Judges 1:33-36: Naphthali and Dan’s Unfaithfulness in the Conquest

Verse 33:[1] (Josh. 19:38) Neither did Naphtali drive out the inhabitants of Beth-shemesh, nor the inhabitants of Beth-anath; but he (Judg. 1:32) dwelt among the Canaanites, the inhabitants of the land: nevertheless the inhabitants of Beth-shemesh and of Beth-anath (Judg. 1:30) became tributaries unto them.

Beth-shemesh; a place differing from that Beth-shemesh, Joshua 15:10.


Verse 34:[2] And the Amorites forced the children of Dan into the mountain: for they would not suffer them to come down to the valley…

[The Amorite confined the children of Dan, etc.] This Tribe was considered the worst of all; but it is not recorded with any fault belonging to them. They are kept completely away from the plain, I believe, by the multitude of chariots, as in verse 19. Hence they Danites were compelled to seek other habitations; which expedition is narrated in Joshua 19 and Judges 18 (Bonfrerius).

To the valley: that is, Into the plain country; which was the occasion of that expedition for the getting of new quarters; of which we read Joshua 19; Judges 18.


Verse 35:[3] But the Amorites would dwell in mount Heres (Josh. 19:42) in Aijalon, and in Shaalbim: yet the hand of the house of Joseph prevailed (Heb. was heavy[4]), so that they became tributaries.

[And he dwelt in mount Heres] The Septuagint has, in Heres, where were she-bears, etc. For, although there are more and larger bears in cold regions, nevertheless they are found also in warm regions; like in Judea, 1 Samuel 17:34; 2 Kings 2:24 (Lapide, Bonfrerius). The Scripture here indicates that the Danites were driven into the mountains in such a way that, nevertheless, the Amorites held three of their cities in the mountains, namely, Heres, Aijalon, and Shaalbim (Bonfrerius). Moreover, the Septuagint renders וּבְשַׁעַלְבִים, and in Shaalbim, in which are foxes. In Hebrew foxes are called שׁוּעֲלִים (Bonfrerius). As in Arabic a fox is העלב, so in the dialect of the Philistines it was שַׁעֲלַב (Bochart’s Sacred Catalogue of Animals 1:2:13:855).

[And the hand of the house of Joseph was heavy (thus Pagnine, Montanus, Septuagint), וַתִּכְבַּד] And it increased in power, etc. (Jonathan, Syriac, Munster, Tigurinus, similarly the Arabic). But when the hand of the house of Jospeh grew heavy, etc. (Junius and Tremellius). [Some connect it with what precedes in this manner:] And he willed, that is, but while he was trying with all his strength, to dwell in, etc., then the hand of the house of Joseph was heavy, that is, prevailed over those Amorites; that is to say, the children of Joseph overcame and overthrew them (Vatablus). These words are able to be explained, either actively, which is to say, the house of Joseph oppressed their enemies; or passively, which is to say, it was oppressed by them. Neither does it appear from the text which of these is understood (Lyra). The sense is, the Ephraimites were a help to the Danites against the Amorites (Tirinus, similarly Bonfrerius). God willed the nearness of the places to be protection of the Danites (Montanus’ Commentary). The Hebrew text does not clearly express this, but the Septuagint version expresses it, καὶ ἐβαρύνθη χεὶρ οἴκου Ιωσηφ ἐπὶ τὸν Ἀμοῤῥαῖον, and the hand of the house of Joseph was heavy upon the Amorite (Bonfrerius).

Of the house of Joseph, that is, of the Ephraimites, who helped their brethren the Danites against the Amorites, and that with good success.


Verse 36:[5] And the coast of the Amorites was (Num. 34:4; Josh. 15:3) from the going up to Akrabbim (or, Maaleh-akrabbim[6]), from the rock, and upward.

[The border of the Amorite was from the Ascent of the scorpion, etc.[7]] That all these places were near to the Josephites, we learned from the division of lots (Montanus’ Commentary). Others otherwise: that is to say, It is not surprising that the Amorites were subdued with such difficulty; for they were dispersed far and wide throughout Canaan, especially toward the Southern parts, such that the borders of all Canaan and the borders of their habitation were the same (Bonfrerius). This he says, that the Borders of the Amorites began in the Southern part of the Holy Land; that is, their dominion was greatly extended, namely, even unto, etc., and it was stretch out Northward unto Dan (Vatablus). The Ascent of the scorpion was a place in the Southern part of Canaan (Vatablus, Bonfrerius), as it is evident from Numbers 34:4; Joshua 15:3 (Bonfrerius).

Akrabbim was in the southern part of Canaan, Joshua 15:2, 3, from whence it went up towards the north. This is added to show the great power and large extent of this people.

[Petra, and higher places; that is, they appeared as their border (Bonfrerius); מֵהַסֶּ֖לַע וָמָֽעְלָה׃] From that rock and upward (Munster, Pagnine, Tigurinus). Moreover, Petra was a city in the extreme borders of the land toward the South, as Josephus testifies in his Antiquities 3:2. And upward, that is, beyond the city of Petra toward the peaks of those Southern mountains they extended their habitation. And of this Amorite dwelling in the mountains understand Deuteronomy 1:44 (Bonfrerius).

[1] Hebrew: נַפְתָּלִ֗י לֹֽא־הוֹרִ֞ישׁ אֶת־יֹשְׁבֵ֤י בֵֽית־שֶׁ֙מֶשׁ֙ וְאֶת־יֹשְׁבֵ֣י בֵית־עֲנָ֔ת וַיֵּ֕שֶׁב בְּקֶ֥רֶב הַֽכְּנַעֲנִ֖י יֹשְׁבֵ֣י הָאָ֑רֶץ וְיֹשְׁבֵ֤י בֵֽית־שֶׁ֙מֶשׁ֙ וּבֵ֣ית עֲנָ֔ת הָי֥וּ לָהֶ֖ם לָמַֽס׃

[2] Hebrew: וַיִּלְחֲצ֧וּ הָאֱמֹרִ֛י אֶת־בְּנֵי־דָ֖ן הָהָ֑רָה כִּי־לֹ֥א נְתָנ֖וֹ לָרֶ֥דֶת לָעֵֽמֶק׃

[3] Hebrew: וַיּ֤וֹאֶל הָֽאֱמֹרִי֙ לָשֶׁ֣בֶת בְּהַר־חֶ֔רֶס בְּאַיָּל֖וֹן וּבְשַֽׁעַלְבִ֑ים וַתִּכְבַּד֙ יַ֣ד בֵּית־יוֹסֵ֔ף וַיִּהְי֖וּ לָמַֽס׃

[4] Hebrew: וַתִּכְבַּד.

[5] Hebrew: וּגְבוּל֙ הָאֱמֹרִ֔י מִֽמַּעֲלֵ֖ה עַקְרַבִּ֑ים מֵהַסֶּ֖לַע וָמָֽעְלָה׃

[6] Hebrew: מִֽמַּעֲלֵ֖ה עַקְרַבִּ֑ים.

[7] עַקְרַבִּים/Akrabbim signifies scorpions.

Judges 1:30-32: Zebulun and Asher’s Unfaithfulness in the Conquest

Verse 30:[1] Neither did Zebulun drive out the inhabitants of Kitron, nor the (Josh. 19:15) inhabitants of Nahalol; but the Canaanites dwelt among them, and became tributaries.


Verse 31:[2] (Josh. 19:24-30) Neither did Asher drive out the inhabitants of Accho, nor the inhabitants of Zidon, nor of Ahlab, nor of Achzib, nor of Helbah, nor of Aphik, nor of Rehob…


Verse 32:[3] But the Asherites (Ps. 106:34, 35) dwelt among the Canaanites, the inhabitants of the land: for they did not drive them out.

[He did not destroy him] It is not added here, as in the case of the other tribes, and he was made a tributary to him: For we do not read that the Sidonians, Tyrians, and their territories were ever subdued, or made subject to tribute (Bonfrerius).

[1] Hebrew: זְבוּלֻ֗ן לֹ֤א הוֹרִישׁ֙ אֶת־יוֹשְׁבֵ֣י קִטְר֔וֹן וְאֶת־יוֹשְׁבֵ֖י נַהֲלֹ֑ל וַיֵּ֤שֶׁב הַֽכְּנַעֲנִי֙ בְּקִרְבּ֔וֹ וַיִּֽהְי֖וּ לָמַֽס׃

[2] Hebrew: אָשֵׁ֗ר לֹ֤א הוֹרִישׁ֙ אֶת־יֹשְׁבֵ֣י עַכּ֔וֹ וְאֶת־יוֹשְׁבֵ֖י צִיד֑וֹן וְאֶת־אַחְלָ֤ב וְאֶת־אַכְזִיב֙ וְאֶת־חֶלְבָּ֔ה וְאֶת־אֲפִ֖יק וְאֶת־רְחֹֽב׃

[3] Hebrew: וַיֵּ֙שֶׁב֙ הָאָ֣שֵׁרִ֔י בְּקֶ֥רֶב הַֽכְּנַעֲנִ֖י יֹשְׁבֵ֣י הָאָ֑רֶץ כִּ֖י לֹ֥א הוֹרִישֽׁוֹ׃

Judges 1:27-29: Mannasseh and Ephraim’s Unfaithfulness in the Conquest

Verse 27:[1] (Josh. 17:11-13) Neither did Manasseh drive out the inhabitants of Beth-shean and her towns, nor Taanach and her towns, nor the inhabitants of Dor and her towns, nor the inhabitants of Ibleam and her towns, nor the inhabitants of Megiddo and her towns: but the Canaanites would dwell in that land.

[He did not destroy Beth-shean] Understand, the inhabitants of Beth-shean (Vatablus).

Manasseh, that is, that half of this tribe which dwelt in Canaan. Beth-shean; a place near Jordan, Joshua 17:11. Taanach; of which see Joshua 12:21; 17:11. Dor; a great city with large territories. See Joshua 11:2; 12:23; 17:11. Megiddo; a royal city. See Joshua 12:21; 17:11.

[And the Canaanite began to dwell with them (thus the Septuagint, Pagnine), וַיּ֙וֹאֶל֙ הַֽכְּנַעֲנִ֔י לָשֶׁ֖בֶת[2]] And he willed (presumed [Munster]; dared, as in Genesis 18:27;[3] chosen; attempted [Tigurinus Notes]) to dwell (Montanus): he was submitting so that he might dwell (Piscator, similarly Junius and Tremellius), that is, he was submitting to dwell in hard conditions in that land, rather than that he might depart (Junius). Others: although he had despaired of dwelling in that land (Tigurinus). And he left the Canaanite to dwell (Jonathan).


Verse 28:[4] And it came to pass, when Israel was strong, that they put the Canaanites to tribute, and did not utterly drive them out.

[He made them tributaries] Not having been turned from idolatry, and after the first denunciation was despised by them; neither of which was lawful (Grotius). Out of love for filthy lucre (Tirinus, Lyra). He made a covenant with them, with no other condition than that of tribute, with God’s worship and express commandment neglected, Exodus 23:32, 33; 34:12, 15 (Junius).


Verse 29:[5] (Josh. 16:10; 1 Kings 9:16) Neither did Ephraim drive out the Canaanites that dwelt in Gezer; but the Canaanites dwelt in Gezer among them.

[But he dwelt with him] There is no mention of tribute here; hence I suspect that they made with them a covenant of friendship and commerce, without tribute (Montanus’ Commentary). But it is not likely that those Ephraimites were more benevolent than the others: Therefore, I think that tribute was imposed, although it is not mentioned (Martyr).

The Canaanites dwelt in Gezer among them: Which they possessed till Solomon’s time, 1 Kings 9:16.

[1] Hebrew: וְלֹא־הוֹרִ֣ישׁ מְנַשֶּׁ֗ה אֶת־בֵּית־שְׁאָ֣ן וְאֶת־בְּנוֹתֶיהָ֮ וְאֶת־תַּעְנַ֣ךְ וְאֶת־בְּנֹתֶיהָ֒ וְאֶת־יֹשְׁבֵ֨ ד֜וֹר וְאֶת־בְּנוֹתֶ֗יהָ וְאֶת־יוֹשְׁבֵ֤י יִבְלְעָם֙ וְאֶת־בְּנֹתֶ֔יהָ וְאֶת־יוֹשְׁבֵ֥י מְגִדּ֖וֹ וְאֶת־בְּנוֹתֶ֑יהָ וַיּ֙וֹאֶל֙ הַֽכְּנַעֲנִ֔י לָשֶׁ֖בֶת בָּאָ֥רֶץ הַזֹּֽאת׃

[2] יָאַל in the Hiphil signifies to show willingness.

[3] Genesis 18:27:  “And Abraham answered and said, Behold now, I have taken upon me (הוֹאַלְתִּי, I have dared) to speak unto the Lord, which am but dust and ashes…”

[4] Hebrew: וַֽיְהִי֙ כִּֽי־חָזַ֣ק יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל וַיָּ֥שֶׂם אֶת־הַֽכְּנַעֲנִ֖י לָמַ֑ס וְהוֹרֵ֖ישׁ לֹ֥א הוֹרִישֽׁוֹ׃

[5] Hebrew: וְאֶפְרַ֙יִם֙ לֹ֣א הוֹרִ֔ישׁ אֶת־הַֽכְּנַעֲנִ֖י הַיּוֹשֵׁ֣ב בְּגָ֑זֶר וַיֵּ֧שֶׁב הַֽכְּנַעֲנִ֛י בְּקִרְבּ֖וֹ בְּגָֽזֶר׃

Judges 1:22-26: There Once Was a Man from Luz…

Verse 22:[1] And the house of Joseph, they also went up against Beth-el: (Judg. 1:19) and the LORD was with them.

The house of Joseph, that is, the tribe of Ephraim, as appears from their opposition to the tribe of Manasseh, Judges 1:27.


Verse 23:[2] And the house of Joseph (Josh. 2:1; 7:2; Judg. 18:2) sent to descry Beth-el. (Now the name of the city before was [Gen. 28:19] Luz.)

[Whey they were besieging the city; that is, when they had secretly arrived, so that they might besiege (Bonfrerius): וַיָּתִ֥ירוּ בֵית־יוֹסֵ֖ף בְּבֵֽית־אֵ֑ל] And they, the house of Joseph, caused (or took care [Junius and Tremellius]) to be searched out in Bethel (Montanus) (unto/against Bethel [Junius and Tremellius, Munster, Tigurinus, Pagnine). They appointed spies against Bethel (Tigurinus Notes[3]). And they kept watch near Beth-el (Syriac).


Verse 24:[4] And the spies saw a man come forth out of the city, and they said unto him, Shew us, we pray thee, the entrance into the city, and (Josh. 2:12, 14) we will shew thee mercy.

[Show to us the entrance of the city (thus Montanus, Munster, similarly the Septuagint, Junius and Tremellius, Pagnine), מְב֣וֹא הָעִ֔יר] The approach of the city (Syriac, Arabic), or, to this city (Tigurinus), that is, In which part that city might be able more easily to be assaulted and approached (Vatablus): understand, on account of the walls being lower or broken (Lapide, Bonfrerius); or, on account of some part of the city being less fortified. Perhaps the Ephraimites came at the earliest dawn, when the gates did not stand open; or a forcible entry through the gates could cost them too dearly: therefore, they seek whether they might be able to enter into the city secretly in some way (Bonfrerius).

The entrance into the city; on which side it is weakest, that we may best invade and take it.

[We will do mercy with thee[5]] It is a Hebraism: we will compensate with this kindness (Vatablus). We will give thee thy life (Lapide). Objection: But God had commanded them to cut off all the Canaanites. Response: The Laws of God are not so rigid that they are not able to be bent somewhat by equity; as it is evident from the Gibeonites[6] (Martyr). They were able to enter into an agreement with them concerning life, 1. If they be converted to the worship of the true God. 2. If they were willing to withdraw their habitation outside of Canaan, as was here done (Bonfrerius). For this only had God prohibited, lest they should remain among them, and infect them with their vices. 3. On account of some kindness; hence Rahab was spared for relieving the spies[7] (Lapide).


Verse 25:[8] And when he shewed them the entrance into the city, they smote the city with the edge of the sword; but they let go the man and all his family.

[When he had shown them] Question: Whether he acted rightly? Response: It is not so, that we are solicitous concerning the deed of a Heathen man (Bonfrerius). Both the Israelites were able rightly to make use of the help of this man, and the man himself did not sin at all, if he believed the well-known decree of God concerning those peoples. See Joshua 2:1, etc.; Judges 4:17, etc. (Grotius). The will of God concerning the destruction of the Canaanites was sufficiently evident from the many wonders wrought; neither were the very Canaanites able to be ignorant of this. Now, in that case it was lawful for him and for Rahab to betray their native country (Bonfrerius).

[They sent away (thus the Septuagint, Syriac, Montanus, Junius and Tremellius), שִׁלֵּחוּ] They preserved (Jonathan); they spared (Arabic).

And all his family: Together with his estate, as the following verse manifests.


Verse 26:[9] And the man went into the land of the Hittites, and built a city, and called the name thereof Luz: which is the name thereof unto this day.

[And he departed unto the land of Hetthim (thus the Septuagint, Pagnine, Montanus)] That is, Cyprus[10] (Procopius[11] in Lapide). For Cyprus is called Chittim in Isaiah 23:1. But there it is כִּתִּים/Kittim; here it is חִתִּים/Hittim (Lapide, Bonfrerius). Into the land of the Hittites (Jonathan, Syriac, Arabic, Munster, Tigurinus). However, it does not appear that it was in Canaan. For, 1. it is pointed out with sufficient clarity that he went elsewhere, did not dwell with the Israelites. 2. We do not read of another city in Judea called Luz, except Beth-el (Bonfrerius). What this place might be is not known (Lapide). I think that a certain region near to Canaan is signified. What if this is the Λούσσα/Loussa in Arabia, in Josephus’ Antiquities 14:2 (Vatablus)?

The land of the Hittites; where the Hittites seated themselves after they were driven out of Canaan, which seems to be northward from Canaan, and near unto it. See 1 Kings 11:1; 2 Chronicles 1:17.

[1] Hebrew: וַיַּעֲל֧וּ בֵית־יוֹסֵ֛ף גַּם־הֵ֖ם בֵּֽית־אֵ֑ל וַֽיהוָ֖ה עִמָּֽם׃

[2] Hebrew: וַיָּתִ֥ירוּ בֵית־יוֹסֵ֖ף בְּבֵֽית־אֵ֑ל וְשֵׁם־הָעִ֥יר לְפָנִ֖ים לֽוּז׃

[3] The marginal notes in the Tigurinus Version are properly attributed to Vatablus, having been preserved by his students from his oral lectures.

[4] Hebrew: וַיִּרְאוּ֙ הַשֹּׁ֣מְרִ֔ים אִ֖ישׁ יוֹצֵ֣א מִן־הָעִ֑יר וַיֹּ֣אמְרוּ ל֗וֹ הַרְאֵ֤נוּ נָא֙ אֶת־מְב֣וֹא הָעִ֔יר וְעָשִׂ֥ינוּ עִמְּךָ֖ חָֽסֶד׃

[5] Hebrew: וְעָשִׂ֥ינוּ עִמְּךָ֖ חָֽסֶד׃.

[6] See Joshua 9.

[7] See Joshua 2.

[8] Hebrew: וַיַּרְאֵם֙ אֶת־מְב֣וֹא הָעִ֔יר וַיַּכּ֥וּ אֶת־הָעִ֖יר לְפִי־חָ֑רֶב וְאֶת־הָאִ֥ישׁ וְאֶת־כָּל־מִשְׁפַּחְתּ֖וֹ שִׁלֵּֽחוּ׃

[9] Hebrew: וַיֵּ֣לֶךְ הָאִ֔ישׁ אֶ֖רֶץ הַחִתִּ֑ים וַיִּ֣בֶן עִ֗יר וַיִּקְרָ֤א שְׁמָהּ֙ ל֔וּז ה֣וּא שְׁמָ֔הּ עַ֖ד הַיּ֥וֹם הַזֶּֽה׃

[10] Cyprus is a large island off the southern coast of Asia Minor.

[11] Procopius (c. 500-c. 560) was a Byzantine historian.

Judges 1:21: Benjamin’s Unfaithfulness in the Conquest

Verse 21:[1] (see Josh. 15:63; 18:28) And the children of Benjamin did not drive out the Jebusites that inhabited Jerusalem; but the Jebusites dwell with the children of Benjamin in Jerusalem unto this day.

[They did not destroy] It is the same thing as they were not able to destroy, Joshua 15:63, in which place see what things were said. Therefore, these were free from fault, since the will to exterminate them was not lacking to them, but the ability (Bonfrerius).

Benjamin did not drive out the Jebusites, etc.: See on Joshua 15:63.

[1] Hebrew: וְאֶת־הַיְבוּסִי֙ יֹשֵׁ֣ב יְרֽוּשָׁלִַ֔ם לֹ֥א הוֹרִ֖ישׁוּ בְּנֵ֣י בִנְיָמִ֑ן וַיֵּ֙שֶׁב הַיְבוּסִ֜י אֶת־בְּנֵ֤י בִנְיָמִן֙ בִּיר֣וּשָׁלִַ֔ם עַ֖ד הַיּ֥וֹם הַזֶּֽה׃

Judges 1:20: Caleb’s Faithfulness Remembered

Verse 20:[1] (Num. 14:24; Deut. 1:36; Josh. 14:9, 13; 15:13, 14) And they gave Hebron unto Caleb, as Moses said: and he expelled thence the three sons of Anak.

[They gave Hebron to Caleb] This is therefore repeated, because the wars of the Tribe of Judah were now related, of which Caleb was undoubtedly the leader (Martyr).

They gave Hebron unto Caleb, etc.: Above mentioned, Judges 1:10.

[1] Hebrew: וַיִּתְּנ֤וּ לְכָלֵב֙ אֶת־חֶבְר֔וֹן כַּֽאֲשֶׁ֖ר דִּבֶּ֣ר מֹשֶׁ֑ה וַיּ֣וֹרֶשׁ מִשָּׁ֔ם אֶת־שְׁלֹשָׁ֖ה בְּנֵ֥י הָעֲנָֽק׃

Revelation 1:6a: The General Office of the Believer

Verse 6:[1] And hath (1 Pet. 2:5, 9; Rev. 5:10; 20:6) made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; (1 Tim. 6:16; Heb. 13:21; 1 Pet. 4:11; 5:11) to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

[And, etc., καὶ ἐποίησεν ἡμᾶς βασιλεῖς, etc.] Here again the expression is like ἐσήμανεν, He signified, above,[2] for the copula with the Verb is in the place of a Participle: for the correct expression would have been ποιήσαντι[3] (Grotius). Others: It is an Ellipsis of the relative, καὶ ἐποίησεν, and He hath made, in the place of, ὃς καὶ ἐποίησεν, who also hath made (Pareus, Cotterius, thus Beza). Now, ὁ ποιήσας, the one who made, and ὃς ἐποίησε, who made, mean the same thing. Hence, ὁ ἀγαπήσας, the One who loved, and ὃς ἐποίησε, who made, cohere well (Cotterius). [Thus they translate it:] And who hath made us (namely, by renewal through the Holy Spirit [Piscator]) kings (that is, spiritual and heavely kings [Piscator, Zegers]: Christians are Kings, partly on account of victories over the Flesh, the World [Grotius, similarly Cotterius, Cluverus, Durham], Sin [Cotterius, Brightman], the Devil [Grotius, Piscator] and his servants [Piscator], Death [Brightman]; partly because by the Spirit they reign with God through their heavenly manner of life; partly by title and right, Psalm 149:9, because they will in the future be judges of the world, 1 Corinthians 6:2, and will reign with Christ [Durham]: or, a kingdom [Vulgate], because God rules in us [Pererius]: Two codices have βασιλείαν, a kingdom[4] [Pareus]: But βασιλεία/kingdom [is put] in the place of βασιλεῖς/kings, just as ἱεράτευμα/priesthood is put in the place of ἱερεῖς/priests, in 1 Peter 2:5, 9: Thus also Revelation 5:10[5] [Grotius]: But all other Codices, even that of Montanus, read βασιλεῖς/kings [Pareus]) and priests (spiritual priests [Piscator], because to God they offer themselves [Ribera, thus Piscator, Durham, Cotterius, Cluverus], an undefiled body [Grotius, Durham], Romans 12:1 [Durham]; and spiritual sacrifices [Cluverus], holy Prayers [Grotius, Cluverus, Durham], Praises, the Calves of the Lips [Durham, Cluverus], Hosea 14:2; Hebrews 13:15, oblations of righteousness, and a contrite heart, Psalm 51:14, 16, 17, alms, Philippians 4:18 [Cluverus], works of Piety and Mercy: More rightly, therefore, shall we make use of that saying of the Stoics, The wise man alone is priest; concerning which see Hierocles on that saying of the Golden Verse,[6] Ἀθανάτους μὲν πρῶτα—, the immortals, indeed the chiefs, etc.: Such a man, says Antonius’[7] Meditations 3, is ἱερεύς τις καὶ ὑπουργὸς Θεῶν, etc., a priest and servant of the gods, etc.: Similarly Justin in his Dialogue with Trypho [the words of which see in Grotius]: Also the Chaldean Paraphrast calls him a Priest [Grotius]: This phrase is taken out of Exodus 19:6 [Hammond], where in Hebrew it is, a Kingdom of Priests, or Priestly[8] [Hammond, thus Drusius], in the Septuagint, a Royal priesthood, as in 1 Peter 2:9[9] [Hammond] [on which place see what things are said]: Now, the Chaldean translators have Kings and Priests [Drusius, Hammond]: It signifies that they were a people distinctly separated from others and, as it were, consecrated to the worship of God, etc. [Hammond]) to God (with circumspection he added this, lest we should think that this honor was given to us to disturb civil or ecclesiastical polity [Brightman]; that is to say, We are not Kings with respect to creatures and impious men being made subject to us [Cotterius]; but to God, that is, for honor and obedience to God, not so that we might indulge the flesh, etc. [Cluverus, similarly Ribera]) and His Father (Beza, Piscator), that is, to God who is the Father of Christ (Menochius, thus Piscator). Here the καὶ/and is ἐξηγητικὸν/ exegetical (Grotius, thus Piscator), as in 1 Corinthians 15:24[10] (Piscator); 2 Corinthians 1:3;[11] 11:31;[12] Colossians 1:3;[13] 2:2;[14] 3:17;[15] etc. Concerning the matter itself we spoke on 1 Peter 2:5, 9 (Grotius). The sense of the passage: He who carried us from the uttermost ruin unto the highest honors, even as He Himself is equally King and Priest, so He exalted His body unto the joint possession of the same honor (Cluverus).

And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father: kings, to rule over our own appetite, and govern ourselves by the law of his word, to fight and conquer the world, the flesh, and the devil. Kings in a spiritual sense, for our kingdom is like his from whom we derive it, not of this world; therefore he adds, unto God, to the honour and glory of God, for his service, who is the Father of Christ. Priests, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God through the Beloved, 1 Peter 2:5; our bodies as a living sacrifice, Romans 12:1; part of our estates, Philippians 4:18; the sacrifice of praise, the fruit of our lips, Hebrews 13:15. So as all the privileges of the Jews, Exodus 19:6, belong to us, and that in a more eminent manner. Through Christ we also are a royal priesthood, a peculiar people.

[1] Greek: καὶ ἐποίησεν ἡμᾶς βασιλεῖς καὶ ἱερεῖς τῷ Θεῷ καὶ πατρὶ αὐτοῦ· αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων. ἀμήν.

[2] Revelation 1:1:  “The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified (καὶ ἐσήμανεν ἀποστείλας) it by his angel unto his servant John…”

[3] Ποιήσαντι is a Dative participle.  Revelation 1:5b, 6a:  “Unto the One who loved (τῷ ἀγαπήσαντι, Dative participle) us, and washed (καὶ λούσαντι, Dative participle) us from our sins in his own blood, and hath made (καὶ ἐποίησεν, finite verb in the place of the expected Dative participle) us kings and priests unto God and his Father…”

[4] It is difficult to determine what two codices might be in view.  This reading is found in Codices Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, and Ephræmi Rescriptus, and in a great many Byzantine manuscripts.

[5] Revelation 5:10:  “And hast made us unto our God kings and priests (βασιλεῖς καὶ ἱερεῖς, the reading in the Textus Receptus and the great majority of Byzantine manuscripts; βασιλείαν καὶ ἱερεῖς, a kingdom and priests, in Codex Alexandrinus):  and we shall reign on the earth.”

[6] Hierocles (fifth century AD) was a Platonic philosopher of Alexandria.  He wrote Commentarius in Aurea Pythagoreorum Carmina (Commentaries on the Golden Verses of Pythagoras).

[7] Marcus Aurelius Antoninus Augustus (121-180) was Emperor of Rome from 161 to 180.  He was also an important Stoic philosopher.

[8] Hebrew: מַמְלֶ֥כֶת כֹּהֲנִ֖ים.

[9] Greek: βασίλειον ἱεράτευμα.

[10] 1 Corinthians 15:24a:  “Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God and Father (τῷ Θεῷ καὶ πατρί)…”

[11] 2 Corinthians 1:3:  “Blessed be God, even the Father (ὁ Θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ) of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father (ὁ πατὴρ) of mercies, and the God (καὶ Θεὸς) of all comfort…”

[12] 2 Corinthians 11:31:  “The God and Father (ὁ Θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ) of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is blessed for evermore, knoweth that I lie not.”

[13] Colossians 1:3a:  “We give thanks to the God and Father (τῷ Θεῷ καὶ πατρὶ) of our Lord Jesus Christ…”

[14] Colossians 2:2b:  “…to the acknowledgement of the mystery of the God and Father (τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ πατρὸς), and of Christ…”

[15] Colossians 3:17b:  “…giving thanks to the God and Father (τῷ Θεῷ καὶ πατρὶ) by him.”

Judges 1:19: The Valley Campaign, Part 2

Verse 19:[1] And (Judg. 1:2; 2 Kings 18:7) the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain (or, he possessed the mountain[2]); but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had (Josh. 17:16, 18) chariots of iron.

[The Lord was with Judah] That is, He favored/supported him (Vatablus).

[And he possessed the mountains, וַיֹּ֖רֶשׁ אֶת־הָהָ֑ר] And he possessed the mountain (Pagnine, Montanus); therefore he drove out the mountainous regions (Vatablus, similarly Junius and Tremellius, Drusius), that is, the Canaanites that were then dwelling in the mountains (Vatablus). הוֹרִישׁ is of those that signify contrary things; to make an heir,[3] and to drive out of the inheritance.[4] Of which sort is בֵּרֵךְ, to bless[5] and to curse;[6] קוֹדֶשׁ, holy and polluted, Haggai 2:12[7] (Drusius).

[But he was not able to wipe out the inhabitants of the valley, etc.,כִּ֣י לֹ֤א לְהוֹרִישׁ֙ וגו״] Because not to drive out, etc. (Montanus, Grotius). There is an Ellipsis here of the finite verb, he was able. Thus, in Amos 8:4, ye that swallow up the poor, וְלַשְׁבִּית, and to cut down, that is, and think to cut down, the poor of the land (Glassius’ “Grammar” 681). Thus they supply, but not did he proceed to drive out (Junius and Tremellius). [Thus the difficulty vanishes, which is immediately to be treated. Others otherwise:] They did not destroy (Arabic); they certainly did not lay waste (Syriac); for not was he able to drive out (Pagnine, Tigurinus, Piscator, thus the Septuagint, Jonathan, Castalio, Osiander[8]). He was not able, that is, he did not have the courage (Piscator). Thus לֹ֤א לְהוֹרִישׁ֙, not to drive out, is left so that it might be construed in different ways, either, he was not willing, or, he was not able, or, he did not have the courage, to drive out (Lightfoot). Question: But if God was with the Judahites, why does he not permit the valleys and the mountains equally to Judah? Does God lack the means to overthrown chariots, etc.? Response 1: God did not always equally furnish His help to them, neither did He always equally grant a victory without casualties to them, whether on account of their scandalous acts, or to elicit their prayers, whereby it was happening that they were fearing that God might desert them (Bonfrerius). They were certainly able to drive them out, if God had been present with them: but a foolish fear, conceived on account of the chariots armed with scythes, and despairing of Divine help, was hindering God’s help to them (Menochius). God was unwilling that they should proceed further in the destruction of the Canaanites at this time, 1. Lest they, overly secure and wallowing in luxury, should forget God, and should be lifted up in pride (Bonfrerius). 2. He willed that they should be exercised by those nations, that they might not grow lethargic in leisure (Munster). 3. He willed to make trial of the Jews, how highly they would value their God, etc. 4. So that He might teach them the art of war. 5. So that wild animals might not multiply excessively (Martyr). And so, lest they should proceed further, God permitted them to be shaken by fear of the enemy and of the chariots armed with scythes, and to slip into unbelief (Bonfrerius). In the place of chariots, etc., the Septuagint in the Royal Codex has, because Rechab hindered them; and thus Theodoret[9] reads it, who thus explains: Rechab (Hobab by another name, the son of Jethro) persuaded the Judahites not to make war on the inhabitants of this valley adjacent to the sea, because he feared that the Jews, if they should possess the coastal regions, through naval commerce with the nations would be corrupted by them (Lapide). The fountain of the great evils here begins to be uncovered, their idleness, or mercy contrary to the law of God (Grotius): that they tolerated these nations, being forgetful of the commandments and promises of God, Joshua 13:6; 17:18 (Junius). Response 2: These words are set down by means of mimesis, and from the person of adversaries[10] (of which sort there are many in sacred and other books, as in 1 Corinthians 6, all things are lawful for me); that is to say, Because they were saying, or responding, or excusing, their idleness and unbelief by this pretext. For it was their ready and trite response, if one should ask why they had not driven them out; Because, say they, they abound in chariots armed with scythes (Montanus). [Concerning chariots armed with scythes see the things said on Joshua 17:16.]

But could not drive out, etc.: On account of their unbelief, whereby they doubted and distrusted God’s power to destroy those who had chariots of iron and so gave way to their own fear and sloth, whereby God was provoked to withdraw his helping hand from them, and so they were really made impotent, as they were unwilling. See Joshua 17:16.

[1] Hebrew: וַיְהִ֤י יְהוָה֙ אֶת־יְהוּדָ֔ה וַיֹּ֖רֶשׁ אֶת־הָהָ֑ר כִּ֣י לֹ֤א לְהוֹרִישׁ֙ אֶת־יֹשְׁבֵ֣י הָעֵ֔מֶק כִּי־רֶ֥כֶב בַּרְזֶ֖ל לָהֶֽם׃

[2] Hebrew: וַיֹּ֖רֶשׁ אֶת־הָהָ֑ר.

[3] For example, Genesis 15:7:  “And he said unto him, I am the Lord that brought thee out of Ur of the Chaldees, to give thee this land to inherit it (לְרִשְׁתָּהּ).”

[4] For example, Deuteronomy 2:12:  “The Horims also dwelt in Seir beforetime; but the children of Esau succeeded them (יִירָשׁוּם, dispossessed them), when they had destroyed them from before them, and dwelt in their stead; as Israel did unto the land of his possession (יְרֻשָּׁתוֹ), which the Lord gave unto them.”

[5] For example, Genesis 12:2:  “And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee (וַאֲבָרֶכְךָ), and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing (בְּרָכָה)…”

[6] For example, 1 Kings 21:13:  “And there came in two men, children of Belial, and sat before him:  and the men of Belial witnessed against him, even against Naboth, in the presence of the people, saying, Naboth did blaspheme (בֵּרַךְ, did bless) God and the king.  Then they carried him forth out of the city, and stoned him with stones, that he died.”

[7] Haggai 2:12:  “If one bear holy flesh (בְּשַׂר־קֹדֶשׁ) in the skirt of his garment, and with his skirt do touch bread, or pottage, or wine, or oil, or any meat, shall it be holy (הֲיִקְדָּשׁ)?  And the priests answered and said, No.”

[8] Lucas Osiander (1534-1604) was a Lutheran theologian.  He produced an edition of the Vulgate with supplemental annotations and corrections, inserting Luther’s translation in the places in which the Vulgate departs from the Hebrew.  He was also an accomplished composer of music.

[9] Theodoret (393-457) was bishop of Cyrus, and a significant participant in the Christological controversies of his age.  He was an advocate of Antiochian dyophysitism, or moderate Nestorianism, although he condemned the Nestorian affirmation of two Sons in Christ, and the Nestorian denial that Mary was Theotokos, that is, the Mother of God.  His orthodoxy was cleared at the Council of Chalcedon (451).  He wrote a commentary on the Octoteuch.

[10] In Rhetoric, Mimesis is the imitation or reproduction of the words of another.

Judges 1:18: The Valley Campaign, Part 1

Verse 18:[1] Also Judah took (Josh. 11:22) Gaza with the coast thereof, and Askelon with the coast thereof, and Ekron with the coast thereof.

[And he took Gaza, etc.] He had concluded the war in the eastern tract, and now he proceeds to the western (Bonfrerius). Question: How are these cities said to be captured, since the five satrapies of the Philistines are among the nations left for the proving of Israel, Judges 3? Responses: 1. The Greek version in the Roman Codex[2] adds the negative particle, and reads, he did not possess Gaza. Thus Josephus, Antiquities 5:2 (Bonfrerius). 2. They did not take the cities, but their borders, fields, and farms (Lyra in Tostatus). But this is contrary to the letter (Tostatus). 3. They did indeed take these cities, but the Philistines soon recovered them (Lapide, Bonfrerius, Martyr, similarly Junius, Estius, Menochius), because of the sins of Israel (Martyr). The Israelites do not appear to have ever possessed or inhabited them (Bonfrerius, Estius), but only to have made them tributaries (Estius). Objection: But it appears that they were not even now in the hand of the Israelites, because in Judges 3 it is said, He left the five satrapies of the Philistines, etc. Response: That was said before the capture, although it is set down later. It signifies that these were taken neither when Joshua was living, nor when the Angel was speaking (Tostatus). This passage confirms that matters conducted after the death of Joshua are here narrated, because among the cities that, with Joshua dying, were remaining to be conquered are enumerated Gaza, Ashkelon, and Ekron, Joshua 13 (Martyr). Question: How did Judah take Ekron, which belonged to the Danites, Joshua 19? Response: Notwithstanding he did this, so that he might weaken the strength of the enemies, who he knew were soon going to make war to recover the ruined cities (Bonfrerius).

Judah took Gaza, etc.: The principal cities of the Philistines. Question. How could this be, when among the people left to try Israel, are the five lords of the Philistines, Judges 3:3. Answer. It is only said that they took the cities, and probably contented themselves with making them tributary; but it is not said that they slew the people, as they ought to have done, and as it is said of the other cities here, Judges 1:5, 8, 17, 25. And the people being thus spared, did by God’s just judgment recover their strength, and expel the Jews out of their cities, as we find afterwards. It is further observable, that Ekron here taken was one of Dan’s cities, Joshua 19:43, and it was attempted and taken here by Judah and Simeon, partly out of love to their brother Dan, and partly to secure their new conquests, and other adjoining territories, from such potent neighbours.

[1] Hebrew: וַיִּלְכֹּ֤ד יְהוּדָה֙ אֶת־עַזָּ֣ה וְאֶת־גְּבוּלָ֔הּ וְאֶֽת־אַשְׁקְל֖וֹן וְאֶת־גְּבוּלָ֑הּ וְאֶת־עֶקְר֖וֹן וְאֶת־גְּבוּלָֽהּ׃

[2] The Roman or Sixtine Septuagint was published in 1587, under the direction of Cardinal Antonio Carafa and by authority of Pope Sixtus V.  It uses Codex Vaticanus as a base text.

Judges 1:16, 17: The Southern Campaign

[circa 1425 BC] Verse 16:[1] (Judg. 4:11, 17; 1 Sam. 15:6; 1 Chron. 2:55; Jer. 35:2) And the children of the Kenite, Moses’ father in law, went up out of the city (Deut. 34:3) of palm trees with the children of Judah into the wilderness of Judah, which lieth in the south of (Num. 21:1) Arad; (Num. 10:32) and they went and dwelt among the people.

[Now, the children of the Kenite] That is, the descendants of the Kain, that is, Jethro the Kenite (Vatablus). It appears to be a cognomen of Jethro (Drusius). Thus he was named after his people, Numbers 24:21 (Junius)

Children of the Kenite, that is, of Jethro, so called from the people from whom he descended, Numbers 24:21, 22. And whatsoever he did, it is evident that his posterity came into Canaan with the Israelites, and were there seated with them. See Judges 4:11, 17; 5:24; 1 Samuel 15:6; 1 Chronicles 2:55.

[Kinsman of Moses] That is, by affinity[2] (Bonfrerius). Mention is made of these in this place among the affairs of Othniel, because they ever lived in the closest relationship with his family (Martyr). He treats of those Kenites that had attended Jethro, Judges 4:11. For otherwise this nation was among those condemned (Grotius).

[They went up] That is, they had joined themselves in that expedition of Judah (Junius).

[From the city of palms] Question 1: What then is this? Responses: 1. En-gedi, which was famous for its palm-groves, and thence had the name Hazezon-tamar, Genesis 14:7[3] (certain interpreters in Malvenda). 2. Jericho (Munster, Drusius, Grotius, Junius, Lapide, Bonfrerius, Montanus’ Commentary, Martyr). See Deuteronomy 34:3. That entire place was planted with palm-groves, as is witnessed by Pliny in his Natural History[4] 5:15, Josephus in his Jewish Wars 5:4, and Strabo[5] in his Geography 16:763 (Drusius). Moses had promised to the Kenites journeying with him whatever was best, Numbers 10:29. Thence this place either was given to them by the Judahites; or was chosen by them, as the most pleasant and fertile, as Josphus testifies in his Antiquities 5:3, and as most secure from molestation by the Canaanites (since in it had been the camp of the Israelites at Gilgal for many years) (Bonfrerius). Question 2: How did they dwell in Jericho, which was now destroyed? Response: Perhaps it had been repaired, and was called the city of palms (Drusius). The city of palms was situated in the land of Jericho (Vatablus). Jericho is here set down in the place of the territory of that city (Menochius, similarly Bonfrerius, Grotius). Question 3: What is the reason why they might migrate from there into the desert, etc.? Responses: They assign a variety of causes here. 1. Because they were averse to this luxury and softer way of life, and were seeking seclusion, and quiet for contemplation (Bonfrerius). That is, From that time they were beginning the solitary and monastic life (Serarius, Tirinus). 2. So that they migh learn the Law from the tribe of Judah and Othniel (Rabbis in Lapide). But this was rather to be learned from the High Priest and Levites[6] (Lapide). 3. So that they might flee from fellowship with the Canaanites (certain interpreters in Munster), among whom they appear to have dwelt there (Drusius). 4. Because they were moved by the glory and happiness of the Tribe of Judah (Vatablus). 5. It was more pleasing to them to cohabit with the Tribe of Judah (Tostatus). The Tribe of the Judahites, liberal in character and habit, and more forward to foster friendships, where it settled for itself enough and more, provided for the Kenites the spaces without cites and suitable for flocks; thus consulting the interests of their friends and their own security (Montanus’ Commentary). 6. Because in the distribution of the land concerning the tribe of Judah they obtain by lot an inheritance, to which, with Hebron and Debir conquered, they went (Martyr out of Jonathan). Now, as to why they might lived hitherto around Jericho, since the Scripture does not relate the reason, I am content to remain ignorant (Martyr).

Out of the city of palm trees, that is, from Jericho, so called Deuteronomy 34:3; not the city, which was utterly destroyed; but the territory belonging to it, where it seems they were seated as in a most pleasant, and fruitful, and safe place, according to the promise made by Moses to their father, Numbers 10:31, 32, and whence they might remove, either to avoid the society or molestation of the neighbouring Canaanites; or out of love to the children of Judah, whom they went to; or to avoid temptations to luxury, and exercise themselves in self-denial and contempt of the present evil world, and the lusts thereof; as may be thought from Jeremiah 35:6, etc.; or for some other cause unknown to us at this distance.

[To the south of Arad] The sense is that the southern part of this desert was sloping toward Arad, and not that it was the southern desert with respect to Arad; for then it would follow that the land of Arad was within the land of Canaan: which is false, because Israelites that had not yet entered, but also those that were never going to enter, the land of Canaan, according to Numbers 14, nevertheless entered the domain of the King of Arad, Numbers 21. But that land of Arad was in the land of the Amalekites. And this harmonizes sufficiently: for the Kenites dwelt near the Amalekites, 1 Samuel 15 (Tostatus). Arad was a city, or a small region, near the Idumæans and Amalekites; in such a way that this desert was plainly on the extremities of Canaan (Bonfrerius). Arad was a city situated in the extreme limits of the South (Drusius). Nevertheless, they did not remain there perpetually, or at least not all, as it is evident from Judges 4, where they dwell near Kadesh, which was in the tribe of Naphtali, the most Northern of all (Bonfrerius).

In the south of Arad; in the southern part of the land of Canaan, where Arad was, Numbers 21:1.

[And they dwelt with him, וַיֵּ֖לֶךְ וַיֵּ֥שֶׁב אֶת־הָעָֽם׃] And he went, and dwelt with the people (Montanus) [similarly the Septuagint and Jonathan, but in the plural, they dwelt, etc.]. In Hebrew the plural is changed into the singular (Bonfrerius). Departing, they dwelt with the people (Munster, Tigurinus). He proceeded, etc. (Pagnine). That is, the Prince of the Kenites (Vatablus). For he (that is, the Kenite [Drusius, Piscator]) had departed so that he might dwell with the people (Junius and Tremellius); see Numbers 10:29 (Junius). Question: With what people? Responses: 1. With the children of Judah (Vatablus, Tostatus, Bonfrerius). 2. With the people, that is, the Israelites (Grotius, Dutch). Thus we see that at that time a lot was given to proselytes, no less than to citizens (Grotius). Some thus translate it, For he (that is, the Kenite) was with them, and he had remained, or had dwelt, with the people, namely, Israel. See Numbers 10:29; 24:21, 22; 1 Samuel 15:6 (Dutch).

They went, that is, some of them, for others of them dwelt in the contrary quarter, in the most northern part of the land. Among the people; Hebrew, that people,[7] to wit, those children of Judah that lived there.


Verse 17:[8] (Judg. 1:3) And Judah went with Simeon his brother, and they slew the Canaanites that inhabited Zephath, and utterly destroyed it. And the name of the city was called (Num. 21:3; Josh. 19:4) Hormah.

Judah went with Simeon his brother, according to his promise, Judges 1:3, and the laws of justice and gratitude.

[And they smote the Canaanite in Zephath…and the name of the city was called Hormah] I think that the vow, made in Numbers 21 concerning the destruction of the cities of the King of Arad, is here fulfilled. This is shown, 1. by the ancient name of Arad being used here; 2. by the name Hormah: 3. it does not appear why they might compose this new anathema. Objection: But this place is called Zephath, not Arad. Responses: 1. It could have had two names. 2. There is able to be one name, namely, Zephath, of the city, and the other, that is, Arad, of the region, in which there are many cities, whence in Numbers 21 it is said, I will utterly destroy its cities, etc. 3. The name of Hormah was imposed upon the entire place; but he makes mention of Zephath, because it was the principal city, or the first conquered (Bonfrerius). Perhaps they anathematized this city, because they fought against Zephath, and were not able to prevail, but were defeated, etc. (Tostatus).

Hormah; either, 1. The same place so destroyed and called, Numbers 21:3, and so what was there vowed is here executed; or, 2. Some other place called by the same name upon the like occasion, which was frequent among the Hebrews. This seems more probable, 1. Because this was but one city, that divers cities, Numbers 21:2, 3. 2. Because that seems to have been done in Moses’s time, though interpreters generally think otherwise; of which see my notes there.

[1] Hebrew: וּבְנֵ֣י קֵינִי֩ חֹתֵ֙ן מֹשֶׁ֜ה עָל֙וּ מֵעִ֤יר הַתְּמָרִים֙ אֶת־בְּנֵ֣י יְהוּדָ֔ה מִדְבַּ֣ר יְהוּדָ֔ה אֲשֶׁ֖ר בְּנֶ֣גֶב עֲרָ֑ד וַיֵּ֖לֶךְ וַיֵּ֥שֶׁב אֶת־הָעָֽם׃

[2] That is, by marriage.

[3] Hazezon-tamar is here identified with En-gedi, which was on the western shore of the Dead Sea. חַצֲצֺן/Hazezon may be related to חָצַץ, to divide into swarms; תָּמָר/tamar, signifies palm-tree.

[4] Gaius Plinius Secundus, or Pliny the Elder (23-79), distinguished himself as a learned author, a celebrated Roman Procurator, and a courageous soldier.  In his Natural History, Pliny in encyclopedic fashion attempts to cover the entire field of human knowledge as it stood in his day.  It remains an invaluable resource in the fields of history, geography, literature, and Biblical studies.

[5] Strabo (c. 63 BC-c. 24 AD) was a Greek geographer and historian.

[6] See, for example, Leviticus 10:11; Deuteronomy 33:10; Malachi 2:7.

[7] Hebrew: הָעָם.

[8] Hebrew: וַיֵּ֤לֶךְ יְהוּדָה֙ אֶת־שִׁמְע֣וֹן אָחִ֔יו וַיַּכּ֕וּ אֶת־הַֽכְּנַעֲנִ֖י יוֹשֵׁ֣ב צְפַ֑ת וַיַּחֲרִ֣ימוּ אוֹתָ֔הּ וַיִּקְרָ֥א אֶת־שֵׁם־הָעִ֖יר חָרְמָֽה׃