Vers. 24-29. When all the men of Ai, who had come o»t to pursue the Israelites, had been slain upon the field (namely) in the desert, all Israel returned to Ai and smote it (the town, i.e. the inhabitants), so that on that day there fell of men and women 12,000, all the people of Ai: for Joshua did not draw back his hand, which had been stretched out with the javelin, till all the inhabitants of Ai were smitten with the ban, i.e. -put to death; according to the common custom of war, that the general did not lower the warsignal till the conflict was to cease (see Sitidas in ^rjfieia, and Lipsius de militia, Rom. iv. dial. 12). — Ver. 27. Only the cattle and the rest of the booty the conquerors retained for themselves, according to the word of the Lord (ver. 2). — Yer. 28. Joshua had the town burnt down and made into a heap of rubbish for ever. — Ver. 29. He had the king of Ai hanged upon a tree, i.e. put to death, and then suspended upon a stake (see Num. xxv. 4) until the evening; but at sunset he had him taken down (in accordance with Deut. xxi. 22, 23), and thrown at the entrance of the towngate, and a heap of stones piled upon him (as in the case of Achan, chap. vii. 26).
Yers. 30-35. Blessings and Curses upon Geeizim and Ebal. — After the capture of Ai, Israel had gained so firm a footing in Canaan that Joshua was able to carry out the instructions of Moses in Deut. xxvii., that, after crossing the Jordan, he was to build an altar upon Mount Ebal for the setting up of the covenant. The fulfilment of these instructions, according to the meaning of this solemn act, as a symbolical setting up of the law of the Lord to be the invariable rule of life to the people of Israel in the land of Canaan (see at Deut. xxvii.), was not only a practical expression of thanksgiving on the part of the covenant nation for its entrance into this land through the almighty assistance of its God, but also a practical acknowledgment, that in the overthrow of the Canaanites thus far it had received a strong pledge of the conquest of tl'.e foes that still remained and the capture of the whole of the promised land, provided only it persevered in covenant faithfulness towards the Lord its God. The account of this transaction is attached, it is true, to the conquest of Ai by the introduction, *' Then Joshua built,'' etc. (ver. 30); but simply as an occurrence which had no logical connection with the conquest of Canaan anu the defeat of its kings. The particle TX {sequ. imperf.) is used, for example, in cases where the historian either wishes to introduce contemporaneous facts, that do not carry forward the main course of the history, or loses sight for the time of the strictly historical sequence and simply takes note of the occurrence of some particular event (yid. Ewald, § 136, b.). The assertion of modern critics, which Knobel repeats, that this account is out of place in the series of events as contained in chap, vi.-xii., is so far correct, that the promulgation of the law and the renewal of the covenant upon Ebal form no integral part of the account of the conquest of Canaan; but it by no means proves that this section has been interpolated by the Jehovist from his first document, or by the last editor of this book from some other source, and that what is related here did not take place at the time referred to. The circumstance that, according to chap, vi.-viii. 29, Joshua had only effected the conquest of Jericho in the south of the land from Gilgal as a base, and that even in chap. ix. and x. he was still engaged in the south, by no means involves the impossibility or even the improbability of a march to Shechem, which was situated further north, where he had not yet beaten the Canaanites, and had not effected any conquests. The distance from Ai to Shechem between Gerizim and Ebal is about thirty miles in a straight line. Robinson made the journey from Bireh (Beeroth) to Sichem on mules in eleven and a half hours, and that not by the most direct route (Pal. iii. pp. 81-2), and Ai was not more than an hour to the south of Beeroth; so that Joshua could have gone with the people from Ai to Gerizim and Ebal in two days without any excessive exertion. Now, even if the conquests of the Israelites had not extended further north than Ai at that time, there was no reason why Joshua should be deterred from advancing further into the land by any fear of attack from the Canaanites, as the people of war who went with him would be able to repulse any hostile attack; and after the news had spread of the fate of Ai and Jericho, no Canaanitish king would be likely to venture upon a conflict with the Israelites alone. Moreover, Shechem had no king, as we may gather from the list of the thirty-one kings who were defeated by Joshua. To the further remark of Knobel, that " there was no reason for their hurrying with this ceremony, and it might have been carried out at a later period in undisturbed security," we simply reply, that obedience to the command of God was not a matter of such indifference to the servant of the Lord as Knobel imagines. There was no valid reason after the capture of
Ai for postponing any longer the solemn ceremony dF setting up the law of Jehovah which had been enjoined by Moses; and if we consider the reason for this solemnity, to which we have already referred, there can be no doubt that Joshua would proceed without the least delay to set up the law of the Lord in Canaan as early as possible, even before the subjugation of the whole land, that he might thereby secure the help of God for further conflicts and enterprises. The account of this religious solemnity is given very briefly. It presupposes an acquaintance with the Mosaic instructions in Deut. xxvii., and merely gives the leading points, to show that those instructions were carefully carried out by Joshua. Of the three distinct acts of which the ceremony consisted, in the book of Deuteronomy the setting up of the stones with the law written upon them is mentioned first (Deut. xxvii. 2-4), and then (vers. 5-7) the building of the altar and the offering of sacrifice. Here, on the contrary, the building of the altar and offering of sacrifice are mentioned first (vers. 30, 31), and then (ver. 32) the writing of the law upon the stones; which was probably the order actually observed. — In ver. 30 Jehovah is called " the God of Israel,'' to show that henceforth no other god was to be worshipped in Canaan tlian the God of Israel. On Mount JEbal, see at Deut. xi. 29 and xxvii. 4. — Ver. 31. " As Moses commanded:" namely, Deut. xxviL 5. " As it is written in the book of the law of Moses:" viz. in Ex. XX. 22 {25). On the presentation of burnt-offerings and slainofferings, see at Deut. xxvii. 6, 7. — In ver. 32 nothing is mentioned but the writing of the law upon the stones; all the rest is presupposed from Deut. xxvii. 2 sqq., to which the expression "i/ie stones" refers. " Copy of the law:'' as in Deut. xvii. 18; see the explanation at Deut. xxvii. 3. In connection with the third part of the ceremony, the promulgation of the law with the blessing and cursing, the account of the Mosaic instructions given in Deut. xxvii. 11 sqq. is completed in ver. 33 by the statement that "all Israel, and their elders (i.e. with their elders), and shoterim, and judges," stood on both sides of the ark before the Levitical priests, the stranger as well as the native, i.e. without any exception, one half (i.e. six tribes) towards Mount Ebal, and the other half towards Mount Gerizim. For further remarks, see at Deut. xxvii. 11 sqq. "As Moses commanded to bless the people before:" i.e. as he had previously commanded. The fact that the thought itself does not suit the context is quite sufficient to show that the explanation given by many commentators, viz. that they were to commence with the blessings, is incorrect. But if, on the other hand, we connect the word " before" with the principal verb of the sentence, " commanded," the meaning will be that Moses did not give the command to proclaim the blessings and cursings to the people for the first time in connection with these instructions (Deut. xxvii.), but had done so before, at the very outset, namely, as early as Deut. xi. 29. — Ver. 34. " And afterwards (after the people had taken the place assigned them) he read to them all the words of the law,''' i.e. he had the law proclaimed aloud by the persons entrusted with the proclamation of the law, viz. the Levitical priests. K'Ji', lit. to call out or proclaim, then in a derivative sense to read, inasmuch as reading aloud is proclaiming (as, for example, in Ex. xxiv. 7). The words " the blessing and the curse" are in apposition to " all the words of the law," which they serve to define, and are not to be understood as relating to the blessings in Deut. xxviii. 1-14, and the curses in Deut. xxvii. 15-26 and xxviii. 15-68. The whole law is called " the blessing and the curse" with special reference to its contents, inasmuch as the fulfilment of it brings eo ipso a blessing, and the transgression of it eo ipso a curse. In the same manner, in Deut. xi. 26, Moses describes the exposition of the whole law in the steppes of Moab as setting before them blessing and cursing. In ver. 35 it is most distinctly stated that Joshua had the whole law read to the people; whilst the expression " all Israel," in ver. 33, is more fully explained as signifying not merely the congregation in its representatives, or even the men of the nation, but " all the congregation of Israel, with the women, and the little ones, and the strangers that were in the midst of it."
Nothing is said about the march of Joshua and all Israel to Gerizim and Ebal. All that we know is, that he not only took with him the people of war and the elders or heads of tribes, but all the people. It follows from this, however, that the whole of the people must have left and completely vacated the camp at Gilgal in the valley of the Jordan. For if all Israel went to the mountains of Gerizim and Ebal, which were situated in the midst of the land, taking even the women and children with them, it is not likely that they left their cattle and other possessions behind them in Gilgal, exposed to the danger of being plundered in the meantime by the Canaanites of the southern mountains. So again we are not informed in what follows (chap. ix. sqq.) in which direction Joshua and the people went after these solemnities at Ebal and Gerizim were over. It is certainly not stated that he went back to Gilgal in the Jordan valley, and pitched his tent again on the old site. No doubt \ve find Gilgal still mentioned as the encampment of Israel, not only in chap. ix. 6, x. 6, 9, 15, 43, but even after the defeat and subjugation of the Canaanites in the south and north, when a commencement was made to distribute the land (chap. xiv. 6). But when it is asked whether this Gilgal was the place of encampment on the east of Jericho, which received its name from the circumcision of the whole nation which took place there, or the town of Gilgal by the side of the terebinths of Moreh, which is mentioned in Deut. xi. 30, and by which Moses defines the situation of Gerizim and Ebal, this question cannot be answered unhesitatingly according to the traditional view, viz. in favour of the encampment in the Jordan valley. For when not only the army, but all the people with their wives and children, had once proceeded from the Jordan valley to the mountains of Gerizim and Ebal, we cannot imagine any reason why Joshua should go back again to the plain of Jericho, that is to say, to the extreme corner of Canaan on the east, for the purpose of making that the base of his operations for the conquest and extermination of the Canaanites. And there is just as much improbability in the assumption, that after Joshua had not only defeated the kings of southern Canaan, who had allied themselves with Adonizedek of Jerusalem in the battle fought at Gibeon (chap, x.), but had also overthrown the kings of northern Canaan, who were allied with Jabin of Hazor at the waters of Merom above the Sea of Galilee (chap, xi.), he should return again to Gilgal in the Jordan valley, and there quietly encamp with all the people, and commence the distribution of the land. The only thing that could bring us to assent to such extremely improbable assumptions, would be the fact that there was no other Gilgal in all Canaan than the encampment to the east of Jericho, which received the name of Gilgal for the first time from the Israelites themselves. But as the other Gilgal by the side of the terebinths of Moreh — i.e. the present Jiljilia, which stands upon an eminence on the south-west of Shiloh at about the same distance from Jerusalem as from Sichem — was a well-known place even in Moses' days (Deut. xi. 30), and from its situation on a lofty ridge, from which you can see the great lowlands and the sea towards the west, the mountains of Gilead towards the east, and far away in the north-east even Hermon itself (Roh. Pal. iii. p. 81), was peculiarly well adapted for a place of encampment, from which Joshua could carry on the conquest of the land toward both the north and south, we can come to no other conclusion than that this Gilgal or Jiljilia was the Gilgal mentioned in chap. ix. 6, X. 6, 9, 15, 43, and xiv. 6, as the place where the Israelites were encamped. We therefore assume, that after the setting up of the law on Gerizim and Ebal, Joshua did not conduct the people with their wives and children back again to the camp which they had left in the Jordan valley on the other side of Jericho, but chose the Gilgal which was situated upon the mountains, and only seven hours' journey to the south of Sichem, as the future place of encampment, and made this the central point of all his further military operations; and that this was the place to which he returned after his last campaign in the north, to commence the division of the conquered land among the tribes of Israel (chap. xiv. 6), and where he remained till the tabernacle was permanently erected at Sliiloh, when the further distribution was carried on there (chap, xviii. 1 sqq.). This view, which even Van de Velde (Memoir, p. 316) has adopted as probable, is favoured still further by the fact that this Gilgal or Jiljilia, which is still a large village, is frequently mentioned in the subsequent history of Israel, not only in 2 Kings ii. 1 and iv. 38, as the seat of a school of the prophets in the time of Elijah and Elisha, and in Hos. iv. 15, ix. 15, xii. 12, Amos iv. 4, V. 5, as a place which was much frequented for the purpose of idolatrous worship; but even at an earlier date still, namely, as one of the places where Samuel judged the people (1 Sam. vii. 16), and as the place where he offered sacrifice (1 Sam. x. 8; cf. xiii. 7-9), and where he gathered the people together to confirm the monarchy of Saul (1 Sam. xi. 14, 15), at a time when the tabernacle at Shiloh had ceased to be the only national sanctuary of Israel, on account of the ark having been taken away. Gilgal had no doubt acquired this significance along with Bethel, which had been regarded as a holy place ever since the time of Jacob, from the fact that it was there that Joshua had established the camp of Israel with the ark of the covenant, until the land was divided, and Shiloh was appointed as the site for the national sanctuary.
The victorious advance of the Israelites in the land induced the kings of Canaan to form a common league for the purpose of resisting them. But, as frequently happens, the many kings and lords of the towns and provinces of Canaan were not all united, so as to make a common and vigorous attack. Before the league had been entered into, the inhabitants of Gibeon, one of the largest towns in the central part of Canaan, together with the smaller neighbouring towns that were dependent upon it, attempted to anticipate the danger which threatened them by means of a stratagem, and to enter into a friendly alliance with the Israelites. And they succeeded, inasmuch as Joshua and the elders of the congregation of Israel fell into the snare that was laid for them by the ambassadors of the Gibeonites, who came to the camp at Gilgal, and made the desired treaty with them, without inquiring of the Lord. " This account," as 0. v. Gerlach says, " is a warning to the Church of God of all ages against the cunning and dissimulation of the world, which often seeks for a peaceable recognition on the part of the kingdom of God, and even for a reception into it, whenever it may be its advantage to do so."
Vers. 1, 2, form the introduction to cliaps. ix.-xi., and correspond to the introduction in chap. v. 1. The news of the miraculous passage of the Israelites through the Jordan had thrown all the kings of Canaan into such despair, that they did not venture to make any attack upon Israel. But they gradually recovered from their first panic, partly, no doubt, in consequence of the failure of the first attack of the Israelites upon Ai, and resolved to join together in making war upon the foreign invaders. The kings of Canaan did this when they heard, sc. what Israel had hitherto undertaken and accomplished, not merely " what Joshua had done to Jericho and Ai" {Knobel): that is to say, all the kings across the Jordan, i.e. in the country to the west of the Jordan {]Y]\>} "i^y, as in chap. v. 1), viz. " zipon the mountains" (not only the mountains of Judah, as in chap. x. 40, xi. 16, etc., but all the mountains which run throughout the whole length of Canaan, as in Deut. i. 7 and Num. xiii. 17: see the explanation of the latter passage); " in the lowlands^^ {shephelah, the low-lying country between the mountains and the sea-coast, which is simply intersected by small rano-es of hills; see at Deut. i. 7); " and on all the coast of the Great Sea towards Lebanon" i.e. the narrow coast of the Mediterranean Sea from Joppa up to the Ladder of Tyre (see at Deut. i. 7). The different tribes of the Canaanites are also mentioned by name, as in chap. iii. 10, except that the Girgashites are omitted. These gathered themselves together to fight with Joshua and Israel with one mouth, or with one accord (1 Kings xxii. 13).
Vers. 3-5. But the inhabitants of a republic, which included not only Gibeon the capital, but the towns of Chephirah, Beeroth, and Kirjath-jearim also, acted differently from the rest. Giheon {Fa/Sdcov, Gahaon, LXX. Vulg.) was larger than Ai, being one of the royal cities (chap. x. 2), and was inhabited by Hivites, who were a brave people (chap. x. 7, xi. 19). It was afterwards allotted to the tribe of Benjamin, and set apart as a Levitical town (chap, xviii. 25, xxi. 17). After the destruction of Nob by Saul, the tabernacle was removed thither, and there it remained till the building of Solomon's temple (1 Chron. xvi. 39, xxi. 29; 1 Kings iii. 4, 5; 2 Chron. i. 3 sqq.). According to Josephus, it was forty or fifty stadia from Jerusalem, and judging from its name was built upon a hill. It is to be found in the modern Jib, two good hours' journey to the north-west of Jerusalem, a village of moderate size, on a long chalk hill which overlooks a very fertile, well cultivated plain, or rather a basin, consisting of broad valleys and plains, and rises like a vineyard, in the form of separate terraces (Strauss, Sinai, p. 332). The remains of large massive buildings of great antiquity are still to be seen there, also some fountains, and two large subterraneous reservoirs (vid. Rob. Pal. ii. p. 136). When the Gibeonites heard of the fate of Jericho and Ai, they also did (something) with stratagem. In the expression nan Da (" they also^') there is a reference implied to what Joshua had done at Jericho and Ai; not, however, to the stratagem resorted to in the case of Ai, as such an allusion would not apply to Jericho. Thet/ set out as ambassadors: 1"i*^?V^ from "i"'V, which occurs in every other instance in the form of a noun, signifying a messenger (Prov. xiii. 17, etc.). In the Ilithpael it means to make themselves ambassadors, to travel as ambassadors. The translators of the ancient versions, however, adopted the reading ^'I'^VI, they provided themselves with food; but this was nothing more than a conjecture founded upon ver. 12, and without the slightest critical value. They also took " old sacks upon their asses, and old mended winei*.K?iS." C'l'jVp, from T^V) lit' bound together, is very characteristic. There are two modes adopted in the East of repairing skins when torn, viz. inserting a patch, or tying up the piece that is torn in the form of a bag. Here the reference is to the latter, which was mo6t in harmony with their statement, that the skins had got injured upon their long journey. Also " old mended sandals upon their feet, and old clothes upon them (upon their bodies); and all the bread of their provisions had become dry and quite mouldy." ^''']^., lit.
Vers. 6-15. Having made these preparations, they went to the Israelitish camp at Gilgal (Jiljilia), introduced themselves to the men of Israel (5^^, in a collective sense, the plural being but little used, and only occurring in Prov. viii. 4, Isa. liii. 3, and Ps. cxli. 4) as having come from a distant land, and asked them to make a league with them. But the Israelites hesitated, and said to the Hivites, i.e. the Gibeonites who were Hivites, that they might perhaps be living in the midst of them (the Israelites), i.e. in the land of Canaan, which the Israelites already looked upon as their own; and if so, how could they make a league with them? This hesitation on their part was founded upon the express command of God, that they were not to make any league with the tribes of Canaan (Ex. xxiii. 32, xxxiv. 12; Num. xxxiii. 55; Deut. vii. 2, etc.). In reply to this the Gibeonites simply said, " We are thy servants^* (ver. 8), i.e. we are at thy service, wdiich, according to the obsequious language common in the East, was nothing more than a phrase intended to secure the favour of Joshua, and by no means implied a readiness on their part to submit to the Israelites and pay them tribute, as JRosenmidler, Knohel, and others suppose; for, as Grotius correctly observes, what they wished for was " a friendly alliance, by which both their territory and also full liberty would be secured to themselves." The Keri l^***!! (ver. 7) is nothing more than a critical conjecture, occasioned not so much by the singular K'''N, which is frequently construed in the historical writings as a collective noun with a plural verb, as by the singular suffix attached to ^?"li?f J which is to be explained on the ground that only one of the Israelites (viz. Joshua) was speaking as the mouthpiece of all the rest. The plural l"ipN*1 is used, because Joshua spoke in the name of the people. — Ver. 8. To the further question put by Joshua, where they had come from, the Gibeonites replied, " From a very distant land hare thy servants come, because of the name of Jehovah thy God" or as they themselves proceed at once to explain: " for we have heard the fame (fama) of Him, and all that He did in Egypt, and to Sihon and Og, the two kings of the Amorites." They very wisely say nothing about the miracles connected with the crossing of the Jordan and the taking of Jericho, since, " as the iuhabit- ants of a very far distant region, they could not have heard anything about things tliat had occurred so lately, even by report" (Masius). — Vers. 11 sqq. When these tidings reached them, they were sent off by the elders (the leaders of the republic) and the inhabitants of the land to meet the Israelites, that they might offer them their service, and form an alliance w^ith them. In confirmation of this, they point to their dried provisions, and their torn and mended skins and clothes. — Vers. 14, 15. The Israelites suffered themselves to be taken in by this pretence. " The men (thfi elders of Israel) took of their provisions; but they did not ask the, mouth of the Lord^ Instead of inquiring the will of the Lord in this matter through the Urim and Thummim of the high priest (Num. xxvii. 21), they contented themselves with taking some of the bread that was shown them, and tasting it; as if the dry mouldy bread furnished a safe guarantee of the trnth of the words of these foreign ambassadors. Some commentators regard their taking of their provisions as a sign of mutual friendship, or of the league which they made; but in that case their eating with them would at any rate have been mentioned. Among the Arabs, simply eating bread and salt with a guest is considered a sign of peace and friendship.— Ver. 15. So Joshua made (granted) them peace {yid. Isa. xxvii. 5), and concluded a covenant with them (^D^j in their favour), to let them live; and the princes of the congregation sware unto them. Letting them live is the only article of the league that is mentioned, both because this was the main point, and also with special reference to the fact that the Gibeonites, being Canaanites, ought properly to have been destroyed. It is true that Joshua and the princes of the congregation had not violated any express command of God by doing this; for the only thing prohibited in the law was making treaties with the Canaanites, which they did not suppose the Gibeonites to be, whilst in Deut. xx. 11, where wars with foreign nations (not Canaanites) are referred to, permission is given to make peace with them, so that all treaties with foreign nations are not forbidden. But they had failed in this respect, that, trusting to the crafty words of the Gibeonites, and to outward appearances only, they had forgotten their attitude to the Lord their God, who had promised to His congregation, in all important matters, a direct revelation of His own will.
Vers. 16-27. Three days after the treaty had been concluded, the Israelites discovered that they had been deceived, and that their allies dwelt among them (see ver. 7). They set out therefore to deal with the deceivers, and reached their towns Gibeon, Chephirah, Beeroth, and Kirjath-jearim on the third day. Chephirah, which was afterwards allotted to the tribe of Benjamin along with Gibeon and Beeroth, and was still inhabited after the captivity (chap, xviii. 25, 26; Ezra ii. 25; Neh. vii. 29), is to be seen in the ruins of Kejir, an hour's journey to the east of Yalo, in the mountains, and three hours to the west of Gibeon (see Hob. Bibl. Res. p. 146, and Van de Velde, Memoir, pp. 303-4). Beeroth, Brjpcod, according to Eusehius (Onom. s. v.) a hamlet near Jerusalem, and seven miles on the road to Nicopolis (it should read Neapolis), was in the tribe of Benjamin (2 Sam. iv. 2), and still exists in the large village of Bireh, which is situated upon a mountain nine Roman miles to the north of Jerusalem in a stony and barren district, and has still several springs and a good well, besides the remains of a fine old church of the time of the Crusades (see Rob. Pal. ii. pp. 130 sqq.; Seetzen, R. ii. pp. 195-6). Kirjathjearim, also called Kirjath-haal (chap. xv. 60), Baalah (chap. xv. 9), and Baal-Jehuda (2 Sam. vi. 2), was allotted to the tribe of Judah. It stood upon the boundary between Judah and Benjamin (chap. XV. 60, xviii. 15); and the ark remained there, after it had been sent back by the Philistines, until the time of David (1 Sam. vii. 2; 2 Sam. vi. 2; 1 Chron. xiii. 5, 6). According to the Onom., s. V. KaptaOiapelfjb and BaaX, it was nine or ten Roman miles from Jerusalem, on the road to Diospolis (Lydda), and is probably to be seen in the present Kuryet el Enab, a considerable village with a large number of olive trees, figs, pomegranates, and vineyards, from the last of which the old " town of the forests" has received the more modern name of " town of the vine" (see Rob. Pal. ii. p. 335, and Bibl. Res. pp. 156-7; and Seetzen, ii. p. 65). These towns, which formed one republic with Gibeon, and were governed by elders, were at so short a distance from Gilgal (Jiljilia), that the Israelites could reach it in one or two days. The expression " on the third day" is not at variance with this; for it is not stated that Israel took three days to march there, but simply that they arrived there on the third day after receiving the intelligence of the arrival of the ambassadors. — Yer. 18. " The Israelites smote them not," sc. with the edge of the sword, " because the princes of the congregation had sicorn to them," sc. to let them live (ver. 15); but, notwithstanding the murmuring of the congregation, they declared that they might not touch them because of their oath. " This {sc. what we have sworn) we will do to them, and let them live ('^.IQ'!!, inf.
ahs. with special emphasis instead of the finite verb), lest wrath come upon us because of the oath" Wrath (sc. of God), a judgment such as fell upon Israel in the time of David, because Saul disregarded this oath and sought to destroy the Gibeonites (2 Sam. xxi. 1 sqq.). But how could the elders of Israel consider themselves bound by their oath to grant to the Gibeonites the preservation of life which had been secured to them by the treaty they had made, when the very supposition upon which the treaty was made, viz. that the Gibeonites did not belong to the tribes of Canaan, was proved to be false, and the Gibeonites had studiously deceived them by pretending that they had come from a very distant land? As they had been absolutely forbidden to make any treaties with the Canaanites, it might be supposed that, after the discovery of the deception which had been practised upon them, the Israelitish rulers would be under no obligation to observe the treaty which they had made with the Gibeonites in full faith in the truth of their word. And no doubt from the stand-point of strict justice this view appears to be a right one. But the princes of Israel shrank back from breaking the oath which, as is emphatically stated in ver. 19, they had sworn by Jehovah the God of Israel, not because they assumed, as JTaii/f supposes, "that an oath simply regarded as an outward and holy transaction had an absolutely binding force," but because they were afraid of bringing the name of the God of Israel into contempt among the Canaanites, which they would have done if they had broken the oath which they had sworn by this God, and had destroyed the Gibeonites. They were bound to observe the oath which they had once sworn, if only to prevent the sincerity of the God by whom they had sworn from being rendered doubtful in the eyes of the Gibeonites; but they were not justified in taking the oath. They had done this without asking the mouth of Jehovah (ver. 14), and thus had sinned against the Lord their God. But they could not repair this fault by breaking the oath which they had thus imprudently taken, i.e. by committing a fresh sin; for the violation of an oath is always sin, even when the oath has been taken inconsiderately, and it is afterwards discovered that what was sworn to was not in accordance with the will of God, and that an observ^ance of the oath will certainly be hurtful (vid. Ps. XV. 4).^ By taking an oath to the ambassadors that they
* " The binding power of an oath ought to be held so sacred among us, that we should not swerve from our bond under any pretence of error, even though we had been deceived: since the sacred name of God is of greater worth than all the riches of the world. Even though a person should have sworn therefore
would let the Gibeonites live, the princes of Israel had acted unconsciously in violation of the command of God that they were to destroy the Canaanites. As soon therefore as they discovered their error or their oversight, they were bound to do all in their power to ward off from the congregation the danger which might arise of their being drawn away to idolatry — the very thing which the Lord had intended to avert by giving that command. If this could by any possibility be done without violating their oath, they were bound to do it for the sake of the name of the Lord by which they swore; that is to say, while letting the Gibeonites live, it was their duty to put them in such a position, that they could not possibly seduce the Israelites to idolatry. And this the princes of Israel proposed to do, by granting to the Gibeonites on the one hand the preservation of their lives according to the oath they had taken, and on the other hand by making them slaves of the sanctuary. That they acted rightly in this respect, is evident from the fact that their conduct is never blamed either by the historian or by the history, inasmuch as it is not stated anywhere that the Gibeonites, after being made into temple slaves, held out any inducement to the Israelites to join in idolatrous worship, and still more from the fact, that at a future period God himself reckoned the attempt of Saul to destroy the Gibeonites, in his false zeal for the children of Israel, as an act of blood-guiltiness on the part of the nation of Israel for which expiation must be made (2 Sam. xxi, 1 sqq.), and consequently approved of the observance of the oath which had been sworn to them, though without thereby sanctioning the treaty itself. — Ver. 21. The princes declared again most emphatically, " They shall live." Thus the Gibeonites became hewers of wood and drawers of water to the congregation, as the princes had said to them, i.e. had resolved concerning them. This resolution they communicated to the congregation at the time, using the expression vn^ (Jet them live); but the historian has passed this over at ver. 21a, and instead of mentioning the resolution proceeds at once to describe its execution.— ^Vers. 22, 23. Joshua then summoned the Gibeonites, charged them with their deceit, and pronounced upon them the curse of
without sufficient consideration, no injury or loss "will release him from his
oath." This is the opinion expressed by Calvin with reference to Ps. xv. 4; yet for aU that he regards the observance of their oath on the part of the princes of Israel as a sin, because he limits this golden rule in the most arbitrary manner to private affairs alone, and tberefore concludes that the Israelites were not bound to observe this " wily treaty."
eternal servitude: " There shall not he cut off from you a servant^* i.e. ye shall never cease to be servants, ye shall remain servants for over (vid. 2 Sam. iii. 29; 1 Kings ii. 4), " and that as hewers of wood and drawers of waters for our God's house.'* This is a fuller definition of the expression " for all the congregation" in \cr. 21. The Gibeonites were to perform for the congregation the slaves' labour of hewing wood and drawing water for the worship of the sanctuary, — a duty which was performed, according to Deut. xxix. 10, by the lowest classes of the people. In this way the curse of Noah upon Canaan (Gen. ix. 25) was literally fulfilled upon the Hivites of the Gibeonitish republic. — Vers. 24, 25. The Gibeonites offered this excuse for their conduct, that having heard of the command of God which had been issued through Moses, that all the Canaanites were to be destroyed (Deut. vii. 1, xx. 16, 17), they had feared greatly for their lives, and readily submitted to the resolution which Joshua made known to them. — Vers. 26, 27. "And so did he unto them, and delivered them out of the hand of the children of Israel) that they slew them not. He made them hewers of loood and drawers of water for the congregation, and indeed for the altar of the Lord" (assigning them) *' to the place which God would choose" viz. for the altar. Dip^ll"?^? (to the place) is grammatically dependent upon D3Fi^1 (he "gave them"). It by no means follows, however, that Joshua sent them there at that very time, but simply that he sentenced them to service at the altar in the place which would be chosen for the sanctuary. From the words "unto this day" it no doubt follows, on the one hand, that the account was written after the fact had taken place; but, on the other hand, it also follows from the future "in?"; (should, or shall choose), that it was written before the place was definitely fixed, and therefore before the building of Solomon's temple.
Vers. 1-5. The report that Joshua had taken Ai, and put it, like Jericho, under the ban, and that tlie Gibeonites had concluded a treaty with Israel, filled Adonizedek the king of Jenisalem with alarm, as Gibeon was a large town, like one of the king's towns, even larger than Ai, and its inhabitants were brave men. He therefore joined with the kings of Hebron, Jarmuth, Lachish, and Eglon, to make a common attack upon Gibeon, and punish it for its alliance with the Israelites, and at the same time to put a check upon the further conquests of Israel. Adomzedek, i.e. lord of righteousness, is synonymous with Melchizedek (king of righteousness), and was a title of the Jebusite kings, as Pharaoh was of the Eg\-ptiin. Jerusalem, i.e. the founding or possession of peace, called Salem in the time of Abraham (Gen. xiv. 18), was the proper name of the town, which was also frequently called by the name of its Canaanitish inhabitants Jehus (Judg. xix. 10, 11; 1 Chron. xi. 4), or "city of the Jebusites" {Ii'-Jehusi, Judg. xix. 11), sometimes also in a contracted form, Jehusi ('0^2^■^, chap, xviii. 16, 28, xv. 8; 2 Sam. V. 8).^ On the division of the land it was allotted to the tribe of Benjamin (chap, xviii. 28); but being situated upon the border of Judah (chap. xv. 8), it was conquered, and burned by the sons of Judah after the death of Joshua (Judg. i. 8). It was very soon taken again and rebuilt by the Jebusites, whom the sons of Judah were unable to destroy (Judg. xv. 63, xix. 12), so that both Benjaminites and Judahites lived there along with the Jebusites (Judg. i. 21, XV. 63); and the upper town especially, upon the summit of Mount Zion, remained as a fortification in the possession of the Jebusites, until David conquered it (2 Sam. v. 6 sqq.), made it the capital of his kingdom, and called it by his own name, " the city of David," after which the old name of Jehus fell into disuse. Hebron, the town of Arba the Anakite (chap. xiv. 15, etc.; see at Gen. xxiii. 2), was twenty-two Roman miles south of Jerusalem, in a deep and narrow valley upon the mountains of Judah, a town of the greatest antiquity (Num. xiii. 22), now called el Khalil, i.e. the friend (of God), with reference to Abraham's sojourn there. The ruins of an ancient heathen temple are still to be seen there, as well as the Haram, built of colossal blocks, which contains, according to Mohammedan tradition, the burial-place of the patriarchs (see at Gen. xxiii. 17). Jarmuth, in the lowlands of Judah (chap. XV. 35; Neh. xi. 29), according to the Onom. {s. v. Jerrnns) a hamlet, Jermucha (lepfio^^^), ten Roman miles from Eleutheropolis, on the road to Jerusalem, is the modern Jarmuk, a village on a loftv hill, with the remains of walls and cisterns of a very ancient date, the name of which, according to Van de Velde (Mem. pp. 115-6), is pronounced Tell 'Armuth by the Arabs (see Bob. Pal. ii. p. 344). Lachish, in the lowlands of Judah (chap. xv. 39), was fortified
^ In our English version, we have the Hebrew word itself simply transposed in Joshua xviii. 16, 28; whilst it is rendered "the Jebusite" in chap. xv. 8, and " the Jebiisites" in 2 Sam. v. 8. — Te by Rehoboam (2 Chron. xi. 9), and besieged by Sennacherib and Nebuchadnezzar (2 Kings xviii. 14, xix. 8; Jer. xxxiv. 7), and was still inhabited by Jews after the return from the captivity (Neh xi. 30). It is probably to be found in Um Lakis, an old place upon a low round hill, covered with heaps of small round stones thrown together in great confusion, containing relics of marble columns; it is about an hour and a quarter to the west of Ajlun, and seven hours to the west of Eleutheropolis.^ Eglon: also in the lowlands of Judah (chap. xv. 39). The present name is Ajldn, a heap of ruins, about three-quarters of an hour to the east of Um Lakis (see Koh. Pal. ii. p. 392, and Van de Velde, Mem. p. 308). In the Onom. (s. v. JEglon) it is erroneously identified with Odollam; whereas the situation of Agla, " at the tenth stone, as you go from Eleutheropolis to Gaza" (^Onom. s. v. Br}6cCkatfjb, Bethagld), suits Eglon exactly. — Ver. 5. These five kings marched against Gibeon and besieged the town. The king of Jerusalem headed the expedition, as his town was so near to Gibeon that he was the first to fear an attack from the Israelites.
Vers. 6-11. The Gibeonites then sent to Joshua to the camp at Gilgal, and entreated him to come to his help as speedily as possible. " Slack not thy hand from thy servants" i.e. withhold not thy help from us. The definition appended to " the kings of the Amorites " (" that dwelt in the mountains *') is to be understood a potiori, and does not warrant us in drawing the conclusion, that all the towns mentioned in ver. 3 were in the mountains of Judah. The Amorites who dwelt in the mountains were the strongest of all the Canaanites. — Ver. 7. In accordance with this petition Joshua advanced from Gilgal (/P]y not went up) with all the people of war, even (vav. e.vpl.) all the men of valour. — Ver. 8. The Lord then renewed the assurance of His help in this particular war, in which Joshua was about to fight for the first time with several allied kings of Canaan (cf. chap. ii. 24, vi. 2, viii. 1, 18). — Ver. 9. Joshua came
^ It is true that Robinson disputes the identity of Um Lakis with the ancient Lacldsh (Pal. ii. p. 388), but " not on any reasonable ground" {Van de Velde, Mem. p. 320). The statement in the Onom. (s. v. Lochis), that it was seven Roman miles to the south of Eleutheropolis, cannot prove much, as it may easily contain an error in the number, and Robinson does not admit its authority even in the case of Eglon (Pal. ii. p. 392). Still less can KnobeVs conjecture be coiTect, that it is to be found in the old place called Sulkarijeh, two hours and a half to the south-west of Beit Jibrin (Eleutheropolis), a.s Sukkarijeh is on the east of Ajlun, whereas, according to vers. 31-36, Lachish is to be sought foi on the west of Eslon.
suddeiily upon them (the enemy), as he had marched the whole night from Gilgal, i.e. had accomplished the entire distance in a night. Jiljilia is fully fifteen miles from el-Jib. — Ver. 10. *•' Jehovah threw them into confusion" as He had promised in Ex. xxiii. 27, and in all probability, judging from ver. 11, by dreadful thunder and lightning (vid. 1 Sam. vii. 10; Ps. xviii. 15, cxliv. 6: it is different in Ex. xiv. 24). " Israel smote them in a great slaughter at Giheon, and pursued them hy the way of the ascent of Beihhoron," i.e. Upper Bethhoron (Beit Ur, el-Foka), which was nearest to Gibeon, only four hours distant on the north-west, on a lofty promontory between two valleys, one on the north, the other on the south, and was separated from Lower Bethhoron, which lies further west, by a long steep pass, from which the ascent to Upper Bethhoron is very steep and rocky, though the rock has been cut aw^ay in many places now, and a path made by means of steps (see Rob. Pal. iii. p. 59). This pass between the two places leads downwards from Gibeon towards the western plain, and was called sometimes the ascent, or going up to Bethhoron, and sometimes the descent, or going down from it (ver. 11), avd^aai^ koL KaTd^a(n<; BaiOojpuv (1 Mace. iii. 16, 24). Israel smote the enemy still further, "to Azekah and Mahkedah;" so far were they pursued and beaten after the battle (cf. vers. 16, 21). If we compare ver. 11, according to which the enemy was smitten, from Bethhoron to Azekah, by a violent fall of hail, it is very evident that the two places were on the west of Bethhoron. And it is in perfect harmony with this that we find both places described as being in the lowland; Azekah in the hill-country between the mountains and the plain (chap. xv. 35), Makkedah in the plain itself (chap. xv. 41). Azekah, which was fortified by Rehoboam (2 Chron. xi. 9), besieged by Nebuchadnezzar (Jer. xxxiv. 7), and still inhabited after the captivity (Neh. xi. 30), was not far from Socoh, according to chap. xv. 35; whilst sideways between the two was Ephes-dammim (1 Sam. xvii. 1). Van de Velde has discovered the latter in the ruins of Damum, about an hour's journey east by south from Beit Nettif (Mem. p. 290), and consequently imagines that Azekah is to be found in the village of Ahbek, which stands upon a lofty mountain-top a mile and a half to the north of Damum, and about four or five miles n.n.e. of Shuweikeh, supposing this to be Aphek. The statement in the Onom. (s. v. ^A^rjKa), dvdfieaov ' E\€vdepo7r6\eco<i Kol AlXia<;, agrees with this. Makkedah is described in the Onom. as being eight Roman miles to the east of Eleutheropolis, and hence Knobel supposes it to have been near Terkuniieh, or Morak; but he is wrong In his supposition, as in that case it would have been in the hill-country or upon the mountains, whereas it was one of the towns in the plain (chap. xv. 41). Van de Veldes conjecture (p. 332) is a much more probable one, viz. that it is to be found in Summeil, a considerable village on an eminence in the plain, with a large public well 110 feet deep and 11 feet in diameter, with strongly built walls of hewn stones, where there is also part of an old wall, which to all appearance must formerly have belonged to a large square castle built of uncemented stones, resembling in some respects the oldest foundation wall of Beit Jibrin (Mob. Pal. ii. p. 368). It is two hours and a half to the north-west of Beit Jibrin, and there Van de Velde discovered the large cave (see at ver. 16), which Robinson has not observed (see his Journey through Syria and Palestine). — Yer. 11. The large stones which the Lord threw upon the flying foe at the slope of Bethhoron were hail-stones (see Isa. xxx. 30), not stonehail, or a shower of stones, but a terrible hail-storm, in which hail fell upon the foe in pieces as large as stones (see Wisd. xlvi. 6), and slew a greater number of them than the swords of the Israelites. This phenomenon, which resembled the terrible hail in Egypt (Ex, ix. 24), was manifestly a miraculous occurrence produced by the omnipotent power of God, inasmuch as the hail-stones slew the enemy without injuring the Israelites, who were pursuing them. ^y this the Israelites were to be made to see that it was not their own power, but the supernatural help of their God, which had given them the victory; whilst the enemy discovered that it was not only the people of Israel, but the God of Israel, that had devoted them to destruction.
Vers. 12-15. In firm reliance upon the promise of God (ver. 8), Joshua offered a prayer to the Lord during the battle, that He would not let the sun go down till Israel had taken vengeance upon their foes; and the Lord hearkened to the prayer of His servant, and the sun hastened not to go down till the defeat of the Amorites was accomplished. This miraculous victory was celebrated by the Israelites in a war-song, which was preserved in the " book of the Mighteous.^' The author of the book of Joshua has introduced the passage out of this book which celebrates the mighty act of the Lord for the glorification of His name upon Israel, and their foes the Amorites. It is generally admitted, that vers. 12-15 contain a quotation from the " book of Jasher," mentioned in ver. 13. This quotation, and the reference to the work itself, are analogous to the notice of " the book of the wars of the Lord," in Num. xxi. 14, and to the strophes of a song which are there interwoven with the historical narrative; the object being, not to confirm the historical account by referring to an earlier source, but simply to set forth before other generations the powerful impression which was made upon the congregation by these mighty acts of the Lord. The " hooh of Jasher" i.e. book of the upi'ight, or righteous man, that is to say, of the true members of the theocracy, or godly men. "IB'J (Jasher, the righteous) is used to denote the genuine Israelite, in the same sense as in Num. xxiii. 10, where Balaam calls the Israelites " the righteous," inasmuch as Jehovah, the righteous and upright one (Deut. xxxii. 4), had called them to be His people, and to walk in His righteousness. In addition to this passage, the " book of the righteous {Jasher)" is also mentioned in 2 Sam. i. 18, as a work in which was to be found David's elegy upon Saul and Jonathan. From this fact it has been justly inferred, that the book was a collection of odes in praise of certain heroes of the theocracy, with historical notices of their achievements interwoven, and that the collection was formed by degrees; so that the reference to this work is neither a proof that the passage has been interpolated by a later hand, nor that the work was composed at a very late period. That the passage quoted from this work is extracted from a song is evident enough, both from the poetical form of the composition and also from the parallelism of the sentences. The quotation, however, does not begin with "lON'T {aiid he said) in ver. 1-26, but with nJ? Di'3 (in the day when the Lord delivered) in ver. 12a, and vers. 13 and 14 also form part of it; so that the title of the book from which the quotation is taken is inserted in the middle of the quotation itself. In other cases, unquestionably, such formulas of quotation are placed either at the beginning (as in Num. xxi. 14, 27; 2 Sam. i. 18), or else at the close of the account, which is frequently the case in the books of Kings and Chronicles; but it by no means follows that there were no exceptions to this rule, especially as the reason for mentioning the original sources is a totally different one in the books of Kings, where the works cited are not the simple vouchers for the facts related, but works containing fuller and more elaborate a<;counts of events which have only been cursorily described. The poetical form of the passage in ver. 13 also leaves no doubt whatever that vers. 13 and 14 contain the words of the old poet, and are not a prose comment made by the nistorian upon the poetical passage quoted. The only purely Li.*- torical statement is ver. 15; and this is repeated in ver. 43, at the close of the account of the wars and the victory. But this literal repetition of ver. 15 in ver. 43, and the fact that the statement, that Joshua returned with all the people to the camp at Gilgal, anticipates the historical course of the events in a very remarkable manner, render it highly probable, if not absolutely certain, that ver. 15 was also taken from the book of the righteous.
In the day when Jehovah delivered up the Amorites to the children of Israel (" before," as in Deut. ii. 31, 33, etc.), Joshua said before the eyes (i.e. in the presence) of Israel, so that the Israelites were witnesses of his words (yid. Deut. xxxi. 7): " Su7iy stand still (wait) at Gibeon; and, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon.'* QOT, to be silent, to keep one's self quiet or still, to wait (1 Sam. xiv, 9). The address to the sun and moon implies that they both of them stood, or were visible in the heavens at the time; and inasmuch as it was spoken to the Lord, involves a prayer that the Lord and Creator of the world would not suffer the sun and moon to set till Israel had taken vengeance upon its foes. This explanation of the prayer is only to be found, it is true, in the statement that the sun and moon stood still at Joshua's word; but we must imagine it as included in the prayer itself. Ma without an article, when used to denote the people of Israel, is to be regarded as a poetical expression. In the sequel (ver. 13Z>) the sun only is spoken of: " and the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go do-wn about a whole day." The poetical word ps, to press or hurry, is founded upon the idea that the sun runs its course like a strong man, with vigour, and without weariness or cessation (Ps. xix. 6, 7). It follows from this, that Joshua merely prayed for the day to be lengthened, i.e. for the setting of the sun to be delayed; and that he included the moon (ver. 12), simply because it was visible at the time. But even if this is the case, we are not therefore to conclude, as C. V. Lapide, Clericus, and others have done, that Joshua spoke these words in the afternoon, when the sun was beginning to set, and the moon had already risen. The expression D^'?lf[' ^yna, " in the half^^ i.e. the midst, " of the sky," is opposed to this view, and still more the relative position of the two in the sky, the sun at Gibeon and the moon in the valley of Ajalon, i.e. in the fine broad basin on the north side of Yalo (see at chap. xix. 42), the present Merj Ibn Omeir {Rob. iii. pp. 63, 64), which is four hours' journey to the west of Gibeon. As Joshua smote the enemy at Gibeon, and they fled to the south-west, he was no doubt on the west of
Gibeon when lie commanded the sun and moon to stand still; and therefore from his point of view the sun would be in the east when it stood over Gibeon, and the moon in the far west when it stood over the valley of Ajalon. But that could only be the case before noon, a few hours after sunrise, when the moon had not yet set in the western sky. In all probability the battle took place quite early in the morning, as Joshua had marched from Gilgal the night before, and fell quite suddenly upon the enemy (ver. 9). But after the conflict had lasted for some hours, and Joshua began to be anxious lest he should be unable to overcome the enemy before night came on, he addressed the prayer to the Lord to lengthen out the day, and in a short time saw his prayer so far fulfilled, that the sun still stood high up in the sky when the enemy was put to flight. We take for granted that these words were spoken by Joshua before the terrible hail-storm which fell upon the enemy in their flight, when they were near Bethhoron, which is about two hours from Gibeon, and smote them to Azekah. There is nothing to prevent our assuming this. The fact, that in the historical account the hail is mentioned before the desire expressed by Joshua and the fulfilment of that desire, may be explained on the simple ground, that the historian, following the order of importance, relates the principal incident in connection with the battle first, before proceeding to the special point to be cited from the book of the righteous. D^pn DV3j " towards (about, or as it were) a whole day" neither signifies " when the day was ended" (Cle)icus), nor "as it usually does when the day is perfected or absolutely finished" (Rosenmuller); but the sun did not hasten or press to go down, delayed its setting, almost a whole day ("day" being the time between sunrise and sunset).
What conception are we to form of this miraculous event? It is not stated that the sun actually stood still in one spot in the heavens, — say, for instance, in the zenith. And if the expression, " the sun stood still in the midst of heaven," which is added as an explanation of C3n*1, is so pressed as to mean that the sun was miraculously stopped in its course, this is hardly reconcilable with KUP }*X N?, " it hasted not to go down," as these words, if taken literally, merely denote a slower motion on the part of the sun, as many of the Eabbins have observed. All that is clearly affirmed in vers. 12 and 13 is, that at Joshua's word the sun remained standing in the sky for almost a whole day longer. To this there is added, in ver. 14, " There was no day like that before it, or after it, thai
JeJiovali hearkened to the voice of a man; for Jehovah fought for Israel" This expression must not be pressed too far, as the analogous passages (" there was none hke him," etc.) in 2 Kings xviii. 5 and xxiii. 25 clearly show. They merely express this thought: no other day like this, which God so miraculously lengthened, ever occurred either before or afterwards. So much, therefore, is obvious enough from the words, that the writer of the old song, and also the author of the book of Joshua, who inserted the passage in his narrative, were convinced that the day was miraculously prolonged. At the same time, it must be borne in mind that it is not stated that God lengthened that day at the request of Joshua almost an entire day, or that He made the sun stand still almost a whole day, but simply that God hearkened to the voice of Joshua, i.e. did not permit the sun to go down till Israel had avenged itself upon its enemies. This distinction is not without importance: for a miraculous prolongation of the day would take place not only if the sun's course or sun's setting was delayed for several hours by the omnipotent power of God, and the day extended from twelve to eighteen or twenty hours, but also if the day seemed to Joshua and all Israel to be miraculously prolonged; because the work accomplished on that day was so great, that it would have required almost two days to accomplish it without supernatural aid. It is not easy to decide between these two opposite views; in fact, it is quite impossible if we go to the root of the matter. When we are not in circumstances to measure the length of the day by the clock, it is very easy to mistake its actual length, especially in the midst of the pressure of business or work. The Israelites at that time had neither sun-clocks nor any other kind of clock; and during the confusion of the battle it is hardly likely that Joshua, or any one else who was encrao-ed in the conflict, would watch the shadow of the sun and its changes, either by a tree or any other object, so as to discover that the sun had actually stood still, from the fact that for hours the shadow had neither moved nor altered in length. Under such circumstances, therefore, it was quite impossible for the Israelites to decide whether it was in reality, or only in their own imagination, that the day was longer than others. To this there must be added the poetical character of the verses before us. When David celebrates the miraculous deliverance which he had received from the Lord, in these words, " In my distress I called upon the Lord.... He heard my voice out of His temple.... He bowed the heavens also, and came down.... He sent from above, He took me, He drew me out of many waters" (Ps. xviii. 7-17), wno would ever think of interpreting the words literally, and supposing them to mean that God actually came down from the sky, and stretched out His hand to draw David out of the water? Or who would understand the words of Deborah, " They fought from heaven, the stars in their courses fought against Sisera" (Judg. v. 20), in their literal sense 1 The truthfulness of such utterances is to be sought for in the subjective sphere of religious intuition, and not in a literal interpretation of the words. And it may be just the same with these verses, without their actual contents being affected, if the day was merely subjectively lengthened, — that is to say, in the religious conviction of the Israelites. But even if the words really affirmed that a miraculous and objective lengthening of the day did actually take place, we should have no reason whatever for questioning the credibility of the statement. All the objections that have been raised with reference to the reality or possibility of such a miracle, prove to have no force when we examine the subject more closely. Thus, for example, the objection that the annals of the other nations of the earth contain no account of any such miracle, which must have extended over the whole world, loses all its significance from the simple fact that there are no annals in existence belonging to other nations and reaching back to that time, and that it is altogether doubtful whether the miracle would extend far beyond the limits of Palestine. Again, an appeal to the unchangeableness of the motions of the stars according to eternal and unchangeable laws, is not adapted to prove the impossibility of such a miracle. The eternal laws of nature are nothing more than phenomena, or forms of manifestation, of those divine creative powers, the true character of which no mortal has ever fathomed. And does not the almighty Creator and Upholder of nature and all its forces possess the power so to direct and govern the working of these forces, as to make them subservient to the realization of His purposes of salvation? And lastly, the objection that a sudden stoppage of the revolution of the earth upon its axis would have dashed to pieces all the works of human hands that were to be found upon its surface, and hurled the earth itself, with its satellite the moon, out of their orbits, cannot prove anything, because it leaves out of sight the fact that the omnipotent hand of God, which not only created the stars, but gave them the power to revolve with such regularity in their orbits as long as this universe endures, and which upholds and governs all things in heaven and on earth, is not too short to guard against any such disastrous consequences as these. But to this we may add, that even the strictest and most literal interpretation of the words does not require us to assume, as the fathers and earlier theologians did, that the sun itself was miraculously made to stand still, but simply supposes an optical stopping of the sun in its course, — that is to say, a miraculous suspension of the revolution of the earth upon its axis, which would make it appear to the eye of an observer as if the sun itself were standing still. Knohel is by no means warranted in pronouncing this view of the matter an assumption at variance with the text. For the Scriptures speak of the things of the visible world as they appear; just as we speak of the sun as rising and setting, although we have no doubt whatever about the revolution of the earth. Moreover, the omnipotence of God might produce such an optical stoppage of the sun, or rather a continuance of the visibility of the sun above the horizon, by celestial phenomena which are altogether unknown to us or to naturalists in general, without interfering with the general laws affecting the revolution of the heavenly bodies. Only we must not attempt, as some have done, to reduce the whole miracle of divine omnipotence to an unusual refraction of the light, or to the continuance of lightning throughout the whole night.
Vers. 16-27. The five kings fled and hid themselves in the cave that was at Makkedah. When they were discovered there, Joshua ordered large stones to be rolled before the entrance to the cave, and men to be placed there to watch, whilst the others pursued the enemy without ceasing, and smote their rear {vid. Deut. xxv. 18), and prevented their entering into their cities. He himself remained at Makkedah (ver. 21). — Vers. 20, 21. When the great battle and the pursuit of the enemy were ended, and such as remained had reached their fortified towns, the people returned to the camp to Joshua at Makkedah in peace, i.e. without being attacked by anybody. " There pointed not (a dog) its tongue against the sons of Israel, against any one" (see at Ex. xi. 7). ^^ is in apposition to b^'p] ""i^Pj and serves to define it more precisely. It is possible, however, to regard the? as a copyist's error, as Houbigant and Maurer do, in which case ^^ would be the nominative to the verb. — Vers. 22-27. Joshua then commanded the five kings to be fetched out of the cave, and directed the leaders of the army to set their feet upon the necks of the kings; and when this had been done, he ordered the kings to be put to death, and to be hanged upon trees until the evening, when their bodies were to be thrown into the cave in which they had concealed themselves. Of course this did not take place till the day after the battle, as the army could not return from their pursuit of the foe to the camp at IMakkedah till the night after the battle; possibly it did not take place till the second day, if the pursuit had lasted any longer. In ver. 24, " all the men of Israel" are all the warriors in the camp. Nl2pnn, with?) artic, instead of the relative pronoun (see Ges. §109; Ew. § 331, b.); and the ending K1 for ^ or p, as in Isa. xxviii. 12 (see Ew. § 190, b.). The fact that the military leaders set their feet at Joshua's command upon the necks of the conquered kings, was not a sign of barbarity, which it is necessary to excuse by comparing it with still greater barbarities on the part of the Canaanites, as in Judg. i. 7, but was a symbolical act, a sign of complete subjugation, which was customary in this sense even in the Eastern empire (see Bynceus de calceis, p. 318, and Constant. Porphyrogen de cerimon. aulce Byzant. ii. 19). It was also intended in this instance to stimulate the Israelites to further conflict with the Canaanites. This is stated in the words of Joshua (ver. 25): " Fear not, nor be dismayed {vid. chap. i. 9, viii. 1); for thus shall the Lord do to all your enemies." On the putting to death and then hanging, see chap. viii. 29 and Deut. xxi. 22, 23. The words 'W ^D'i^^] (ver. 276) are generally understood as signifying, that after the bodies of the kings had been cast into the cave, the Israelites placed large stones before the entrance, just as in other cases heaps of stones were piled upon the graves of criminals that had been executed {yid. chap. vii. 25), and that these stones remained there till the account before us was written. But this leaves the words DVy iy unexplained, as D5»y never occurs in any other case where the formula " until this day" is used with the simple meaning that a thing had continued to the writer's own time, njin Di>n Dvy expresses the thought that the dav referred to was the very same day about which the author was writing, and no other (see chap. v. 11; Gen. vii. 13, xvii. 23; Ex. xii. 17, etc.). If, therefore, it has any meaning at all in the present instance, we must connect the whole clause with the one preceding, and even construe it as a relative clause: " where they (the kings) had hidden themselves, and they (the Israelites) had placed large stones at the mouth of the cave until that very day" (on which the kings were fetched out and executed).
Vers. 28-39. Further prosecution of the victory, by the conquest of the fortified towns of the south, into which those who escaped the sword of the Israehtes had thrown themselves. — Ver. 28. On the same day on which the five kings were impaled, Joshua took Makkedah (see at ver. 10), and smote the town and its king with the edge of the sword, banning the town and all the persons in it, i.e. putting all the inhabitants to death (many mss. and some editions adopt the reading I^riN for DflKj as in ver. 37), taking the cattle and the property in the town as booty, as in the case of Ai (chap. viii. 27, 28), and treating its king like the king of Jericho, who was suspended upon a stake, to judge from chap. viii. 2, 29, although this is not stated in chap. vi. — Vers. 29, 30. From Makkedah he went with all Israel, i.e. all the men of war, against Libnah, and after effecting the conquest of it, did just the same as he had done to Makkedah. Libnah was one of the towns of the plain or of the hill-country of Judah (chap. xv. 42); it was allotted to the priests (chap. xxi. 13), revolted from Judah in the reign of Joram (2 Kings viii. 22), and was besieged by Sennacherib (Isa. xxxvii. 8). It is to be sought on the north-west of Lachish, not on the south as Knobel erroneously infers from Isa. xxxvii. 8. According to the Onom. (s. V. Lebna), it was at that time villa in regions Eleutheropolitana, quce appellatur Lobna. It has not been discovered yet; but according to the very probable conjecture of V. de Velde (Mem. p. 330), the ruins of it may perhaps be seen upon the hill called Ardk el MensMyeh, about two hours to the west of Beit Jibrin.^ — Vers. 31, 32. Lachish, i.e. Um Lakis (see at ver. 3), shared the same fate. — Ver. 33. Joshua also smote the king of Gezer, who had come with his people to the help of Lachish, and left no one remaining. Nothing is said about the capture of the town of Gezer. According to chap. xvi. 10 and Judg. i. 29, it was still in the possession of the Canaanites when the land was divided, though this alone is not sufficient to prove that Joshua did not conquer it, as so many of the conquered towns were occupied by the Canaanites again after the Israelites had withdrawn. But its situation makes it very probable that Joshua did not conquer it at that time, as it was too much out of his road, and too far from Lachish. Gezer (LXX. Fd^ep, in 1 Chron. xiv. 16 Ta^iqpd, in 1 Mace. Ta^rjpa or Td^apa plur., in
^ Knobel is decidedly wrong in his supposition, that Libnah is to be seen in the considerable ruins called Hora^ which lie in the plain (Seetzen and V. de Velde) and are called Haivara by Robinson. He founds his conjecture upon the fact that the name signifies white, and is the Arabic translation of the Hebrew name. But Hora is only two hours and a half to the north of Beersheba, and is not in the plain at all, but in the Negeb.
Josephus Tu^apa, Ant. vii. 4, 1, viii. 6, 1, and also FdBapa, v. 1, 22, xii. 7, 4) was on the southern boundary of Epliraim (chap. xvi. 3), and was given up by that tribe to the Levites (chap. xvi. 9, 10, xxi. 20, 21. It is very frequently mentioned. Da^•id pursued the Philistines to Gezer (Gazer), after they had been defeated at Gibeon or Geba (2 Sam. v. 25; 1 Chron. xiv. 16). At a later period it was conquered by Pharaoh, and presented to his daughter, who was married to Solomon; and Solomon built, i.e. fortified it (1 Kings ix. 16, 17). It was an important fortress in the wars of the Maccabees (1 Mace. ix. 52; 2 Mace. x. 32; cf. 1 Mace. iv. 15, vii. 45, xiii. 53, xiv. 34, xv. 28, 35). According to the Onom. (s. V. Gazer), it was four Eoman miles to the north of Nicopolis, i.e. Anwas, and was called Fa^dpa. This is not only in harmony with chap. xvi. 3, according to which the southern border of Ephraim ran from Lower Bethhoron to Gezer, and then on to the sea, but also with all the other passages in which Gezer is mentioned,^ and answers very well to the situation of el Kuhah, a village of considerable size on a steep hill at the extreme north of the mountain
^ The statement in 1 Mace. vii. 45, that Judas Maccabaeiis pursued the army of Nicanor, which had been beaten at Adasa, for a day's journey, as far as Gazera (" a day's journey from Adasa into Gazera"), is perfectly reconcilable with the situation of el Kuhdb; for, according to Josephus (Ant. xii. 10, 5), Adasa was thirty stadia from Bethhoron, and Bethhoron is ten miles to the west of Kubab (measuring in a straight line upon the map); so that Judas pursued the enemy fifteen miles, — a distance which might very well be called " a day's journey," if we consider that the enemy, when flying, would not always take the straightest road, and might even make a stand at intervals, and so delay their pursuers. Still less do the statement in 1 Mace. xiv. 34, that Simon fortified Joppa on the sea, and Gazara on the border of Ashdod, the combination of Joppa, Gazara, and the tower that is in Jerusalem (1 Mace. xv. 28, 35), and the fact that the country of Gadaris, with the town of Gadara, occurs between Joppa and Jamnia in Strabo xvi. 759, warrant us in making a distinction between Gazara (Gezer) and the place mentioned in the Onom., as Grimm does (on 1 Mace. iv. 15), and identifying it with the village of Jazur, an hour and a half from Jaffa, although Aiiieux calls this village Gesser. The objections of Van de Velde against the identity of Kubab and Gazer are without any force. It does not necessarily follow from the expression " went up," that Lachish stood on higher grouriTT than Gezer, as going up often signifies nothing more than making a hostile attack upon a fortification. And no importance can be attached to the conjecture, that with the great distance of Kubab from Um Lakis, the king of Gezer would have come to the help of the kings of Makkedah and Libnah, who were much nearer and were attacked first, as the circumstances which determined his conduct are too thoroughly unknown to us, for it to be possible to pronounce an opinion upon the subject with any certainty.
cliain which runs to the north-west of Zorea, and slopes off towards the north into the broad plain of Merj el Omeir, almost in the middle of the road from Ramleh to Yalo. For this village, with which Van Semden identifies Gezer {Van de Velde, Mem. p. 315), was exactly four Roman miles north by west of Anwas, according to Rohinsois map, and not quite four hours from Akir (Ekron), the most northerly city of the Philistines; so that Joseplius (Ant. vii. 4, 1) could very properly describe Gazara as the frontier of the territory of the Philistines. Robinson discovered no signs of antiquity, it is true, on his journey through Kubab, but in all probability he did not look for them, as he did not regard the village as a place of any importance in connection with ancient history (Bibl. Res. pp. 143-4).
Vers. 34, 35. From Lachish Joshua proceeded eastwards against Eglon (Ajlan, see ver. 3), took the town, and did to it as he had done to Lachish. — Vers. 36, 37. From Eglon he went up from the lowland to the mountains, attacked Hebron and took it, and did to this town and its king, and the towns belonging to it, as he had already done to the others. The king of Hebron cannot of course be the one who was taken in the cave of Makkedah and put to death there, but his successor, who had entered upon the government while Joshua was occupied with the conquest of the towns mentioned in vers. 28-35, which may possibly have taken more than a year. " All the cities thereof" are the towns dependent upon Hebron as the capital of the kingdom. — Vers. 38, 39. Joshua then turned southwards with all Israel {i.e. all the army), attacked Debir and took it, and the towns dependent upon it, in the same manner as those mentioned before. Debir, formerly called Ki7Jath-sepher, i.e. book town, TroXi? lypafjLfidraiv (LXX. chap. xv. 15; Judg. i. 11), and Kirjath-sanna, i.e. in all probability the city of palm branches (chap. XV. 49), was given up by Judah to the priests (chap. xxi. 15). It stood upon the mountains of Judah (chap. xv. 49), to the south of Hebron, but has not yet been certainly discovered, though V. de Velde is probably correct in his supposition that it is to be seen in the ruins of Dilbeh, on the peak of a hill to the north of Wady Dilbeh, and on the road from Dhoberiyeh to Hebron, about two hours to the south-west of the latter. For, according to Vr Stewart, there is a spring at Dilbeh, the water of which is conducted by an aqueduct into the Birket el Dilbeh, at the foot of the said hill, which would answer very well to the upper and lower springs at Debir, if only Debir might be placed, according to chap. xv. 49, so far towards the north.^ Moreover, not very long afterwards, probably during the time when the Israelites were occupied with the subjugation of northern Canaan, Hebron and Debir were taken again by the Canaanites, particularly the Anakites, as Joshua had not entirely destroyed them, although he had thoroughly cleared the mountains of Judah of them, but had left them still in the towns of the Philistines (chap. xi. 21, 22). Consequently, when the land was divided, there were Anakites living in both Hebron and Debir; so that Caleb, to whom these towns were given as his inheritance, had first of all to conquer them again, and to exterminate the Anakites (chap. xiv. 12, xv. 13-17: cf. Judg. i. 10-13).'