“As useful as it is to me that you [the Lord] should leave me for a little while in order to test the steadfastness of my desire, so it is harmful if you let me be abandoned for too long because of my deserts and my sins. For no human strength will be able to endure by its own steadfastness if it is too long abandoned by your help in time of trial. Nor will it be able to give way instantly before the power and wherewithal of the adversary if you yourself, who are aware of human strengths and are the arbiter of our struggles, "do not permit us to be tried beyond our capacity, but with the trial also provide a way out, so that we may be able to endure."We read something like this as it appears in mystical fashion in the book of Judges with respect to the extermination of the spiritual nations that are opposed to Israel: "These are the nations that the Lord forsook, so that by them he might instruct Israel, so that they might grow accustomed to fighting with their enemies." And again, a little further on: "The Lord left them so that he might test Israel with them, whether or not they would hear the commandments of the Lord that he had laid down for their forefathers by the hand of Moses." God did not begrudge Israel their peace or look with malice upon them, but he planned this conflict in the knowledge that it would be beneficial. Thus, constantly oppressed by the onslaught of the nations, they would never feel that they did not need the Lord's help. Hence they would always meditate on him and cry out to him, and they would neither lapse into sluggish inactivity nor lose their ability to fight and their training in virtue. For frequently security and prosperity have brought low those whom adversities cannot overcome.”

“God's providence, Peter, in bestowing of his gifts, is wonderful: for often it falleth out, that upon whom he vouchsafeth the greater, he giveth not the less: to the end that always they may have somewhat to mis-like in themselves: so that desiring to arrive unto perfection and yet can not: and labouring about that which they have not obtained, and can not prevail: by this means they become not proud of those gifts which they have received, but do thereby learn that they have not those greater graces of themselves, who of themselves cannot overcome small faults. And this was the cause that, when God had brought his people into the land of promise, and destroyed all their mighty and potent enemies, yet did he long time after reserve the Philistines and Caananites, that, as it is written, "He might in them try Israel." For sometime as hath been said, upon whom he bestoweth great gifts, he leaveth some small things that be blameworthy, that always they may have somewhat to fight against, and not to be proud, though their great enemies be vanquished, seeing other adversaries in very small things do put them to great trouble: and therefore it falleth out strangely, that one and the self same man is excellent for virtue, and yet of infirmity sometime doth offend, so that he may behold himself on the one side strong and well furnished, and on another open and not defended: that by the good thing which he seeketh for, and is not able to procure, he may with humility preserve that virtue which already he hath in possession. But what wonder is it that we speak this concerning man, when as heaven itself lost some of his citizens, and other some continued sound in God's grace: that the elect Angels of God, seeing others through pride to fall from heaven, might stand so much the more steadfast, by how much with humility they preserved God's grace received? They, therefore, took profit by that loss which heaven then had, and were thereby made to persevere more constantly in God's service for all eternity. In like manner it fareth with each man's soul, which sometime for preserving of humility, by a little loss it attaineth to great spiritual perfection.”

“Instruct. The original is translated try, ver. 4, and chap. ii. 22. — And all. Hebrew, “as many of Israel as had not,” &c. (Haydock) — Those who had served under Josue, were so strongly impressed with a sense of the divine power and severity, that they never forgot them: but there was danger lest their children should grow careless, if they were suffered to enjoy a constant state of prosperity. Virtue or power is made perfect in infirmity, 2 Corinthians xii. 9. (Calmet) — He that hath been experienced in many things, multiplieth prudence, Ecclesiasticus xxxiv. 10.”

“Nations which the Lord left in Canaan: with a repetition of the reason why this was done. Jdg 3:1-2 The reason, which has already been stated in Jdg 2:22, viz., "to prove Israel by them," is still further elucidated here. In the first place (Jdg 3:1), את־ישׂראל is more precisely defined as signifying "all those who had not known all the wars of Canaan," sc., from their own observation and experience, that is to say, the generation of the Israelites which rose up after the death of Joshua. For "the wars of Canaan" were the wars which were carried on by Joshua with the almighty help of the Lord for the conquest of Canaan. The whole thought is then still further expanded in Jdg 3:2 as follows: "only (for no other purpose than) that the succeeding generations (the generations which followed Joshua and his contemporaries) of the children of Israel, that He (Jehovah) might teach them war, only those who had not known them (the wars of Canaan)." The suffix attached to ידעוּם refers to "the wars of Canaan," although this is a feminine noun, the suffix in the masculine plural being frequently used in connection with a feminine noun. At first sight it would appear as though the reason given here for the non-extermination of the Canaanites was not in harmony with the reason assigned in Jdg 2:22, which is repeated in Jdg 3:4 of the present chapter. But the differences are perfectly reconcilable, if we only give a correct explanation of the two expression, "learning war," and the "wars of Canaan." Learning war in the context before us is equivalent to learning to make war upon the nations of Canaan. Joshua and the Israelites of his time had not overcome these nations by their own human power or by earthly weapons, but by the miraculous help of their God, who had smitten and destroyed the Canaanites before the Israelites. The omnipotent help of the Lord, however, was only granted to Joshua and the whole nation, on condition that they adhered firmly to the law of God (Jos 1:7), and faithfully observed the covenant of the Lord; whilst the transgression of that covenant, even by Achan, caused the defeat of Israel before the Canaanites (Josh 7). In the wars of Canaan under Joshua, therefore, Israel had experienced and learned, that the power to conquer its foes did not consist in the multitude and bravery of its own fighting men, but solely in the might of its God, which it could only possess so long as it continued faithful to the Lord. This lesson the generations that followed Joshua had forgotten, and consequently they did not understand how to make war. To impress this truth upon them-the great truth, upon which the very existence as well as the prosperity of Israel, and its attainment of the object of its divine calling, depended; in other words, to teach it by experience, that the people of Jehovah could only fight and conquer in the power of its God-the Lord had left the Canaanites in the land. Necessity teaches a man to pray. The distress into which the Israelites were brought by the remaining Canaanites was a chastisement from God, through which the Lord desired to lead back the rebellious to himself, to keep them obedient to His commandments, and to train them to the fulfilment of their covenant duties. In this respect, learning war, i.e., learning how the congregation of the Lord was to fight against the enemies of God and of His kingdom, was one of the means appointed by God to tempt Israel, or prove whether it would listen to the commandments of God (Jdg 3:4), or would walk in the ways of the Lord. If Israel should so learn to war, it would learn at the same time to keep the commandments of God. But both of these were necessary for the people of God. For just as the realization of the blessings promised to the nation in the covenant depended upon its hearkening to the voice of the Lord, so the conflicts appointed for it were also necessary, just as much for the purification of the sinful nation, as for the perpetuation and growth of the kingdom of God upon the earth. Jdg 3:3-4 The enumeration of the different nations rests upon Jos 13:2-6, and, with its conciseness and brevity, is only fully intelligible through the light thrown upon it by that passage. The five princes of the Philistines are mentioned singly there. According to Jos 13:4., "all the Canaanites and the Sidonians and the Hivites," are the Canaanitish tribes dwelling in northern Canaan, by the Phoenician coast and upon Mount Lebanon. "The Canaanites:" viz., those who dwelt along the sea-coast to the south of Sidon. The Hivites: those who were settled more in the heart of the country, "from the mountains of Baal-hermon up to the territory of Hamath." Baal-hermon is only another name for Baal-gad, the present Banjas, under the Hermon (cf. Jos 13:5). When it is stated still further in Jdg 3:4, that "they were left in existence (i.e., were not exterminated by Joshua) to prove Israel by them," we are struck with the fact, that besides the Philistines, only these northern Canaanites are mentioned; whereas, according to Judg 1, many towns in the centre of the land were also left in the hands of the Canaanites, and therefore here also the Canaanites were not yet exterminated, and became likewise a snare to the Israelites, not only according to the word of the angel of the Lord (Jdg 2:3), but also because the Israelites who dwelt among these Canaanitish tribes contracted marriages with them, and served their gods. This striking circumstance cannot be set aside, as Bertheau supposes, by the simple remark, that "the two lists (that of the countries which the tribes of Israel did not conquer after Joshua's death in Judg 1, and the one given here of the nations which Joshua had not subjugated) must correspond on the whole," since the correspondence referred to really does not exist. It can only be explained on the ground that the Canaanites who were left in the different towns in the midst of the land, acquired all their power to maintain their stand against Israel from the simple fact that the Philistines on the south-west, and several whole tribes of Canaanites in the north, had been left by Joshua neither exterminated nor even conquered, inasmuch as they so crippled the power of the Israelites by wars and invasions of the Israelitish territory, that they were unable to exterminate those who remained in the different fortresses of their own possessions. Because, therefore, the power to resist the Israelites and oppress them for a time resided not so much in the Canaanites who were dwelling in the midst of Israel, as in the Philistines and the Canaanites upon the mountains of Lebanon who had been left unconquered by Joshua, these are the only tribes mentioned in this brief survey as the nations through which the Lord would prove His people. Jdg 3:5-6 But the Israelites did not stand the test. Dwelling in the midst of the Canaanites, of whom six tribes are enumerated, as in Exo 3:8, Exo 3:17, etc. (see at Deu 7:1), they contracted marriages with them, and served their gods, contrary to the express prohibition of the Lord in Exo 34:16; Exo 23:24, and Deu 7:3-4.”

“Only so that they should know. For this alone, He permitted these nations to remain, so that future generations of the Bnei Yisroel might grasp the consequence of iniquity—for it was now necessary for them to undergo martial training. Whereas earlier when they stood worshiping Adonoy. This was unknown. These wars and the art of battle. It was unnecessary.”

“And be. Hebrew, “at least, such as before knew nothing thereof.” Though war be in itself an evil, the passions of men render it necessary, and God makes use of it as a scourge, to punish the wicked, and at the same time to keep all under due restraint. (Haydock) — Too long a peace has proved sometimes fatal to states and to the virtue of individuals. In adversity we call upon God, and adhere to him with greater fervour and constancy. The Jews were so prone to evil, that, if they were permitted to enjoy tranquility for a few years, they presently forgot themselves and the author of all their good, and even turned their backs upon the only true God. Their enemies forced them to have recourse to Him. (Calmet)”

“Princes, ( satrapas ) a Persian word. (Menochius) — These heads of the five great cities of the Philistines, are called Seranim, (Haydock) but never kings, whether they were governors of so many petty states, united in the same form of republican or aristocratical government, or independent of each other. See Josue xiii. Three of these cities are said to have been take by Juda, (chap. i. 18,) unless the Septuagint be more accurate, as this passage would seem to insinuate. (Calmet) — They might have thrown off the yoke in a short time, as we before observed. These five cities were Gaza, Geth, Ascalon, Azotus, and Accaron. (Haydock) — All but Geth were on the Mediterranean sea. (Calmet) — All the Chanaanites, &c., who dwelt in Libanus, with some others, who were dispersed through the country, ver. 5. (Haydock) — These chiefly inhabited the environs of Sidon. — Baal Hermon. The idol of Baal might probably be adored on this mountain. (Menochius) — We find Baal-gad in the same neighbourhood, and both may mean the same city. (Calmet)”

“Not. Various reasons are assigned, on the part of God, for not exterminating these nations at once. But their being spared so long, must be imputed to the disobedience of the Israelites, otherwise they would surely never have been tolerated with their idol-worship in the land of promise, to contaminate, by their wicked example, the manners of God’s people. If they would have redeemed their lives, they must at least have given up the land and their idols. As the Israelites proved so little zealous in destroying the latter, they were justly punished by God, in being deprived of what would have contributed to make them richer and more comfortable in this world. (Haydock)”

“BY COMMUNION WITH THESE THE ISRAELITES COMMIT IDOLATRY. (Jdg 3:5-7) the children of Israel dwelt among the Canaanites--The two peoples by degrees came to be on habits of intercourse. Reciprocal alliances were formed by marriage till the Israelites, relaxing the austerity of their principles, showed a growing conformity to the manners and worship of their idolatrous neighbors.”

“II. History of the People of Israel under the Judges - Judges 3:7-16:31 In order that we may be able to take a distinct survey of the development of the Israelites in the three different stages of the their history duringthe times of the judges, the first thing of importance to be done is to determine the chronology of the period of the judges, inasmuch as not only have greatly divergent opinions prevailed upon this point, but hypotheses have been set up, which endanger and to some extent directly overthrow the historical character of the accounts which the book of Judges contains. (Note: Rud. Chr. v. Bennigsen, for example, reckons up fifty different calculations, and the list might be still further increased by the addition of both older and more recent attempts (see Winer, Bibl. Real-Wrterb. ii. pp. 327-8). Lepsius (Chronol. der. Aeg. i. 315-6, 365ff. and 377-8) and Bunsen (Aegypten, i. pp. 209ff. iv. 318ff., and Bibelwerk, i. pp. 237ff.), starting from the position maintained by Ewald and Bertheau, that the chronological data of the book of Judges are for the most part to be regarded as round numbers, have sought for light to explain the chronology of the Bible in the darkness of the history of ancient Egypt, and with their usual confidence pronounce it an indisputable truth that the whole of the period of the Judges did not last longer than from 169 to 187 years.) If we take a superficial glance at the chronological data contained in the book, it appears a very simple matter to make the calculation required, inasmuch as the duration of the different hostile oppressions, and also the length of time that most of the judges held their office, or at all events the duration of the peace which they secured for the nation, are distinctly given. The following are the numbers that we find: - 1. Oppression by Chushan-rishathaim, (Jdg 3:8), 8 years. Deliverance by Othniel, and rest, (Jdg 3:11), 40 years. 2. Oppression by the Moabites, (Jdg 3:14), 18 years. Deliverance by Ehud, and rest, (Jdg 3:30), 80 years. 3. Oppression by the Canaanitish king Jabin, (Jdg 4:3), 20 years. Deliverance by Deborah and Barak, and rest, (Jdg 5:31), 40 years. 4. Oppression by the Midianites, (Jdg 6:1), 7 years. Deliverance by Gideion, and rest, (Jdg 8:28) 40 years. Abimelech's reign, (Jdg 9:22), 3 years. Tola, judge, (Jdg 10:2), 23 years. Jair, judge, (Jdg 10:3), 22 years. Total, 301 years. 5. Oppression by the Ammonites, (Jdg 10:8), 18 years. Deliveance by Jephthah, who judged Israel, (Jdg 12:7), 6 years. Ibzan, judge, (Jdg 12:9), 7 years. Elon, judge, (Jdg 12:11), 10 years. Abdon, judge, (Jdg 12:14), 8 years. 6. Oppression by the Philistines, (Jdg 13:1), 40 years. At this time Samson judged Israel for 20 years (Jdg 15:20; Jdg 16:31 Total, 390 years. For if to this we add - (a.) the time of Joshua, which is not distinctly mentioned, and 20 years. (b.) the time during which Eli was judge (Sa1 4:18) 40 years. We obtain 450 years. (Note: The earlier chronologists discovered a confirmation of this as the length of time that the period of the judges actually lasted in Act 13:20, where Paul in his speech at Antioch in Pisidia says, according to the textus receptus, "After that He gave unto them judges about the space of four hundred and fifty years until Samuel the prophet." The discrepancy between this verse and the statement in Kg1 6:1, that Solomon built the temple in the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of Israel were come out of Egypt, many have endeavoured to remove by a remark, which is correct in itself, viz., that the apostle merely adopted the traditional opinion of the Jewish schools, which had been arrive at by adding together the chronological data of the book of Judges, without entering into the question of its correctness, as it was not his intention to instruct his hearers in chronology. But this passage cannot prove anything at all; for the reading given in the lect. rec. is merely founded upon Cod Al., Vat., Ephr. S. rescr., but according to the Cod. Sinait., ed. Tischendorf and several minuscula, as well as the Copt. Sahid. Arm. Vers. and Vulg., is, καὶ καθελὠν ἔθνη ἑπτὰ ἐν γῇ Χαναὰν κατεκλληρονόμησεν αὐτοῖς τὴν γῆν αὐτῶν ὡς ἔτεσιν τετπακοσίοις καὶ πεντήκοντα, καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα ἔδωκεν κριτὰς ἕως Σαμουήλ τ. πρ. This text is rendered thus in the Vulgate: et destruens gentes septem in terra Chanaan sorte distribuit eis terram eorum quasi post quadringentos et quinquaginta annos: et post haec dedit judices usque ad Samuel prophetam, and can hardly be understood in any other sense than this, that Paul reckoned 450 as the time that elapsed between the call of Abraham (or the birth of Isaac) and the division of the land, namely 215 + 215 (according to the Alex. reading of Exo 12:40 : see the comm. on this passage) + 40 = 470, or about 450.) And if we add still further - (c.) The times of Samuel and Saul combined, 40 years. (d.) The reign of David (Sa2 5:4; Kg1 2:11), 40 years. (e.) The reign of Solomon to the building of the temple (Kg1 6:1), 3 years. The whole time from the entrance of Israel into Canaan to the building of the temple amounted to, 533 years. Or if we add the forty years spent in the wilderness, the time that elapsed between the exodus from Egypt and the building of the temple 573 years. But the interval was not so long as this; for, according to Kg1 6:1, Solomon built the house of the Lord in the 480th year after the children of Israel came out of Egypt, and in the fourth year of his reign. And no well-founded objections can be raised as to the correctness and historical credibility of this statement. It is true that the lxx have "the 440th year" instead of the 480th; but this reading is proved to be erroneous by Aquila and Symmachus, who adopt the number 480 in common with all the rest of the ancient versions, and it is now almost unanimously rejected (see Ewald, Gesch. ii. p. 479). In all probability it owed its origin to an arbitrary mode of computing the period referred to by reckoning eleven generations of forty years each (see Ed Preuss; die Zeitrechnung der lxx pp. 78ff.). On the other hand, the number 480 of the Hebrew text cannot rest upon a mere reckoning of generations, since the year and month of Solomon's reign are given in Kg1 6:1; and if we deduct this date from the 480, there remain 477 of 476 years, which do not form a cyclical number at all. (Note: Bertheau has quite overlooked this when he endeavors to make the 480 years from the exodus to the building of the temple into a cyclical number, and appeals in support of this to Ch1 6:5., where twelve generations are reckoned from Aaron to Ahimaaz, the contemporary of David. But it is perfectly arbitrary on his part to include Ahimaaz who was a boy in the time of David (Sa2 15:27, Sa2 15:36; Sa2 18:19, Sa2 18:22, Sa2 18:27.), as the representative of a generation that was contemporaneous with David; whereas it was not Ahimaaz, but his father Zadok, i.e., the eleventh high priest from Aaron, who anointed Solomon as king (Kg1 1:39; Kg1 2:35), and therefore there had been only eleven high priests from the exodus to the building of the temple. If therefore this period was to be divided into generations of forty years each on the ground of the genealogies in the Chronicles, there could only be eleven generations counted, and this is just what the lxx have done.) Again, the exodus of Israel from Egypt was an "epoch-making" event, which was fixed in the recollection of the people as no other ever was, so that allusions to it run through the whole of the Old Testament. Moreover, the very fact that it does not tally with the sum total of the numbers in the book of Judges is an argument in favor of its correctness; whereas all the chronological calculations that differ from this bring us back to these numbers, such, for example, as the different statements of Josephus, who reckons the period in question at 592 years in Ant. viii. 3, 1, and on the other hand, at 612 years in Ant. xx. 10 and c. Ap. ii. 2. (Note: Josephus adds together the numbers which occur in the book of JudGes. Reckoning from the invasion of Chushan-rishathaim to the forty years' oppression of the Philistines (inclusive), these amount to 390 years, if we regard Samson's twenty years as forming part of the Philistine oppression, or to 410 years if they are reckoned separately. Let us add to this the forty years of the journey through the wilderness, the twenty-five years which Josephus assigns to Joshua (Ant. 5:1, 29), the forty years of Eli, the twelve years which he allots to Samuel before the election of Saul as king (6:13, 5), and the forty years which he reckons to Samuel and Saul together, and lastly, the forty and a half years of David's reign and the four years of Solomon's up to the time when the temple was built, and we obtain 40 + 25 + 40 + 12 + 40 + 401/2 + 4 = 2011/2 years; and these added to 390 make 5911/2, or added to 410 they amount to 611 years.) Lastly, it may easily be shown that there are several things assumed in this chronological survey which have no foundation in the text. This applies both to the assumed succession of the Ammonitish and Philistine oppressions, and also to the introduction of the forty years of Eli's life as judge after or in addition to the forty years that the Philistines ruled over Israel. The current view, that the forty years of the oppression on the part of the Philistines did not commence till after the death of Jephthah or Abdon, is apparently favored, no doubt, by the circumstance, that this oppression is not described till after the death of Abdon (Jdg 12:15), and is introduced with the usual formula, " And the children of Israel did evil again in the sight of the Lord," etc. (Jdg 13:1). But this formula, taken by itself, does not furnish any certain proof that the oppression which it introduces did not take place till after what has been already described, especially in the absence of any more definite statement, such as the clause introduced into Jdg 4:1, "when Ehud was dead," or the still more definite remark, that the land had rest so many years (Jdg 3:11, Jdg 3:30; Jdg 5:31; cf. Jdg 8:32). Now in the case before us, instead of any such statement as to time, we find the general remark in Jdg 10:6., that when the Israelites sank into idolatry again, Jehovah sold them into the hands of the Philistines, and into the hands of the children of Ammon; and after this there simply follows an account of the oppression on the part of the Ammonites, and the eventual deliverance effected by Jephthah (Judg 10:8-12:7), together with an enumeration of three judges who succeeded Jephthah (Jdg 12:8-15); but we learn nothing further about the oppression on the part of the Philistines which is mentioned in Jdg 10:7. When therefore, it is still further related, in Jdg 13:1, that the Lord delivered the Israelites into the hand of the Philistines forty years, this cannot possibly refer to another oppression on the part of the Philistines subsequent to the one noticed in Jdg 10:7; but the true explanation must be, that the historian proceeds here for the first time to describe the oppression noticed in Jdg 10:7, and introduces his description with the formula he generally adopted: "And the children of Israel did evil again in the sight of the Lord," etc. The oppression itself, therefore, commenced at the same time as that of the Ammonites, and continued side by side with it; but it lasted much longer, and did not come to an end till a short time before the death of Elon the judge. This is confirmed beyond all doubt by the fact, that although the Ammonites crossed the Jordan to fight against Judah, Benjamin, and Ephraim, it was chiefly the tribes of Israel who dwelt on the other side of the Jordan that were oppressed by them (Jdg 10:8, Jdg 10:9), and that it was only by these tribes that Jephthah was summoned to make war upon them, and was elected as their head and prince (Jdg 11:5-11), and also that it was only the Ammonites in the country to the east of the Jordan whom he subdued then before the Israelites (Jdg 11:32, Jdg 11:33). From this it is very evident that Jephthah, and his successors Ibzan, Elon, and Abdon, were not judges over all Israel, and neither fought against the Philistines nor delivered Israel from the oppression of the enemies who invaded the land from the south-west; so that the omission of the expression, "the land had rest," etc., from Judg 11 and Jdg 12:1-15, is very significant. (Note: Even Hitzig, who denies that the oppression of the Philistines was contemporaneous with that of the Ammonites, is obliged to acknowledge that "it is true, the author first of all disposed very properly of the Ammonitish war before entering into the details of the war with the Philistines, with which it had no connection, and which was not brought to a close so soon." When therefore, notwithstanding this, he adduces as evidence that they were not contemporaneous, the fact that "according to the context, and to all analogy (cf. Jdg 4:1; Jdg 3:11, Jdg 3:12), the author intends to write, in Jdg 13:1, that after the death of Abdon, when there was no judge in Israel, the nation fell back into its former lawlessness, and as a punishment was given up to the Philistines," a more careful study of the passages cited (Jdg 4:1; Jdg 3:11, Jdg 3:12) will soon show that the supposed analogy does not exist at all, since the expression, "the land had rest," etc. really occurs in both instanced (se Jdg 3:11 and Jdg 3:31), whereas it is omitted before Jdg 13:1. The still further assertion, however, that the account of the Philistine war ought to have followed immediately upon that of the war with the Ammonites, if the intention was to describe this with equal fulness, has no force whatever. If neither Jephthah nor the three judges who followed him had anything to do with the Philistines, if they merely judged the tribes that were oppressed and threatened by the Ammonites, it was natural that everything relating to them should be attached to the account of the defeat of the Ammonites, in order that there might be no unnecessary separation of what was so intimately connected together. And whilst these objections are thus proved to have no force, the objection raised to the contemporaneous occurrence of the two oppressions is wrecked completely upon the distinct statement in Jdg 10:7, that Jehovah sold the Israelites into the hands of the Philistines and Ammonites, which Hitzig can only get over by declaring, without the slightest foundation, that the words "into the hands of the Philistines" are spurious, simply because they stand in the way of his own assumption.) But if the Ammonitish and Philistine oppressions occurred at the same time, of course only one of them must be taken into account in our chronological calculations as to the duration of the period of the judges; and the one selected must be the one to the close of which the chronological data of the next period are immediately appended. But this is not the case with the account of the Ammonitish oppression, of the deliverance effected by Jephthah, and of the judges who succeeded him (Ibzan, Elon, and Abdon), because the chronological thread of this series of events is broken off with the death of Abdon, and is never resumed again. It is so, however, with the Philistine oppression, which is said to have lasted forty years, though the termination of it is not given in the book of JudGes. Samson merely began to deliver Israel out of the power of the Philistines (Jdg 13:5), but did not accomplish their complete deliverance. He judged Israel for twenty years in the days of the Philistines, i.e., during the oppression of the Philistines (Jdg 15:20); consequently the twenty years of his labours must not be taken into account in the chronology of the period of the judges, inasmuch as they are all included in the forty years of the Philistines' rule. At the death of Samson, with which the book of Judges closes, the power of the Philistines was not yet broken; and in Judg 4 of the first book of Samuel we find the Philistines still fighting against the Israelites, and that with such success that the Israelites were defeated by them, an even lost the ark of the covenant. This war must certainly be a continuation of the Philistine oppression, to which the acts of Samson belonged, since the termination of that oppression is not mentioned in the book of Judges; and on the other hand, the commencement of the oppression referred to in Sa1 4:9. is not given in the book of Samuel. Consequently even Hitzig supports the view which I have expressed, that the forty years' supremacy of the Philistines, noticed in Jdg 13:1, is carried on into the book of Samuel, and extends to Sa1 7:3, Sa1 7:7, and that it was through Samuel that it was eventually brought to a termination (Sa1 7:10.). But if this is established, then the forty years during which Eli was judge cannot have followed the Philistine oppression and the deeds performed by Samson, and therefore must not be reckoned separately. For since Eli died in consequence of the account of the capture of the ark by the Philistines (Sa1 4:18), and seven months (Sa1 6:1) and twenty years elapsed after this catastrophe before the Philistines were defeated and humiliated by Samuel (Sa1 7:2), only the last half of the forty years of Eli's judicial life falls within the forty years of the Philistine rule over Israel, whilst the first half coincides with the time of the judge Jair. Eli himself was not a judge in the strict sense of the word. He was neither commander of the army, nor secular governor of the nation, but simply the high priest; and in this capacity he administered the civil law in the supreme court, altogether independently of the question whether there was a secular governor at the time or not. After the death of Eli, Israel continued for more than twenty years utterly prostrate under the yoke of the Philistines. It was during this period that Samson made the Philistines feel the power of the God of Israel, though he could not deliver the Israelites entirely from their oppression. Samuel laboured at the same time, as the prophet of the Lord, to promote the inward and spiritual strength of Israel, and that with such success, that the people came to Mizpeh at his summons, and there put away the strange gods that they had hitherto worshipped, and worshipped the Lord alone; after which the Lord hearkened to Samuel's prayer, and gave them a complete victory over the Philistines (Sa1 7:2-11). After this victory, which was gained not very long after the death of Samson, Samuel undertook the supreme government of Israel as judge, and eventually at their own desire, and with the consent of God, gave them a king in the person of Saul the Benjaminite. This was not till Samuel himself was old, and had appointed as his successors in the office of judge his own sons, who did not walk in their father's ways (1 Sam. 8-10). Even under Saul, however Samuel continued to the very end of his life to labour as the prophet of the Lord for the well-being of Israel, although he laid down his office of judge as soon as Saul had been elected king. He announced to Saul how he had been rejected by God on account of his disobedience; he anointed David as king; and his death did not occur till after Saul had began to be troubled by the evil spirit, and to plot for David's life (Sa1 25:1), as we may learn from the fact that David fled to Samuel at Ramah when Saul resolved to slay him (Sa1 19:18) How long Samuel judged Israel between the victory gained at Ebenezer (1 Sam. 7) and the election of Saul as king of Israel, is not stated in the Old Testament, nor even the length of Saul's reign, as the text of Sa1 13:1 is corrupt. But we shall not be very far from the truth, if we set down about forty years as the time covered by the official life of Samuel as judge after that event and the reign of Saul, and reckon from seventeen to nineteen years as the duration of Samuel's judgeship, and from twenty to twenty-two as the length of Saul's reign. For it is evident from the accounts that we possess of the lives and labours of Samuel and Saul, that Saul did not reign forty years (the time given by Paul in Act 13:21 according to the traditional opinion current in the Jewish schools), but at the most from twenty to twenty-two; and this is now pretty generally admitted (see at Sa1 13:1). When David was chosen king of Judah at Hebron after the death of Saul, he was thirty years old (Sa2 5:1-4), and can hardly have been anointed king by Samuel at Bethlehem before the age of twenty. For though his father Jesse was still living, and he himself was the youngest of Jesse's eight sons, and was feeding the flock (Sa1 16:6-12), and even after this is still described as נער (Sa1 17:42, Sa1 17:55), Jesse was זקן (an old man) at the time (Sa1 17:12), at any rate sixty years old or more, to that his eldest son might be forty years old, and David, the youngest, as much as twenty. For נער was not only applied to a mere boy, but to a young man approaching twenty; and the keeping of sheep was not merely as task performed by shepherd boys, but also by the grown-up sons of a family, among whom we must certainly reckon David, since he had already contended with lions and bears in the steppe, and slain these beasts of prey (Sa1 17:34-36), and shortly afterwards was not only recommended to king Saul by his courtiers, as "a mighty valiant man, and a man of war, and wise in speech," to cheer up the melancholy king by his playing upon the harp (Sa1 16:18), but also undertook to fight with the giant Goliath (1 Sam. 17), and was placed in consequence over the men of war, and was afterwards made captain of a thousand, and betrothed to his daughter Michal (Sa1 18:5, Sa1 18:13, Sa1 18:17.). But if David was anointed by Samuel at the age of about twenty years, Saul could not have reigned more than ten years after that time, as David was made king at the age of thirty. And he cannot have reigned much longer before that time. For, apart from the fact that everything which is related of his former wars and deeds could easily have occurred within the space of ten years, the circumstance that Samuel lived till the last years of Saul's reign, and died but a few years before Saul's death (Sa1 25:1), precludes the assumption that he reigned any longer than that. For Samuel was already so old that he had appointed his sons as judges, whereupon the people desired a king, and assigned as the reason, that Samuel's sons did not walk in his ways (Sa1 8:1-4), from which it is very evident that they had already filled the office of judge for some considerable time. If we add to this the fact that Samuel was called to be a prophet before the death of Eli, and therefore was no doubt twenty-five or thirty years old when Eli died, and that twenty years and seven months elapsed between the death of Eli and the defeat of the Philistines, so that Samuel may have been about fifty years old at that time, and that he judged the people from this time forward till he had become an old man, and then gave the nation a king in the person of Saul, we cannot assign more than forty years as the interval between the defeat of the Philistines and the death of Saul, without attributing to Samuel an age of more than ninety years, and therefore we cannot reckon more than forty or thirty-nine years as the time that intervened between the installation of Samuel in his office as judge and the commencement of the reign of Saul. According to this, the chronology of the times of the judges may be arranged as follows: - a. From the oppression of Cushan-rishathaim to the death of Jair the judge (vid. p. 202), 301 years. b. Duration of the Philistine oppression, 40 years. c. Judgeship of Samuel and reign of Saul, 39 years. d. David's reign (7 and 33 years) 40 years. e. Solomon's reign to the building of the temple, 3 years. 423 years. a. The wandering in the desert, 40 years. b. the time between the entrance into Canaan and the division of the land, 7 years. c. From the division of Canaan to the invasion of Chushan-rishathaim, 10 years. 480 years. These numbers are as thoroughly in harmony with Kg1 6:1, and also with the statement made by Jephthah in his negotiations with the king of the Ammonites, that Israel dwelt in Heshbon and the cities along the bank of the Arnon for three hundred years (Jdg 11:26), as we could possibly expect so general a statement in round numbers to be. For instance, as the chronological data of the book of Judges give 301 years as the interval between the invasion of Chushan-rishathaim and the commencement of the Ammonitish oppression, and as only about ten years elapsed between the division of Canaan, after which the tribes on the east of the Jordan first established themselves firmly in Gilead, and the invasion of Chushan, the Israelites had dwelt 310 years in the land on the other side of the Jordan at the time of Jephthah's negotiations with the Ammonites, or at the most 328, admitting that these negotiations may possibly not have taken place till towards the end of the eighteen years' oppression on the part of the Ammonites, so that Jephthah could appeal with perfect justice to the fact that they had been in possession of the land for 300 years. This statement of Jephthah, however, furnishes at the same time an important proof that the several chronological data contained in our book are to be regarded as historical, and also that the events are to be reckoned as occurring successively; so that we have no right to include the years of oppression in the years of rest, as is frequently done, or to shorten the whole period from Othniel to Jephthah by arbitrary assumptions of synchronisms, in direct opposition to the text. This testimony removes all foundation from the hypothesis that the number forty which so frequently occurs is a so-called round number, that is to say, is nothing more than a number derived from a general estimate of the different periods according to generations, or cyclical periods. For if the sum total of the different chronological notices tallies on the whole with the actual duration of the period in question as confirmed by this testimony, the several notices must be regarded as historically true, and that all the more because the greater part of these data consist of such numbers as 6, 8, 18, 20, 22, 23, which can neither be called round nor cyclical. Moreover, the purely cyclical significance of the number forty among the Israelites must first of all be proved. Even Ewald (Gesh. ii. pp. 480, 481) most justly observes, that "it is very easy to say that the number forty was a round number in the case of different nations; but this round number must first of all have had its origin in life, and therefore must have had its limited application." If, however, we look more closely at the different occasions on which the space of forty years is mentioned, between the exodus from Egypt and the building of the temple, we shall find that at any rate the first and last passages contain very definite notices of time, and cannot possibly be regarded as containing merely round or cyclical numbers. In the case of the forty years' wandering in the wilderness, this is placed beyond the reach of doubt by the fact that even the months are given of both the second and fortieth years (Num 10:11; Num 20:1; Deu 1:3), and the intervening space is distinctly stated to have been thirty-eight years (Deu 2:14). And the forty years that David is said to have reigned also give the precise number, since he reigned seven and a half years at Hebron, and thirty-three at Jerusalem (Sa2 5:4, Sa2 5:5; Kg1 2:11). Between these two extreme points we certainly meet with the number forty five times: viz., forty years of rest under Othniel (Jdg 3:11), the same under Barak and Deborah (Jdg 5:31), and the same again Gideon (Jdg 8:28); also forty years of the oppression by the Philistines (Jdg 13:1), and the forty years that Eli was judge (Sa1 4:18); and in addition to these, we find eighty years of rest after Ehud's victory (Jdg 3:30). But there are also twelve or thirteen passages in which we find either odd numbers, or at all events numbers that cannot be called cyclical or round (viz., Jdg 3:8, Jdg 3:14; Jdg 4:3; Jdg 6:1; Jdg 9:22; Jdg 10:2, Jdg 10:3; Jdg 12:7, Jdg 12:9, Jdg 12:11, Jdg 12:14; Jdg 15:20; Jdg 16:31). What is there then to justify our calling the number forty cyclical or round? It is the impossibility or improbability that in the course of 253 years Israel should have had rest from hostile oppression on three occasions for forty years, and on one for eighty? Is there anything impossible in this? Certainly not. Is there even an improbability? If there be, surely improbabilities have very often been perfectly true. And in the case before us, the appearance itself loses all significance, when we consider that although if we take entire years the number forty is repeated, yet it cannot be taken so literally as that we are to understand that entire years are intended every time. If David's reign is reckoned as forty years in Sa2 5:4, although, according to Sa2 5:5, he reigned seven years and six months in Hebron and thirty-three years in Jerusalem, it may also be the case that, although forty years is the number given in the book of Judges, the period referred to may actually have been only thirty-nine years and a half, or may have been forty and a half. To this must be added the fact that the time during which the war with the enemy lasted is also included in the years of rest; and this must always have occupied several months, and may sometimes have lasted even more than a year. Now, if we give all these circumstances their due weight, every objection that can be raised as to the correctness and historical credibility of the chronological data of the book of Judges vanishes away, whilst all the attempts that have been made to turn these data into round or cyclical numbers are so arbitrary as to need no special refutation whatever. (Note: The principal representatives of this hypothesis are Ewald and his pupil Bertheau. According to Ewald Gesch. ii. pp. 473ff.), the twelve judges from Othniel to Samson form the historical groundwork of the book, although there are distinct traces that there were many more such rulers, because it was only of these that any reminiscences had been preserved. When, therefore, after the expiration of the whole of this period, the desire arose to bring out into distinct prominence the most important points connected with it, the first thing that was done was to group together these twelve judges, with such brief remarks as we find in the case of five of them (Tola, Jair, Ibzan, Elon, and Abdon) in Jdg 10:1-5 and Jdg 12:8-15. In their case, too, the precise time was given, so far as it could be still remembered. But, independently of this, the attempt was also made to connect the order of the many alternations of war and peace during these 480 years which occurred, according to Kg1 6:1, between the exodus from Egypt and the building of Solomon's temple, to certain grand and easily remembered divisions; and for this the number forty at once presented itself. For since, according to the oldest traditions, Israel spent forty years in the wilderness, and since David also reigned forty years, it might easily be regarded as a suitable thing to divide the whole into twelve equal parts, and to assign to each forty years a great hero and some striking event: e.g., (1) Moses and the wilderness; (2) Joshua and the prosperous rule of the elders; (3) the war with Chushan-rishathaim, and Othniel; (4) the Moabites and Ehud; (5) the Aramaeans and Jair; (6) the Canaanites under Jabin, and Deborah; (7) the Midianites and Gideon; (8) Tola, with whose opponents we are not acquainted; (9) the Ammonites and Philistines, or Jephthah and Samson; (10) the Philistines and Eli; (11) Samuel and Saul; (12) David. "Finally, then these twelve judges from Othniel to Samson were necessarily connected with this different mode of reckoning, so that the several numbers, as well as the order in which the judges occur, which show so evidently (?) that the last editor but one compiled the section extending from Judg 3-16 out of a great variety of sources, must have been the resultant of many chanGes." But Ewald looks in vain for any reason for this "must". And the question starts up at once, how could the idea ever have entered any one's mind of dividing these 480 years, from th”

“Chusan. This name leads us to conclude that this prince was of Scythian extraction, a descendant of Chus: (Calmet) it signifies “black, or an Ethiopian.” (Menochius) — Rasathaim was perhaps the place of his nativity. As it means “of two sorts of malice,” Arias thinks that the Syrian kings took this title to shew that they would punish or repress all crimes against the civil or criminal law, (Menochius) those which affected the property as well as the lives of their subjects. (Haydock) — Mesopotamia. In Hebrew Aram naharayim. Syria of the two rivers; so called because it lies between the Euphrates and the Tigris. It is absolutely called Syria, ver. 10. (Challoner) — Eight years, by manual labour and presents, testifying their submission to their oppressor, who might not perhaps live among them. (Calmet) — Moir’s edition, by mistake, reads eighty years. The Hebrews were equally fallible, chap. iii. 30. (Haydock)”

“OTHNIEL DELIVERS ISRAEL. (Jdg 3:8-11) sold them--that is, "delivered them" into the hand of Chushan-rishathaim--or, Chushan, "the wicked." This name had been probably given him from his cruel and impious character. served Chushan-rishathaim eight years--by the payment of a stipulated tribute yearly, the raising of which must have caused a great amount of labor and privation.”

“We frequently find this calling from need in Scripture as well, when we read that on account of their sins, the children of Israel were delivered over by the Lord to their enemies and that, having changed their course because of their domination and savage cruelty, they cried out to the Lord. "And the Lord sent them," it says, "a deliverer named Ehud, the son of Gera, the son of Jemini, who used either hand as if it were his right hand." And again it says, "They cried out to the Lord, who raised up a deliverer for them, Othniel, the son of Kenaz, the younger brother of Caleb, and he freed them." And it said of them in a psalm: "When he killed them, then they sought him, and they turned and at dawn they came to God, and they remembered that God was their helper." And again: "They cried out to the Lord when they were troubled, and he freed them from their distress."Of these three kinds [of calling from need], then, although the first two seem to be supported by better beginnings, nonetheless we find that even on the third level [recorded by the psalmist], which seems inferior and lukewarm, there have been people who are perfect and very fervent in spirit, similar to those who have made an excellent beginning in the Lord's service and have passed the rest of their lives in praiseworthy intensity of spirit. Likewise there are many who have become tepid and have fallen from a higher level and very frequently ended up in tragedy. [Thus], just as it was no drawback to the former that they seem to have been converted not by their own will but by force of necessity, inasmuch as the Lord's kindness furnished the occasion whereby they might feel compunction, likewise their having been converted in some sublime fashion profited the latter nothing whatsoever, because they did not strive to live out the rest of their days accordingly.”

“Saviour. “We must remark, that the man by whom God grants us safety, is styled a saviour,” (St. Augustine, q. 18,) though Christ is the proper and principal Saviour. (Worthington) — Caleb. Septuagint, “the younger son of Cenez, who was the brother of Caleb.” (Haydock) — Othoniel was one of the ancients. If he could not prevent the people from falling into idolatry, he rescued them from it. (Calmet)”

“when the children of Israel cried unto the Lord--In their distress they had recourse to earnest prayer, accompanied by humble and penitent confession of their errors. Othniel--(See on Jos 15:16; Jdg 1:13). His military experience qualified him for the work, while the gallant exploits he was known to have performed, gained him the full confidence of his countrymen in his ability as a leader.”

“The Divine spirit visited him. R' Tanchuma expounded: He studied the statement of the Holy One, blessed is He, to Moshe in Mitzrayim, "I have surely seen (lit. 'seeing, I have seen') the tribulation of my people." What are the two sights? He said to him, "I see that they are destined to err with the golden calf—nevertheless, 'I have seen the tribulation of my people.'" Asniel expounded upon this, saying, whether innocent or guilty, He is obliged to save them.”

“In him, to instruct and enable him both to rout the enemy, and to govern the people with prudence. (Haydock) — Chaldean, “the spirit of prophecy.” The oracle excited him to attack Chusan. (Josephus, [Antiquities?] v. 3.) He was entrusted with an extraordinary authority, in a wonderful manner, and God gave him all those virtues which were requisite for his exalted station. (Calmet) — Him. Hebrew, “his hand was strong upon Chusan Rasathaim.” He gained a complete victory over him, (Haydock) the particulars of which are not mentioned, though they must have been very interesting and extraordinary, as the power of Chusan was so extensive. (Calmet)”

“The Spirit of the Lord came upon him and he judged Israel, and went out to war--Impelled by a supernatural influence, he undertook the difficult task of government at this national crisis--addressing himself to promote a general reformation of manners, the abolition of idolatry, and the revival of pure religion. After these preliminary measures, he collected a body of choice warriors to expel the foreign oppressors. the Lord delivered Chushan-rishathaim king of Mesopotamia into his hand; and his hand prevailed against Chushan-rishathaim--No details are given of this war, which, considering the resources of so potent a monarch, must have been a determined struggle. But the Israelitish arms were crowned through the blessing of God with victory, and Canaan regained its freedom and independence.”

“Died, “forty years after Josue, according to the chronology of Usher, which we follow,” (Calmet) or rather Usher translates the land began to rest “in the fortieth year” from the peace of Josue. He places the death to that leader in the year of the world 2570, and the end of Chusan’s dominion 2599; so that, if we deduct 40 years from this last date, we shall come to the year 2559, the sixth of Josue’s administration, when he began to divide the conquered lands. He supposes that the peace of Othoniel lasted about 62 years, when Eglon disturbed it for eighteen years. “Aod delivered Israel. After him Samgar appeared, and the land rested till the 80 th year from the peace of Othoniel.” Houbigant censures this indiscriminate use of cardinal and of ordinal numbers, and the blending the times of servitude with those of peace; (Haydock) and “surely this method of reckoning is very harsh, and contrary to the usual acceptation of words.” (Calmet) — Yet it is adopted by many. (Worthington) — It may suit to form a system, but can have no solid foundation. (Haydock) — The epoch from which Usher dates is no where so distinctly specified, as that we should suppose that the author of the Book of Judges had it in view. Moreover, by this method, we are left to guess how long each of the judges reigned, or how long the peace which they had procured, subsisted. Usher admits that the years of servitude are specified; and, why not also the years of peace, since they are expressed exactly in the same manner? If the ordinal numbers 40th, 80th, &c., were intended, b would be prefixed, as [in] Deuteronomy i. 3.; and this grammatical observation alone, suffices to overturn the calculation of Usher. (Houbigant, Proleg.) — Salien dates from the death of Josue in 2600, and allows that 40 years elapsed from that period till the decease of Othoniel; including the years which some attribute to the ancients, and to the anarchy; (chap. xvii., &c., to the end,) and also the eight years of servitude; so that instead of a rest of 40 years, we shall find that all was in confusion the greatest part of the time. The idolatry of Israel, which shortly brought on the servitude under Eglon, commenced immediately after the conclusion of these 40 years, when Salien begins to enumerate the years of Aod’s government. Thus he does from one judge to another. This system does not indeed make the text bend to uphold it, but it supposes that the sacred writer includes anarchy and servitude under the name of rest. In these matters much is to be supplied by conjecture, and hence the chronological difficulties which infidels propose, to invalidate the authority of the Scripture, can have but little weight, till the learned shall have discovered the exact disposition of former times. The first judge of Israel was of the tribe of Juda. The second was chosen from the almost ruined tribe of Benjamin, as the learned commonly place the dreadful catastrophe which befel that tribe during the anarchy which ensued, and the death of Josue and of the ancients. Aod had no share in the crime. (Haydock)”

“Eglon, signifies “a calf.” (Calmet) — God made use of this prince to scourge his people, with the assistance of the neighbouring nations. He took Engaddi, in the plains of Jericho, and was thus enabled to keep an eye both upon his own subjects and the conquered Israelites. (Calmet) — Here he probably met with his untimely end. (Haydock)”

“EHUD SLAYS EGLON. (Jdg. 3:12-30) the children of Israel did evil again in the sight of the Lord--The Israelites, deprived of the moral and political influences of Othniel, were not long in following their native bias to idolatry. the Lord strengthened Eglon the king of Moab--The reigning monarch's ambition was to recover that extensive portion of his ancient territory possessed by the Israelites. In conjunction with his neighbors, the Ammonites and the Amalekites, sworn enemies of Israel, he first subjected the eastern tribes; then crossing the Jordan, he made a sudden incursion on western Canaan, and in virtue of his conquests, erected fortifications in the territory adjoining Jericho [JOSEPHUS], to secure the frontier, and fixed his residence there. This oppressor was permitted, in the providence of God, to triumph for eighteen years.”

“In vv. 12-30 the subjugation of the Israelites by Eglon, the king of the Moabites, and their deliverance from this bondage, are circumstantially described. First of all, in Jdg 3:12-14, the subjugation. When the Israelites forsook the Lord again (in the place of וגו את־הרע ... ויּעשׂוּ, Jdg 3:7, we have here the appropriate expression ... הרע הרע לעשׂות, they added to do, i.e., did again, evil, etc., as in Jdg 4:1; Jdg 10:6; Jdg 13:1), the Lord made Eglon the king of the Moabites strong over Israel. על חזּק, to give a person strength to overcome or oppress another. כּי על, as in Deu 31:17, instead of the more usual אשׁר על (cf. Jer 4:28; Mal 2:14; Psa 139:14). Eglon allied himself with the Ammonites and Amalekites, those arch-foes of Israel, invaded the land, took the palm-city, i.e., Jericho (see at Jdg 1:16), and made the Israelites tributary for eighteen years. Sixty years had passed since Jericho had been burnt by Joshua. During that time the Israelites had rebuilt the ruined city, but they had not fortified it, on account of the curse pronounced by Joshua upon any one who should restore it as a fortress; so that the Moabites could easily conquer it, and using it as a base, reduce the Israelites to servitude.”

“These are the persons, then, who are referred to in holy Scripture as amphoterodexioi—that is, as ambidextrous. Ehud, "who used either hand as if it were his right hand," is described as such in the book of Judges. We shall also be able to possess this quality in a spiritual way if by a good and correct use we put the things which are considered fortunate and right-handed and the things which are called unfortunate and left-handed on the right side, that whatever befalls may become for us, in the words of the apostle, "the arms of righteousness." For we see that our inner man consists in two parts or, as I might say, two hands. No holy person can be without what we call the left hand, but perfect virtue is discerned in the fact that by proper use he turns both into a right hand.”

“Whose right arm was immobile. Yonasan renders "A man whose right arm was shrunken." "Gamid" in the Aramaic always indicates something shrunken by disease, "retrait", "shrunk" in old French. He could not utilize his right arm. In Hebrew, "closed", as in "Let not the well close its mouth over me." His right arm was "closed"—he could not utilize it.”

“Aod, signifies “praise,” whence perhaps Josephus calls him Judes which has the same import. (Menochius) — He was a descendant of Jemini or Benjamin, by his son Gera, Genesis xlvi. 1. — Right. Septuagint and many interpreters agree, that Aod was “Ambidexter,” a quality which Plato exhorted those who were designed for war, to strive to acquire. Several of the heroes before Troy are praised on this account; and the Scripture takes particular notice of 700 citizens of Gabaa, who could use both hands alike, and could hit even a hair with a stone, chap. xx. 16. The Jews explain itter, very absurdly; Aod “had his right hand maimed or tied:” (Calmet) and Protestants render “a man left-handed.” (Haydock) — This would be a very awkward recommendation for a warrior, though it is pretended that such are more resolute, and more difficult to encounter than others. The number of the men at Gabaa who are praised for their skill, as well as the brave men of David, (1 Paralipomenon xii. 2,) shews sufficiently that the term does not mean left-handed. But the Scripture here takes notice that Aod could use his left hand so well, because he placed his dagger, contrary to custom, on his right side, and the motions of his left hand would not be so narrowly watched. Rufin does not agree with the present text of Josephus, which indeed seems very confused, saying, “that all the strength of Aod lay in his left hand.” Gelenius also translates, utraque manu ex æquo promptus; (Antiquities v. 5,) so that perhaps the Greek of Josephus may have been altered. — Presents; that is, tribute; an odious expression, instead of which the Scripture often puts presents, 1 Kings x. 27., and 1 Paralipomenon xviii. 2. No tribute was imposed in Persia till the reign of Darius Hystaspes; the subjects had to make presents to the king. (Herodotus iii. 89.) (Calmet)”

“Ehud the son of Gera--descended from Gera, one of Benjamin's sons (Gen 46:21). left-handed--This peculiarity distinguished many in the Benjamite tribe (Jdg 20:16). But the original word is rendered in some versions "both-handed," a view countenanced by Ch1 12:2. by him the children of Israel sent a present unto Eglon the king of Moab--the yearly tribute, which, according to Eastern fashion, would be borne with ostentatious ceremony and offered (Jdg 3:18) by several messengers.”

“But when the Israelites cried to the Lord for help, He set them free through the Benjaminite Ehud, whom He raised up as their deliverer. Ehud was "the son of Gera." This probably means that he was a descendant of Gera, since Gera himself, according to Ch1 8:3, was a son of Bela the son of Benjamin, and therefore was a grandson of Benjamin; and Shimei the contemporary of David, a man belonging to the tribe of Benjamin, is also called a son of Gera in Sa2 16:5; Sa2 19:17. At the same time, it is possible that the name Gera does not refer to the same person in these different passages, but that the name was repeated again and again in the same family. "A man shut with regard to his right hand," i.e., hindered in the use of his right hand, not necessarily crippled, but in all probability disabled through want of use from his youth upwards. That the expression does not mean crippled, is confirmed by the fact that it is used again in connection with the 700 brave slingers in the army of the Benjaminites in Jdg 20:16, and it certainly cannot be supposed that they were all actual cripples. So much is certain, however, that it does not mean ἀμφοτεροδέξιος, qui utraque manu pro dextera utebatur (lxx, Vulg.), since אטר signifies clausit (shut) in Psa 69:16. It is merely with reference to what follows that this peculiarity is so distinctly mentioned. - The Israelites sent a present by him to king Eglon. בידו does not mean in, but through, his hand, i.e., through his intervention, for others were actually employed to carry the present (Jdg 3:18), so that Ehud merely superintended the matter. Minchah, a gift or present, is no doubt a euphemism for tribute, as in Sa2 8:2, Sa2 8:6; Kg1 5:1.”

“He made, or procured, though it was formerly honourable for a person to do such things himself. (Calmet) — Hand. Hebrew gomed, is translated by the Protestants, “of a cubit length,” (Haydock) though the term is never used elsewhere for that measure. Septuagint have spithame, a measure of 12 fingers. — Garment. The sagum, as well as the Septuagint mandua, from the Hebrew mad, denote a military garment. But such a dress might have rendered Aod suspected, (Calmet) unless an uniform might then be deemed a suitable dress for an ambassador. (Haydock) — Thigh. The Jews wore the sword there; (Psalm xliv. 4,) and it would be more convenient on the left thigh, as the nations of Gaul and Germany had it, while the Roman cavalry wore the sword on the right; and the infantry had two swords, the long one on the left, and a shorter, about an hand’s length, on the right. (Josephus, Jewish Wars iii. 3.) (Lipsius)”

“Ehud availed himself of the opportunity to approach the king of the Moabites and put him to death, and thus to shake off the yoke of the Moabites from his nation. To this end he provided himself with a sword, which had two edges (פּיות from פּה, like שׂיו, Deu 22:1, from שׂה), a cubit long (גּמר, ἁπ. λεγ., signified primarily a staff, here a cubit, according to the Syriac and Arabic; not "a span," σπιθαμή, lxx), and "did gird it under his raiment upon his right thigh."”

“Him; or according to the Hebrew, Septuagint, and Chaldean, “he sent away the men who had brought the presents.” (Calmet) — But it seems he followed after them as far as Galgal, (Haydock) whence he returned, as if he had been consulting the oracle, and had orders to communicate something of importance to the king, unless we translate, “He dismissed, &c., ( 19. ) and as he was returned from the idols at Galgal, he said,” &c., at the same interview. (Calmet) He would not expose his companions to danger. (Menochius)”

“After presenting the gift, Ehud dismissed the people who had carried the present to their own homes; namely, as we learn from Jdg 3:19, after they had gone some distance from Jericho. But he himself returned from the stone-quarries at Gilgal, sc., to Jericho to king Eglon. הפּסילים מן refers to some place by Gilgal. In Deu 7:25; Isa 21:9; Jer 8:19, pesilim signifies idols. And if we would retain this meaning here, as the lxx, Vulg., and others have done, we must assume that in the neighbourhood of Gilgal there were stone idols set up in the open air-a thing which is very improbable. The rendering "stone quarries," from פּסל, to hew out stones (Exo 34:1, etc.), which is the one adopted in the Chaldee, and by Rashi and others, is more likely to be the correct one. Gilgal cannot be the Gilgal between Jericho and the Jordan, which was the first encampment of the Israelites in Canaan, as is commonly supposed, since Ehud passed the Pesilim on his flight from the king's dwelling-place to the mountains of Ephraim (Jdg 3:26, Jdg 3:27); and we can neither assume, as Bertheau does, that Eglon did not reside in the conquered palm-city (Jericho), but in some uncultivated place in the neighbourhood of the Jordan, nor suppose that after the murder of Eglon Ehud could possibly have gone from Jericho to the Gilgal which was half an hour's journey towards the east, for the purpose of escaping by a circuitous route of this kind to Seirah in the mountains of Ephraim, which was on the north-west of Jericho. Gilgal is more likely to be Geliloth, which was on the west of Jericho opposite to the ascent of Adummim (Kaalat ed Dom), on the border of Judah and Benjamin (Jos 18:17), and which was also called Gilgal (Jos 15:7). Having returned to the king's palace, Ehud sent in a message to him: "I have a secret word to thee, O king." The context requires that we should understand "he said" in the sense of "he had him told" (or bade say to him), since Ehud himself did not go in to the king, who was sitting in his room, till afterwards (Jdg 3:20). In consequence of this message the king said: הס, lit. be silent (the imperative of הסה fo); here it is a proclamation, Let there be quiet. Thereupon all who were standing round (viz., his attendants) left the room, and Ehud went in (Jdg 3:20). The king was sitting "in his upper room of cooling alone." The "room of cooling" (Luther, Sommerlaube, summer-arbour) was a room placed upon the flat roof of a house, which was open to the currents of air, and so afforded a cool retreat, such as are still met with in the East (vid., Shaw, pp. 188-9). Then Ehud said, "A word of God I have to thee;" whereupon the king rose from his seat, from reverence towards the word of God which Ehud pretended that he had to deliver to him, not to defend himself, as Bertheau supposes, of which there is not the slightest intimation in the text.”

“He then returned alone. From the quarries. An area where stones were excavated from the mountain. Similarly, Yonasan renders "from the quarries." Then he went to Eglon, and declared to him. He said, "Hsst." Eglon said, "Silence everyone near me!" Yonasan renders, "Leave!"—remove everyone. Still, the term connotes silence.”

“Idols. Hebrew pesilim. Some take these to be only heaps of stones. Protestants, “quarries.” (Haydock) — But the Septuagint, &c., represent them as “carved” idols. The same expression is used [in] Exodus xx. 4., &c. The Moabites had probably placed idols here, to profane that sacred place, which was resorted to out of devotion by the Israelites, Osee iv. 14., and Amos iv. 5. Here also the prophets inform us that the ten tribes adored and consulted idols; resembling perhaps that of Michas, chap. xvii. 4. — Silence to Aod, (Calmet) that none of the people might be able to divulge the secret. Hebrew, “be thou silent.” (Menochius)”

“quarries--rather, "graven images" (Deu 7:25; Jer 8:19; Jer 51:52); statues of Moabite idols, the sight of which kindled the patriotic zeal of Ehud to avenge this public insult to Israel on its author. I have a secret errand unto thee, O king: who said, Keep silence--"Privacy"--a signal for all to withdraw.”

“Alone. Hebrew, “Aod approached unto him, and he was sitting in a summer parlour, which he had for himself, alone.” It seems to have been a private closet, to which he retired for greater secrecy, as his officers concluded that he was there only to ease nature. (Haydock) — It might be rendered, “a hall of audience.” (Calmet) — But the place where Aod presented the tribute, was more probably of this description, and Eglon retired thence into a back parlour, and was followed by Aod, alone, ver. 24. (Haydock) — A word. What Aod, who was judge and chief magistrate of Israel, did on this occasion, was by a special inspiration of God: but such things are not to be imitated by private men. (Challoner; St. Augustine, q. 20.; Numbers xxv. Worthington) — Hebrew, “a thing (message, &c.) from God, (Aleim) or the gods.” Probably the king would imagine that he was speaking of the idols at Galgal, and being full of awe for them, would be off his guard, and rise up out of respect. See Numbers xxiii. 18., and Exodus iii. 5. (Calmet) — But as the word Elohim was only abusively applied to idols and to great men, Aod might say with truth, that he had a word or an errand from Elohim to the king, without minding in what sense Eglon would take the expression. See St. Augustine, q. 20., and Origen, hom. 4. Though God permitted this king to attack his people, and to scourge them for a time, he did not approve of his injustice, and now authorized the chief magistrate of Israel to revenge their wrongs. (Haydock) — God is the arbiter of our lives, and may order whomsoever he pleases to put us to death. But the doctrine of J. Huss, who preached, “It is lawful for every subject to kill any tyrant,” was condemned in the Council of Constance. David severely punished the man who pretended that he had slain Saul. The first Christians never entered into any revolt against those cruel and impious emperors who oppressed them, and whose title to the throne was evidently unjust. See Romans xiii. 1. Under what government are all satisfied, or of the same religion with the sovereign? Even if any should pretend that they have an order from God to kill a tyrant, they must give proof of their commission to the lawful superiors, or them must expect to be treated as fanatical impostors. (Calmet) — Throne; or Hebrew, “seat.” The throne of state would not probably be placed in a retired chamber. (Haydock) — The king rose up out of respect to the deity; (Menochius) and at the same moment, Aod plunged the dagger into his bowels. (Haydock)”

“But when the king stood up, Ehud drew his sword from under his garment, and plunged it so deeply into his abdomen that even the hilt followed the blade, and the fat closed upon the blade (so that there was nothing to be seen of it in front, because he did not draw the sword again out of his body), and the blade came out between the legs. The last words have been rendered in various ways. Luther follows the Chaldee and Vulgate, and renders it "so that the dirt passed from him," taking the ἁπ. λεγ. פּרשׁדנה as a composite noun from פּרשׁ, stercus, and שׁדה, jecit. But this is hardly correct, as the form of the word פּרשׁדנה, and its connection with יצא, rather points to a noun, פּרשׁדן, with ה local. The explanation given by Gesenius in his Thes. and Heb. lex. has much more in its favour, viz., interstitium pedum, the place between the legs, from an Arabic word signifying pedes dissitos habuit, used as a euphemism for anus, podex. The subject to the verb is the blade. (Note: At any rate the rendering suggested by Ewald, "Ehud went into the open air, or into the enclosure, the space in front of the Alija," is untenable, for the simple reason that it is perfectly irreconcilable with the next clause, "Ehud went forth," etc. (consequently Fr. Bttcher proposes to erase this clause from the text, without any critical authority whatever). For if Ehud were the subject to the verb, the subject would necessarily have been mentioned, as it really is in the next clause, Jdg 3:23.)”

“The hilt. The iron into which the blade is inserted, called 'hulot' in old French. This balances the sword in its scabbard. The blade. The sharpened section, called "brant" and "lama" in old French. The fat closed. His fat. He was extremely corpulent, so that he enclosed the entire length of the dagger. Waste matter oozed. Yonasan renders, "Spilled waste matter oozed." He reads this as a contraction of two words with the 'shin' serving both. "spilled waste matter" [oozed].שְׁפַךְ, "spilled", is the translation of שְׁדָא according to Yonasan.”

“With, &c. Hebrew [and] Protestants, “And the haft also went in after the blade, and the fat closed upon the blade, so that he could not draw the dagger out of his belly, and the dirt came out.” By the word belly, the Jews mean all the vital parts. (Calmet) —- The wound was so deep, that Aod did not think proper to strive long to extract his sword; and indeed, being all bloody, it would have only tended to excite suspicion. (Haydock) — The Chaldean agrees with the Vulgate in rendering parshedona “excrements,” though it seem to be rather irregularly in construction with a masculine [], &c. If we should read peristana, “a porch,” the difficulty would be avoided. (Calmet) — Septuagint, “( 23 ) and Aod went out into the porch, ( prostada ) and he shut the doors of the upper chamber….( 24 ) and he himself went out.” (Haydock)”

“Door. Lyranus would prefer porticum, “the porch,” as the Chaldean explains the Hebrew by exedra, a portico highly ornamented with pillars and seats, where the princes formerly used to administer justice. Homer give a grand description of the portico of Alcinous. (Odessey) (Haydock) — See that of Solomon described, 3 Kings vii. 6. (Calmet) — The Roman Septuagint adds after prostada, what may perhaps be a second version, “and he went through those who were drawn up,” or the guards. He shewed no signs of fear. (Haydock) — It was not necessary for him to take the key with him, as a common one was used for several chambers, and was necessary only to unloose some bands, with which the doors were fastened. The keys in the East are very large, and of a very different construction from ours. (Calmet) — Nature. Hebrew, “he covereth his feet.” The ancients did not wear breeches: they covered themselves with great care. (Calmet) See Deuteronomy xxiii. 13. (Haydock) — Parlour. Hebrew, “chamber.” Septuagint, “bed-chamber.””

“When the servants of Eglon came (to enter in to their lord) after Ehud's departure and saw the door of the upper room bolted, they thought "surely (אך, lit. only, nothing but) he covers his feet" (a euphemism for performing the necessities of nature; cf. Sa1 24:3), and waited to shaming (cf. 2 King Jdg 2:17; Jdg 8:11), i.e., till they were ashamed of their long waiting (see at Jdg 5:28). At length they opened the door with the key, and found their lord lying dead upon the floor. Ehud's conduct must be judged according to the spirit of those times, when it was thought allowable to adopt any means of destroying the enemy of one's nation. The treacherous assassination of a hostile king is not to be regarded as an act of the Spirit of God, and therefore is not set before us as an example to be imitated. Although Jehovah raised up Ehud as a deliverer to His people when oppressed by Eglon, it is not stated (and this ought particularly to be observed) that the Spirit of Jehovah came upon Ehud, and still less that Ehud assassinated the hostile king under the impulse of that Spirit. Ehud proved himself to have been raised up by the Lord as the deliverer of Israel, simply by the fact that he actually delivered his people from the bondage of the Moabites, and it by no means follows that the means which he selected were either commanded or approved by Jehovah.”

“Escaped. Fled, "eschamocier" in old French. While [lit. until] they tarried. As in, "While the king lounged," "Affection, while still desired"—while we both desire it. In the underbrush. A thin-branched, heavily wooded forest, called "brousaille", brush, in old French, excellent for concealment. Frequently, in the order of Zeraim, thin branches are called "sa'ar"—"[He] overturned the branches," "If the branches meshed."”

“Ehud had escaped whilst the servants of Eglon were waiting, and had passed the stone quarries and reached Seirah. Seirah is a place that is never mentioned again; and, judging from the etymology (the hairy), it was a wooded region, respecting the situation of which all that can be decided is, that it is not to be sought for in the neighbourhood of Jericho, but "upon the mountains of Ephraim" (Jdg 3:27). For when Ehud had come to Seirah, he blew the trumpet "upon the mountains of Ephraim," to announce to the people the victory that was placed within their reach by the death of Eglon, and to summon them to war with the Moabites, and then went down from the mountain into the plain near Jericho; "and he was before them," i.e., went in front as their leader, saying to the people, "Follow me; for Jehovah has given your enemies the Moabites into your hand." Then they went down and took (i.e., took possession of) the fords near Jericho (see at Jos 2:7), למואב, either "from the Moabites" or "towards Moab," and let no one (of the Moabites) cross over, i.e., escape to their own land.”

“It happened that, when he arrived. He crossed the Yardein, and arrived at his place in the land of Canaan. At Mount Ephrayim. Which was in the land of Canaan, on the western side of the Yardein. The land of Moav was on the eastern side of the Yardein, but as they had subdued Yisroel and crossed the Yardein, they occupied Yericho as stated above, and installed their princes and governors over Yisroel.”

“Seirath seems to have been on the road from Galgal to Mount Ephraim. Some conjecture that Josephus speaks of it under the name of Syriad, (Calmet) where he saw the inscriptions, which he asserts were left by the children of Seth before the deluge. (Haydock) — They might perhaps be the idols which are mentioned here.”

“Thus they smote at that time about 10,000 Moabites, all fat and powerful men, i.e., the whole army of the enemy in Jericho and on this side of the Jordan, not letting a man escape. The expression "at that time" seems to imply that they did not destroy this number in one single engagement, but during the whole course of the war.”

“Now, judges were established over them from the time they took over the promised land and before the monarchy began. And even during this era, the children of iniquity, that is, foreign foes, afflicted them, for we read they had now peace, now war. Even so, you can find periods of peace in the age of the judges longer than that of Solomon, who reigned forty years. Specifically, under the judge named Ehud, there were eighty years of peace.”

“Eighty. The Hebrews use the letter p to express this number; and, as it is very like their c, which stands for 20, Houbigant suspects that he first number is a mistake of the transcribers. Usher confesses that it is “extremely improbable” that Aod should have governed so long, after he had slain Eglon, as he must have been at that time, about 40 years old; and the Israelites were not often so constant for such a length of time. (Houbigant, Proleg.) — But this difficulty does not affect Usher, as he brings Aod forward only in the 80th year from the peace of Othoniel; and instead of allowing him 80 years of peaceful sway, he says Samgar appeared after him; but, it seems, both together did not reign a year, since in that 80th year, he commences the servitude, which Jabin brought upon Israel, from the year of the world 2679 till 2699, and peace was not restored by Barac for other 20 years! (Haydock)”

“Samgar. His reign seems to have been short, and only perhaps extended over the tribes of Juda, Simeon, and Dan, while Debbora governed in another part. Some exclude him from the list of judges. But Josephus, Origen, &c., allow his title, with most of the moderns. (Calmet) — The Alex.[Alexandrian?] Chronicle gives his reign of 24 years, which Salien would understand, as if he had acted under the orders of Aod, when the latter was grown too old, if the author had not said that “after the death of Aod, Samgar, his son, judged Israel 24 years,” which he subtracts from the 80 years allotted to Aod. He makes Bocci succeed Abisue in the pontificate, at the same time, which Salien admits, in the year of the world 2696. — Hundred. Septuagint, “as far as 600,” which might be at different times, when the Philistines were dispersed through the country in order to plunder. — Plough-share. Septuagint aratropodi. (Haydock) — Some translate the Hebrew, “an ox-goad.” Maundrell describes those, which are used in Palestine, as eight feet long; and, at the thick end, 10 inches round, with a kind of spade, to clean the plough, while the other end is very sharp. Samgar might probably use such an instrument. From its being mentioned, we may gather that he did not engage the enemy in a pitched battle, (Calmet) but as he could find an opportunity. Thus Samson slew 1000 of the same nation with the jaw-bone of an ass, chap xv. (Haydock) — Defended. Hebrew and Septuagint, “saved,” which shews that he was a proper judge. (Menochius) — It is true, he did not rescue the Israelites entirely, but he stood up in their defence. (Calmet) — The duration of his government is not specified, nor is it said that the land rested, because he ruled for a short time only: Josephus says not quite a year; and the roads were continually infested with the incursions of the Philistines on the south, and of the Chanaanites on the North, chap. v. 6. Samgar seems to have been a ploughman, and he seized the first weapon that came to hand. The Hungarians and Spaniards formerly defended themselves against the attacks of the Turks and Moors with their plough-shares, in memory of which the Spaniards long after went armed to plough. The most valiant Roman generals, Camillus, Curius, Cincinnatus, and Fabricius, were called from the plough to the Dictatorship; and Pliny ([Natural History?] xviii.) observes, that “countrymen make the best soldiers.” Bible Text & Cross-references: The people falling into idolatry, are oppressed by their enemies; but repenting, are delivered by Othoniel, Aod, and Samgar. 1 These are the nations which the Lord left, that by them he might instruct Israel, and all that had not known the wars of the Chanaanites: 2 That afterwards their children might learn to fight with their enemies, and to be trained up to war: 3 The five princes of the Philistines, and all the Chanaanites, and the Sidonians, and the Hevites that dwelt in Mount Libanus, from Mount Baal Hermon to the entering into Emath. 4 And he left them, that he might try Israel by them, whether they would hear the commandments of the Lord, which he had commanded their fathers, by the hand of Moses, or not. 5 So the children of Israel dwelt in the midst of the Chanaanite, and the Hethite, and the Amorrhite, and the Pherezite, and the Hevite, and the Jebusite: 6 And they took their daughters to wives, and they gave their own daughters to their sons, and they served their gods. 7 And they did evil in the sight of the Lord, and they forgot their God, and served Baalim and Astaroth. 8 And the Lord being angry with Israel, delivered them into the hands of Chusan Rasathaim, king of Mesopotamia, and they served him eight years. 9 And they cried to the Lord, who raised them up a saviour, and delivered them; to wit, Othoniel, the son of Cenez, the younger brother of Caleb: 10 And the spirit of the Lord was in him, and he judged Israel. And he went out to fight, and the Lord delivered Chusan Rasathaim, king of Syria, and he overthrew him: 11 And the land rested forty years, and Othoniel, the son of Cenez, died. 12 And the children of Israel did evil again in the sight of the Lord: who strengthened against them Eglon, king of Moab: because they did evil in his sight. 13 And he joined to him the children of Ammon, and Amalec: and he went and overthrew Israel, and possessed the city of palm-trees. 14 And the children of Israel served Eglon, king of Moab, eighteen years. 15 And afterwards they cried to the Lord, who raised them up a saviour, called Aod, the son of Gera, the son of Jemini, who used the left hand as well as the right. And the children of Israel sent presents to Eglon, king of Moab, by him. 16 And he made himself a two-edged sword, with a haft in the midst, of the length of the palm of the hand, and was girded therewith, under his garment, on the right thigh. 17 And he presented the gifts to Eglon, king of Moab. Now Eglon was exceeding fat. 18 And when he had presented the gifts unto him, he followed his companions that came along with him. 19 Then returning from Galgal, where the idols were, he said to the king: I have a secret message to thee, O king. And he commanded silence: and all being gone out that were about him, 20 Aod went in to him: now he was sitting in a summer parlour alone, and he said: I have a word from God to thee. And he forthwith rose up from his throne. 21 And Aod put forth his left hand, and took the dagger from his right thigh, and thrust it into his belly, 22 With such force that the haft went in after the blade into the wound, and was closed up with the abundance of fat. So that he did not draw out the dagger, but left it in the body as he had struck it in: and forthwith, by the secret parts of nature, the excrements of the belly came out. 23 But Aod carefully shutting the doors of the parlour, and locking them, 24 Went out by a postern door. And the king’s servants going in, saw the doors of the parlour shut, and they said: Perhaps he is easing nature in his summer parlour. 25 And waiting a long time, till they were ashamed, and seeing that no man opened the door, they took a key: and opening, they found their lord lying dead on the ground. 26 But Aod, while they were in confusion, escaped, and passed by the place of the idols, from whence he had returned. And he came to Seirath: 27 And forthwith he sounded the trumpet in Mount Ephraim: and the children of Israel went down with him, he himself going in the front. 28 And he said to them: Follow me: for the Lord hath delivered our enemies, the Moabites, into our hands. And they went down after him, and seized upon the fords of the Jordan, which are in the way to Moab: and they suffered no man to pass over: 29 But they slew of the Moabites at that time, about ten thousand, all strong and valiant men: none of them could escape. 30 And Moab was humbled that day under the hand of Israel: and the land rested eighty years. 31 After him was Samgar, the son of Anath, who slew of the Philistines six hundred men with a ploughshare: and he also defended Israel. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21”

“after him was Shamgar--No notice is given of the tribe or family of this judge; and from the Philistines being the enemy that roused him into public service, the suffering seems to have been local--confined to some of the western tribes. slew . . . six hundred men with an oxgoad--This instrument is eight feet long and about six inches in circumference. It is armed at the lesser end with a sharp prong for driving the cattle, and on the other with a small iron paddle for removing the clay which encumbers the plough in working. Such an instrument, wielded by a strong arm, would do no mean execution. We may suppose, however, for the notice is very fragmentary, that Shamgar was only the leader of a band of peasants, who by means of such implements of labor as they could lay hold of at the moment, achieved the heroic exploit recorded. Next: Judges Chapter 4”

“After him (Ehud) was, i.e., there rose up, Shamgar the son of Anath. He smote the Philistines, who had probably invaded the land of the Israelites, six hundred men, with an ox-goad, so that he also (like Othniel and Ehud, Jdg 3:9 and Jdg 3:15) delivered Israel. הבּקר מלמד, ἁπ. λεγ., signifies, according to the Rabbins and the ancient versions, an instrument with which they trained and drove oxen; and with this the etymology agrees, as למד is used in Hos 10:11 and Jer 31:18 to denote the training of the young ox. According to Rashi, בּקר מלמד is the same as דּרבן, βούκεντρον, in Sa1 13:21. According to Maundrell in Paulus' Samml. der merkw. Reisen nach d. Or. i. p. 139, the country people in Palestine and Syria use when ploughing goads about eight feet long and six inches in circumference at the thick end. At the thin end they have a sharp point to drive the oxen, and at the other end a small hoe, to scrape off any dirt that may stick to the plough. Shamgar may have smitten the Philistines with some such instrument as this, just as the Edonian prince Lycurgus is described by Homer (Il. vi. 135) as putting Dionysius and the Bacchantines to flight with a βουπλήξ. Nothing is recorded about the descent of Shamgar, either here or in the Song of Deborah, in Jdg 5:6. The heroic deed recorded of him must be regarded, as O. v. Gerlach affirms, as "merely the result of a holy inspiration that suddenly burst forth within him, in which he seized upon the first weapon that came to his hand, and put to flight the enemy when scared by a terror for God, just as Samson did on a later occasion." For he does not seem to have secured for the Israelites any permanent victory over the Philistines. Moreover, he is not called judge, nor is the period of his labours taken into account, but in Jdg 4:1 the renewed apostasy of Israel from the Lord is dated from the death of Ehud.”