Josh 10:36

“And they took it, and smote it with the edge of the sword, and the king thereof,.... For though the king of Hebron was one of the kings that were taken in the cave of Makkedah, and hanged; yet before Joshua came up to it, they had set up another king over them: and all the cities thereof; for Hebron was a metropolitan city, and had other cities dependent on it, and subject to it: and all the souls that were therein; both in Hebron, and in the cities subject to it: he left none remaining; in any of them: according to all that he had done to Eglon; the last place he came from: but destroyed it utterly, and all the souls that were therein; but it seems that afterwards some that made their escape before the taking of the city, and other Canaanites driven out of their habitations, repeopled it; so that after Joshua's death it was recovered again by the tribe of Judah, Jdg 1:10; unless there is given in that place a more particular account of the taking of this city, with others at this time; but the former seems most likely.”

“Hebron - and the king thereof - See the note on Jos 10:3. From Jos 10:23 we learn that the king of Hebron was one of those five whom Joshua slew and hanged on five trees at Makkedah. How then can it be said that he slew the king of Hebron when he took the city, which was some days after the transactions at Makkedah? Either this slaying of the king of Hebron must refer to what had already been done, or the Hebronites, finding that their king fell in battle, had set up another in his place; which was the king Joshua slew, after he had taken the city and its dependencies, as is related Jos 10:37. It appears that the city of Hebron had fallen back into the hands of the Canaanites, for it was again taken from them by the tribe of Judah, Jdg 1:10. Debir had also fallen into their hands, for it was reconquered by Othniel, the son-in-law of Caleb, Jdg 1:11-13. The manner in which Calmet accounts for this is very natural: Joshua, in his rapid conquests, contented himself with taking, demolishing, and burning those cities; but did not garrison any of them, for fear of weakening his army. In several instances no doubt the scattered Canaanites returned, repeopled, and put those cities in a state of defense. Hence the Israelites were obliged to conquer them a second time. This is a more rational way of accounting for these things, than that which supposes that the first chapter of Judges gives the more detailed account of the transactions recorded here; for there it is expressly said, that these transactions took place after the death of Joshua, (see Jdg 1:1), and consequently cannot be the same that are mentioned here.”