often says that they sold or prostituted themselves to the idols of the nations. He will confirm men in the path they wish to go.</p><p>The record of Deborah and Barak's victory over "Jabin king of Canaan" is shot through with connections with other passages which are clearly latter day prophecies, e:g. Psalms 83, Ezekiel 38:&nbsp;&nbsp; There is also a very deliberate series of allusions in their song of victory to Israel's exodus from Egypt and the destruction of Pharaoh's army - which is also prophetic of Israel's future deliverance from her neighbouring oppressors by the Lord's return:&nbsp;Other expositors have shown the links between the song of Deborah and Barak and Psalms 68, which is clearly prophetic of Christ's work of deliverance both on the cross and in the final deliverance of Israel from the forces of evil.</p><p>"Jabin" meaning "man of great understanding" may suggest that he was the intellectual think-tank behind the confederacy, whose ideology was operationalized by a capable, well resourced, military leader (Sisera). The motivation for the coming attack on Israel must be ideological as well as just "to take a great spoil":&nbsp;However, the words of Sisera's mother imply that he (and she!) personally was motivated by a desire for the riches of the Israelites:&nbsp; "Have they not divided the prey::. of divers colours of needlework::. meet for the necks of them that take the spoil?" (<a href='B:70 5:30'>Jdg 5:30</a>). Such total confidence in victory is yet to be seen in a Middle East scarred with the memories of Israel's&nbsp;victories over the last decades.</p><p>The captain of whose army was Sisera who lived in Harosheth of the Gentiles- </p><p>This presents an identical scenario to Sennacherib king of Assyria having Rabshakeh as his field commander during his attack on Jerusalem, which beyond doubt was a major type of Israel's latter day invasion outlined in passages like Ezekiel 38 and Psalms 83.</p>


text:
<p>The Israelites cried to Yahweh, for he had nine hundred iron chariots, and for twenty years he mightily oppressed the children of Israel- </p><p>"Oppress" is the word used of how Israel were oppressed in Egypt (<a href='B:20 3:9'>Exo 3:9</a>). But the intention, as with Israel's latter day oppression, is that it would lead them to cry out for Yahweh's salvation, 'Jesus': "For they will cry to Yahweh because of oppressors, and He will send them a saviour and a defender, and He will deliver them" (<a href='B:290 19:20'>Isa 19:20</a> s:w:). All the judges were therefore types of the ultimate deliverance of Israel by the Lord Jesus in the last days.</p><p>The fearful implications of "chariots of iron" [probably wooden chariots with iron scythes on the wheels] is hard for us to fully appreciate. "The children of Joseph said::. the Canaanites that dwell in the land of the valley have chariots of iron" (<a href='B:60 17:16'>Jos 17:16</a>), as if that were a totally understandable reason for their unwillingness to even challenge the Canaanites;&nbsp; whilst some years later Saul and Jonathan were the only Israelites to have iron weapons, thanks to the Philistines' monopoly over it (<a href='B:90 13:19-22'>1Sa 13:19-22</a>). Possession of 900 "chariots of iron" was therefore like having some super-weapon into whose paradigm no other armaments could enter:&nbsp; This may have its latter day equivalent during the coming period of Israel's total domination by her neighbours. See on :15.</p>


text:
<p>Now Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lappidoth, judged Israel at that time- </p><p>"Deborah" is usually interpreted as meaning 'bee', but clearly it is a form of the common Hebrew word for 'word' or 'saying', debar. The prophetess was a woman of the word, and as with many personal names, she was named after her life's work- just as Anglo Saxons carry the name carpenter, smith, buckler, joiner etc. She "judged Israel" perhaps in the sense of giving them judgments from God's word.</p>


text:
<p>She lived under the palm tree of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in the hill country of Ephraim, and the Israelites came up to her for judgment-</p><p>Presumably this refers just to those Israelites who wanted to hear the judgments of God's word. She laments in <a href='B:70 5:10'>Jdg 5:10</a> LXX that she was largely ignored, and she rebukes those who ignored her prophetic words and had been unwilling to assist in the battle: "Ye that sit on the judgment-seat, and walk by the roads of them that sit in judgment by the way". It was Deborah who sat by the roadside giving judgment from God's word, and who was largely ignored</p><p>Note the parallel between an Angel sitting under an oak and a prophetess sitting under an oak (<a href='B:70 4:5'>Jdg 4:5</a>; <a href='B:70 6:11'>Jdg 6:11</a>). In <a href='B:300 23:18'>Jer 23:18</a>; <a href='B:300 23:22'>Jer 23:22</a> we find prophets standing in the “council of the Lord” (RV) to receive His word; and yet this sounds very much like Angels standing in the court of Heaven to receive God’s word of command. “The God of the spirits [Angels] of the prophets sent his Angel” to the prophet John (<a href='B:730 22:6'>Rev 22:6</a> RV); implying that as God had sent His Angel-Spirits to inspire the prophets, so now He did to John. <a href='B:230 147:15'>Psa 147:15</a>; <a href='B:230 147:18'>Psa 147:18</a> speak of the sending out of God’s word to melt snow and send rain; this must surely refer to the Angels being sent out from the court of Heaven to do these things. The way the “watcher and holy one” came down from Heaven is paralleled with the word of Divine command likewise coming down from Heaven (<a href='B:340 4:23'>Dan 4:23</a>; <a href='B:340 4:31'>Dan 4:31</a>). The universe is not just ticking away on clockwork; the Angels are actively being sent out from Heaven to perform what may appear the most mundane and repetitious of things. Thus God sends out His Angels; He sends out His word; and He also sent out His prophets (Haggai- <a href='B:440 1:12'>Hag 1:12</a>; Ezekiel- <a href='B:330 3:5-6'>Eze 3:5-6</a>). God rose up and sent out His prophets (<a href='B:120 17:13'>2Ki 17:13</a>; <a href='B:300 7:25'>Jer 7:25</a> and many others). He is described as doing this because those prophets likewise identified with the word (as Deborah- see on :4) and became part of their own message.</p>


text:
<p>She sent and called Barak the son of Abinoam out of Kedesh Naphtali and said to him- </p><p>'The holy place of Naphtali' is an example of the paganic place names still being used. Barak is being called to leave all that and go and work for Yahweh in His strength. "Barak", 'lightning', is the word used to describe Yahweh's miraculous manifestation through lightnings in the saving of His people (s:w. <a href='B:50 32:41'>Deu 32:41</a>; <a href='B:100 22:15'>2Sa 22:15</a>), and He will use them again in the last days when He repeats these ancient victories over Israel's enemies (s:w. <a href='B:420 3:11'>Hab 3:11</a>; <a href='B:450 9:14'>Zec 9:14</a>). But Barak was slow and nervous to live up to the potential victory which was implicit in his name; and that was the tragedy of Israel's history at the conquest. And it is the abiding tragedy of so much spiritual history.</p><p>Hasn’t Yahweh, the God of Israel, commanded-</p><p>This could imply he had received the prophetic word to go into battle, but had not responded. <a href='B:70 5:2'>Jdg 5:2</a> LXX says that "A revelation was made in Israel when the people were made willing", referring to the specific prophetic word given to Deborah here in <a href='B:70 4:6-7'>Jdg 4:6-7</a> that victory was possible- if the people were willing. Which Barak wasn't, completely.</p><p>‘Go to Mount Tabor and take with you ten thousand men of the children of Naphtali and Zebulun?- </p><p>"Mount Tabor::. the river Kishon (<a href='B:70 4:6-7'>Jdg 4:6-7</a>) is near the valley of Jezreel - Armageddon:&nbsp;Hence <a href='B:70 5:19'>Jdg 5:19</a> speaks of "the waters of Megiddo", and "men of::. Naphtali::. and::. of Zebulun" from those same areas (4:6) were used to win the victory. "Take with you", AV "draw toward", is s:w. :7 for how God would likewise draw the enemy toward them. The two sides were to be drawn together by God in conflict.</p>


text:
<p>I will draw to you, to the river Kishon- </p><p>This 'drawing' points forward to Gog, the chief (military?) prince of Meshech and Tubal (parts of Assyria?), being drawn into Israel with hooks in his jaws (<a href='B:330 38:4'>Eze 38:4</a>; <a href='B:330 38:8'>Eze 38:8</a>).</p><p>Sisera the captain of Jabin’s army with his chariots and his multitude, and I will deliver him into your hand’- </p><p>The apparently insuperable strength of Sisera is recognized, but within that recognition there is the encouragement that God would deliver it all into the hand of Barak. He disbelieved this, and so the victory was given into the hand of a woman. Thus God set up a potential which a man didn't realize, and in this case, He transferred it into the hands of another (:9).</p>


text:
<p>Barak said to her, If you will go with me then I will go, but if you will not go with me I will not go- </p><p>If Yahweh had commanded him (:6), then Yahweh would be with him. But just as Israel wanted a human king rather than Yahweh, so Barak wanted a human manifestation of God to be with him. Just as Asa is recorded as serving God just as well as David, when actually this wasn't the case; but God counted him as righteous (<a href='B:110 15:11'>1Ki 15:11</a>), so the incomplete faith of men like Baruch was counted as full faith by later inspiration (<a href='B:70 4:8-9'>Jdg 4:8-9</a> cp. <a href='B:650 11:32'>Heb 11:32</a>). Sometimes the purges of idolatry by the kings is described in undoubtedly exaggerated language- such was God's joy that at least something was being done?</p>


text:
<p>She said, I will surely go with you; nevertheless the journey that you take will not be for your honour, for Yahweh will sell Sisera into the hand of a woman. Deborah arose and went with Barak to Kedesh- </p><p>The potential was that the enemy was to be sold into Barak's hands (:7). But Barak didn't fully believe that, and so the potential was applied to another. This is still how God works.</p>


text:
<p>Barak called Zebulun and Naphtali together to Kedesh and he went with ten thousand men following him; and Deborah went with him- </p><p><a href='B:650 11:32'>Heb 11:32</a> seems to imply that Barak did this in faith, although not to the ideal level possible for him.</p>


text:
<p>Now Heber the Kenite had separated himself from the Kenites, from the children of Hobab the brother-in-law of Moses, and had pitched his tent by the oak in Zaanannim which is by Kedesh-</p><p>Kedesh, 'holy place', was an example of the pagan names still being used by the Israelites. Likewise Zaanannim is LXX "the oak of the covetous ones", and we recall the association of oaks with idolatry. Again we are getting the impression of strength coming out of surrounding spiritual weakness. Heber's separation from the Kenites is here not presented in a very positive light. See on :17.</p>


text:
<p>They told Sisera that Barak the son of Abinoam had gone up to Mount Tabor- </p><p>The battle plans seemed all the wrong strategy in human terms. The dreaded chariots were at full advantage on the flat land around the Kishon. Barak took his men up into the mountain, which was logical, as chariots couldn't be used there. But then they are told by God to come down from mount Tabor and fight with the chariots (:14). As with the capture of Jericho, God's strategy is seen as unwise humanly. But this is the 'foolishness of the thing preached' which Paul says confounds the might of this world:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>Sisera gathered together all his chariots, nine hundred chariots of iron, and all the people who were with him, from Harosheth of the Gentiles to the river Kishon- </p><p>This 'gathering together' is spoken of in latter-day passages - <a href='B:450 14:2'>Zec 14:2</a> and <a href='B:730 16:14'>Rev 16:14</a>. These previous invasions which typify those of the future, also mention this 'gathering together': Sisera's forces did this (<a href='B:70 4:13'>Jdg 4:13</a>), as did those of Ammon (<a href='B:130 19:7'>1Ch 19:7</a>), the Amorites (<a href='B:70 11:20'>Jdg 11:20</a>), the local powers with Assyria in Hezekiah's time (<a href='B:400 4:11'>Mic 4:11</a>), Gog's forces (<a href='B:330 38:7'>Eze 38:7</a>), the Arab-Canaanite tribes (<a href='B:10 34:30'>Gen 34:30</a>) and especially the Philistines (<a href='B:90 13:5'>1Sa 13:5</a>; <a href='B:90 13:11'>1Sa 13:11</a>; <a href='B:90 17:1'>1Sa 17:1</a>; <a href='B:90 25:1'>1Sa 25:1</a>; <a href='B:90 28:1'>1Sa 28:1</a>; <a href='B:90 29:1'>1Sa 29:1</a>; <a href='B:100 23:11'>2Sa 23:11</a>). This is quite some emphasis. Thus while we can expect to see greater potential Arab unity developing around the Israel issue and perhaps a common allegiance to charismatic 'Nebuchadnezzar' figure for a brief period, their complete meeting of minds will not be until the final push against Jerusalem.</p>


text:
<p>Deborah said to Barak, Go, for this is the day in which Yahweh has delivered Sisera into your hand- </p><p>But as explained on :7,9, Yahweh's plan was indeed that ideally Sisera would be delivered into Barak's hand. But his faith wasn't up to it, so the enemy was to be delivered into a woman's hand. But it seems Deborah, as a prophet, knew that it was still potentially possible for Barak to have the victory through the enemy being delivered into his hands.</p><p>Just as all the animals and everything in the eretz promised to Abraham was 'delivered into the hands' of Noah (s:w. <a href='B:10 9:2'>Gen 9:2</a>), so the nations of that eretz were delivered into the hands of Israel (s:w. <a href='B:20 6:8'>Exo 6:8</a>; <a href='B:20 23:31'>Exo 23:31</a>; <a href='B:50 2:24'>Deu 2:24</a>; <a href='B:50 3:2-3'>Deu 3:2-3</a>; <a href='B:50 7:24'>Deu 7:24</a>; <a href='B:50 21:10'>Deu 21:10</a>; <a href='B:60 2:24'>Jos 2:24</a>; <a href='B:70 1:2'>Jdg 1:2</a>). Tragically, like Adam in Eden [perhaps the same eretz promised to Abraham] and Noah in the new, cleansed eretz, Israel didn't realize this potential. What was delivered into the hand of Joshua (<a href='B:60 2:24'>Jos 2:24</a>) actually wasn't delivered into their hand, because they disbelieved (<a href='B:70 2:23'>Jdg 2:23</a>); and this looks ahead to the disbelief of so many in the work of the Lord Jesus, who has indeed conquered the Kingdom for us. They considered the promise of the nations being delivered into their hand as somehow open to question, and only a possibility and not at all certain (<a href='B:70 8:7'>Jdg 8:7</a>; <a href='B:40 21:2'>Num 21:2</a> cp. <a href='B:40 21:34'>Num 21:34</a>). Some like Jephthah (s:w. <a href='B:70 11:32'>Jdg 11:32</a>; <a href='B:70 12:3'>Jdg 12:3</a>), Ehud (<a href='B:70 3:10'>Jdg 3:10</a>; <a href='B:70 3:28'>Jdg 3:28</a>), Deborah (<a href='B:70 4:14'>Jdg 4:14</a>), Gideon (<a href='B:70 7:15'>Jdg 7:15</a>) did, for a brief historical moment; but as individuals, and their victories were not followed up on. Instead they were dominated by the territory. And so instead, they were delivered into the hands of their enemies within the eretz (s:w. <a href='B:30 26:25'>Lev 26:25</a>; <a href='B:70 13:1'>Jdg 13:1</a>).</p><p>Hasn’t Yahweh gone out before you? So Barak went down from Mount Tabor and ten thousand men after him-</p><p>See on :12. To come down from mount Tabor to where the chariots could be used was the very opposite of good strategy. Deborah in <a href='B:70 4:14'>Jdg 4:14</a> quotes the words of <a href='B:50 9:3'>Deu 9:3</a> concerning the Angel going before Israel to drive out the nations to Barak, to inspire him with courage in fighting them. She recognized that the work the Angels did when they went out many years ago to do all the groundwork necessary for Israel to destroy all the tribes of Canaan was done for all time. It was not too late to make use of that work by making a human endeavour in faith. So with us, the smaller objectives in our lives as well as our main goal of reaching the Kingdom have all been made possible through the work of Christ and the Angels in the past. Deborah's recognition of this is shown in her song- <a href='B:70 5:20'>Jdg 5:20</a>: "They (the Angels) fought from Heaven; the stars (Biblical imagery for Angels) in their courses fought against Sisera". In passing, note that the Hebrew for 'courses' is almost identical with that for 'ladder' in the account of Jacob's vision of a ladder of Angels. Strong specifically defines it as meaning 'staircase'. See on <a href='B:20 14:24'>Exo 14:24</a>.</p><p>Other implications that a repentant Israel will be used to win this great victory, are to be found in the mention of "the river Kishon" and "Harosheth", which was near Mount Carmel:&nbsp;These places feature in the record of Elijah's great appeal to Israel; the apostate element among them were slain at the Kishon (<a href='B:110 18:40'>1Ki 18:40</a>), as the faithless in Israel will be in the last days:&nbsp;&nbsp;The typical inference here in Judges that the invader will be destroyed at this same place would suggest that they will share in the judgments that come upon God's enemies, and therefore perish in the same geographical location:&nbsp;&nbsp; Yet it was also in this same place that Israel repented, finally responding to Elijah's ministry. The work of the Elijah prophet of the last days will likewise culminate in a spiritually revived Israel defeating their enemies.</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh routed Sisera and all his chariots and all his army with the sword before Barak, and Sisera got down from his chariot and fled away on foot- </p><p>This stress on chariots, both in the record of the attack and of God's defeat of them, takes the mind back to the Egyptian chariots which pursued Israel and were destroyed in the Red Sea. "The Lord discomfited Sisera, and all his chariots, and all his host" (<a href='B:70 4:15'>Jdg 4:15</a>) recalls how God "troubled (same Hebrew word translated " discomfited") the host of the Egyptians, and took off their chariot wheels::. so that the Egyptians said, Let us flee::. and the Egyptians fled" (on foot, <a href='B:20 14:24-27'>Exo 14:24-27</a>), just as Sisera "lighted down off his chariot, and fled away on his feet" (<a href='B:70 4:15'>Jdg 4:15</a>), due to the mud produced by the hail (<a href='B:230 83:9'>Psa 83:9</a>).</p>


text:
<p>But Barak pursued the chariots and the army to Harosheth of the Gentiles, and all the army of Sisera fell by the sword; there was not a man left- </p><p>"There was not a man left" matches the comment concerning the Egyptians, that "there remained not so much as one of them" (<a href='B:20 14:28'>Exo 14:28</a>). We find the essence of the Red Sea deliverance repeated in life after life, situation after situation, in Israel's history. This happens to the extent that some of the Psalms can speak as if we were there present; and Paul stresses how that passage through water remains a type of the baptism of every believer to this day (<a href='B:530 10:1'>1Co 10:1</a>). Just as Yahweh confounded Israel's enemies at the Red Sea (<a href='B:20 14:24-25'>Exo 14:24-25</a>), so He did in Deborah's victory over Sisera (<a href='B:70 4:15'>Jdg 4:15</a>); and likewise "not one was left".</p>


text:
<p>However Sisera fled away on foot to the tent of Jael the wife of Heber the Kenite- </p><p>The wives of Bedouin chiefs have their own tent.</p><p>For there was peace between Jabin the king of Hazor and the house of Heber the Kenite-</p><p>This would suggest Heber had moved away from the things of God and was now in league with Jabin, rather than maintaining the connection between the Kenites and Israel. We recall that Moses' wife was a Kenite. See on :11. Again we are getting the impression of strength coming out of surrounding spiritual weakness.</p>


text:
<p>Jael went out to meet Sisera and said to him, Turn in, my lord, turn in to me; don’t be afraid. He came in to her into the tent and she covered him with a rug- </p><p>LXX "Hid him behind&nbsp; curtain". Here again, as with Rahab, Ehud and the Gibeonites, we have deception used as an expression of faith.</p>


text:
<p>He said to her, Please give me a little water to drink for I am thirsty. She opened a skin of milk and gave him a drink and covered him- </p><p>The cameraman of Divine inspiration is zoomed close in here upon the two people in the tent. She gives him more than he asks, not water but milk, and butter (<a href='B:70 5:25'>Jdg 5:25</a>), perhaps thinking that dairy products would make him more sleepy. She did what she did on the spur of the moment, for she was surely not expecting Sisera to come stumbling in to her tent. Although she had her own tent, there is no evidence that the other people in the encampment, including her husband, agreed with her actions. Like Ehud, she acted completely alone, quite against the expectations of her surrounding family and environment.</p>


text:
<p>He said to her, Stand at the door of the tent and when any man comes and asks you ‘Is there any man here?’ say ‘No’- </p><p>The theme of gender continues. She surely had children and other women in her tent. She was to speak of Sisera as if he were not even a man, but a woman. The whole story is a deconstruction of the male glorifying narrative of those times. And this was not purely for the sake of it, rather is it part of a wider theme that God works through the despised in order to achieve His greatest victories.</p>


text:
<p>Then Jael Heber’s wife took a tent peg and a hammer in her hand and went quietly to him and hammered the peg into his temples, and it pierced through into the ground- </p><p>This is clearly intended to be understood as the seed of the woman smiting the seed of the serpent in the head. Jael smiting off Sisera's head may be the basis of <a href='B:230 110:7'>Psa 110:7</a>: "therefore shall he lift up the head". It also connects with David cutting off Goliath's head in an encounter full of echoes of the latter-day conflict between Christ and Israel's enemies:&nbsp;In the same way as Israel then had to follow up David's token victory, so they had to do the donkey- work in the wake of Sisera's death, and so they will also engage in a process of subduing the nations after Christ's initial dramatic victory at Armageddon - the landing of the stone upon the feet, the killing of Goliath, the nailing of Sisera's head. "The hand of the children of Israel prospered ('going, went and was hard', A:V. mg:), and prevailed against Jabin the king of Canaan, until they had destroyed Jabin" (<a href='B:70 4:24'>Jdg 4:24</a>) definitely speaks of a subsequent process of subjugation.</p><p>For he was in a deep sleep; so he died- </p><p>LXX "darkness fell upon him and he died". But the idea seems to be that he swooned, and then died. She didn't kill him outright, according to Deborah's song of praise for Jael, he rose up and then fell down dead at her feet (<a href='B:70 5:27'>Jdg 5:27</a>). This makes Jael's bravery all the more commendable, especially in that her husband was in league with Jabin.</p>


text:
<p>As Barak pursued Sisera, Jael came out to meet him and said to him, Come and I will show you the man whom you seek. He came to her and there lay Sisera, dead; and the tent peg was in his temples- </p><p>In <a href='B:70 5:15'>Jdg 5:15</a> LXX, Deborah comes over as in command in the field, sending Barak on foot to find Sisera: "And princes in Issachar were with Deborah and Barak, thus she sent Barak on his feet in the valleys into the portions of Reuben".</p>


text:
<p>So God subdued on that day Jabin the king of Canaan before the Israelites- </p><p>The nations in the land being "subdued" was the outcome of Israel being obedient to the covenant (s:w. <a href='B:50 9:3'>Deu 9:3</a>). We read this word "subdued" used of how the land was at times subdued before Israel (<a href='B:70 3:30'>Jdg 3:30</a>; <a href='B:70 4:23'>Jdg 4:23</a>; <a href='B:70 8:28'>Jdg 8:28</a>; <a href='B:70 11:33'>Jdg 11:33</a>). But each time it is clear that the people generally were not obedient to the covenant. One faithful leader was, and the results of his faithfulness were counted to the people. This is what happened with the Lord's death leading to righteousness being imputed to us.</p>


text:
<p>The hand of the Israelites prevailed more and more against Jabin the king of Canaan until they had destroyed him- </p><p>All this is but one of several hints that after Christ's latter day destruction of the military arm (cp. Sisera) of the enemies in the land of Israel, the campaign is then taken to the civil headquarters (represented by 'Babylon' in the Apocalypse?), typified here by Jabin.</p>


text:
<p>Then Deborah and Barak the son of Abinoam sang this song- </p><p>It is clearly Deborah's song, and it is very critical of those in Israel who didn't respond to her prophetic call to arms. And Barak would have ben humbled by the fact that women like Deborah and Jael had gotten the glory rather than himself. So the way he sings along with it is a sign of his humility, which meshed with his faith [although incomplete] which Paul notes in Hebrews 11.</p>


text:
<p>Because the leaders took the lead in Israel, because the people offered themselves willingly, blessed be Yahweh!</p><p>But the song will go on to lament that the leaders of Israel didn't take the lead (:7 especially), and neither did Barak. But Deborah, a woman, took the lead and was the true leader. Elders can shut up, or open, the Kingdom to men. They watch “in behalf of” the souls of the ecclesia (<a href='B:650 13:7'>Heb 13:7</a> RV). Their very examples can influence the flock positively or negatively- for “like priest like people” is a Biblical idea. When the leaders “offered themselves willingly”, so did the people (<a href='B:70 5:2'>Jdg 5:2</a>; <a href='B:70 5:9'>Jdg 5:9</a>). LXX "A revelation was made in Israel when the people were made willing" would refer to the specific prophetic word given to Deborah in <a href='B:70 4:6-7'>Jdg 4:6-7</a> that victory was possible- if the people were willing. Which Barak wasn't, completely.</p><p>"The people offered themselves willingly" to Deborah perhaps forms the basis for the description of Christ's people in the last days, being "willing in the day of your power" (<a href='B:230 110:2'>Psa 110:2</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Hear, you kings! Give ear, you princes! I, even I, will sing to Yahweh. I will sing praise to Yahweh the God of Israel- </p><p>LXX "I will sing, it is I who will sing to the Lord, it is I, I will sing a psalm" emphasizes "I"; perhaps the song was sung specifically by Deborah, as she glorifies that she, a woman and despised prophetess who had to teach under a palm tree as she had no premises to do so, had had her prophetic word justified. Barak would then show his humility by singing along with her. "Hear, O ye kings;&nbsp; give ear, O ye princes" sounds like the appeal to the nations that goes out after Christ's victory (cp. <a href='B:230 2:10'>Psa 2:10</a>). But the kings and princes could simply refer to the leaders of Israel, whom effectively Deborah is rebuking later in the song (:7).</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh, when You went forth out of Seir, when You marched out of the field of Edom, the earth trembled, the heavens poured. Yes, the clouds poured down water- </p><p>LXX "the heaven dropped dews". There was apparently a downpour of water from Heaven which led to the Kishon swelling and carrying away some of the enemy (:21). This is the language of Habakkuk 3, Psalms 68 and other prophecies of the last days. Deborah is feeling she has become, by default, another Moses; for the victorious march of Israel is like theirs from Sinai (:5), which she calls "Seir", alluding to <a href='B:50 33:2'>Deu 33:2</a>. She feels a similar theophany has occurred, along with the rainfall then experienced (<a href='B:230 68:8-9'>Psa 68:8-9</a>).</p>


text:
<p>The mountains melted at the presence of Yahweh, even Sinai at the presence of Yahweh the God of Israel- </p><p>Heb:, as AV, "this Sinai", as if Deborah felt herself back there standing before Sinai witnessing the great theophany there, in that she has seen it before her eyes, as it were, in what God has now done in giving her victory against Sisera. This is the power of Biblical history. There is a living word which continues to speak to us; the historical victories of God are replicated, in essence, in our own experiences.</p>


text:
<p>In the days of Shamgar the son of Anath, in the days of Jael, the highways were deserted, the travellers walked through byways- </p><p>The idea is that the situation in Jael's time is as it was in the days when Shamgar delivered Israel (<a href='B:70 3:31'>Jdg 3:31</a>). Whilst this describes the broken down infrastructure of the land, with people using byways because they feared being attacked on the main roads, there is the implication in LXX of spiritual weakness: "they deserted the ways::. they went in crooked paths". And this may speak of the latter day Israel in a state of devastation and collapse, with highways unoccupied (cp. motorways wrecked by bombing).</p>


text:
<p>The rulers ceased to rule in Israel. They ceased until I, Deborah, arose; until I arose, a mother in Israel- </p><p>Rulers is LXX "the mighty men ceased". Deborah's song is really a lament at the failure of Israel's leadership, and Barak, who had also failed to provide this leadership when empowered to do so, was very humble to have sung this song with her (:1). She was a "mother in Israel", providing leadership in a family bereft of male headship- because none of the men provided it.</p>


text:
<p>They chose new gods, therefore war came to the gates- </p><p>Gentile nations didn't change their gods; but God's people did, ever seeking a little extra material benefit from some new religion; see on <a href='B:300 2:8'>Jer 2:8</a>; <a href='B:300 2:11'>Jer 2:11</a>. Israel are therefore likened in Hosea to a sexually addicted woman, ever seeking new partners. In this sense Israel were worse than the other nations, who only changed their gods when forced to by the military dominance of neighbours.</p><p>Was there a shield or spear seen among forty thousand in Israel?-</p><p>"Thousand" when used in a military context usually means some military subdivision rather than a literal 1,000. The idea may be that although they had shields and spears, none of the 40,000 in view got their weapons out in response to Deborah's prophetic call.</p>


text:
<p>My heart is with the governors of Israel, who offered themselves willingly among the people. Bless Yahweh!- </p><p>LXX "You that are willing among the people, bless the Lord":&nbsp;Deborah now praises the few leaders who did respond to her prophetic call to arms. The Hebrew for "governors" can mean a law-giver or teacher, literally "an engraver of laws"; she may have in mind the faithful scribes, who supported her prophetic call to arms. Perhaps in the latter day context this speaks of a minority of faithful amongst latter day Israel, with God's law engraved in their hearts as it was on stone previously (<a href='B:300 31:33'>Jer 31:33</a>):&nbsp;Remember that Elijah will be calling for a revival of true interest in the Mosaic law during &nbsp;his ministry, which may well coincide with Israel's period of downtreading (<a href='B:460 4:4-6'>Mal 4:4-6</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Speak, you who ride on white donkeys, you who sit on rich carpets and you who walk by the way- </p><p>This seems a criticism of those in Israel who were not "willing" to assist in the battle. LXX "Ye that mount a she-ass at noon-day, ye that sit on the judgment-seat, and walk by the roads of them that sit in judgment by the way". It was Deborah who sat by the roadside giving judgment from God's word, and who was largely ignored (<a href='B:70 4:5'>Jdg 4:5</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Far from the noise of archers, in the watering places, there they will recite the righteous acts of Yahweh, the righteous acts of His rule in Israel. Then the people of Yahweh went down to the gates- </p><p>The idea may be that those who didn't respond to God's command to fight Sisera would in the future, far from the noise of war, recite at the wells the great acts which Yahweh had wrought through women. And those who recited things at the watering places were largely women. We recall how women were found at wells in the lives of Abraham's servant, Jacob and Moses. In the latter day context, <a href='B:330 39:3'>Eze 39:3</a> stresses how Gog will rely on his archery to terrorize Israel in the last days: "I will smite your bow out of your left hand, and will cause your arrows to fall out of your right hand":&nbsp;Assyrian bas-reliefs frequently show them posing with their bows:&nbsp;The importance of archery in warfare can easily be overlooked by us, who tend to lump bows, arrows, swords and shields etc. together as obsolete weaponry. Yet the ability to strike from a distance without personal combat was a vital innovation:&nbsp;The highlighting of the fact that the enemies of Judges 4 and Gog of Ezekiel 38 both used archery suggests that this may have a latter day equivalent - which must surely be in the use of missile power? The vials of Revelation being poured out from the air onto the earth (land - of Israel) may also indicate that latter day judgments literally descend from the air.</p>


text:
<p>‘Awake, awake, Deborah! Awake, awake, sing a song! Arise, Barak, and lead away your captives, you son of Abinoam’- </p><p>Perhaps the first sentence in this verse was sung by Barak (see on :1), and the second by Deborah, in a kind of part singing. <a href='B:230 68:18'>Psa 68:18</a> quotes this verse with reference to the latter day work of the Lord Jesus. Taking captivity captive (Heb:) means 'take prisoner those who took you prisoner'. This is the language of the latter day victory over Babylon (<a href='B:290 14:2'>Isa 14:2</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Then a remnant of the nobles and the people came down. Yahweh came down to me against the mighty- </p><p>She laments that only a remnant had responded to her call to arms. LXX "Then went down the remnant to the strong". But this again is a theme of God's workings with men. The left handed, the women, the minorities, those whom man despises, are used by Him to work His great victories.</p>


text:
<p>Those whose root is in Amalek came out of Ephraim after you, Benjamin, among your peoples. Governors came down out of Machir- </p><p>LXX "Ephraim rooted them out in Amalek, behind thee was Benjamin among thy people: the inhabitants of Machir came down with me searching out the enemy". Machir may recall the daughters of Zelophehad, who joined Deborah in personally fighting the enemy.</p><p>Those who handle the writer’s quill came out of Zebulun- </p><p>The idea is that instead of drawing their quills from their pouches, they drew swords.</p><p>God asked goldsmiths to do the manual work of building the wall of Jerusalem, bruising their sensitive fingers against lumps of rock (<a href='B:160 3:8'>Neh 3:8</a>; <a href='B:160 3:31'>Neh 3:31</a>); and Barak’s victorious warriors were civil servants and writers (<a href='B:70 5:14'>Jdg 5:14</a>), not military men. Paul was sent to the Gentiles and Peter to the Jews, when we’d have thought that naturally speaking, they would have been far more comfortable in the reverse roles. Judas was put in charge of the money amongst the twelve; when Matthew the tax collector would presumably have been the obvious man for the job. Naaman wanted to do some great act, but was asked to do the hardest thing for him- to dip in Jordan.</p>


text:
<p>The princes of Issachar were with Deborah. As was Issachar, so was Barak. They rushed into the valley at his feet- </p><p>LXX "And princes in Issachar were with Deborah and Barak, thus she sent Barak on his feet in the valleys into the portions of Reuben". Deborah comes over as in command in the field, sending Barak on foot to find Sisera (<a href='B:70 4:22'>Jdg 4:22</a>).</p><p>By the watercourses of Reuben there were great divisions of heart- </p><p>She rightly mocks how the men of Reuben claimed to struggle in their hearts as to whether or not to support her call to arms. So often we hear the phrase "It's difficult to decide" or talk about struggles of heart- when the call to rise up in obedience is obvious and clear. But God's unambiguous calls are often made difficult by our struggles of the heart against them.</p>


text:
<p>Why did you sit among the sheepfolds, to hear the whistling for the flocks? At the watercourses of Reuben there was much searching of heart- </p><p>As noted on :15, they were claiming that the decision to follow God's calling was 'so difficult' and required much internal agony of heart searching. In reality, it involved them sitting amongst their sheep, listening to the bleating of the flocks (LXX). She asks "Why:::?". And the answer was, because they didn't have faith and devotion to God's clear prophetic word which had called them to arms. Or we can read as GNB "Yes, the tribe of Reuben was divided; they could not decide to come". They operated on the false basis that there had to be unanimity before they could agree; and because they were divided over the matter, even those willing to fight actually didn't. Because they put their own desire for unanimity or "unity" with their brethren above the need to be loyal to God's word personally.</p>


text:
<p>Gilead remained beyond the Jordan. Why did Dan remain in ships? Asher remained still at the haven of the sea, and lived by his creeks- </p><p>Asher "lived" or [LXX] 'remained in his tabernacles', perhaps implying devotion to false gods; see on :18.</p>


text:
<p>Zebulun was a people that jeopardized their lives to the death; Naphtali also, on the high places of the field- </p><p>The reference to the paganic high places could be in contrast to the hint in :17 that Asher remained serving idols, whilst Naphtali won victories for Yahweh on the paganic high places.</p>


text:
<p>The kings came and fought, then the kings of Canaan fought at Taanach by the waters of Megiddo- </p><p>Taanach was in either Issachar or Asher (<a href='B:60 17:11-12'>Jos 17:11-12</a>; <a href='B:70 5:19'>Jdg 5:19</a>). But this town was also given to Ephraim (<a href='B:130 7:29'>1Ch 7:29</a>). As each Israelite was promised some personal inheritance in the land, rather than some blanket reward which the whole nation received, so we too have a personal reward prepared. But the precise nature of that reward is as it were negotiable by us now, according to our spiritual ambition. Just as Caleb chose Hebron and secured it for himself.</p><p>The battle was fought "at Taanach by the waters of Megiddo":&nbsp;&nbsp;'Taanach' meaning 'place of fasting' is another hint at repentant Israel taking part in the final defeat of their latter day enemies. Joel describes a call to fasting during the period when the land lies totally devastated during the initial period of enemy domination (<a href='B:360 2:15'>Joe 2:15</a>).</p><p>"Megiddo" and the descriptions of Sisera gathering his chariots and God drawing them into battle must link with the nations being gathered to Armageddon, the valley of Megiddo (<a href='B:730 16:16'>Rev 16:16</a>):&nbsp;If this connection is valid, then " the kings of the earth (land - of Israel?) and of the whole world" which are&nbsp; gathered (<a href='B:730 16:14'>Rev 16:14</a>) would primarily refer to the kings of the eretz promised to Abraham,&nbsp;those within the 'land' at its maximum promised extent between the Nile and Euphrates.</p><p>They took no plunder of silver-</p><p>If the "they" is the victorious Israelites, the idea may be that unlike Achan, they devoted the spoil to Yahweh. Or LXX "they took no gift of money" might imply they refused to be bought off by the Canaanites, but rather slew them. If the "they" is the Canaanites, then Deborah may be rejoicing that the faithful Israelites refused to pay tribute to them.</p>


text:
<p>From Heaven the stars fought. From their courses they fought against Sisera-</p><p>Israel’s fighting is paralleled with the Heavens and stars [=Angels] fighting for them. The Lord of Hosts of Angels was working in tandem with the hosts of Israel. And it’s the same for the new Israel. <a href='B:650 12:22'>Heb 12:22</a> speaks of how we, the hosts of the church, are paralleled with hosts of Angels: “…to innumerable hosts, the general assembly of angels, and the church of the firstborn” (RVmg:). See on :22.</p><p>Deborah in <a href='B:70 4:14'>Jdg 4:14</a> quotes the words of <a href='B:50 9:3'>Deu 9:3</a> concerning the Angel going before Israel to drive out the nations to Barak, to inspire him with courage in fighting them. She recognized that the work the Angels did when they went out many years ago to do all the groundwork necessary for Israel to destroy all the tribes of Canaan was done for all time. It was not too late to make use of that work by making a human endeavour in faith. So with us, the smaller objectives in our lives as well as our main goal of reaching the Kingdom have all been made possible through the work of Christ and the Angels in the past. Deborah's recognition of this is shown in her song- <a href='B:70 5:20'>Jdg 5:20</a>: "They (the Angels) fought from Heaven; the stars (Biblical imagery for Angels) in their courses fought against Sisera". In passing, note that the Hebrew for 'courses' is almost identical with that for 'ladder' in the account of Jacob's vision of a ladder of Angels. Strong specifically defines it as meaning 'staircase'. See on <a href='B:20 14:24'>Exo 14:24</a>.</p>


text:
<p>The river Kishon swept them away, that ancient river, the river Kishon. My soul, march on with strength- </p><p>The "ancient river" recalls the historical associations of Kishon with the repentance of Israel at Elijah's time. It seems some of the enemy were swept away trying to ford it. LXX "my mighty soul will trample him down" presents Deborah as a glorious warrior on horseback; although we wonder if she is not being a tad lifted up in pride in speaking like this (see on :28). There was apparently a downpour of water from Heaven which led to the Kishon swelling and carrying away some of the enemy (:4).</p>


text:
<p>Then the horse hoofs stamped because of the prancing, the prancing of their strong ones- </p><p>LXX "When the hoofs of the horse were entangled", recalling the horses of the Egyptians entangled in the mud of the Red Sea. The idea is that the horses and chariots of Sisera, like those of Pharaoh, were in conflict with those of the Angel cherubim.</p><p>The chariots of Egypt and Sisera will finally be seen as a poor match for the Angel-cherubim "chariots of Israel and the horsemen thereof". "Then were the horsehoofs (of Sisera's chariots) broken by the means of the pransings, the pransings of their mighty ones", i:e. the Angel-cherubim:&nbsp;&nbsp; If there was a manifestation of the Cherubim on that occasion, this would accord well with the gentle hint that there will be a Cherubim appearance associated with the second coming (<a href='B:470 24:30'>Mat 24:30</a>), and this would also be the means of putting the latter day Arab 'chariots' out of business.</p>


text:
<p>‘Curse Meroz’, said the angel of Yahweh. ‘Curse bitterly its inhabitants, because they didn’t come to help Yahweh, to help Yahweh against the mighty’- </p><p>Deborah was a prophetess and may have been given her prophetic words directly by an Angel. In one sense God 'requires not help from man'. But in another sense, 'God is in need of man', as Avraham Heschel put it. He never forces His ways upon us, and always acts with respect to human freewill. In this sense He 'needs' our "help"; even if it is the "help" which a father asks from his young son in doing a job. Meroz may have been a village through which Sisera or his men had fled, and they feared to join in the fight. The same situation was to recur when Succoth and Penuel refused to help Gideon (<a href='B:70 8:5-9'>Jdg 8:5-9</a>). The history of Meroz and the Israelites who refused to help Deborah was a lesson not learnt by Succoth and Penuel.</p>


text:
<p>Jael shall be blessed above women, the wife of Heber the Kenite; blessed shall she be above women in the tent- </p><p>Deborah's words reflect some bitterness at the way that women were secluded "in the tent" with apparently no role in public life. But Jael had risen above that. When unexpectedly Sisera came stumbling into her tent, she paid no respect to the league her husband had made with him and his king Jabin. She deceived him and slew him. She rose above all the apparent constraints upon serving Yahweh which were upon her:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>He asked for water and she gave him milk. She brought him butter in a lordly dish- </p><p>She did this in sarcasm, recognizing him for who he was, and treating him as a lord- until she slew him.</p>


text:
<p>She put her hand to the tent peg and her right hand to the workmen’s hammer. With the hammer she struck Sisera. She struck through his head. Yes, she pierced and struck through his temples- </p><p>LXX "She stretched forth her left hand to the nail" would be another example of left handed people, or ambidextrous, being used by God; or at best, the victory is ascribed to the use of the left hand. Left handed people were considered strange and often relegated to the periphery of society in primitive societies; we see again how almost all the judges had something which made them despised and rejected. And yet it was exactly that group which God delighted to use to save His people (<a href='B:70 3:15'>Jdg 3:15</a>). We notice how God used left handed people to give David victory (<a href='B:130 12:2'>1Ch 12:2</a>), and to punish their hypocritical brethren (<a href='B:70 20:16'>Jdg 20:16</a>). He seems to rejoice in using those whom man despises.</p><p>We note again how Jael uses the man's hammer. She does the work a man was supposed to do. This is clearly intended to be understood as the seed of the woman smiting the seed of the serpent in the head.</p>


text:
<p>At her feet he bowed, he fell, he lay. At her feet he bowed, he fell. Where he bowed, there he fell down dead- </p><p>The idea of <a href='B:70 4:21'>Jdg 4:21</a> seems to be that he swooned, and then died. She didn't kill him outright, he rose up and then fell down dead at her feet. This makes Jael's bravery all the more commendable, especially in that her husband was in league with Jabin.</p>


text:
<p>Through the window she looked out and cried; Sisera’s mother looked through the lattice. ‘Why is his chariot so long in coming? Why do the wheels of his chariots delay?’- </p><p>Whilst Deborah was full of faith and God's word, there is a discernible element of bitterness and arrogance in her, now she has won the victory; see on :21. And we must beware of this kind of thing. From a distance, she mocks Sisera's mother and rejoices in that woman's pain and bitter disappointment.</p>


text:
<p>Her wise ladies answered her, yes she answered herself- </p><p>This again is a mocking at the supposed wisdom of the enemy. Their wise women were sure Sisera delayed because he was busy gathering the spoil. And their wisdom is derided as foolishness.</p>


text:
<p>‘Have they not found, have they not divided the spoil? A girl, two girls for every man; to Sisera a spoil of dyed garments, a spoil of dyed garments embroidered, of dyed garments embroidered on both sides, on the necks of the spoil?’- </p><p>Deborah mocks this woman and her female friends, as&nbsp; women who would glorify the way Sisera was delaying because he was busy raping pretty girls and dragging them back with him. In the latter day context, "Prey::. spoil" is Ezekiel 38 language: "To take a spoil and to take a prey::. Are you come to take a spoil::. a prey?" (<a href='B:330 38:12-13'>Eze 38:12-13</a>). Thus the motivation for the average invader is quite clear- although this will most likely be wrapped up behind some pseudo-religious reasoning provided by a latter day 'Jabin' (see on <a href='B:70 4:2'>Jdg 4:2</a>):&nbsp; Such total confidence in victory is yet to be seen in a Middle East scarred with the memories of Israel's&nbsp;victories over the last decades.</p>


text:
<p>So let all Your enemies perish, Yahweh, but let those who love Him be as the sun when it rises forth in its strength-</p><p>This takes on an ultimate fullness of meaning when this battle is read as typical of Armageddon, when all&nbsp;God's enemies will perish once and for all:&nbsp; "But let them that love him be as the sun when he goes forth in his might" is using the common figure of the dawn as being representative of Messiah's second coming (<a href='B:460 4:2'>Mal 4:2</a>;&nbsp; <a href='B:100 23:4'>2Sa 23:4</a>; <a href='B:230 19:4-5'>Psa 19:4-5</a>). Those who truly love the appearing of that sunrise will themselves be a light to this dark world of flesh; they shall personally go forth as the rays of sunlight, in whatever way, just as the light of&nbsp; knowledge of the person of Jesus will do.</p><p>Then the land had rest forty years- </p><p>The forty years rest of <a href='B:70 3:11'>Jdg 3:11</a>; <a href='B:70 5:31'>Jdg 5:31</a>; <a href='B:70 8:28'>Jdg 8:28</a> may not be a literal period. I have elsewhere noted that the forty year reigns of Saul, David and Solomon create chronological problems if read literally. The idea may be that forty years was a time of testing, as it was for Israel in the wilderness. We think of the Lord's 40 days of testing too. In this case, they were tested by peace. And they consistently failed, as God's people often do.</p>


text:
<p>The children of Israel did what was evil in the sight of Yahweh, and Yahweh delivered them into the hand of Midian for seven years- </p><p>The events of these chapters are to be read as typical of Israel's latter-day conflict with her enemies. Psalms 83 is a well-known description of the final invasion of Israel to "cut them off from being a nation", concluding with the imprecation "Make their nobles like Oreb, and like Zeeb;&nbsp; yes, all their princes as Zebah, and as Zalmunna" (<a href='B:230 83:11'>Psa 83:11</a>) - whom Gideon destroyed. Isaiah 9 is set in the context of the Assyrian invasions of the land, the last of which they were saved from by Hezekiah, the primary fulfilment of the "great light" which appeared to an Israel under Assyria's dominance:&nbsp;&nbsp; The destruction of the invaders was to be "as in the day of Midian" (<a href='B:290 9:4'>Isa 9:4</a>), i:e. it would be typified by Gideon's destruction of Midian previously:&nbsp;&nbsp; The context in <a href='B:290 8:12'>Isa 8:12</a>; <a href='B:290 8:19-22'>Isa 8:19-22</a> speaks of Israel living in fear of an Arab confederacy, having thrown off their faith in God, stubbornly refusing to seek "to the law and to the testimony", and with the land full of "trouble and darkness" so that "they shall pass through it, hardly bestead and hungry", due to the invaders destroying the crops. This language recalls the scenario portrayed in <a href='B:70 5:6-7'>Jdg 5:6-7</a>, where the Jews creep around their own land after a total collapse of infrastructure.</p><p>Isaiah 9 then speaks of how God "lightly afflicted the land of Zebulon and the land of Naphtali (in the first Assyrian invasion - <a href='B:120 15:29'>2Ki 15:29</a>) and afterward did more grievously afflict her" (<a href='B:290 9:1'>Isa 9:1</a>) in the second invasion:&nbsp;The suffering of Israel at this time is spoken of in terms of their abuse in Egypt, which is clearly typical of the last days: "You have multiplied the nation (as God did in Egypt - <a href='B:20 1:7'>Exo 1:7</a>), and not increased the joy::. You have broken the yoke of his burden, and the staff of his shoulder (the language of Israel in Egypt), the rod of his oppressor (s:w. "taskmaster" in <a href='B:20 1:11'>Exo 1:11</a>) (<a href='B:290 9:3-4'>Isa 9:3-4</a>).</p><p>This was to be "as in the day of Midian" (<a href='B:290 9:4'>Isa 9:4</a>) when Israel's saviour was Gideon. Yet <a href='B:290 9:2'>Isa 9:2</a> speaks of their saviour as "a great light" arising in the darkness, and this is quoted in <a href='B:470 4:15-16'>Mat 4:15-16</a> as referring to Jesus. Gideon therefore becomes a type of Christ's breaking of the yoke of sin, and also of His latter-day deliverance of Israel from sin's political manifestation:&nbsp;Similarly the account of David's victory over Goliath has reference to our Lord's victory over sin on the cross, and also over "the man of sin" who will oppress Israel in the last days.</p><p>"The children of Israel did evil in the sight of Yahweh" is a refrain which occurs seven times in Judges (<a href='B:70 2:11'>Jdg 2:11</a>; <a href='B:70 3:7'>Jdg 3:7</a>; <a href='B:70 3:12'>Jdg 3:12</a>; <a href='B:70 4:1'>Jdg 4:1</a>; <a href='B:70 6:1'>Jdg 6:1</a>; <a href='B:70 10:6'>Jdg 10:6</a>; <a href='B:70 13:1'>Jdg 13:1</a>), recalling how Israel both over history and in the last days were to be punished "seven times" for their sins (<a href='B:30 26:23-24'>Lev 26:23-24</a>).</p><p>It is possible that a 'time' may also refer to a year, so the fact that "the Lord delivered them into the hand of Midian seven years" (<a href='B:70 6:1'>Jdg 6:1</a>) may refer to this "seven times" punishment for sin, which was to come after their refusal to be reformed by their previous sufferings (<a href='B:30 26:23-24'>Lev 26:23-24</a>). A seven-year duration of Israel's final holocaust is hard to square with hints elsewhere that this will last for three and a half years:&nbsp;But <a href='B:340 9:25-27'>Dan 9:25-27</a> implies that after 69 weeks ('sevens') there would be a final week of punishment for Israel's sins, which would be split into two halves of three and a half years each. The first three and a half years may apply to the AD 70 period, and the latter to the last days. See on :25.</p>


text:
<p>The hand of Midian prevailed against Israel, and because of Midian the Israelites made themselves dens in the mountains, the caves and the strongholds- </p><p>"Yahweh delivered" Israel "into the hand of Midian" (:1) uses the same Hebrew word as in <a href='B:30 26:25'>Lev 26:25</a>, "I will punish you yet seven times:::ye shall be delivered into the hand of the enemy":&nbsp;To fulfil this, "the hand of Midian became strong (Hebrew) against Israel". Such a revival of Israel's enemies coupled with increasing military success against Israel is a process which is already beginning, and which, despite short-term fluctuations, we should expect to continue.</p><p>Identical language of hiding in caves is found in <a href='B:90 13:6'>1Sa 13:6</a> concerning Israel's pining away when under attack by the Philistines:&nbsp;&nbsp;There can be no doubt that these incidents are the focus of <a href='B:650 11:37-38'>Heb 11:37-38</a>, which describes nameless men of faith as being "slain with the sword:&nbsp;they wandered about in sheepskins::. being destitute, afflicted, tormented::. they wandered in deserts, and in mountains, and in dens and caves of the earth". This therefore teaches us that there were definitely some in Israel at those times who had a remarkable degree of faith, and it surely follows that the final tribulation which these previous invasions typify will likewise lead to the existence of a minority of faithful in Israel.</p><p>The Hebrew word translated "caves" occurs again in <a href='B:330 33:27'>Eze 33:27</a> in a passage speaking of the final desolation of the Land which will lead to Israel's repentance:&nbsp; "They that be in the forts and in the caves shall die of the pestilence (cp. the plagues to come upon Israel in the last days , <a href='B:30 26:25'>Lev 26:25</a>):&nbsp;For I will lay the land most desolate::. none shall pass through (cp. "the highways were unoccupied", <a href='B:70 5:6'>Jdg 5:6</a>):&nbsp;Then shall they know that I am the Lord, when I have laid the land most desolate" (<a href='B:330 33:27-29'>Eze 33:27-29</a>). All this suggests a desolation of the land physically and a state of total breakdown of infrastructure.</p><p>The Israelites who fled to the dens and caves are described as heroes of faith because of what they did (<a href='B:650 11:38'>Heb 11:38</a>). And yet their domination by the Philistines was a result of their idolatry. They were idolatrous, and yet some had faith; and it was this faith when surrounded by weakness which was perceived by God.</p>


text:
<p>So when Israel had sown their seed, the Midianites, the Amalekites and the people of the east came up against them- </p><p>This is exactly what one would expect from the allusion to <a href='B:30 26:26'>Lev 26:26</a>, speaking of the curses to come for breaking the covenant:&nbsp; "If::. you break my covenant I also will do this unto you (i:e. break My side of the covenant, in that) I will even appoint over you terror, consumption::. and cause sorrow of heart:&nbsp; and ye shall sow your seed in vain, for your enemies shall eat it".</p>


text:
<p>and they encamped against them, and destroyed the crops as far as Gaza, and left no sustenance in Israel, neither sheep nor ox nor donkey- </p><p>Note that the initial motive for the raids was to spoil the land and steal cattle. The Ezekiel 38 latter day invader has similar motivation, "To take a spoil::. to take a prey::. to take away cattle and goods" (<a href='B:330 38:13'>Eze 38:13</a>). It should be noted, however, that such connections do not necessarily indicate that the invasion prefigured in Judges 6 is to be equated with that of Ezekiel 38. The point is that all the latter-day invasions of Israel have broadly similar motives, and all consistently involve the neighbours of Israel, rather than nations like Russia.</p>


text:
<p>For they came with their livestock and their tents; they came up as locusts for multitude; both they and their camels were without number, and they came into the land to destroy it- </p><p>This 'scorched earth' policy of the invaders is the prototype for Joel's latter day prophecy of the locust / grasshopper invaders leaving the land physically empty before Israel are forced to their final repentance:&nbsp;We note how the destruction as if by locusts means that Israel were treated as Egypt, to where they returned in their hearts and whose gods they had taken with them. See on :7.</p>


text:
<p>Israel was brought very low because of Midian and the children of Israel cried to Yahweh- </p><p>"Very low" is the word used about Israel's latter day humiliation which leads to their final repentance (<a href='B:290 17:4'>Isa 17:4</a>). It's not that God willingly humiliates; it's that humility is necessary for relationship with Him, and pride leads to sin. And it is this humiliation which leads to our crying out to God. David uses the word of himself (<a href='B:230 79:8'>Psa 79:8</a>; <a href='B:230 116:6'>Psa 116:6</a>; <a href='B:230 142:6'>Psa 142:6</a>), as if he saw in Israel at this time something of himself. As we can:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>When the Israelites cried to Yahweh because of Midian- </p><p>Their crying to Yahweh is twice emphasized (:6,7). The phrase is used of how Israel did so in Egypt (<a href='B:90 12:8'>1Sa 12:8</a>), and of how they will in the last days (<a href='B:360 1:14'>Joe 1:14</a>). We noted the allusion to Joel in :5.</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh sent a prophet to them, and he said to them, Thus says Yahweh, the God of Israel, ‘I brought you up from Egypt and brought you out of slavery- </p><p>The response to their crying to Yahweh is not deliverance, but rather a prophet coming to them and attempting to convict them of their sin and failure to respond to God's wonderful deliverance of them from the Gentile world. Their repentance is therefore presented as utterly critical to their further deliverance. But there is no record of this repentance being forthcoming. Instead, a weak man who doubts his own faith is chosen and strengthened to deliver them. This was absolutely a case of salvation by grace.</p><p>The salvation from the Egyptians was at the Red Sea, long ago (<a href='B:20 14:30'>Exo 14:30</a>). The Israelites were repeatedly reminded of this (<a href='B:70 2:1'>Jdg 2:1</a>; <a href='B:70 6:8'>Jdg 6:8</a>; <a href='B:70 10:11'>Jdg 10:11</a>). But they failed to perceive that God's actions in history were in fact their personal salvation, an act of grace shown to them also. David grasped that point, and his Psalms often thank God for the exodus, as if it had happened to him personally. But the problem is that Israel like all people tended to only see what was before their face at that moment. They had no sense of God's historical salvation of them, and the guarantee that He would likewise come through for them, if they remained faithful to Him.</p><p>In the latter day context, this must have a connection with the suggestion that Elijah will be "sent" to Israel during their suffering, "before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord" (<a href='B:460 4:5'>Mal 4:5</a>):&nbsp;&nbsp; This "dreadful day" must be that of the final destruction of Israel's invaders rather than simply the return of Christ. Joel similarly speaks of how during the time when the Jewish heavens and earth are turned into "blood and fire, and pillars of smoke", the Jews will possess the Spirit gifts "before the great and the terrible day of the Lord come" (<a href='B:360 2:28-31'>Joe 2:28-31</a>):&nbsp;&nbsp; This connection between Joel and Malachi would hint that the possession of these gifts is associated with the work of Elijah.</p>


text:
<p>and I delivered you out of the hand of the Egyptians and out of the hand of all who oppressed you, drove them out from before you, and gave you their land- </p><p>"Oppress" is the word used of how Israel were oppressed in Egypt (<a href='B:20 3:9'>Exo 3:9</a>). But the intention, as with Israel's latter day oppression, is that it would lead them to cry out for Yahweh's salvation, 'Jesus': "For they will cry to Yahweh because of oppressors, and He will send them a saviour and a defender, and He will deliver them" (<a href='B:290 19:20'>Isa 19:20</a> s:w:). All the judges were therefore types of the ultimate deliverance of Israel by the Lord Jesus in the last days.</p>


text:
<p>I said to you, I am Yahweh your God; you shall not fear the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell. But you have not listened to My voice’.</p><p>And so the message ended. There is no record of this repentance being forthcoming. Instead, a weak man who doubts his own faith is chosen and strengthened to deliver them. This was absolutely a case of salvation by grace.</p><p>In the latter day context, the prophet reminding Israel of the covenant they made with God in Horeb (<a href='B:70 6:10'>Jdg 6:10</a>), is precisely the work of Elijah (<a href='B:460 4:4'>Mal 4:4</a>):&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>The angel of Yahweh came and sat under the oak which was in Ophrah, which belonged to Joash, the Abiezrite, and his son Gideon was beating out wheat in the winepress, to hide it from the Midianites-</p><p>As noted on :10, this further initiative to save Israel without their repentance is a Divine movement of absolute grace. We have a picture here of Israel's desperation and poverty, as well as the extent of the domination by the Midianites. They had to hide even their wheat and flour from the marauding bands. We deduce that the winepress is not in use- for one of the curses for breaking the covenant was that the vintage would cease, and wine would be cut off from Israel.</p><p>Note the parallel between an Angel sitting under an oak and a prophetess sitting under an oak (<a href='B:70 4:5'>Jdg 4:5</a>; <a href='B:70 6:11'>Jdg 6:11</a>). In <a href='B:300 23:18'>Jer 23:18</a>; <a href='B:300 23:22'>Jer 23:22</a> we find prophets standing in the “council of the Lord” (RV) to receive His word; and yet this sounds very much like Angels standing in the court of Heaven to receive God’s word of command. “The God of the spirits [Angels] of the prophets sent his Angel” to the prophet John (<a href='B:730 22:6'>Rev 22:6</a> RV); implying that as God had sent His Angel-Spirits to inspire the prophets, so now He did to John. <a href='B:230 147:15'>Psa 147:15</a>; <a href='B:230 147:18'>Psa 147:18</a> speak of the sending out of God’s word to melt snow and send rain; this must surely refer to the Angels being sent out from the court of Heaven to do these things. The way the “watcher and holy one” came down from Heaven is paralleled with the word of Divine command likewise coming down from Heaven (<a href='B:340 4:23'>Dan 4:23</a>; <a href='B:340 4:31'>Dan 4:31</a>). The universe is not just ticking away on clockwork; the Angels are actively being sent out from Heaven to perform what may appear the most mundane and repetitious of things. Thus God sends out His Angels; He sends out His word; and He also sent out His prophets (Haggai- <a href='B:440 1:12'>Hag 1:12</a>; Ezekiel- <a href='B:330 3:5-6'>Eze 3:5-6</a>). God rose up and sent out His prophets (<a href='B:120 17:13'>2Ki 17:13</a>; <a href='B:300 7:25'>Jer 7:25</a> and many others). He is described as doing this because those prophets likewise identified with the word and became part of their own message.</p>


text:
<p>The angel of Yahweh appeared to him and said, Yahweh is with you, you mighty man of valour-</p><p>The Angel assured Gideon that "Yahweh is with you [singular]"; and yet Gideon seems to have intentionally misunderstood this by arguing back that if Yahweh is really with us, then why are they suffering so much (<a href='B:70 6:12-13'>Jdg 6:12-13</a>). He flinched at the personal call to action- just as we can, seeking instead to take refuge behind the community. Yet God Himself turns to Gideon and bids him "go in the strength of this one"- the Hebrew grammar referring to the Angel. Robert Boling comments: "The referent of "this one" is the Yahweh envoy [i:e. the Angel], presumably in his capacity as commander of Yahweh's army". And this is the same call to us- to go in the strength of the Angel which goes before us, and seek to replicate Him, Heaven's plan for us, on this earth. And God backed up this call to Gideon to follow the Angel by saying he should go out in faith, "because Ehyeh is with you" (<a href='B:70 6:16'>Jdg 6:16</a>)- a direct quotation from the Angelic manifestation to Moses in <a href='B:20 3:12'>Exo 3:12</a>. It's an interesting exercise to follow the parallels between the Angelic commander of Yahweh's armies, and Joshua as the human commander of them on earth. And one doesn't have to be a military leader in iron-age Israel to feel that same call to follow the Angel.</p>


text:
<p>Gideon said to him Oh, my lord, if Yahweh is with us why then has all this happened to us? Where are all His wondrous works which our fathers told us of, saying ‘Didn’t Yahweh bring us up from Egypt?’ But now Yahweh has forsaken us and delivered us into the hand of Midian- </p><p>See on :12. Gideon is focusing upon the statements that Yahweh had brought Israel out of Egypt- and ignoring the consequences of Israel's sin of returning to Gentile domination by worshipping Gentile gods. This is typical of human 'difficulties' with God. They focus upon one aspect of the equation, and refuse to factor in the consequence of human sin.</p><p>We need to realize that God deals with us as individuals. No matter how functional and holy, or dysfunctional and evil, is our church, we are still treated by the Father as His individual children. So many have struggled with this, tending to see themselves rather as inevitably part of a community, faceless cogs in a machine. And this is actually quite attractive to humanity- hence the popularity of Roman Catholicism. Reflect a while on how God told Gideon: “I will be with thee” [you singular], and yet Gideon responds: “Oh my Lord, if the Lord be with us…” (<a href='B:70 6:12-13'>Jdg 6:12-13</a>). Gideon had to be taught that God saw him as a separate, unique individual, and didn’t deal with him automatically merely as part of a community as a whole. But it was a slow process. When Gideon saw in a dream a man saying that God had delivered Midian into his [singular] hand, Gideon then tells Israel that God had delivered Midian into their hands (<a href='B:70 7:14-15'>Jdg 7:14-15</a>). He still found it so hard to believe that God treated him as so important to Him.</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh looked at him and said, Go in the strength of this One and save Israel from the hand of Midian. Haven’t I sent you?- </p><p>I prefer the AV / ESV: "Go in this might of yours and save Israel". There is a purposeful juxtaposition between Gideon's whining weakness, and God's statement that this is his "might" and by this strength / might, Gideon is to deliver Israel. All within us cries out that Gideon is not strong in faith; indeed he goes straight on to express his lack of faith that he could save Israel (:15). And that is exactly the point. Gideon is a parade example of those [like ourselves] who out of weakness are made strong (<a href='B:650 11:34'>Heb 11:34</a>). It continues the theme of God rejoicing to save Israel by the weak, the left handed, the women, those who consider their faith is weak.</p><p>Or "Go in the strength of this One" could be God speaking directly to Gideon whilst the Angel stood there; as if bidding him follow his Angel in the path to victory which had already been potentially enabled.</p>


text:
<p>He said to him, O Lord, how can I save Israel? My family is the poorest in Manasseh and I am the least in my father’s house- </p><p>"Poorest" could be as LXX and Hebrew, "my thousand is weakened", or diminished. This is evidence enough that the Hebrew term "thousand" doesn't mean literally 1,000, but a group of some kind; for the 1,000 is here diminished, and yet still remains a "thousand". This helps explain the otherwise very high numbers which we find in some places in the Hebrew Bible. The family had been brought down very low. But this was so that God might use Gideon in his weakness, and through him manifest His saving strength. The answer as to "How can I save::.", is 'through Yahweh's saving', Yahoshua, 'Jesus'. So many questions are effectively posed by God in our lives through our experiences, which have the same answer: Yah's salvation, Jesus.</p><p>Gideon argued that his "thousand" in Manasseh was diminished or reduced. But he was to learn that this was the kind of "strength" which he was to go against the Midianites with. And when he does, he finds that his strength is greatly diminished again, twice; from 32,000 to 10,000, and then from 10,000 to 300. But this theme of diminishing his strength had begun when his "thousand" was diminished.</p><p>We note the consistent theme of initial resistance to the Divine call (<a href='B:20 3:11'>Exo 3:11</a>; <a href='B:20 4:10'>Exo 4:10</a>; <a href='B:20 4:13'>Exo 4:13</a>; <a href='B:90 10:21-22'>1Sa 10:21-22</a>; <a href='B:300 1:6'>Jer 1:6</a>; <a href='B:370 7:14-15'>Amo 7:14-15</a>; <a href='B:490 5:8'>Luk 5:8</a>). We can too easily excuse our lack of devotion by saying that we are unfit and unworthy. But this is a lack of faith in His forgiveness and grace.</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh said to him Surely I will be with you, and you shall strike the Midianites as one man-</p><p>Gideon was bidden rise up to the example of Moses- for there were many similarities between his call by the Angel, and the Angelic calling which Moses received at the burning bush. Thus Gideon was called to follow the Angel in faith, "because Ehyeh is with you" (<a href='B:70 6:16'>Jdg 6:16</a>)- a direct quotation from the Angelic manifestation to Moses in <a href='B:20 3:12'>Exo 3:12</a>. And yet he responds: "Alas! For I have seen Yahweh's envoy face to face!" (<a href='B:70 6:22'>Jdg 6:22</a>). Gideon knew full well that Moses had seen the Angel "face to face" (<a href='B:50 34:10'>Deu 34:10</a>). Gideon's fear is therefore rooted in a sense that "No! I'm simply not Moses!". And it's the same with us. We can read of all these reasons to believe that Moses is really our pattern, and respond that "No! This ain't me::.". But there, in the record of Gideon and his success, lies our challenge to rise up to the spirit of Moses.</p><p>The huge numbers of the Midianites are spoken of "as one man". Gideon was perhaps confident to fight a single Midianite in one on one combat, for he appears to have been a physically strong warrior. And God is saying that fighting the Midianites will be no more difficult than that for Gideon.</p>


text:
<p>He said to Him, If now I have found grace in Your eyes, then show me a sign that it is really You Who talk with me- </p><p>Gideon perceives he is being led as Moses was (see on :16,22). And so he uses the phrase Moses used, "If now I have found grace in Your eyes". But he does so without attention to context, for Moses said that when being almost sarcastic to God in his effectively refusing the way God wished him to go in.</p>


text:
<p>Please don’t go away until I come to you and bring out my present and lay it before you. He said, I will wait until you come back-</p><p>Circumstances repeat within our lives, and between our lives and those of other believers. This incident was to repeat in <a href='B:70 13:15'>Jdg 13:15</a>. Such connections are why we meet together, why we share our lives with others; and one of the reasons why we read the Bible, which is God's selected choice of various biographies which He knows will speak to each of us in a unique way.</p>


text:
<p>Gideon went in and prepared a young goat and unleavened cakes of an ephah of meal. He put the meat in a basket and he put the broth in a pot and brought it out to him under the oak and presented it- </p><p>Oaks were typically associated with idolatry, and the altar of Baal was apparently standing on the property belonging to Gideon's father. It was as if the Angel is demanding that Gideon and his people no longer serve Baal, but Yahweh; and give to Yahweh what they had intended for Baal (see on :25).</p>


text:
<p>The angel of God said to him, Take the meat and the unleavened cakes and lay them on this rock and pour out the broth. He did so- </p><p>That there was a rock altar beneath an oak (:19) makes it clear enough that the family sacrificed to idols at this point. But as explained on :25, they were now to quit that and sacrifice instead to Yahweh. Tragically it was probably upon the rock upon which Gideon first sacrificed to Yahweh (<a href='B:70 6:20'>Jdg 6:20</a>) that his seventy sons were to be slain by Abimelech, with the help of men who worshipped Baal Berith (<a href='B:70 9:5'>Jdg 9:5</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Then the angel of Yahweh stretched out the end of the staff that was in his hand and touched the meat and the unleavened cakes, and fire went up out of the rock and consumed the meat and the unleavened cakes, and the angel of Yahweh departed out of his sight- </p><p>Gideon being told to "pour out the broth" upon his offering, making it wet so that the consumption by fire from heaven was clearly miraculous (<a href='B:70 6:20-21'>Jdg 6:20-21</a> cp. <a href='B:110 18:33-34'>1Ki 18:33-34</a>), was encouraging Gideon to see himself as the prototype Elijah-prophet. This would provide the basis for Elijah dousing his sacrifice with water before it was accepted in an identical way. Gideon still doesn't learn, for he proceeds to ask for a repeat of this miracle concerning wetness; he asks that there should only be dew upon the ground (or perhaps even upon the whole land of Israel, see Hebrew text) according to his word of faithful prayer (<a href='B:70 6:37-39'>Jdg 6:37-39</a>). Elijah saying that "there shall not be dew nor rain these years, but according to my word" (<a href='B:110 17:1'>1Ki 17:1</a>) is surely a conscious replica of this. It is quite possible that we, too, may be given certain prompts in life by reason of particular experiences repeating those of a Biblical character.</p>


text:
<p>Gideon saw that he was the angel of Yahweh, and Gideon said, Alas, Lord Yahweh! I have seen the angel of Yahweh face to face!- </p><p>See on :16, where we saw how Gideon is being set up as Moses. His panic at having seen the face of an Angel is therefore due to failing to appreciate this. For Moses saw the Angel's face, and lived. And there was no reason why Gideon couldn't. We see in his panic a man struggling with the calling he was being given. And yet despite all his wriggling, he does finally accept it, and does act in faith, as Hebrews 11 makes clear.</p><p>I suggest that Gideon is transferring his real guilt into a form of false guilt, as often happens within the human mind. He realized his family, Israel and probably himself were guilty of idolatry. But he can't quite bring himself to confess that to himself, and so instead he feels guilt stricken over something which wasn't a sin, i:e. seeing the face of an Angel. For Moses and others had done so, and it was no sin.</p><p>It was no random chance that Gideon was later led to victory at Penuel (<a href='B:70 8:9'>Jdg 8:9</a>). Penuel was so named to celebrate how Jacob had sene the face of God and lived (<a href='B:10 32:30'>Gen 32:30</a>). Gideon had earlier thought he would be slain as he had been so unworthy to see the face of the Angel. As with our lives, God was leading him to perceive ever more His grace. See on :23.</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh said to him, Peace! Don’t be afraid. You will not die-</p><p>"Peace" in the Bible usually refers to peace with God through forgiveness. The assurance that he will not die was because he had been forgiven. I explained on :22 that he did have a conscience of sin, but he couldn't quite bring himself to confess it, and transferred that true guilt into a false guilt. But this was enough for God; that movement of conscience within Gideon was accepted as repentance, and he is assured peace with God. And he perceives this and memorializes that peace in the name of the altar he will build.</p><p>I noted on :22 that Gideon was later reminded at Penuel of how he like weak Jacob had seen the face of God and lived. And he at that time tells the men of Penuel that he will "come again in peace" (<a href='B:70 8:9'>Jdg 8:9</a>). Coming "in peace" reflected how he had learned the lesson from seeing the face of the Angel; for he had built an altar called 'Yahweh is peace', and now he was confident that indeed he was at peace with God despite all his weaknesses.</p>


text:
<p>Then Gideon built an altar there to Yahweh and called it Yahweh is Peace-</p><p>As explained on :23, this was a celebration of peace with God; and it implies therefore his repentance and forgiveness. What was required in order to lift the Midianite oppression was repentance; and Gideon's very weak repentance was as it were used by God to enable Him to lift it.</p><p>To this day it is still in Ophrah of the Abiezrites-</p><p>I would consider the book of Joshua to have largely been written by Joshua, under Divine inspiration, although edited [again under Divine inspiration] for the exiles. And the book of Judges likewise. For the exiles too were set to reestablish God's Kingdom in the land and to inherit it again as the Israelites first did. The phrase "to this day" occurs several times in Joshua / Judges, and appears to have different points of historical reference (<a href='B:60 4:9'>Jos 4:9</a>; <a href='B:60 5:9'>Jos 5:9</a>; <a href='B:60 6:25'>Jos 6:25</a>; <a href='B:60 7:26'>Jos 7:26</a>; <a href='B:60 8:28-29'>Jos 8:28-29</a>; <a href='B:60 9:27'>Jos 9:27</a>; <a href='B:60 10:27'>Jos 10:27</a>; <a href='B:60 13:13'>Jos 13:13</a>; <a href='B:60 14:14'>Jos 14:14</a>; <a href='B:60 15:63'>Jos 15:63</a>; <a href='B:60 16:10'>Jos 16:10</a>; <a href='B:60 22:3'>Jos 22:3</a>; <a href='B:60 23:8-9'>Jos 23:8-9</a>; <a href='B:70 1:26'>Jdg 1:26</a>; <a href='B:70 6:24'>Jdg 6:24</a>; <a href='B:70 10:4'>Jdg 10:4</a>; <a href='B:70 15:19'>Jdg 15:19</a>; <a href='B:70 18:12'>Jdg 18:12</a>). I would explain this by saying that the book was edited a number of times and the remains of those edits remain in the text. For God's word is living and made relevant by Him to every generation.</p>


text:
<p>The same night Yahweh said to him, Take your father’s bull, the second bull seven years old, and throw down the altar of Baal that your father has and cut down the Asherah that is by it- </p><p>The seven year old bull represented the seven years of Midianite domination of Israel (:1). "The second bull" may have been an animal which was being raised especially for sacrifice to Baal. It was only by ending this Baal worship that the seven years of domination would be ended. And the seven year old bull was therefore to be seen as a kind of atonement sacrifice for those seven years of apostacy.</p>


text:
<p>build an altar to Yahweh your God on the top of this stronghold in the proper way, and take the second bull and offer it as a burnt offering with the wood of the Asherah which you cut down- </p><p>"This stronghold" may refer to the heap of stones under the oak tree which they had used for worshipping idols. I suggested on :25 that the "second bull" [it could be translated just "the other bull"] was one being bred for sacrifice to Baal.</p>


text:
<p>Then Gideon took ten of his servants and did as Yahweh had spoken to him, and because he feared his father’s household and the men of the city, he could not do it by day, so he did it by night- </p><p>Again we see his weakness, and yet his desire to respond, however weakly. And God eagerly used that. Clearly his family were idolaters and the altar was on his father's property, so it would be surprising if Gideon was not also an idolater.</p>


text:
<p>When the men of the city arose early in the morning, the altar of Baal was broken down and the Asherah was cut down that was by it and the second bull had been offered on the altar that was built- </p><p>The record presents Gideon's complete (if nervous) obedience through the eyes of the observers early that morning. Gideon knew they would soon find out that he had done it. But he doesn't flee the village. He did it at night because he feared the other people would forcibly stop him from doing it.</p>


text:
<p>They said one to another, Who has done this? When they inquired and asked, they said, Gideon the son of Joash has done this- </p><p>We note that Gideon doesn't call them out on their idolatry. Rather he lets them come to him. He was no fearless prophet, denouncing idolatry in God's Name.</p>


text:
<p>Then the men of the city said to Joash, Bring out your son that he may die, because he has broken down the altar of Baal and because he has cut down the Asherah that was by it-</p><p>They were twisting the Mosaic laws of apostacy to apply them to Gideon for desecrating Baal's altar. They were psychologically able to do this because they considered that Baal worship was a form of Yahweh worship. And it was this continual mixture of flesh and spirit, of truth and error, which was and is the abiding weakness of God's people.</p>


text:
<p>Joash said to all who stood against him, Will you contend for Baal? Or will you save him? He who will contend for him, let him be put to death by morning. If he is a god, let him contend for himself, because someone has broken down his altar-</p><p>Joash had presumably been a committed Baal worshipper; for the altar was on his territory, and the village would have been quite small. He responds not at all as we, or probably Gideon, expected. We can be encouraged that there is a spiritual conscience within all people, and when they see someone like Gideon have the courage to stand up and be counted, they are relatively easily motivated to do the same. Thus the Gospel penetrates strongly Islamic or atheistic communities- because one person within them stands up and is counted for Christ.</p><p>Self-expression, or even self-manifestation, is one of God’s features, and so He intends it to be in us who are made after His image. God manifestation doesn’t in that sense mean the destruction or ignoring of the individual human person; rather, the very opposite, in that the real character, the new life, will be eternally developed and preserved. This is where Hinduism is so wrong, as wrong as any monolithic, apostate version of Christianity- the person disappears into the great Whole. Joash understood where ‘God manifestation’ can be taken too far; he told the Baal worshippers to let Baal plead for himself, rather than them pleading for him. This needs thinking through. He was saying that they were assuming that they had to ‘play God’ for Baal; they had to mindlessly, unthinkingly manifest the god they thought existed. Joash says that if Baal really exists, he himself will act for himself, openly. And this of course is where the One True God excels; He does act for Himself, and doesn’t rely solely upon manifesting Himself through men in order to achieve anything. Note the intentional surprise for us in <a href='B:290 43:1'>Isa 43:1</a>: "Thus says the Lord that created you::. I have redeemed you, I have called you by your name; you are Mine". We expect the creator, owner and redeemer of someone or something to name it with His name. But God dashes that expectation- He says instead that we are called by our name.</p>


text:
<p>Therefore on that day he named him Jerub-Baal, saying, Let Baal contend against him because he has broken down his altar-</p><p>We see here how names were given to people because of life experiences; this explains why the same person or place can have several names. Joash was struck by the power of the logic which had occurred to him; Baal ought to argue for himself if he were a real god. Baal's total dependence upon men for his actions was evidence enough that he had no real existence. And Joash was grateful to Gideon for pointing this out:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>Then all the Midianites and the Amalekites and the people of the east assembled themselves together and they crossed over and encamped in the valley of Jezreel- </p><p>People who had been yelling for Gideon's blood now go strangely silent. Joash was perhaps the elder of the village, and his logic was hard to argue back against. The eastern peoples then crossed over Jordan, all set to now wipe out the Israelites and take their land. This was indeed the punishment for breaking the covenant, and only the weak faith and shaky repentance of Gideon was going to stop it.</p>


text:
<p>But the Spirit of Yahweh came upon Gideon, and he blew a trumpet; and Abiezer was gathered together after him- </p><p>This language is picked up in <a href='B:290 61:1-2'>Isa 61:1-2</a>: "The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me::. to preach good tidings::. liberty to the captives:::to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord, and the day of vengeance of our God":&nbsp;Primarily this refers to Isaiah preaching an inspired message of deliverance to an Israel threatened by the Assyrian invasion,&nbsp;whilst it is also quoted in the Gospels&nbsp; concerning the work of Christ:&nbsp;Both these applications have their basis in the Spirit of God coming upon the judges, showing that they typify both the work of Christ and of the Elijah prophet, of which Isaiah was an early manifestation.</p><p>Abiezer, his home village, gathered loyally around Gideon; when just recently they had demanded his death for apostacy against Baal. We see here how fickle people are; and yet more positively, how relatively easy it is for people to change. Because there is a spiritual conscience in everyone, and it often needs just one person within their family or community to step out for Christ, and they will too.</p>


text:
<p>He sent messengers throughout all Manasseh and they also were gathered together after him, and he sent messengers to Asher, to Zebulun and to Naphtali and they came up to meet them- </p><p>The idea may be that all Manasseh supported him, but the three other tribes came up to discuss with him, just "to meet them". Or it could be that they all responded, at least eventually (<a href='B:70 7:23'>Jdg 7:23</a>). We recall how Deborah's appeal for support from Asher and some of the leaders of these tribes had been refused. And after God gave the great victory, she taught everyone the song of Deborah in Judges 5 which lamented their lack of response. So perhaps that had worked, and now they responded. We may fail a call the first time, but then it is repeated, and we accept it. Just as Gideon had motivated the village of Abiezer, so now Abiezer motivated "all Manasseh" and perhaps they in turn motivated Asher, Zebulun and Naphtali.</p>


text:
<p>Gideon said to God, If You will save Israel by my hand, as You have spoken- </p><p>Gideon's fragile faith is in fact a great encouragement to us. He nervously kept on in his spiritual path, although ever wanting visible evidence of God's presence with him.</p>


text:
<p>I will put a fleece of wool on the threshing floor; if there is dew on the fleece only and it is dry on all the ground, then I will know that You will save Israel by my hand as You have said- </p><p>The giving or withholding of dew was a reflection of whether or not Israel were receiving the blessings or cursings of the covenant. They deserved no dew, for they had sinned. Elijah was to be inspired by Gideon's weak faith in later asking for dew and rain to be withheld (<a href='B:110 17:1'>1Ki 17:1</a>). We too are to be motivated by the faith of others, no matter how weak. The threshing floor is also a symbol of judgment. If God gave His blessings, the dew, to Gideon's fleece but not to the ground / land of Israel generally, then Gideon would know that indeed God was uniquely with him, even if the rest of Israel deserved judgment and the withholding of the covenant blessings. "Ground" is eretz, the usual word for the land of Israel. If just the soil around the fleece were in view, a different word would have been used.</p>


text:
<p>That is what happened, for he got up early the next day and squeezed the fleece together and wrung the dew out of the fleece, a bowl full of water- </p><p>There is a much repeated characteristic of God's servants: that they 'rose up early in the morning' and did God's work. In each of the following passages, this phrase is clearly not an idiom; rather does it have an evidently literal meaning: Abraham (<a href='B:10 19:27'>Gen 19:27</a>; <a href='B:10 21:14'>Gen 21:14</a>; <a href='B:10 22:3'>Gen 22:3</a>); Jacob (<a href='B:10 28:18'>Gen 28:18</a>); Job (1:5); Moses (<a href='B:20 8:20'>Exo 8:20</a>; <a href='B:20 9:13'>Exo 9:13</a>; <a href='B:20 24:4'>Exo 24:4</a>; <a href='B:20 34:4'>Exo 34:4</a>); Joshua (<a href='B:60 3:1'>Jos 3:1</a>; <a href='B:60 6:12'>Jos 6:12</a>; <a href='B:60 7:16'>Jos 7:16</a>; <a href='B:60 8:10'>Jos 8:10</a>); Gideon (<a href='B:70 6:38'>Jdg 6:38</a>; <a href='B:70 7:1'>Jdg 7:1</a>). This is quite an impressive list, numerically. This can be a figure for being zealous (<a href='B:230 127:2'>Psa 127:2</a>; <a href='B:240 27:14'>Pro 27:14</a>; <a href='B:260 7:12'>Son 7:12</a>; <a href='B:290 5:11'>Isa 5:11</a>; <a href='B:430 3:7'>Zep 3:7</a>). God Himself rises up early in His zeal to save and bring back His wayward people (<a href='B:300 7:13'>Jer 7:13</a>; <a href='B:300 7:25'>Jer 7:25</a>; <a href='B:300 11:7'>Jer 11:7</a>; <a href='B:300 25:3-4'>Jer 25:3-4</a>; <a href='B:300 26:5'>Jer 26:5</a>; <a href='B:300 29:19'>Jer 29:19</a>; <a href='B:300 32:33'>Jer 32:33</a>; <a href='B:300 35:14-15'>Jer 35:14-15</a>; <a href='B:300 44:4'>Jer 44:4</a>). Yet the above examples all show that men literally rose up early in their service to God; this was an expression of their zeal for God, in response to His zeal for us. I'm not suggesting that zeal for God is reflected by rising early rather than staying up late; but it wouldn't be too much to suggest that if we are men of mission, we won't waste our hours in bed. Get up when you wake up.</p>


text:
<p>Gideon said to God, Don’t let Your anger be kindled against me and I will speak but this once- </p><p>Gideon is inspired by the words and spiritual ambition of Abraham (<a href='B:10 18:32'>Gen 18:32</a>). Perhaps he feared it was just a coincidence, seeing that fleeces naturally attract dew.</p><p>Please let me make a trial just this once more with the fleece. Let it now be dry only on the fleece and on all the ground let there be dew-</p><p>I suggested on :37 that Gideon specifically understood the dew as covenant blessing from God, which the ground / land of Israel didn't deserve. He had asked God to show him that he, Gideon, was going to receive those blessings, even if the land didn't. But his faith still faltered. By asking for it to now be done the other way around, Gideon was effectively asking for all Israel to be blessed with dew- because of his lack of faith, and needing everything to be demonstrated to him again. Again we note that "ground" is eretz, the usual word for the land of Israel. If just the soil around the fleece were in view, a different word would have been used.</p>


text:
<p>God did so that night, for it was dry on the fleece only and there was dew on all the ground- </p><p>The Hebrew word for "fleece" is literally 'that which is cut down / cut off', and it can also effectively mean that which is destroyed (s:w. <a href='B:410 1:12'>Nah 1:12</a> "thus shall they be cut down"; "they are soon cut off", <a href='B:230 90:10'>Psa 90:10</a>). Israel had indeed been cut down by the Midianites. Gideon had just cut down the symbols of Baal worship (same idea, although a different word is used- <a href='B:70 6:26'>Jdg 6:26</a>; <a href='B:70 6:28'>Jdg 6:28</a>; <a href='B:70 6:30'>Jdg 6:30</a>). I suspect he simply asked for the miracle to be done again, in reverse order, because of his own weak faith and not because he saw any great symbology in the whole scene at the time. But later, he may have perceived that he had been asking God to place His blessing of dew upon that which was cut down, or retract it. And indeed God demonstrated that He could do this with ease- and do it at Gideon's word. The blessing or cursing of Israel was to depend upon Gideon and his faith. For generally Israel had not repented, and that was what was necessary for the Midianite domination to end. But Gideon's weak repentance was going to be accepted by God as it were for all Israel. This was how eager God was to save them from Midian, despite their idolatry. And it looks ahead to His eagerness to save us, through the work of the Lord Jesus and His far greater righteousness being imputed to us, who are more willing to receive it than were Israel. Arguments like this make us have every confidence that we shall indeed be saved, by His amazing grace.</p>


text:
<p>Then Jerubbaal, who is Gideon- </p><p>"Gideon" is the word used for the command to cut down the idols of the land (<a href='B:50 7:5'>Deu 7:5</a>; <a href='B:50 12:3'>Deu 12:3</a>). It seems Gideon was named this after he cut down the pagan grove on his family property, and his father then also called him "Jerubbaal", 'let Baal content [for himself]'. We see here how men came to be called by various names which reflected their life experiences. This is why often people have a number of different names in the Hebrew Bible.</p><p>And all the people who were with him rose up early-</p><p>There is a much repeated characteristic of God's servants: that they 'rose up early in the morning' and did God's work. In each of the following passages, this phrase is clearly not an idiom; rather does it have an evidently literal meaning: Abraham (<a href='B:10 19:27'>Gen 19:27</a>; <a href='B:10 21:14'>Gen 21:14</a>; <a href='B:10 22:3'>Gen 22:3</a>); Jacob (<a href='B:10 28:18'>Gen 28:18</a>); Job (1:5); Moses (<a href='B:20 8:20'>Exo 8:20</a>; <a href='B:20 9:13'>Exo 9:13</a>; <a href='B:20 24:4'>Exo 24:4</a>; <a href='B:20 34:4'>Exo 34:4</a>); Joshua (<a href='B:60 3:1'>Jos 3:1</a>; <a href='B:60 6:12'>Jos 6:12</a>; <a href='B:60 7:16'>Jos 7:16</a>; <a href='B:60 8:10'>Jos 8:10</a>); Gideon (<a href='B:70 6:38'>Jdg 6:38</a>; <a href='B:70 7:1'>Jdg 7:1</a>). This is quite an impressive list, numerically. This can be a figure for being zealous (<a href='B:230 127:2'>Psa 127:2</a>; <a href='B:240 27:14'>Pro 27:14</a>; <a href='B:260 7:12'>Son 7:12</a>; <a href='B:290 5:11'>Isa 5:11</a>; <a href='B:430 3:7'>Zep 3:7</a>). God Himself rises up early in His zeal to save and bring back His wayward people (<a href='B:300 7:13'>Jer 7:13</a>; <a href='B:300 7:25'>Jer 7:25</a>; <a href='B:300 11:7'>Jer 11:7</a>; <a href='B:300 25:3-4'>Jer 25:3-4</a>; <a href='B:300 26:5'>Jer 26:5</a>; <a href='B:300 29:19'>Jer 29:19</a>; <a href='B:300 32:33'>Jer 32:33</a>; <a href='B:300 35:14-15'>Jer 35:14-15</a>; <a href='B:300 44:4'>Jer 44:4</a>). Yet the above examples all show that men literally rose up early in their service to God; this was an expression of their zeal for God, in response to His zeal for us. I'm not suggesting that zeal for God is reflected by rising early rather than staying up late; but it wouldn't be too much to suggest that if we are men of mission, we won't waste our hours in bed. Get up when you wake up.</p><p>And encamped beside the spring of Harod- </p><p>"Harod" means trembling, and may have been named after the trembling of Gideon and the people (:3). Constantly he is portrayed as weak in faith and fearful, and yet not giving up and going forward in the path given to him.</p><p>And the camp of Midian was on the north side of them by the hill of Moreh, in the valley- </p><p>Moreh was the name of a Canaanite, so the continuing place name reflects how it had not been conquered by the Israelites and renamed as it should have been. We have the persistent impression of strength despite an environment of such weakness, and this we respect about Gideon.</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh said to Gideon, The people who are with you are too many for Me to give the Midianites into their hand, lest Israel boast against Me saying, ‘My own hand has saved me’- </p><p>In all Israel's great military victories, there was some element of God's hand (e:g. hailstones, earthquake) to stop them thinking that their own strength alone had saved them. And this is major theme in God's working with us. Gideon had earlier argued that his "thousand" in Manasseh was diminished or reduced (see on <a href='B:70 6:15'>Jdg 6:15</a>). But he was to learn that this was the kind of "strength" which he was to go against the Midianites with. And when he does, he finds that his strength is greatly diminished again, twice; from 32,000 to 10,000, and then from 10,000 to 300. But this theme of diminishing his strength had begun when his "thousand" was diminished.</p><p>This passage is alluded to in <a href='B:530 1:26-29'>1Co 1:26-29</a>, where Paul explains that for this same reason God has chosen "not many" to bring about His way of salvation, through a small remnant of weak people bringing to nothing the mighty things. This would equate Gideon's 300 with the true believers of both natural and spiritual Israel.</p>


text:
<p>Now therefore announce to the people, ‘Whoever is fearful and trembling, let him return and depart from Mount Gilead’. Twenty-two thousand of the people returned and ten thousand remained-</p><p>This was strictly according to the law of Moses, which required commanders to invite their fearful soldiers to leave before conflict (<a href='B:50 20:8'>Deu 20:8</a>). "Thousand" may refer to a military unit; see on <a href='B:70 6:15'>Jdg 6:15</a>. 32,000 were reduced to 10,000, and 10,000 to 300. The proportion of reduction the second time was far greater than the first time; about two thirds of the men returned, i:e. about 30% remained. But then just 3% remained. And overall, only about 1 % of the force was required by God. There would have been thousands of troops moving away from the front, rather embarrassed to tell the villages they passed through that they had moved away from the front because they were fearful. To turn their backs before their enemies was one of Israel's curses for disobedience to the covenant. So the whole thing was set up to show them that indeed they had been disobedient to the covenant, and God was gently punishing them for this.</p><p>"Mount Gilead" is hard to understand. There may have been a Mount Gilead on the western side of Jordan, but it is not mentioned anywhere else. "Gilead" and "Gilboa" differ by one letter in Hebrew. Perhaps Gideon was to undo Saul's defeat, and was encamped on Mount Gilboa. Or we could read maher, 'in haste', for mehar, "from the mount", giving the sense "let him return in haste to Gilead" i:e. go home.</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh said to Gideon, The people are still too many. Bring them down to the water and I will test them for you there. Those of whom I tell you, ‘This one shall go with you’ shall go, and those of whom I tell you, ‘This one shall not go with you’ shall remain- </p><p>"The water" was presumably the spring of Harod, meaning "trembling" (:2,3). Those who apparently weren't trembling were to be tested as to whether they were weak enough to be used for the great salvation God was to achieve. Only Gideon was aware, it seems, of this basis for reducing the people further. It was a very personal move from God to him, to yet further reduce his trust in human strength.</p>


text:
<p>So he brought down the people to the water and Yahweh said to Gideon, Each one who laps the water with his tongue, as a dog laps, set him by himself; likewise each one who bows down on his knees to drink- </p><p>"Laps" is yalok, the very sound a dog makes when drinking. Only Gideon at this point knew the basis upon which he was dividing his men. It would have taken him some time to pass by ten thousand men [although "thousand" may mean a military subdivision rather than 1,000] and pick out the 300 who lapped. At the time, he may have had no idea why this was being made so significant. Perhaps bowing on the knees recalled idol worship, and the more sensitive would not have done this. Those who lapped were acting like despised dogs. And it is by the dogs, like 'Caleb' [= 'dog'] who followed Yahweh faithfully [as a dog does a man], that God would save His people. Those who acted like dogs were the ones used, lapping like a dog laps, rather than drinking from cupped hands as men usually do:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>The number of those who lapped, putting their hands to their mouth, was three hundred men, but all the rest of the people got down on their knees to drink-</p><p>Gideon's faith would have been fully stretched. Although the exact number, 300, would have confirmed to him that this indeed was what God intended.</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh said to Gideon, By the three hundred men who lapped I will save you, and deliver the Midianites into your hand. Let all the other people go, each to his own place- </p><p>They were not to be kept as some kind of reserve force, they were to be sent home. The demand for faith was total, and we are sometimes put in similar positions, where we have only faith in God and all possibility of human help has been removed.</p>


text:
<p>So the three hundred men took food and their trumpets, and he sent all the rest of them to their tents; and the camp of Midian was beneath him in the valley- </p><p>We expect to read of warriors taking weapons in their hands. But instead they take food and trumpets. Again we see how God's strategy is totally different to human strategy. It would have been a fair test of their faith to continue with an apparently bizarre plan which had no human hope of success. The spiritually minded would have recalled the conquest of Jericho with trumpets. "Their trumpets" would have been those of the 300 trumpeters amongst the 10000 men. They handed over their trumpets, perhaps each platoon of around 33 men had a trumpeter amongst them. Originally, perhaps the 32,000 had 300 trumpeters amongst them. And he handed his trumpet to one of the 300.</p><p>AV: "And retained those three hundred men", using the same word as in :11 for "strengthened". Perhaps Gideon strengthened their faith in the intention of God to use them to save Israel from such overwhelming odds.</p>


text:
<p>The same night Yahweh said to him, Arise, go down into the camp; for I have delivered it into your hand- </p><p>The Israelite troops were mustered on a hill with a commanding view, so that they would see the vast army of their enemies. And now Gideon was told to go down to them, clinging on to his faith in those words that "I have delivered it into your hand", maybe repeating them over and over.</p>


text:
<p>But if you are afraid to go down, go with Purah your servant down to the camp- </p><p>God knows our frame and remembers that we are dust. He sets an ideal standard that He knows we can reach- in Gideon's case, to go down to the camp of the enemies. But He knew Gideon's weakness and so by grace delayed the plan for a day, to allow Gideon to get more support for his weak faith. Rather like He didn't send Israel on the direct route to Canaan, lest they see war and lose heart. We can therefore never complain that we are forced by overpowering circumstance into lack of faith. God knows our levels and will not test us beyond that which we can bear, but will make a way of escape (<a href='B:530 10:13'>1Co 10:13</a>). This is a wonderful promise, and it removes any excuse of 'circumstantial ethics' for our lack of response to God's challenges to faith.</p>


text:
<p>and you will hear what they say. After that your hands will be strengthened to go down into the camp. Then he went down with Purah his servant to the outskirts of the armed men who were in the camp-</p><p>See on :12. Purah, 'boast of Yah', would have been one of Gideon's servants who bravely helped him cut down the altar of Baal and the Ashtaroth on another night not so long ago. See on :10; the same phrase for strengthening hands is used of how God graciously strengthened the hands of Lot to leave Sodom (<a href='B:10 19:16'>Gen 19:16</a>), when he like Gideon had some faith but not enough to rise up to the simple command to 'go out' as commanded by God.</p><p>Gideon had strengthened the 300 men (see on :8), but clearly his own faith needed strengthening. He would have strengthened them whilst himself doubting. This is absolutely true to real human experience. The record has every psychological and spiritual credibility.</p>


text:
<p>The Midianites, the Amalekites and all the children of the east lay along in the valley like locusts for multitude, and their camels were without number, as the sand which is on the seashore for multitude-</p><p>The same description is used of Saul's Philistine enemies in <a href='B:90 13:5'>1Sa 13:5</a>. Gideon was Saul's hero-see on <a href='B:90 14:28'>1Sa 14:28</a>; <a href='B:90 14:31'>1Sa 14:31</a>. Saul tried to externally imitate Gideon when he prohibited the men to eat anything while they were pursuing the Philistines (<a href='B:90 11:11'>1Sa 11:11</a> = <a href='B:70 7:16'>Jdg 7:16</a>; <a href='B:90 13:5'>1Sa 13:5</a> = <a href='B:70 7:12'>Jdg 7:12</a>; <a href='B:90 14:24'>1Sa 14:24</a>; <a href='B:90 14:28'>1Sa 14:28</a>; <a href='B:90 14:31'>1Sa 14:31</a> = <a href='B:70 8:4-5'>Jdg 8:4-5</a>).</p><p>The enemy were "as the sand by the sea side for multitude", using the words of the Abrahamic promises (<a href='B:10 22:17-18'>Gen 22:17-18</a>):&nbsp;These people were therefore a pseudo-Israel, having the appearance of being Abraham's true seed. Hagar had been promised "I will multiply your seed exceedingly, that it shall not be numbered for multitude", after the pattern of the promises to Abraham (<a href='B:10 16:10'>Gen 16:10</a>). This is confirmed by their description as being "by ranks of five" (<a href='B:70 7:11'>Jdg 7:11</a>), using the identical Hebrew phrase as used in <a href='B:20 13:18'>Exo 13:18</a> and <a href='B:60 4:12'>Jos 4:12</a> concerning Israel's marching against their enemies:&nbsp;The aptness of this to Israel's present enemies is obvious- their local enemies claim they are the true seed of Abraham.</p>


text:
<p>When Gideon had come, there was a man telling a dream to his fellow. He said, I had a dream: a cake of barley bread tumbled into the camp of Midian and came to the tent and struck it so that it fell, and turned it upside down so that the tent lay flat- </p><p>Gideon is likened to a loaf of barley bread tumbling into Midian, overturning it - pointing forward to Jesus, the barley-bread loaf (<a href='B:500 6:35'>Joh 6:35</a> cp. :9), falling as the little stone on to the image (<a href='B:70 7:13'>Jdg 7:13</a>):&nbsp;Barley bread was despised as the most desperate kind of food a man could eat to stay alive. And this was how Gideon felt- he was God's most desperate plan. His faith was weak, his repentance for idolatry had been secret and nervous, and yet God was going to use him.</p><p>"Tumbled" is used to describe the sword of the cherubim which "turned every way" (<a href='B:10 3:24'>Gen 3:24</a>); another hint that Gideon and his men were a replication of the cherubim on earth; see on :20.</p><p>"The tent" is the usual word for 'tabernacle'. They had carried the tabernacle of their god with them into battle, and Gideon overturned it. The victory was therefore to be against their gods, and thereby demonstrating the supremacy of Yahweh. Gideon and Purah had overturned the altar of Baal in Abiezer, and as with events in our lives, this was to prepare him for the far greater overturning of the pagan tabernacle of the Midianites. The same phrase is used for the tabernacle of David which "fell", s:w. "lay flat" (<a href='B:370 9:11'>Amo 9:11</a>).</p>


text:
<p>His fellow answered, This is none other than the sword of Gideon the son of Joash, a man of Israel. God has delivered Midian into his hand with all the army-</p><p>But Gideon's men were not to use swords, only trumpets and earthenware::. and to proclaim the sword of Yahweh. Gideon now understood that Yahweh's sword was his sword, Yahweh's sword was men who didn't use swords. If the Midianites believed that they were delivered into Gideon's hand, and God believed it, then Gideon had to believe it.</p>


text:
<p>When Gideon heard the telling of the dream and its interpretation, he worshipped, and he returned into the camp of Israel. He said, Arise, for Yahweh has delivered the army of Midian into your hand!- </p><p>We need to realize that God deals with us as individuals. No matter how functional and holy, or dysfunctional and evil, is our church, we are still treated by the Father as His individual children. So many have struggled with this, tending to see themselves rather as inevitably part of a community, faceless cogs in a machine. And this is actually quite attractive to humanity- hence the popularity of Roman Catholicism. Reflect a while on how God told Gideon: “I will be with thee” [you singular], and yet Gideon responds: “Oh my Lord, if the Lord be with us…” (<a href='B:70 6:12-13'>Jdg 6:12-13</a>). Gideon had to be taught that God saw him as a separate, unique individual, and didn’t deal with him automatically merely as part of a community as a whole. But it was a slow process. When Gideon saw in a dream a man saying that God had delivered Midian into his [singular] hand, Gideon then tells Israel that God had delivered Midian into their hands (<a href='B:70 7:14-15'>Jdg 7:14-15</a>). He still found it so hard to believe that God treated him as so important to Him. Or we could argue that Gideon was not out for personal justification, but for the victory of Israel.</p><p>Just as all the animals and everything in the eretz promised to Abraham was 'delivered into the hands' of Noah (s:w. <a href='B:10 9:2'>Gen 9:2</a>), so the nations of that eretz were delivered into the hands of Israel (s:w. <a href='B:20 6:8'>Exo 6:8</a>; <a href='B:20 23:31'>Exo 23:31</a>; <a href='B:50 2:24'>Deu 2:24</a>; <a href='B:50 3:2-3'>Deu 3:2-3</a>; <a href='B:50 7:24'>Deu 7:24</a>; <a href='B:50 21:10'>Deu 21:10</a>; <a href='B:60 2:24'>Jos 2:24</a>; <a href='B:70 1:2'>Jdg 1:2</a>). Tragically, like Adam in Eden [perhaps the same eretz promised to Abraham] and Noah in the new, cleansed eretz, Israel didn't realize this potential. What was delivered into the hand of Joshua (<a href='B:60 2:24'>Jos 2:24</a>) actually wasn't delivered into their hand, because they disbelieved (<a href='B:70 2:23'>Jdg 2:23</a>); and this looks ahead to the disbelief of so many in the work of the Lord Jesus, who has indeed conquered the Kingdom for us. They considered the promise of the nations being delivered into their hand as somehow open to question, and only a possibility and not at all certain (<a href='B:70 8:7'>Jdg 8:7</a>; <a href='B:40 21:2'>Num 21:2</a> cp. <a href='B:40 21:34'>Num 21:34</a>). Some like Jephthah (s:w. <a href='B:70 11:32'>Jdg 11:32</a>; <a href='B:70 12:3'>Jdg 12:3</a>), Ehud (<a href='B:70 3:10'>Jdg 3:10</a>; <a href='B:70 3:28'>Jdg 3:28</a>), Deborah (<a href='B:70 4:14'>Jdg 4:14</a>), Gideon (<a href='B:70 7:15'>Jdg 7:15</a>) did, for a brief historical moment; but as individuals, and their victories were not followed up on. Instead they were dominated by the territory. And so instead, they were delivered into the hands of their enemies within the eretz (s:w. <a href='B:30 26:25'>Lev 26:25</a>; <a href='B:70 13:1'>Jdg 13:1</a>).</p>


text:
<p>He divided the three hundred men into three companies and he gave each of them a trumpet and an empty pitcher, with a torch inside the pitcher-</p><p>The pitchers would have been used for carrying water, for water supply was critical to the movement and sustenance of an army on the move. To have empty pitchers, they would have had to empty the water out of them. Now they had no water, they had to trust fully in Yahweh. They had to get down from the mountain, destroy the enemy, and then they would again be able to lap of the water. The earthenware pitchers represented men, made of clay, but with the torch of God's Spirit burning within them. And that potential was to be revealed by breaking the pitchers. "Empty" translates the common Hebrew word for vain or worthless. They had no strength of their own.</p>


text:
<p>He said to them, Watch me, and do as I do when I come to the outermost part of the camp- </p><p>Gideon and Purah had been to the outermost part of the camp the night before. Israel would only be delivered from the Midianites if they repented, and Gideon's repentance was being treated as symbolic of the nation. And so the people with him had to act as if 'in him'. He was their representative, as the Lord Jesus is for us.</p>


text:
<p>When I blow the trumpet, I and all who are with me, then blow your trumpets too, on every side of the camp, and shout ‘For Yahweh and for Gideon!’-</p><p>See on :17. AV "The sword of the Lord and of Gideon". He had learned the lesson from :14, that his sword was that of Yahweh. And yet they were not to use swords, but just to have torches and worthless [s:w. "empty"] pitchers in their hands. Yahweh's sword was not a visible one in the hands of His people. And that is an abiding lesson:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>So Gideon and the hundred men who were with him came to the outskirts of the camp in the beginning of the middle watch, when they had but newly set the watch. They blew the trumpets and broke in pieces the pitchers that were in their hands- </p><p>To break an earthenware pitcher was a symbol of death (<a href='B:250 12:6'>Ecc 12:6</a>). Through their human frailty, for the pitchers were "empty" (s:w. vain, worthless), the torch fire of God's Spirit was to be revealed.</p><p>The blowing of trumpets by the 300 points forward to the resurrection. The breaking of the clay to reveal the burning lamps within the pitchers, is clearly at the root of <a href='B:540 4:6-8'>2Co 4:6-8</a>: "God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness (cp. the sudden appearance of those lights on that night):::we have this treasure in earthen vessels (cp. <a href='B:70 7:19'>Jdg 7:19</a>), that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us (cp. <a href='B:70 7:2'>Jdg 7:2</a>):&nbsp;&nbsp;We are troubled on every side" (cp. "on every side", :18 and <a href='B:70 6:2-6'>Jdg 6:2-6</a>):&nbsp;All this would suggest that the 300 men are to be connected with the resurrected of the new Israel, whose "earthen vessels" are broken (by means of resurrection and judgment) at the end of Israel's latter day downtreading and immediately prior to the great destruction of their enemies by them:&nbsp;To break an earthenware pitcher was a symbol of death (<a href='B:250 12:6'>Ecc 12:6</a>).</p>


text:
<p>The three companies blew the trumpets and broke the pitchers and held the torches in their left hands and the trumpets in their right hands with which to blow, and they shouted, The sword of Yahweh and of Gideon!- </p><p>Literally, they strengthened the torches in their hands, the very phrase used in :8,11 of God strengthening their hands. But their strength was in gripping on to the torches, not their human weapons.</p><p>"The sword of Yahweh", instead of their swords [for they held pitchers and torches, not swords] has been interpreted as a reference to the cherubim; see on :13. The point has been made that this whole scenario of flashing fire and swords was a&nbsp;conscious imitation of the cherubim:&nbsp;From this we can infer that the cherubim will be associated with the latter-day deliverance of Israel- perhaps the enigmatic "sign of the son of man in heaven" (<a href='B:470 24:30'>Mat 24:30</a>).</p>


text:
<p>They each stood in his place around the camp and all the army ran, and they shouted and put them to flight- </p><p>The shouting was as in the conquest of Jericho- the victory cry uttered before they had won the victory. This was done in faith, acting as if they had received already that which they had asked for (<a href='B:480 11:24'>Mar 11:24</a>).</p>


text:
<p>They blew the three hundred trumpets, and Yahweh set every man’s sword against his fellow and against all the army, and the army fled as far as Beth Shittah toward Zererah, as far as the border of Abel Meholah by Tabbath-</p><p>This is a prototype for how the latter day invasion by Israel's neighbours will be overcome (also <a href='B:140 20:23'>2Ch 20:23</a>). Psalms 83 perfectly describes the Islamist unity as they attack Jerusalem in the last days (<a href='B:230 83:3-5'>Psa 83:3-5</a>; <a href='B:230 83:12'>Psa 83:12</a>), but concludes with the Psalmist praying that God would destroy them as He did Oreb and Zeeb (<a href='B:230 83:11'>Psa 83:11</a>) - who were defeated as a result of God making their troops turn on each other.</p><p>The invaders massacred each other, as in <a href='B:140 20:23'>2Ch 20:23</a>. They were a confederacy, and there were likely preexisting tensions and suspicions. This is a theme in the latter-days passages: <a href='B:450 14:13'>Zec 14:13</a>;&nbsp; <a href='B:70 7:22'>Jdg 7:22</a>;&nbsp; <a href='B:90 14:22'>1Sa 14:22</a>:&nbsp;And the same will happen in the last days. Whilst such confusion is easily possible given modern high-technology warfare, it would seem more likely that a few initial mistakes of this sort could open up old rivalries which are then fought out to the death:&nbsp;Indeed, we could sensibly look for even more rifts to occur between Israel's enemies, e:g. over oil.</p>


text:
<p>The men of Israel were gathered together out of Naphtali, Asher and all Manasseh, and they pursued Midian- </p><p>We recall how Deborah's appeal for support from Asher and some of the leaders of these tribes had been refused. And after God gave the great victory, she taught everyone the song of Deborah in Judges 5 which lamented their lack of response. So perhaps that had worked, and now they responded. We may fail a call the first time, but then it is repeated, and we accept it. We note that these men of Israel from these areas were probably those who had originally come with Gideon and then been sent back (<a href='B:70 6:35'>Jdg 6:35</a>). They would have reflected upon their own weakness of faith, and now would have been grateful to be called out to service again. God doesn't just dismiss people from His service because of their weak faith; He tries to use them again.</p>


text:
<p>Gideon sent messengers throughout all the hill country of Ephraim saying, Come down against Midian and seize the waters of the Jordan ahead of them as far as Beth Barah. So all the men of Ephraim were gathered together and took the waters of the Jordan as far as Beth Barah- </p><p>This would have been near to where Israel first entered the land under Joshua. The spiritually minded would have seen the hand of God again at work in the same locality. This was where John the Baptist was to baptize repentant Israelites (<a href='B:500 1:28'>Joh 1:28</a>). And the whole victory was because of repentance.</p>


text:
<p>They took the two princes of Midian, Oreb and Zeeb and they killed Oreb at the rock of Oreb and Zeeb they killed at the winepress of Zeeb- </p><p>Zeeb had presumably tried to hide in a winepress. But he was slain there. And we recall how it was in a winepress, disused because there was no vintage because Israel had broken the covenant, that Gideon was first called whilst threshing wheat in it.</p><p>They pursued Midian, and they brought the heads of Oreb and Zeeb to Gideon beyond the Jordan-</p><p>The Philistines in <a href='B:90 29:4'>1Sa 29:4</a> recalled how David had carried the head of Goliath to Saul (<a href='B:90 17:57'>1Sa 17:57</a>). To carry the heads of a king's enemies was a way to get the king's favour, as in <a href='B:70 7:25'>Jdg 7:25</a>; <a href='B:100 4:8'>2Sa 4:8</a>; <a href='B:100 16:9'>2Sa 16:9</a>; <a href='B:100 20:21'>2Sa 20:21</a>; <a href='B:120 10:6-8'>2Ki 10:6-8</a>. Again we see the inspired, historical record has consistency. It would have required a clever editor to insert this theme of beheading to curry a leader's favour throughout the entire Biblical record. But the histories were clearly written at different times; a later hand would not have thought of all these realistic touches to sprinkle so consistently throughout it. The internal harmony of the Bible is to me the greatest indication that it is what it claims to be, the Divinely inspired word of God, evidencing His editing throughout.</p>


text:
<p>The men of Ephraim said to him, Why have you treated us this way, that you didn’t call us when you went to fight with Midian? They rebuked him sharply-</p><p>The Ephraimites came over as offended because they weren’t invited to fight in a battle, even though they had shown no inclination; and they did this with both Gideon and Jephthah&nbsp; (<a href='B:70 8:1'>Jdg 8:1</a>; <a href='B:70 12:1'>Jdg 12:1</a>).</p>


text:
<p>He said to them, What have I now done in comparison with you? Isn’t the gleaning of the grapes of Ephraim better than the vintage of Abiezer?-</p><p>The Proverbs often comment upon historical situations in the Hebrew Bible, and "a soft answer turns away wrath" may well be based upon this incident (<a href='B:240 15:1'>Pro 15:1</a>). We recall that Gideon was initially called by God whilst he was threshing wheat in the disused family winepress in Abiezer- disused because there was no vintage, as this was a curse for disobedience to the covenant. He is ever aware of how the victory began with the few men of Abiezer gathering around him, and only then did others come to his call to arms. He assumes Ephraim has a vintage, a wine harvest, which is incomparable to that of Abiezer. He treated even those apostates as more worthy of God's blessing than himself and his home village. We have a window here onto his deep and genuine humility, which is the more commendable as it seems he was a strong warrior in his own right (see on :18,21).</p>


text:
<p>God has delivered into your hand the princes of Midian, Oreb and Zeeb! What was I able to do in comparison with you? Then their anger was abated toward him, when he had said that- </p><p>God had delivered the enemy into Gideon's personal hand (<a href='B:70 7:9'>Jdg 7:9</a>), but Gideon speaks of the enemies having been given into Israel's hand (<a href='B:70 7:15'>Jdg 7:15</a>). Gideon was not out for personal justification, but for the victory of Israel:&nbsp;And so he has the humility to placate the Ephraimites by saying that they had the honour of having Oreb and Zeeb in their hands.</p>


text:
<p>Gideon came to the Jordan and crossed over with the three hundred men, exhausted yet pursuing- </p><p>LXX "faint and hungry", hence their request for bread in :5. Saul tried to imitate this when he prohibited the men to eat anything while they were pursuing the Philistines (<a href='B:90 11:11'>1Sa 11:11</a> = <a href='B:70 7:16'>Jdg 7:16</a>; <a href='B:90 13:5'>1Sa 13:5</a> = <a href='B:70 7:12'>Jdg 7:12</a>; <a href='B:90 14:24'>1Sa 14:24</a>; <a href='B:90 14:28'>1Sa 14:28</a>; <a href='B:90 14:31'>1Sa 14:31</a> = <a href='B:70 8:4-5'>Jdg 8:4-5</a>). But he was totally missing the point- he was trying to make a cardboard copy of another man's faith, following only the externalities, without Gideon's faith and humility.</p><p>The pursuit of the enemy east of Jordan repeats what Abraham did with his 318 servants, roughly the same number as Gideon had with him. He found himself, as we do, walking in the steps of his spiritual father Abraham; see on :32. David too was to pursue after his enemies exhausted, and so we see how circumstances repeat between the lives of God's people. This is how the Bible becomes a living word, the history is not dead but alive, because it has been carefully selected by God to show us that man is not alone, God is with us, no circumstance we face is in essence unique; others have trodden this path before.</p>


text:
<p>He said to the men of Succoth, Please give loaves of bread to the people who follow me, for they are exhausted and I am pursuing Zebah and Zalmunna, the kings of Midian- </p><p>To turn down a request for bread from travellers was a deep insult, according to the hospitality culture of the times. And it still is, in many such areas today. Zebah and Zalmunna had fled upon camels, and so it seemed they would not be caught by Gideon and his men. And the men of Succoth clearly feared they would survive and return to punish them if they supported Gideon. They failed to learn the lesson of Deborah's song, which castigated those Israelites who had failed to respond to her call to arms.</p>


text:
<p>The princes of Succoth said, Are the hands of Zebah and Zalmunna already in your possession, that we should give bread to your army?- </p><p>Meroz was cursed bitterly by God in <a href='B:70 5:23'>Jdg 5:23</a>. It was a village through which Sisera or his men had fled, and they feared to join in the fight. The same situation was to recur when Succoth and Penuel refused to help Gideon. The history of Meroz and the Israelites who refused to help Deborah was a lesson not learnt by Succoth and Penuel.</p>


text:
<p>Gideon said Because of that, when Yahweh has delivered Zebah and Zalmunna into my hand, I will tear your flesh with the thorns of the wilderness and with briers- </p><p>Gideon's faith is now so strong that he can be sure that he will catch those whom he was pursuing, even though they had camels. "Tear" is AVmg. "thresh", with all its connotations of judgment. The area around Succoth is famed for its thorn bushes.</p><p>Just as all the animals and everything in the eretz promised to Abraham was 'delivered into the hands' of Noah (s:w. <a href='B:10 9:2'>Gen 9:2</a>), so the nations of that eretz were delivered into the hands of Israel (s:w. <a href='B:20 6:8'>Exo 6:8</a>; <a href='B:20 23:31'>Exo 23:31</a>; <a href='B:50 2:24'>Deu 2:24</a>; <a href='B:50 3:2-3'>Deu 3:2-3</a>; <a href='B:50 7:24'>Deu 7:24</a>; <a href='B:50 21:10'>Deu 21:10</a>; <a href='B:60 2:24'>Jos 2:24</a>; <a href='B:70 1:2'>Jdg 1:2</a>). Tragically, like Adam in Eden [perhaps the same eretz promised to Abraham] and Noah in the new, cleansed eretz, Israel didn't realize this potential. What was delivered into the hand of Joshua (<a href='B:60 2:24'>Jos 2:24</a>) actually wasn't delivered into their hand, because they disbelieved (<a href='B:70 2:23'>Jdg 2:23</a>); and this looks ahead to the disbelief of so many in the work of the Lord Jesus, who has indeed conquered the Kingdom for us. They considered the promise of the nations being delivered into their hand as somehow open to question, and only a possibility and not at all certain (<a href='B:70 8:7'>Jdg 8:7</a>; <a href='B:40 21:2'>Num 21:2</a> cp. <a href='B:40 21:34'>Num 21:34</a>). Some like Jephthah (s:w. <a href='B:70 11:32'>Jdg 11:32</a>; <a href='B:70 12:3'>Jdg 12:3</a>), Ehud (<a href='B:70 3:10'>Jdg 3:10</a>; <a href='B:70 3:28'>Jdg 3:28</a>), Deborah (<a href='B:70 4:14'>Jdg 4:14</a>), Gideon (<a href='B:70 7:15'>Jdg 7:15</a>) did, for a brief historical moment; but as individuals, and their victories were not followed up on. Instead they were dominated by the territory. And so instead, they were delivered into the hands of their enemies within the eretz (s:w. <a href='B:30 26:25'>Lev 26:25</a>; <a href='B:70 13:1'>Jdg 13:1</a>).</p>


text:
<p>He went up from there to Penuel and spoke to them in the same way, and the men of Penuel answered him as the men of Succoth had answered- </p><p>Spiritual weakness is easily contagious. They replied just as the others had, assuming Gideon would not achieve his Divinely empowered mission.</p>


text:
<p>He said to the men of Penuel, When I come again in peace I will break down this tower- </p><p>Penuel was so named to celebrate how Jacob had seen the face of God and lived (<a href='B:10 32:30'>Gen 32:30</a>). Gideon had earlier thought he would be slain as he had been so unworthy to see the face of the Angel (<a href='B:70 6:22'>Jdg 6:22</a>). As with our lives, God was leading him to perceive ever more His grace. Coming "in peace" reflected how he had learned the lesson from seeing the face of the Angel; for he had built an altar called 'Yahweh is peace', and now he was confident that indeed he was at peace with God despite all his weaknesses; see on <a href='B:70 6:23-24'>Jdg 6:23-24</a>.</p>


text:
<p>Now Zebah and Zalmunna were in Karkor and their armies with them, about fifteen thousand men, all who were left of all the army of the people of the east; one hundred and twenty thousand fighting men having been killed- </p><p>This means that initially, 135000 were facing Gideon's 300. That works out at precisely 450 of the enemy for every one of Gideon's men. And it cannot be coincidence that Elijah describes himself as facing off as one man of God against 450 prophets of Baal on Carmel (<a href='B:110 18:22'>1Ki 18:22</a>). Despite his arrogance and spiritual weakness, Elijah learned the lesson from Gideon's courageous example. This is how the Bible becomes a living word, the history is not dead but alive, because it has been carefully selected by God to show us that man is not alone, God is with us, no circumstance we face is in essence unique; others have trodden this path before:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>Gideon went up by the way of those who lived in tents on the east of Nobah and Jogbehah and attacked the army, which was unsuspecting- </p><p>'The way of the tent-dwellers' means the Bedouin route, he took the rough short cut, because those he was pursuing had camels and he was presumably on foot. Hence he came upon them whilst they were "unsuspecting".</p>


text:
<p>Zebah and Zalmunna fled and he pursued after them, and took the two kings of Midian, Zebah and Zalmunna, and routed all the army- </p><p>"Zebah" is the word for sacrifice, and the execution of Zebah in :21 may therefore be understood as an offering of them to Yahweh. Perhaps this is what he was named after the event, seeing that personal names were often given in response to life experiences.</p>


text:
<p>Gideon the son of Joash returned from the battle from the ascent of Heres- </p><p>"Heres", the sun, probably refers to some place of idolatry. The whole record of the victories is to show the supremacy of Yahweh over the gods of the peoples, whom Israel were worshipping.</p>


text:
<p>He caught a young man of Succoth and asked of him, and he described for him the princes of Succoth and its elders, seventy-seven men- </p><p>This was presumably in the form of a list of names.</p>


text:
<p>He came to the men of Succoth and said, See Zebah and Zalmunna, concerning whom you taunted me saying, ‘Are the hands of Zebah and Zalmunna now in your possession, that we should give bread to your men who are weary?’- </p><p>Gideon preserved the kings alive in order to teach the men of Succoth. But we wonder, as always with Gideon, whether there was not an element of arrogance now creeping in to an otherwise humble man (see on :2) For surely there was no absolute need to humiliate his enemies and also go to such lengths to demonstrate the wrongness of the men of Succoth.</p>


text:
<p>He took the elders of the city and thorns of the wilderness and briers, and with them he taught the men of Succoth a lesson- </p><p>This kind of torture was perhaps not unto death. Perhaps it was all an unnecessary display of power and smacks of arrogance (see on :15). Or maybe he didn't slay them as he did the men of Penuel (:17) because he believed they could be "taught" from this. But "taught" is LXX "threshed"; see on :7.</p>


text:
<p>He broke down the tower of Penuel and killed the men of the city- </p><p>This is the language of Christ's return in judgment upon the people of Jerusalem, who are elsewhere likened to a tower in Zion (<a href='B:470 22:7'>Mat 22:7</a>):&nbsp;In the latter day context, those Jews who survive the tribulation but still refuse to learn the lesson of total commitment to their Messiah / judge / saviour, will be destroyed at broadly the same time as their enemies.</p><p>We note that Gideon apparently "taught" the men of Succoth (:16), but slew those of Penuel. Perhaps they took refuge in their tower and refused to meet with Gideon nor repent, hence he slew them.</p>


text:
<p>Then he said to Zebah and Zalmunna, What kind of men were they whom you killed at Tabor? They answered, They were like you. Each one resembled the children of a king- </p><p>This massacre is not previously recorded. But clearly there had been the deaths of Gideon's relatives at Tabor. We note that Gideon had the air of a leader to him, resembling a king. His humility noted on :2 is therefore the more commendable. But we note what is so true to human experience and observation, that those who may exude authority and confident leadership skills are often terribly insecure, clinging on to God with a childlike faith and ever seeking His reassurance. See on :30.</p>


text:
<p>He said, They were my brothers, the sons of my mother. As Yahweh lives, if you had saved them alive, I would not kill you- </p><p>The implication of :18 is that those slain at Tabor were Gideon's own children. See on :20. But it seems his brothers were also slain. The Divine command was to slay the Canaanites, so Gideon's statement here that he was only going to kill them because they had slain his relatives is therefore somewhat spiritually lacking. As is his materialistic demand for the spoil and making an ephod. And yet he died in faith.</p>


text:
<p>He said to Jether his firstborn, Get up and kill them! But the youth didn’t draw his sword for he was afraid, because he was still a youth-</p><p>Although Gideon's brothers were slain (:19), it seems from :18 that his children were also killed. This is why he asks his firstborn son, who was with him and had survived, to act as the avenger of blood and slay those who had killed his brothers. This however was somewhat of a twist of the law of blood revenge, which surely didn't apply to deaths in battle. Although the children may have been too young to fight. "Jether" means "excellency" and this was the meaning of Jacob's firstborn Reuben, who was the "excellency" of his power (<a href='B:10 49:3'>Gen 49:3</a> s:w:). In this we see Gideon being guided by Biblical precedent, despite his weaknesses.</p>


text:
<p>Then Zebah and Zalmunna said, Get up and do it yourself, for as the man is, so is his strength. Gideon arose and killed Zebah and Zalmunna and took the crescents that were on their camels’ necks- </p><p>The implication could be that Gideon was indeed built as a strong and mighty warrior. His deep humility (see on :2) is therefore the more commendable. The crescents which he took remain the symbols of Israel's neighbouring enemies. But they had religious significance, and Gideon would have been better to destroy them. See on :12.</p>


text:
<p>Then the men of Israel said to Gideon, Rule over us, both you and your son and your son’s son also, for you have saved us out of the hand of Midian- </p><p>Gideon had the deportment of a king, and had acted like one (:18). But we see here Israel's lack of faith in Yahweh as their king, and their desperate desire for the immediate, the human and the visual rather than the invisible things of God's rulership and kingship over them.</p>


text:
<p>Gideon said to them, I will not rule over you, neither shall my son rule over you. Yahweh shall rule over you- </p><p>Time and again, the Bible is full of warnings against doing what seems right before God, when our motives are far from Him. Take the way that Gideon was invited to be king over Israel, but he refused, citing the fact that Yahweh is Israel's King. All well and good::. but the record goes on to record how he made an idolatrous ephod in his home town, to which all Israel came (<a href='B:70 8:22-24'>Jdg 8:22-24</a>). And he had a son, Abimelech- which means 'my father is king'!. And indeed Abimelech did try to become King of all Israel (<a href='B:70 9:2'>Jdg 9:2</a>). Our behaviour smacks of this time and time again. We do what is externally right, but our inward motives are impure. There's an urgent need for self-examination at depth within each of us::. and yet the busyness of our lives, our poor time management and lack of rigorous regime in spiritual life, so easily leads us not to seriously attempt this. And we end up doing things which are only externally right. See on <a href='B:70 9:18'>Jdg 9:18</a>.</p><p>And yet we could quite understandably read this as Gideon's commendable refusal to replace Yahweh as their king. He resisted the temptation to misinterpret <a href='B:50 17:14-15'>Deu 17:14-15</a> as meaning that indeed he was the man who would be desired as king by Israel.</p><p>The parable of <a href='B:70 9:8-11'>Jdg 9:8-11</a> implies that Israel repeated this request, but Gideon's sons refused, following their father's example. Only the illegitimate Abimelech accepted it.</p>


text:
<p>Gideon said to them, I would make a request of you, that every man would give me the earrings of his spoil. They had golden earrings because they were Ishmaelites- </p><p>Midianites were Ishmaelites (<a href='B:10 37:25'>Gen 37:25</a>; <a href='B:10 37:28'>Gen 37:28</a>; <a href='B:10 37:36'>Gen 37:36</a>). It seems that having overcome the temptation to be king (:23), Gideon succumbed to another temptation- to become wealthy, to effectively act as king by demanding wealth from his followers. We catch ourselves doing this; just as the alcoholic quits alcohol and takes to drugs. See on :26.</p>


text:
<p>They answered, We will willingly give them. They spread a garment and each man threw the earrings of his spoil into it- </p><p>When Gideon received the golden earrings of the Ishmaelites (<a href='B:70 8:24-27'>Jdg 8:24-27</a>), his mind should have flown back to how golden earrings were turned into the golden calf (<a href='B:20 32:2'>Exo 32:2</a>). He was potentially given the strength to resist the temptation to turn them into an idol. But he must have blanked out that Biblical precedent in his heart; he ignored his spiritual potential.</p>


text:
<p>The weight of the golden earrings that he requested was one thousand seven hundred shekels of gold, besides the crescents, the pendants and the purple clothing that was on the kings of Midian, and besides the chains that were about their camels’ necks- </p><p>Purple clothing was the clothing of kings. As noted on :24, Gideon turned down being king- but he then as it were compensated for that by taking the clothing and wealth appropriate to a king. His victory over temptation in this area was therefore only external, and not from the heart. And we can do the same.</p>


text:
<p>Gideon made an ephod of it and put it in his city, in Ophrah, and all Israel prostituted themselves by worshipping it there; and it became a snare to Gideon and to his house- </p><p>Twice in 1 Timothy, Paul speaks about a snare; the snare of the devil (<a href='B:610 3:7'>1Ti 3:7</a>), and the snare of wanting wealth (6:9). The desire for wealth in whatever form is the very epitome of the devil, our inherent sin which we must struggle against. The idea of a snare is that it results in a sudden and unexpected destruction. The unexpectedness of the destruction should set us thinking: surely the implication is that those who are materialistic don't realize that in fact this is their besetting sin, and therefore their rejection in the end because of it will be so tragically unexpected. It's rather like pride; if you're proud and you don't know it, then you really are proud. And if we're materialistic and don't know it, we likewise really have a problem. The idea of riches being a snare connects with copious OT references to idols as Israel's perpetual snare (<a href='B:20 23:33'>Exo 23:33</a>; <a href='B:50 7:16'>Deu 7:16</a>; <a href='B:70 2:3'>Jdg 2:3</a>; <a href='B:70 8:27'>Jdg 8:27</a>; <a href='B:230 106:36'>Psa 106:36</a>; <a href='B:350 5:1'>Hos 5:1</a>). Paul's point is surely that the desire of wealth is the equivalent of OT idolatry.</p><p>The ephod was likely comprised of precious stones which had also been in the earrings of the Midianites and around the necks of their camels. He had built an altar to Yahweh in his home, and it seems this was an imitation high priestly breastplate. He was effectively setting himself up as a priest:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>So Midian was subdued before the Israelites, and they exalted their heads no more-</p><p>The nations in the land being "subdued" was the outcome of Israel being obedient to the covenant (s:w. <a href='B:50 9:3'>Deu 9:3</a>). We read this word "subdued" used of how the land was at times subdued before Israel (<a href='B:70 3:30'>Jdg 3:30</a>; <a href='B:70 4:23'>Jdg 4:23</a>; <a href='B:70 8:28'>Jdg 8:28</a>; <a href='B:70 11:33'>Jdg 11:33</a>). But each time it is clear that the people generally were not obedient to the covenant. One faithful leader was, and the results of his faithfulness were counted to the people. This is what happened with the Lord's death leading to righteousness being imputed to us.</p><p>The land had rest forty years in the days of Gideon- </p><p>The forty years rest of <a href='B:70 3:11'>Jdg 3:11</a>; <a href='B:70 5:31'>Jdg 5:31</a>; <a href='B:70 8:28'>Jdg 8:28</a> may not be a literal period. I have elsewhere noted that the forty year reigns of Saul, David and Solomon create chronological problems if read literally. The idea may be that forty years was a time of testing, as it was for Israel in the wilderness. We think of the Lord's 40 days of testing too. In this case, they were tested by peace. And they consistently failed, as God's people often do.</p>


text:
<p>Jerubbaal the son of Joash went and lived in his own house- </p><p>He commendably didn't try to establish himself with a palace, as he had rejected the possibility of becoming king. But he turned that house into a quasi sanctuary, having built an altar to Yahweh there, and now having made a breastplate. We see how his apparent resistance of the temptation to be king was not from the heart, because he acted like a king in other ways.</p>


text:
<p>Gideon had seventy sons conceived from his body, for he had many wives-</p><p>I suggested on :18,20 that some of Gideon's sons had been killed at Tabor, and this is why he asked his firstborn to act as the avenger of blood in slaying their killers. It is psychologically understandable that he sought to build up his family again, but his "many wives" hardly speak of spirituality, and having 70 sons looked ahead to the ungodly behaviour of Ahab (<a href='B:120 10:1'>2Ki 10:1</a>).</p>


text:
<p>His concubine who was in Shechem also bore him a son and he named him Abimelech- </p><p>Abimelech means 'my father is king'. And indeed Abimelech did try to become King of all Israel (<a href='B:70 9:2'>Jdg 9:2</a>). As discussed on :23, Gideon overcame the temptation to become king, but only on an external level. In reality his behaviour was as if was a king in all but name.</p>


text:
<p>Gideon the son of Joash died in a good old age and was buried in the tomb of Joash his father in Ophrah of the Abiezrites- </p><p>This is the same description used for the death of Abraham (<a href='B:10 15:15'>Gen 15:15</a>; <a href='B:10 25:8'>Gen 25:8</a>) in whose faultering steps of faith Gideon had followed; see on :4. He is presented, for all his moral weakness and faultering faith, as a seed of Abraham. And he is listed amongst the faithful in Hebrews 11. We are thereby comforted in our own self doubt, as we review the weak nature of our own faith and commitment:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>As soon as Gideon was dead, the people of Israel turned again and played the prostitute after the Baals, and made Baal Berith their god- </p><p>Israel is so often set up as the bride of God (<a href='B:290 54:5'>Isa 54:5</a>; <a href='B:290 61:10'>Isa 61:10</a>; <a href='B:290 62:4-5'>Isa 62:4-5</a>; <a href='B:300 2:2'>Jer 2:2</a>; <a href='B:300 3:14'>Jer 3:14</a>; <a href='B:350 2:19-20'>Hos 2:19-20</a>). This is why any infidelity to God is spoken of as adultery (<a href='B:460 2:11'>Mal 2:11</a>; <a href='B:30 17:7'>Lev 17:7</a>; <a href='B:30 20:5-6'>Lev 20:5-6</a>; <a href='B:50 31:16'>Deu 31:16</a>; <a href='B:70 2:17'>Jdg 2:17</a>; <a href='B:70 8:27'>Jdg 8:27</a>; <a href='B:70 8:33'>Jdg 8:33</a>; <a href='B:350 9:1'>Hos 9:1</a>). The very language of Israel 'selling themselves to do iniquity' uses the image of prostitution. This is how God feels our even temporary and fleeting acts and thoughts of unfaithfulness. This is why God is jealous for us (<a href='B:20 20:15'>Exo 20:15</a>; <a href='B:20 34:14'>Exo 34:14</a>; <a href='B:50 4:24'>Deu 4:24</a>; <a href='B:50 5:9'>Deu 5:9</a>; <a href='B:50 6:15'>Deu 6:15</a>)- because His undivided love for us is so exclusive. He expects us to be totally His.</p><p>Baal Berith is literally the Baal of the covenant. Israel went wrong because they reasoned that serving Baal was a form of worshipping Yahweh and keeping covenant relationship with Him.</p>


text:
<p>The Israelites didn’t remember Yahweh their God Who had delivered them out of the hand of all their enemies on every side- </p><p>They never formally abrogated Yahweh nor their covenant with Him, and would never have considered themselves atheists. Just as many of us never would. But they didn't "remember" Him nor His great salvation of them by grace; this was not constantly in their minds. And so it can be with us. This is why the breaking of bread service plays an important role in helping us not to forget these things.</p>


text:
<p>neither did they show kindness to the house of Jerubbaal, that is, Gideon, according to all the kindness which he had showed to Israel- </p><p>Gideon loved Israel. We recall how he showed kindness to them by not becoming their king but leaving Yahweh as their king. God had delivered the enemy into Gideon's personal hand (<a href='B:70 7:9'>Jdg 7:9</a>), but Gideon speaks of the enemies having been given into Israel's hand (<a href='B:70 7:15'>Jdg 7:15</a>; <a href='B:70 8:3'>Jdg 8:3</a>). Gideon was not out for personal justification, but for the victory of Israel. But ingratitude and failure to lastingly perceive such love toward us is sadly a feature of human nature.</p>


text:
<p>Abimelech the son of Jerubbaal went to Shechem to his mother’s brothers, and spoke with them and with all the family of the house of his mother’s father saying- </p><p>Abimelech means 'my father is king'. And indeed Abimelech did try to become King of all Israel (<a href='B:70 9:2'>Jdg 9:2</a>). As discussed on :2, Gideon overcame the temptation to become king, but only on an external level. In reality his behaviour was as if was a king in all but name. His weakness in this matter was repeated to a stronger degree in his son. Just as our weaknesses will be repeated and magnified in our children, as David's were in Solomon's love for horses and women.</p>


text:
<p>Please speak to all the men of Shechem and say, ‘Is it better for you that all the sons of Jerubbaal, seventy persons, should rule over you, or that one rule over you?’ Remember also that I am your bone and your flesh- </p><p>There is no evidence that the other sons were seeking to be king. Their father Gideon had been offered the kingship for himself and his sons, and he had refused it. Abimelech was likely responding to the fear that they might stop him from his plan, and so many crimes and sins are committed on the basis of eliminating possible opposition.</p><p>Time and again, the Bible is full of warnings against doing what seems right before God, when our motives are far from Him. Take the way that Gideon was invited to be king over Israel, but he refused, citing the fact that Yahweh is Israel's King. All well and good::. but the record goes on to record how he made an idolatrous ephod in his home town, to which all Israel came (<a href='B:70 8:22-24'>Jdg 8:22-24</a>). And he had a son, Abimelech- which means 'my father is king'!. And indeed Abimelech did try to become King of all Israel (<a href='B:70 9:2'>Jdg 9:2</a>). Our behaviour smacks of this time and time again. We do what is externally right, but our inward motives are impure. There's an urgent need for self-examination at depth within each of us::. and yet the busyness of our lives, our poor time management and lack of rigorous regime in spiritual life, so easily leads us not to seriously attempt this. And we end up doing things which are only externally right.</p>


text:
<p>His mother’s brothers told all the men of Shechem all these words, and their hearts inclined to follow Abimelech, for they said, He is our brother- </p><p>Shechem was apparently in the hands of the Hivites, so these men may not have been true Israelites. The idea is that their hearts were inclined (by God) to follow him (the same Hebrew phrase is in <a href='B:110 11:3'>1Ki 11:3</a>; <a href='B:230 119:36'>Psa 119:36</a>; <a href='B:230 141:4'>Psa 141:4</a>). Just as God inclined the hearts of the men of Shechem to follow Abimelech (<a href='B:70 9:3'>Jdg 9:3</a>), so He put an evil spirit / attitude of mind between them and Abimelech (:23). Clearly God can work directly upon the human heart according to His will. This is the basis of the way that the evil spirit (from the Lord) and the holy spirit work upon the hearts of men.</p>


text:
<p>They gave him seventy pieces of silver out of the house of Baal Berith, with which Abimelech hired reckless adventurers who followed him- </p><p>Abimelech was apparently an idolater. And yet <a href='B:70 10:1'>Jdg 10:1</a> implies that he was also a judge who saved Israel. His work for Israel isn't much recorded, and therefore we sense that as with the record of Samson, we have here the down points in his life.</p>


text:
<p>He went to his father’s house at Ophrah and killed his brothers the sons of Jerubbaal, seventy persons, on one stone; but Jotham the youngest son of Jerubbaal escaped, for he hid himself- </p><p>Tragically it was probably upon the rock upon which Gideon first sacrificed to Yahweh (<a href='B:70 6:20'>Jdg 6:20</a>) that his seventy sons were to be slain by Abimelech, with the help of men who worshipped Baal Berith</p>


text:
<p>All the men of Shechem assembled themselves together, and all the house of Millo, and went and made Abimelech king by the oak of the pillar that was in Shechem- </p><p>Oaks and pillars are associated with idolatry throughout the Old Testament. "The house of Millo" is likely also a reference to an idol temple. Yet <a href='B:70 10:1'>Jdg 10:1</a> implies Abimelech was a saviour and defender of Israel. At some point he must have repented of all this and done work for God. His proclamation as king was however a rejection of Yahweh as king; the very thing his father Gideon had refused to do. Yet even such a spiritually weak man was used to save His people:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>When they told Jotham he went and stood on the top of Mount Gerizim and shouted to them, Listen to me, you men of Shechem, so that God will listen to you- </p><p>God listens to those who hear His word, there is a mutuality between God and man. We hear His word, He listens to us. This implies Jotham's words were Divinely inspired. Mount Gerizim was the scene of the reciting of the curses and blessings, and Jotham is surely reminding the people that they are breaking covenant with God and can only be cursed.</p>


text:
<p>The trees went out one day to anoint a king to be over them; they said to the olive tree, ‘Reign over us’- </p><p>The trees refer to the people who wanted a king, one of themselves, a tree like them, but with superior qualities. Gideon had remonstrated that God was their king, and so they should not seek a human leader, another tree like them, but accept Yahweh as king.</p>


text:
<p>But the olive tree said to them ‘Should I give up my oil with which they honour God and man to go and hold sway over the trees?’- </p><p>These trees refused the other trees' desire for their rulership. This perhaps refer to unrecorded times when the sons of Gideon had been approached and asked to be king; and they had each refused, in line with how their father refused to be king, and refused the invitation to his sons also (<a href='B:70 8:23'>Jdg 8:23</a>). It was the priests who were to offer oil in order to honour God (<a href='B:30 2:1-16'>Lev 2:1-16</a>), and used it to anoint men for special purposes. Thus the olive who honoured both God and man with oil might possibly refer to a priest who was asked to become king, but refused it. It was more important to honour God and people, then to "hold sway over" people. And this is the point which those who desire leadership so often forget.</p>


text:
<p>The trees said to the fig tree, ‘Come and reign over us’- </p><p>These continual requests to men to "reign over us" reflect the basic tendency within human nature, to want to be submissive; to desire a human leader. The fact Israel were specifically not given a king, because the invisible God was their king, was in fact right against human nature.</p>


text:
<p>But the fig tree said to them, ‘Should I give up my good, sweet fruit to go to hold sway over the trees?’- </p><p>A good fig tree bears good fruit. But this wouldn't be possible if the tree was "promoted" (AV) to sway around over the other trees. Leadership positions so often mean that a person cannot quite be the person they were intended to be; something of their real self is lost and compromised. And this is why we should never seek leadership over others, because God has a specific role for us; and we will only become true leaders as a result of His guiding hand, rather than our seeking it.</p>


text:
<p>The trees said to the vine ‘Come and reign over us’- </p><p>Olive, vine and fig tree are all trees representative of Israel. But they each refused the invitation to be king. The idea would be that the true Israel would not seek to be king over itself. For Yahweh was their true king.</p>


text:
<p>The vine said to them, ‘Should I give up my new wine, which cheers God and man, to go to hold sway over the trees?’- </p><p>Wine was part of the offerings to God (<a href='B:40 15:7'>Num 15:7</a>; <a href='B:40 15:10'>Num 15:10</a>) which cheered God in that He was pleased with Israel's drink offerings.</p>


text:
<p>Then all the trees said to the thorn bush, ‘Come and reign over us’- </p><p>This refers to Abimelech, the illegitimate son of Gideon; and we recall that thorns were part of the curse. The people were so desperate for human leadership, and so insistent that they didn't want God's invisible leadership, that they would have even a symbol of the curse to reign over them.</p>


text:
<p>The thorn bush said to the trees, ‘If in truth you anoint me king over you, then come and take refuge in my shade; if not, let fire come out of the thorn bush and devour the cedars of Lebanon’- </p><p>But the thorn bush offers no shade. The Kingdom of God is likened to a tree giving shade (<a href='B:480 4:32'>Mar 4:32</a>), but the thorn bush cannot do this. Abimelech's pretension at being king is therefore presented as at best unhelpful. He demanded miserable submission to himself, and if he didn't get it, he would burn up the fine cedars of Lebanon- possibly a reference to Gideon's sons whom he slew. This is where bad leadership leads- the destruction of that which is beautiful. This very figure is used in <a href='B:450 11:1'>Zec 11:1</a>, of how the house / temple of the cedars of Lebanon was to be "devoured" (<a href='B:450 11:1'>Zec 11:1</a>)- as a result of Judah's corrupt, spiritually illegitimate leadership.</p>


text:
<p>Now therefore, consider whether you have done what is true and right in making Abimelech king, and whether you have done justly to Jerubbaal and his house as he deserves- </p><p>This was an appeal for their repentance. Jotham however makes no mention of how they had thereby rejected Yahweh as their king. He doesn't repeat that argument of his father Gideon, and lacked Samuel's spiritual insight; for he saw that this was the worst implication of desiring any human king. Instead he argues that Gideon's family were worth more respect than to slay his sons at the whim of the worthless king whom they had chosen. Yet he calls Gideon "Jerubbaal", in allusion to how Gideon had put down the Baal worship which they indulged in (:4).</p>


text:
<p>(For my father fought for you and risked his life and delivered you out of the hand of Midian-</p><p>As noted on :16, Jotham lacks spiritual insight here. For Gideon himself clearly saw the deliverance as worked by Yahweh and not himself. It was Yahweh's sword which had been his sword. And instead of emphasizing his father's human bravery as the basis for the deliverance, surely he ought to have stressed Gideon's faith in Yahweh. Yet despite this, Jotham was clearly a spiritual person; although as always with God's people at this time, his spirituality was very compromised by his humanity.</p><p>"Fought for you and risked his life" is the phrase Jonathan uses about David (1 Samuel 19; 1 Samuel 5). Yet Jonathan seems to have seen Gideon as his hero [compare <a href='B:90 14:10-20'>1Sa 14:10-20</a> with <a href='B:70 7:3'>Jdg 7:3</a>; <a href='B:70 7:10-11'>Jdg 7:10-11</a>; <a href='B:70 7:14'>Jdg 7:14</a>; <a href='B:70 7:22'>Jdg 7:22</a>. Jonathan's son was called Merib-baal (<a href='B:130 9:40'>1Ch 9:40</a>), meaning 'rebellion against Baal', an epithet for 'Gideon']. Yet in <a href='B:90 19:5'>1Sa 19:5</a> he says that "David put his life in his hand", exactly as Gideon did (<a href='B:70 9:17'>Jdg 9:17</a>). In other words, Jonathan saw David as the perfect fulfilment of all he spiritually wished to be, he felt that David&nbsp; lived up to the example of his hero Gideon, whereas he did not.</p>


text:
<p>yet you have risen up against my father’s house this day and have slain his sons, seventy persons, on one stone, and have made Abimelech the son of his female servant king over the men of Shechem, because he is your brother)- </p><p>So many times has this been repeated in the history of God's people, to this day. Petty nepotism, the support of a close relative within the church, leads to the destruction and exclusion of other far more spiritual families. However Jotham reasons as if Gideon had in fact been king, and therefore his successor ought not to have been his illegitimate son, but one of his legitimate sons. I noted on <a href='B:70 8:23'>Jdg 8:23</a> that although Gideon turned down being king, he effectively set himself up as king in all but name. He took the wealth of Israel, clothed himself in kingly purple clothes and had a son called "My father is king", i:e. Abimelech. And Jotham appears to go along with this in how he reasons:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>If you have done what is true and right with Jerubbaal and with his house this day, then rejoice in Abimelech and let him also rejoice in you- </p><p>As discussed on :18, Jotham implies that the right thing would have been to appoint one of Gideon's legitimate sons as king in his place. For he keeps on about how they should have treated his family / house far differently than they had. Doing what was "true and right" is a quotation from <a href='B:60 24:14'>Jos 24:14</a>, where doing this involved quitting idolatry; which they evidently hadn't done (:4). So although Jotham reveals much human reasoning, his heart was very much with Yahweh rather than Baal worship.</p>


text:
<p>But if not, let fire come out from Abimelech and devour the men of Shechem and the house of Millo, and let fire come out from the men of Shechem and from the house of Millo and devour Abimelech- </p><p>The end result would be self destruction, of the kind which had characterized his father Gideon's great victory against the Midianites. Fire coming out of a thorn bush uses the very words of <a href='B:20 22:6'>Exo 22:6</a>; and the one who did that was to make restitution and bear guilt. Jotham was aware of Bible verses and yet not all of his reasoning was completely spiritual.</p>


text:
<p>Jotham ran away and fled and went to Beer and lived there, for fear of Abimelech his brother-</p><p>Beer may be Beeroth in Benjamin's highlands (<a href='B:60 9:17'>Jos 9:17</a>). Often the Bible leaves us with limited information about a person, such as Jotham, and we are to imagine how his life in exile ended, and whether, given the evidence we have, he held on in faith or not.</p>


text:
<p>Abimelech was prince over Israel for three years- </p><p>It appears to have&nbsp; been in this period that he judged Israel and saved them from their enemies (<a href='B:70 10:1'>Jdg 10:1</a>), although he had not been a very spiritual person before that. The implication really is that he must have repented to some degree.</p>


text:
<p>God sent an evil spirit between Abimelech and the men of Shechem, and the men of Shechem dealt treacherously with Abimelech-</p><p>Although God created the division between Israel and Judah as a punishment for their apostasy (cp. how He gave Egypt and the Shechemites a spirit of disunity likewise, <a href='B:290 19:1-2'>Isa 19:1-2</a>; <a href='B:290 19:14'>Isa 19:14</a>; <a href='B:70 9:23'>Jdg 9:23</a>), God never essentially recognized that division; for there was one Israel, one body. But division is indeed a sign of Divine judgment upon a community. Their hearts had been inclined (by God) to follow him (:3; the same Hebrew phrase is in <a href='B:110 11:3'>1Ki 11:3</a>; <a href='B:230 119:36'>Psa 119:36</a>; <a href='B:230 141:4'>Psa 141:4</a>). But just as God inclined the hearts of the men of Shechem to follow Abimelech (<a href='B:70 9:3'>Jdg 9:3</a>), so now He put an evil spirit / attitude of mind between them and Abimelech. Clearly God can work directly upon the human heart according to His will. This is the basis of the way that the evil spirit (from the Lord) and the holy spirit work upon the hearts of men.</p>


text:
<p>so that the violence done to the seventy sons of Jerubbaal might be avenged, and that their blood might be laid on Abimelech their brother who killed them, and on the men of Shechem who helped him to kill his brothers- </p><p>God punished this massacre by putting a divided attitude in the hearts of those responsible, so that they killed each other. Just as He had destroyed the Midianites in the time of Gideon. Turning people against themselves is a common way God has brought about destruction of those under judgment; so division is indeed a sign of Divine judgment upon a community.</p>


text:
<p>The men of Shechem set an ambush for him on the tops of the mountains, and they robbed all who came along that way. This was reported to Abimelech- </p><p>They didn't catch Abimelech himself, but robbed others. The division and falling out between Abimelech and the men of Shechem was revealed in the way they took to highway robbery, apparently against Abimelech's wish, and refused his authority. The mountain top road would have been that between Shechem and Ophrah, Gideon's town, which Abimelech would have treated now as his own, seeing he had slain all Gideon's sons and Jotham was in exile. Again we marvel at the internal corroboration of the Biblical records.</p>


text:
<p>Gaal the son of Ebed came with his brothers and went over to Shechem, and the men of Shechem put their trust in him- </p><p>Gaal, "loathing", was son of a slave. He may well have been a local Canaanite. That the men of Shechem wanted such a man as their leader says much about them.</p>


text:
<p>They went out into the field and harvested their vineyards, trod the grapes and held a festival, and went into the house of their god, ate and drank and cursed Abimelech- </p><p>We note how pagan worship was associated with eating and drinking wine, getting drunk. The church at Corinth mixed Christianity and paganism to the extent that the breaking of bread service was turned into a time of feasting and getting drunk.</p>


text:
<p>Gaal the son of Ebed said, Who is Abimelech and who is Shechem, that we should serve him? Isn’t he the son of Jerubbaal and Zebul his officer? Serve the men of Hamor the father of Shechem, but why should we serve Abimelech?- </p><p>GNB suggests: "Gaal said, "What kind of men are we in Shechem? Why are we serving Abimelech? Who is he, anyway? The son of Gideon! And Zebul takes orders from him, but why should we serve him? Be loyal to your ancestor Hamor, who founded your clan!". But I think the idea is probably not this. Rather, Gaal is saying that Gideon and Zebul were servants to Hamor, the ancient father of the town of Shechem (Genesis 34), whereas it was about time that Shechem became independent. They should no longer be under the thumb of Abimelech, through his servant Zebul whom he had appointed over the city (:30). Or he may mean 'Let us show our loyalty to ancient Hamor who founded this city, whom Jacob's sons wickedly destroyed- and I will be your leader, and let us shake off the yoke of the sons of Jacob'. This would make sense if indeed Gaal was a Canaanite and not an Israelite, and the population of Shechem was largely Canaanite.</p>


text:
<p>If only this people were under my hand! Then I would remove Abimelech. He said to Abimelech, Increase your army and come out!- </p><p>These things may all have been said whilst drunk (:27,28). Abimelech was apparently not in Shechem at the time, having left Zebul to govern Shechem (:30,31).</p>


text:
<p>When Zebul the ruler of the city heard the words of Gaal the son of Ebed, his anger was kindled- </p><p>We wonder if Zebul was also in the idol temple, and heard these words himself there (:27,38). Abimelech and his men are not portrayed as exactly spiritual people.</p>


text:
<p>He sent messengers to Abimelech secretly saying, Look, Gaal the son of Ebed and his brothers have come to Shechem and they are inciting the city against you- </p><p>"Secretly" could be “in Tormah”, the name of a place, perhaps another name for Arumah in :41. For Abimelech was clearly not living in Shechem.</p>


text:
<p>Now therefore, go up by night, you and the people who are with you, and lie in wait in the field- </p><p>"Up by night" is the same words as found in the Divine command to his father Gideon, to "arise" by night and attack the Midianites (<a href='B:70 7:9'>Jdg 7:9</a>). But he was only imitating his father on a surface level; see on :34.</p>


text:
<p>In the morning, as soon as the sun is up, you can rise early and rush on the city, and when he and the people who are with him come out against you, then may you do to them as you see fit- </p><p>The battle strategy of Abimelech, setting an ambush (<a href='B:70 9:32'>Jdg 9:32</a>), rising early and rushing upon the city of his one time brethren (<a href='B:70 9:33'>Jdg 9:33</a>), was replicated by the Israelites in <a href='B:70 20:37'>Jdg 20:37</a>. The same Hebrew words are used. But it was a case of copying an example just because it was recorded in Divine history, following precedents which were in fact not at all good. Hollow imitation of the behaviour of others is an abiding temptation for us today.</p>


text:
<p>Abimelech and all the people who were with him got up by night and they laid wait against Shechem in four companies- </p><p>We get the impression he was trying to imitate his father Gideon, who made an attack upon the Midianites in three companies at night, having been bidden arise or 'get up' by night (s:w. <a href='B:70 7:9'>Jdg 7:9</a>). And he certainly imitates Gideon in :48. But he was totally missing the point- he was trying to make a cardboard copy of another man's faith, following only the externalities, without Gideon's faith and humility.</p>


text:
<p>Gaal the son of Ebed went out and stood in the entrance of the gate of the city, and Abimelech and the people who were with him got up from the ambush- </p><p>The men of Shechem had earlier tried to ambush Abimelech, and now he ambushes them- continuing the theme of wicked men destroying themselves.</p>


text:
<p>When Gaal saw the people he said to Zebul, Look, people are coming down from the tops of the mountains. Zebul said to him, You are seeing the shadows of the mountains as if they were men- </p><p>This may be as if to say to Gaal 'you're drunk, you're not seeing straight'. Perhaps Zebul remained in a drunken stupor for some days after the massive drinking session of :27.</p>


text:
<p>Gaal spoke again and said, Look, people are coming down by the middle of the land, and one company is coming by the way of the oak of Meonenim- </p><p>Oaks are usually associated with idolatry in the Hebrew Bible. "Meonenim" is the word for magician, sorcerer etc. These pagan place names should have been removed and renamed. Even in secular history, a new entity which comes to power renames the previous cities and streets, to eradicate the memory of the philosophy, history and culture which they have replaced. The USSR did this when they took over the republics. But Israel just didn't do this in the land- because they themselves believed in the idols of those whom Yahweh had given them victory over.</p>


text:
<p>Then Zebul said to him, Now where is your boast when you said ‘Who is Abimelech, that we should serve him?’ Isn’t this the people that you have despised? Go out now and fight with them- </p><p>This again suggests Zebul had been in the idol temple when Gaal had made his drunken boast (:27). Abimelech and his men are not portrayed as exactly spiritual people.</p>


text:
<p>Gaal went out before the men of Shechem and fought with Abimelech- </p><p>Gaal going "before the men of Shechem" suggests he got his brief moment of power and leadership which he had so craved- but just for a morning.</p>


text:
<p>Abimelech chased him and he fled from him, and many fell wounded, up to the entrance of the gate- </p><p>The same phrase is in <a href='B:130 5:22'>1Ch 5:22</a>: "For there fell many slain [wounded], because the war was of God". This was indeed "of God", but it doesn't make Abimelech thereby righteous. He was used to judge the Canaanites living in Shechem and their would be leader Gaal, and perhaps that is one of the ways in which Abimelech was a judge of Israel who saved them from their enemies (<a href='B:70 10:1'>Jdg 10:1</a>). In this sense we see a similarity with Samson, whose following of his own natural desires was used in order to save Israel from their enemies:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>Abimelech lived at Arumah, and Zebul drove out Gaal and his brothers, so that they should not dwell in Shechem- </p><p>As often in the Hebrew Bible, this is a summary of the situation, and we will now read how this came about.</p>


