Armenia in Comments -- Author: (KAD) Carl Friedrich Keil and Franz Delitzsch (Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament) 1857-78

Searched terms: hitti

Genesis

tGen 10:6Descendants of Ham. - Cush: the Ethiopians of the ancients, who not only dwelt in Africa, but were scattered over the whole of Southern Asia, and originally, in all probability, settled in Arabia, where the tribes that still remained, mingled with Shemites, and adopted a Shemitic language. Mizraim is Egypt: the dual form was probably transferred from the land to the people, referring, however, not to the double strip, i.e., the two strips of land into which the country is divided by the Nile, but to the two Egypts, Upper and Lower, two portions of the country which differ considerably in their climate and general condition. The name is obscure, and not traceable to any Semitic derivation; for the term מצור in Isa 19:6, etc., is not to be regarded as an etymological interpretation, but as a significant play upon the word. The old Egyptian name is Kemi (Copt. Chmi, Kme), which, Plutarch says, is derived from the dark ash-grey colour of the soil covered by the slime of the Nile, but which it is much more correct to trace to Ham, and to regard as indicative of the Hamitic descent of its first inhabitants. Put denotes the Libyans in the wider sense of the term (old Egypt. Phet; Copt. Phaiat), who were spread over Northern Africa as far as Mauritania, where even in the time of Jerome a river with the neighbouring district still bore the name of Phut; cf. Bochart, Phal. iv. 33. On Canaan, see Gen 9:25.
Gen 10:7
Descendants of Cush. Seba: the inhabitants of Mero; according to Knobel, the northern Ethiopians, the ancient Blemmyer, and modern Bisharin. Havilah: the Αὐαλῖται or Ἀβαλῖται of the ancients, the Macrobian Ethiopians in modern Habesh. Sabtah: the Ethiopians inhabiting Hadhramaut, whose chief city was called Sabatha or Sabota. Raamah: Ῥεγμά, the inhabitants of a city and bay of that name in south-eastern Arabia (Oman). Sabtecah: the Ethiopians of Caramania, dwelling to the east of the Persian Gulf, where the ancients mention a seaport town and a river Σαμυδάκη. The descendants of Raamah, Sheba and Dedan, are to be sought in the neighbourhood of the Persian Gulf, "from which the Sabaean and Dedanitic Cushites spread to the north-west, where they formed mixed tribes with descendants of Joktan and Abraham." See notes on Gen 10:28 and Gen 25:3.
Gen 10:8-9
Besides the tribes already named, there sprang from Cush Nimrod, the founder of the first imperial kingdom, the origin of which is introduced as a memorable event into the genealogy of the tribes, just as on other occasions memorable events are interwoven with the genealogical tables (cf. Ch1 2:7, Ch1 2:23; Ch1 4:22-23, Ch1 4:39-41).
(Note: These analogies overthrow the assertion that the verses before us have been interpolated by the Jehovist into the Elohistic document; since the use of the name Jehovah is no proof of difference of authorship, nor the use of ילד for הוליד, as the former also occurs in Gen 10:13, Gen 10:15, Gen 10:24, and Gen 10:26.)
Nimrod "began to be a mighty one in the earth." גּבּר is used here, as in Gen 6:4, to denote a man who makes himself renowned for bold and daring deeds. Nimrod was mighty in hunting, and that in opposition to Jehovah (ἐναντίον κυρίον, lxx); not before Jehovah in the sense of, according to the purpose and will of Jehovah, still less, like לאלהים in Jon 3:3, or τῷ Θεῷ in Act 7:20, in a simply superlative sense. The last explanation is not allowed by the usage of the language, the second is irreconcilable with the context. The name itself, Nimrod from מרד, "we will revolt," points to some violent resistance to God. It is so characteristic that it can only have been given by his contemporaries, and thus have become a proper name.
(Note: This was seen even by Perizonius (Origg. Babyl. p. 183), who says, "Crediderim hominem hunc utpote venatorem ferocem et sodalium comitatu succinctum semper in ore habuisse et ingeminasse, ad reliquos in rebellionem excitandos, illud nimrod, nimrod, h.e. rebellemus, rebellemus, atque inde postea ab aliis, etiam ab ipso Mose, hoc vocabalo tanquam proprio nomine designatium," and who supports his opinion by other similar instances in history.)
In addition to this, Nimrod as a mighty hunter founded a powerful kingdom; and the founding of this kingdom is shown by the verb ותּהי with ו consec. to have been the consequence or result of his strength in hunting, so that the hunting was most intimately connected with the establishment of the kingdom. Hence, if the expression "a mighty hunter" relates primarily to hunting in the literal sense, we must add to the literal meaning the figurative signification of a "hunter of men" ("trapper of men by stratagem and force," Herder); Nimrod the hunter became a tyrant, a powerful hunter of men. This course of life gave occasion to the proverb, "like Nimrod, a mighty hunter against the Lord," which immortalized not his skill in hunting beasts, but the success of his hunting of men in the establishment of an imperial kingdom by tyranny and power. But if this be the meaning of the proverb, יהוה לפני "in the face of Jehovah" can only mean in defiance of Jehovah, as Josephus and the Targums understand it. And the proverb must have arisen when other daring and rebellious men followed in Nimrod's footsteps, and must have originated with those who saw in such conduct an act of rebellion against the God of salvation, in other words, with the possessors of the divine promises of grace.
(Note: This view of Nimrod and his deeds is favoured by the Eastern legend, which not only makes him the builder of the tower of Babel, which was to reach to heaven, but has also placed him among the constellations of heaven as a heaven-storming giant, who was chained by God in consequence. Vid., Herzog's Real-Encycl. Art. Nimrod.)
Gen 10:10
"And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel," the well-known city of Babylon on the Euphrates, which from the time of Nimrod downwards has been the symbol of the power of the world in its hostility to God; - "and Erech" (Ὀρέχ, lxx), one of the seats of the Cutheans (Samaritans), Ezr 4:9, no doubt Orcho, situated, according to Rawlinson, on the site of the present ruins of Warka, thirty hours' journey to the south-east of Babel; - and Accad (Ἀρχάδ, lxx), a place not yet determined, though, judging from its situation between Erech and Calneh, it was not far from either, and Pressel is probably right in identifying it with the ruins of Niffer, to the south of Hillah; - "and Calneh:" this is found by early writers on the cite of Ctesiphon, now a great heap of ruins, twenty hours north-east of Babel. These four cities were in the land of Shinar, i.e., of the province of Babylon, on the Lower Euphrates and Tigris.
Gen 10:11-12
From Shinar Nimrod went to Assyria אשּׁוּר is the accusative of direction), the country on the east of the Tigris, and there built four cities, or probably a large imperial city composed of the four cities, or probably a large imperial city composed of the four cities named. As three of these cities - Rehoboth-Ir, i.e., city markets (not "street-city," as Bunsen interprets it), Chelach, and Resen - are not met with again, whereas Nineveh was renowned in antiquity for its remarkable size (vid., Jon 3:3), the words "this is the great city" must apply not to Resen, but to Nineveh. This is grammatically admissible, if we regard the last three names as subordinate to the first, taking as the sign of subordination (Ewald, 339a), and render the passage thus: "he built Nineveh, with Rehoboth-Ir, Cheloch, and Resen between Nineveh and Chelach, this is the great city." From this it follows that the four places formed a large composite city, a large range of towns, to which the name of the (well-known) great city of Nineveh was applied, in distinction from Nineveh in the more restricted sense, with which Nimrod probably connected the other three places so as to form one great capital, possibly also the chief fortress of his kingdom on the Tigris. These four cities most likely correspond to the ruins on the east of the Tigris, which Layard has so fully explored, viz., Nebbi Ynus and Kouyunjik opposite to Mosul, Khorsabad five hours to the north, and Nimrud eight hours to the south of Mosul.
(Note: This supposition of Rawlinson, Grote, M. v. Niebuhr, Knobel, Delitzsch and others, has recently been adopted by Ewald also.)
Gen 10:13-14
From Mizraim descended Ludim: not the Semitic Ludim (Gen 10:22), but, according to Movers, the old tribe of the Lewtah dwelling on the Syrtea, according to others, the Moorish tribes collectively. Whether the name is connected with the Laud flumen (Plin. v. 1) is uncertain; in any case Knobel is wrong in thinking of Ludian Shemites, whether Hyksos, who forced their way to Egypt, or Egyptianized Arabians. Anamim: inhabitants of the Delta, according to Knobel. He associates the Enemetiei'm of the lxx with Sanemhit, or Northern Egypt: "tsanemhit, i.e., pars, regio septentrionis." Lehabim (= Lubim, Nah 3:9) are, according to Josephus, the Δἰβνες or Δύβιες, not the great Libyan tribe (Phut, v. 6), which Nahum distinguishes from them, but the Libyaegyptii of the ancients. Naphtuchim: in Knobel's opinion, the Middle Egyptians, as the nation of Pthah, the god of Memphis: but Bochart is more probably correct in associating the name with Νέφθυς in Plut. de Is., the northern coast line of Egypt. Pathrusim: inhabitants of Pathros, Παθούρης, Egypt. Petrs, land of the south; i.e., Upper Egypt, the Thebais of the ancients. Casluchim: according to general admission the Colchians, who descended from the Egyptians (Herod. ii. 104), though the connection of the name with Cassiotis is uncertain. "From thence (i.e., from Casluchim, which is the name of both people and country) proceeded the Philistines." Philistim, lxx Φυλιστιείμ or Ἀλλόφλοι, lit., emigrants or immigrants from the Ethiopic fallâsa. This is not at variance with Amo 9:7 and Jer 47:4, according to which the Philistines came from Caphtor, so that there is no necessity to transpose the relative clause after Philistim. The two statements may be reconciled on the simple supposition that the Philistian nation was primarily a Casluchian colony, which settled on the south-eastern coast line of the Mediterranean between Gaza (Gen 10:19) and Pelusium, but was afterwards strengthened by immigrants from Caphtor, and extended its territory by pressing out the Avim (Deu 2:23, cf. Jos 13:3). Caphtorim: according to the old Jewish explanation, the Cappadocians; but according to Lakemacher's opinion, which has been revived by Ewald, etc., the Cretans. This is not decisively proved, however, either by the name Cherethites, given to the Philistines in Sa1 30:14; Zep 2:5, and Eze 25:16, or by the expression "isle of Caphtor" in Jer 47:4.
Gen 10:15-20
From Canaan descended "Zidon his first-born, and Heth." Although Zidon occurs in Gen 10:19 and throughout the Old Testament as the name of the oldest capital of the Phoenicians, here it must be regarded as the name of a person, not only because of the apposition "his first-born," and the verb ילד, "begat," but also because the name of a city does not harmonize with the names of the other descendants of Canaan, the analogy of which would lead us to expect the nomen gentile "Sidonian" (Jdg 3:3, etc.); and lastly, because the word Zidon, from צוּד to hunt, to catch, is not directly applicable to a sea-port and commercial town, and there are serious objections upon philological grounds to Justin's derivation, "quam a piscium ubertate Sidona appellaverunt, nam piscem Phoenices Sidon vocant" (var. hist. 18, 3). Heth is also the name of a person, from which the term Hittite (Gen 25:9; Num 13:29), equivalent to "sons of Heth" (Gen 23:5), is derived. "The Jebusite:" inhabitants of Jebus, afterwards called Jerusalem. "The Amorite:" not the inhabitants of the mountain or heights, for the derivation from אמיר, "summit," is not established, but a branch of the Canaanites, descended from Emor (Amor), which was spread far and wide over the mountains of Judah and beyond the Jordan in the time of Moses, so that in Gen 15:16; Gen 48:22, all the Canaanites are comprehended by the name. "The Girgashites," Γεργεσαῖος (lxx), are also mentioned in Gen 15:21; Deu 7:1, and Jos 24:11; but their dwelling-place is unknown, as the reading Γεργεσηνοί in Mat 8:28 is critically suspicious. "The Hivites" dwelt in Sichem (Gen 34:2), at Gibeon (Jos 9:7), and at the foot of Hermon (Jos 11:3); the meaning of the word is uncertain. "The Arkites:" inhabitants of Ἀρκή, to the north of Tripolis at the foot of Lebanon, the ruins of which still exist (vid., Robinson). "The Sinite:" the inhabitants of Sin or Sinna, a place in Lebanon not yet discovered. "The Arvadite," or Aradians, occupied from the eighth century before Christ, the small rocky island of Arados to the north of Tripolis. "The Zemarite:" the inhabitants of Simyra in Eleutherus. "The Hamathite:" the inhabitants or rather founders of Hamath on the most northerly border of Palestine (Num 13:21; Num 34:8), afterwards called Epiphania, on the river Orontes, the present Hamh, with 100,000 inhabitants. The words in Gen 10:18, "and afterward were the families of the Canaanites spread abroad," mean that they all proceeded from one local centre as branches of the same tribe, and spread themselves over the country, the limits of which are given in two directions, with evident reference to the fact that it was afterwards promised to the seed of Abraham for its inheritance, viz., from north to south, - "from Sidon, in the direction (lit., as thou comest) towards Gerar (see Gen 20:1), unto Gaza," the primitive Avvite city of the Philistines (Deu 2:23), now called Guzzeh, at the S.W. corner of Palestine, - and thence from west to east, in the direction towards Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, and Zeboim (see Gen 19:24) to Lesha," i.e., Calirrhoe, a place with sulphur baths, on the eastern side of the Dead Sea, in Wady Serka Maein (Seetzen and Ritter). Genesis 10:21

Genesis

tGen 23:3He then went to the Hittites, the lords and possessors of the city and its vicinity at that time, to procure from them "a possession of a burying-place." The negotiations were carried on in the most formal style, in a public assembly "of the people of the land," i.e., of natives (Gen 23:7), in the gate of the city (Gen 23:10). As a foreigner and sojourner, Abraham presented his request in the most courteous manner to all the citizens ("all that went in at the gate," Gen 23:10, Gen 23:18; a phrase interchangeable with "all that went out at the gate," Gen 34:24, and those who "go out and in," Jer 17:19). The citizens with the greatest readiness and respect offered "the prince of God," i.e., the man exalted by God to the rank of a prince, "the choice" (מבחר, i.e., the most select) of their graves for his use (Gen 23:6). But Abraham asked them to request Ephron, who, to judge from the expression "his city" in Gen 23:10, was then ruler of the city, to give him for a possession the cave of Machpelah, at the end of his field, of which he was the owner, "for full silver," i.e., for its full worth. Ephron thereupon offered to make him a present of both field and cave. This was a turn in the affair which is still customary in the East; the design, so far as it is seriously meant at all, being either to obtain a present in return which will abundantly compensate for the value of the gift, or, what is still more frequently the case, to preclude any abatement in the price to be asked. The same design is evident in the peculiar form in which Ephron stated the price, in reply to Abraham's repeated declaration that he was determined to buy the piece of land: "a piece of land of 400 shekels of silver, what is that between me and thee" (Gen 23:15)? Abraham understood it so (ישׁמע Gen 23:16), and weighed him the price demanded. The shekel of silver "current with the merchant," i.e., the shekel which passed in trade as of standard weight, was 274 Parisian grains, so that the price of the piece of land was 52, 10s.; a very considerable amount for that time. Genesis 23:17

Genesis

tGen 23:20The repetition of the statement, that the field with the cave in it was conveyed to Abraham by the Hittites for a burial-place, which gives the result of the negotiation that has been described with, so to speak, legal accuracy, shows the great importance of the event to the patriarch. The fact that Abraham purchased a burying-place in strictly legal form as an hereditary possession in the promised land, was a proof of his strong faith in the promises of God and their eventual fulfilment. In this grave Abraham and Sarah, Isaac and Rebekah, were buried; there Jacob buried Leah; and there Jacob himself requested that he might be buried, thus declaring his faith in the promises, even in the hour of his death. Next: Genesis Chapter 24

Genesis

tGen 27:41Esau's complaining and weeping were now changed into mortal hatred of his brother. "The days of mourning," he said to himself, "for my father are at hand, and I will kill my brother Jacob." אבי אבל: genit. obj. as in Amo 8:10; Jer 6:26. He would put off his intended fratricide that he might not hurt his father's mind.
Gen 27:42-46
When Rebekah was informed by some one of Esau's intention, she advised Jacob to protect himself from his revenge (התנחם to procure comfort by retaliation, equivalent to "avenge himself," התנקּם, Isa 1:24),
(Note: This reference is incorrect; the Niphal is used in Isa 1:24, the Hithpael in Jer 5:9-29. Tr.)
by fleeing to her brother Laban in Haran, and remaining there "some days," as she mildly puts it, until his brother's wrath was subdued. "For why should I lose you both in one day?" viz., Jacob through Esau's vengeance, and Esau as a murderer by the avenger of blood (Gen 9:6, cf. Sa2 14:6-7). In order to obtain Isaac's consent to this plan, without hurting his feelings by telling him of Esau's murderous intentions, she spoke to him of her troubles on account of the Hittite wives of Esau, and the weariness of life that she should feel if Jacob also were to marry one of the daughters of the land, and so introduced the idea of sending Jacob to her relations in Mesopotamia, with a view to his marriage there. Next: Genesis Chapter 28

Genesis

tGen 28:1Jacob's Departure from his Parents' House. - Rebekah's complaint reminded Isaac of his own call, and his consequent duty to provide for Jacob's marriage in a manner corresponding to the divine counsels of salvation.
Gen 28:1-5
He called Jacob, therefore, and sent him to Padan-Aram to his mother's relations, with instructions to seek a wife there, and not among the daughters of Canaan, giving him at the same time the "blessing of Abraham," i.e., the blessing of promise, which Abraham had repeatedly received from the Lord, but which is more especially recorded in Gen 17:2., and Gen 22:16-18.
Gen 28:6-9
When Esau heard of this blessing and the sending away of Jacob, and saw therein the displeasure of his parents at his Hittite wives, he went to Ishmael - i.e., to the family of Ishmael, for Ishmael himself had been dead fourteen years - and took as a third wife Mahalath, a daughter of Ishmael (called Bashemath in Gen 36:3, a descendant of Abraham therefore), a step by which he might no doubt ensure the approval of his parents, but in which he failed to consider that Ishmael had been separated from the house of Abraham and family of promise by the appointment of God; so that it only furnished another proof that he had no thought of the religious interests of the chosen family, and was unfit to be the recipient of divine revelation. Genesis 28:10

Genesis

tGen 36:1Esau's Wives and Children. His Settlement in the Mountains of Seir. - In the heading (Gen 36:1) the surname Edom is added to the name Esau, which he received at his birth, because the former became the national designation of his descendants. - Gen 36:2, Gen 36:3. The names of Esau's three wives differ from those given in the previous accounts (Gen 26:34 and Gen 28:9), and in one instance the father's name as well. The daughter of Elon the Hittite is called Adah (the ornament), and in Gen 26:34 Basmath (the fragrant); the second is called Aholibamah (probably tent-height), the daughter of Anah, daughter, i.e., grand-daughter of Zibeon the Hivite, and in Gen 26:34, Jehudith (the praised or praiseworthy), daughter of Beeri the Hittite; the third, the daughter of Ishmael, is called Basmath here and Mahalath in Gen 28:9. This difference arose from the fact, that Moses availed himself of genealogical documents for Esau's family and tribe, and inserted them without alteration. It presents no irreconcilable discrepancy, therefore, but may be explained from the ancient custom in the East, of giving surnames, as the Arabs frequently do still, founded upon some important or memorable event in a man's life, which gradually superseded the other name (e.g., the name Edom, as explained in Gen 25:30); whilst as a rule the women received new names when they were married (cf. Chardin, Hengstenberg, Dissertations, vol. ii. p. 223-6). The different names given for the father of Aholibamah or Judith, Hengstenberg explains by referring to the statement in Gen 36:24, that Anah, the son of Zibeon, while watching the asses of his father in the desert, discovered the warm springs (of Calirrhoe), on which he founds the acute conjecture, that from this discovery Anah received the surname Beeri, i.e., spring-man, which so threw his original name into the shade, as to be the only name given in the genealogical table. There is no force in the objection, that according to Gen 36:25 Aholibamah was not a daughter of the discoverer of the springs, but of his uncle of the same name. For where is it stated that the Aholibamah mentioned in Gen 36:25 was Esau's wife? And is it a thing unheard of that aunt and niece should have the same name? If Zibeon gave his second son the name of his brother Anah (cf. Gen 36:24 and Gen 36:20), why could not his son Anah have named his daughter after his cousin, the daughter of his father's brother? The reception of Aholibamah into the list of the Seirite princes is no proof that she was Esau's wife, but may be much more naturally supposed to have arisen from the same (unknown) circumstance as that which caused one of the seats of the Edomitish Alluphim to be called by her name (Gen 36:41). - Lastly, the remaining diversity, viz., that Anah is called a Hivite in Gen 36:2 and a Hittite in Gen 26:34, is not to be explained by the conjecture, that for Hivite we should read Horite, according to Gen 36:20, but by the simple assumption that Hittite is used in Gen 26:34 sensu latiori for Canaanite, according to the analogy of Jos 1:4; Kg1 10:29; Kg2 7:6; just as the two Hittite wives of Esau are called daughters of Canaan in Gen 28:8. For the historical account, the general name Hittite sufficed; but the genealogical list required the special name of the particular branch of the Canaanitish tribes, viz., the Hivites. In just as simple a manner may the introduction of the Hivite Zibeon among the Horites of Seir (Gen 36:20 and Gen 36:24) be explained, viz., on the supposition that the removed to the mountains of Seir, and there became a Horite, i.e., a troglodyte, or dweller in a cave. - The names of Esau's sons occur again in Ch1 1:35. The statement in Gen 36:6, Gen 36:7, that Esau went with his family and possessions, which he had acquired in Canaan, into the land of Seir, from before his brother Jacob, does not imply (in contradiction to Gen 32:4; Gen 33:14-16) that he did not leave the land of Canaan till after Jacob's return. The words may be understood without difficulty as meaning, that after founding a house of his own, when his family and flocks increased, Esau sought a home in Seir, because he knew that Jacob, as the heir, would enter upon the family possessions, but without waiting till he returned and actually took possession. In the clause "went into the country" (Gen 36:6), the name Seir or Edom (cf. Gen 36:16) must have dropt out, as the words "into the country" convey no sense when standing by themselves. Genesis 36:9

Numbers

tNum 13:1Numbers 13:1-17
Despatch of the Spies of Canaan. - Num 13:1. The command of Jehovah, to send out men to spy out the land of Canaan, was occasioned, according to the account given by Moses in Deu 1:22., by a proposal of the congregation, which pleased Moses, so that he laid the matter before the Lord, who then commanded him to send out for this purpose, "of every tribe of their fathers a man, every one a ruler among them, i.e., none but men who were princes in their tribes, who held the prominent position of princes, i.e., distinguished persons of rank; or, as it is stated in Num 13:3, "heads of the children of Israel," i.e., not the tribe-princes of the twelve tribes, but those men, out of the total number of the heads of the tribes and families of Israel, who were the most suitable for such a mission, though the selection was to be made in such a manner that every tribe should be represented by one of its own chiefs. That there were none of the twelve tribe-princes among them is apparent from a comparison of their names (Num 13:4-15) with the (totally different) names of the tribe-princes (Num 1:3., Num 7:12.). Caleb and Joshua are the only spies that are known. The order, in which the tribes are placed in the list of the names in Num 13:4-15, differs from that in Num 1:5-15 only in the fact that in Num 13:10 Zebulun is separated from the other sons of Leah, and in Num 13:11 Manasseh is separated from Ephraim. The expression "of the tribe of Joseph," in Num 13:11, stands for "of the children of Joseph," in Num 1:10; Num 34:23. At the close of the list it is still further stated, that Moses called Hoshea (i.e., help), the son of Nun, Jehoshua, contracted into Joshua (i.e., Jehovah-help, equivalent to, whose help is Jehovah). This statement does not present any such discrepancy, when compared with Exo 17:9, Exo 17:13; Exo 24:13; Exo 32:17; Exo 33:11, and Num 11:28, where Joshua bears this name as the servant of Moses at a still earlier period, as to point to any diversity of authorship. As there is nothing of a genealogical character in any of these passages, so as to warrant us in expecting to find the family name of Joshua in them, the name Joshua, by which Hosea had become best known in history, could be used proleptically in them all. On the other hand, however, it is not distinctly stated in the verse before us, that this was the occasion on which Moses gave Hosea the new name of Joshua. As the Vav consec. frequently points out merely the order of thought, the words may be understood without hesitation in the following sense: These are the names borne by the heads of the tribes to be sent out as spies, as they stand in the family registers according to their descent; Hosea, however, was named Joshua by Moses; which would not by any means imply that the alteration in the name had not been made till then. It is very probable that Moses may have given him the new name either before or after the defeat of the Amalekites (Exo 17:9.), or when he took him into his service, though it has not been mentioned before; whilst here the circumstances themselves required that it should be stated that Hosea, as he was called in the list prepared and entered in the documentary record according to the genealogical tables of the tribes, had received from Moses the name of Joshua. In Num 13:17-20 Moses gives them the necessary instructions, defining more clearly the motive which the congregation had assigned for sending them out, namely, that they might search out the way into the land and to its towns (Deu 1:22). "Get you up there (זה in the south country, and go up to the mountain." Negeb, i.e., south country, lit., dryness, aridity, from נגב, to be dry or arid (in Syr., Chald, and Samar.). Hence the dry, parched land, in contrast to the well-watered country (Jos 15:19; Jdg 1:15), was the name given to the southern district of Canaan, which forms the transition from the desert to the strictly cultivated land, and bears for the most part the character of a steppe, in which tracts of sand and heath are intermixed with shrubs, grass, and vegetables, whilst here and there corn is also cultivated; a district therefore which was better fitted for grazing than for agriculture, though it contained a number of towns and villages (see at Jos 15:21-32). "The mountain" is the mountainous part of Palestine, which was inhabited by Hittites, Jebusites, and Amorites (Num 13:29), and was called the mountains of the Amorites, on account of their being the strongest of the Canaanitish tribes (Deu 1:7, Deu 1:19.). It is not to be restricted, as Knobel supposes, to the limits of the so-called mountains of Judah (Jos 15:48-62), but included the mountains of Israel or Ephraim also (Jos 11:21; Jos 20:7), and formed, according to Deu 1:7, the backbone of the whole land of Canaan up to Lebanon.
Num 13:18-20
They were to see the land, "what it was," i.e., what was its character, and the people that dwelt in it, whether they were strong, i.e., courageous and brave, or weak, i.e., spiritless and timid, and whether they were little or great, i.e., numerically; (Num 13:19) what the land was, whether good or bad, sc., with regard to climate and cultivation, and whether the towns were camps, i.e., open villages and hamlets, or fortified places; also (Num 13:20) whether the land was fat or lean, i.e., whether it had a fertile soil or not, and whether there were trees in it or not. All this they were to search out courageously (התחזק, to show one's self courageous in any occupation), and to fetch (some) of the fruits of the land, as it was the time of the first-ripe grapes. In Palestine the first grapes ripen as early as August, and sometimes even in July (vid., Robinson, ii. 100, ii. 611), whilst the vintage takes place in September and October. Numbers 13:21

Numbers

tNum 13:25In forty days the spies returned to the camp at Kadesh (see at Num 16:6), and reported the great fertility of the land ("it floweth with milk and honey," see at Exo 3:8), pointing, at the same time, to the fruit they had brought with them; "nevertheless," they added (כּי אפס, "only that"), "the people be strong that dwell in the land, and the cities are fortified, very large: and, moreover, we saw the children of Anak there." Amalekites dwelt in the south (see at Gen 36:12); Hittites, Jebusites, and Amorites in the mountains (see at Gen 10:15-16); and Canaanites by the (Mediterranean) Sea and on the side of the Jordan, i.e., in the Arabah or Ghor (see at Gen 13:7 and Gen 10:15-18). Numbers 13:30

Joshua

tJosh 1:4The boundaries of the land are given as in Deu 11:24, with the simple difference in form, that the boundary line from the desert (of Arabia) and Lebanon, i.e., from the southern and northern extremity, is drawn first of all towards the east to the great river, the Euphrates, and then towards the west to "the great sea, toward the going down of the sun," i.e., the Mediterranean; and then between these two termini ad quem the more precise definition is inserted, "all the land of the Hittites;" whereas in Deuteronomy the southern, northern, and eastern boundaries are placed in antithesis to the western boundary, and the more precise definition of the country to be taken is given by an enumeration of the different tribes that were to be destroyed by the Israelites (Deu 11:23). On the oratorical character of these descriptions, see at Gen 15:18. The demonstrative pronoun "this," in connection with Lebanon, may be explained from the fact that Lebanon, or at all events Anti-libanus, was visible from the Israelitish camp. The expression "the Hittites" (see at Gen 10:15) is used here in a broader sense for Canaanites in general, as in Kg1 10:29; Kg2 7:6; Eze 16:3. The promise in Jos 1:5 is adopted from Deu 11:25, where it was made to the whole nation, and specially transferred to Joshua; and Jos 1:5 is repeated from Deu 31:8, as compared with Jos 1:6. Joshua 1:6

Judges

tJudg 1:8After his defeat, Judah and Simeon went against Jerusalem, and conquered this city and smote it, i.e., its inhabitants, with the edge of the sword, or without quarter (see Gen 34:26), and set the city on fire. בּאשׁ שׁלּח, to set on fire, to give up to the flames, only occurs again in Jdg 20:48; Kg2 8:12, and Psa 74:7. Joshua had already slain the king of Jerusalem and his four allies after the battle at Gibeon (Jos 10:3, Jos 10:18-26), but had not conquered Jerusalem, his capital. This was not done till after Joshua's death, when it was taken by the tribes of Judah and Simeon. But even after this capture, and notwithstanding the fact that it had been set on fire, it did not come into the sole and permanent possession of the Israelites. After the conquerors had advanced still farther, to make war upon the Canaanites in the mountains, in the Negeb, and in the shephelah (vv. 9ff.), the Jebusites took it again and rebuilt it, so that in the following age it was regarded by the Israelites as a foreign city (Jdg 19:11-12). The Benjaminites, to whom Jerusalem had fallen by lot, were no more able to drive out the Jebusites than the Judaeans had been. Consequently they continued to live by the side of the Benjaminites (Jdg 1:21) and the Judaeans (Jos 15:63), who settled, as time rolled on, in this the border city of their possessions; and in the upper town especially, upon the top of Mount Zion, they established themselves so firmly, that they could not be dislodged until David succeeded in wresting this fortress from them, and make the city of Zion the capital of his kingdom (Sa2 5:6.).
(Note: In this way we may reconcile in a very simple manner the different accounts concerning Jerusalem in Jos 15:63; Jdg 1:8, Jdg 1:21; Jdg 19:11., Sa1 17:54, and 2 Sam 5-6, without there being the slightest necessity to restrict the conquest mentioned in this verse to the city that was built round Mount Zion, as Josephus does, to the exclusion of the citadel upon Zion itself; or to follow Bertheau, and refer the account of the Jebusites dwelling by the children of Judah in Jerusalem (Jos 15:63) to a time subsequent to the conquest of the citadel of Zion by David-an interpretation which is neither favoured by the circumstance that the Jebusite Araunah still held some property there in the time of David (Sa2 24:21.), nor by the passage in Kg1 9:20., according to which the descendants of the Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites who still remained in the land were made into tributary bondmen by Solomon, and set to work upon the buildings that he had in hand.)
Jdg 1:9-15
After the conquest of Jerusalem, the children of Judah (together with the Simeonites, Jdg 1:3) went down to their own possessions, to make war upon the Canaanites in the mountains, the Negeb, and the shephelah (see at Jos 15:48; Jos 21:33), and to exterminate them. They first of all conquered Hebron and Debir upon the mountains (Jdg 1:10-15), as has already been related in Jos 15:14-19 (see the commentary on this passage). The forms עלּית and תּחתּית (Jdg 1:15), instead of עלּיּות and תּחתּיּות (Jos 15:19), are in the singular, and are construed with the plural form of the feminine גּלּות, because this is used in the sense of the singular, "a spring" (see Ewald, 318, a.). Judges 1:16

Judges

tJudg 1:26The man whom they had permitted to go free, went with his family into the land of the Hittites, and there built a town, to which he gave the name of his earlier abode, viz., Luz. The situation of this Luz is altogether unknown. Even the situation of the land of the Hittites cannot be more precisely determined; for we find Hittites at Hebron in the times of Abraham and Moses (Gen 23), and also upon the mountains of Palestine (Num 13:29), and at a later period on the north-east of Canaan on the borders of Syria (Kg1 10:29). That the Hittites were one of the most numerous and widespread of the tribes of the Canaanites, is evident from the fact that, in Jos 1:4, the Canaanites generally are described as Hittites. Judges 1:27

Judges

tJudg 20:14Both sides now made their preparations. The Benjaminites assembled together at Gibeah out of their different towns, and "were mustered 26,000 men drawing the sword, beside the inhabitants of Gibeah they were mustered, 700 picked men" (הגפּקדוּ, with the reduplication dropped, like the Hothpael in Num 1:47). "Out of all this people there were 700 picked men, lamed in the right hand, all these (were) slinging with a stone (hitting) at a hair's breadth without fail." These statement are not quite clear. Since, according to the distinct words of Jdg 20:16, the 700 slingers with their left hands were "out of the whole people," i.e., out of the whole number of fighting men mentioned in Jdg 20:16, they cannot be the same as the 700 chosen men referred to in Jdg 20:15, notwithstanding the similarity in the numbers and the expression "chosen men." The obscurity arises chiefly from the word התפּקדוּ in Jdg 20:15, which is separated by the Masoretic accents from שׁבע מ, and connected with the previous words: "Beside the inhabitants of Gibeah they (the men of the towns of Benjamin) were mustered." On the other hand, the earlier translators took the clause as a relative one: "Beside the inhabitants of Gibeah, who were mustered 700 men." And this seems absolutely necessary, because otherwise the following words, "700 picked men," would stand without any connection; whilst we should certainly expect at least to find the cop. vav, if these 700 men were not inhabitants of Gibeah. But even if התפּקדוּ should be taken as a simple repetition of ויּתפּקדוּ, the statement which follows could not be understood in any other way than as referring to the number of the fighting men of Gibeah. There is something striking too in the fact that only Benjaminites "out of the cities" are mentioned, and that emphasis is laid upon this by the repetition of the expression "out of the cities" (Jdg 20:14, Jdg 20:15). Some have inferred from this, that the Benjaminites as the rulers had settled in the towns, whilst the Canaanites who had been subdued settled as dependants in the villages (Bertheau); or that the Benjaminites had formed military brotherhoods, the members of which lived unmarried in the towns, and that this may possibly account for the abominable crime to which the inhabitants of Gibeah were addicted, and in relation to which the whole tribe took their part (O. v. Gerlach). But such inferences as these are extremely uncertain, as the cities may be mentioned a potiori for all the places inhabited by this tribe. There is another difficulty in the numbers. According to Jdg 20:14, Jdg 20:15, the total number of the fighting men of Benjamin amounted to 26,000 and 700, without reckoning Gibeah. But, according to the account of the battle, 25,100 were slain (Jdg 20:35), viz., 18,000 in the principal engagement, 5000 as a gleaning, and 200 in the pursuit, i.e., 25,000 men in all (Jdg 20:44-46), and only 600 were left, who fled into the desert to the rock Rimmon (Jdg 20:47). According to these accounts, the whole tribe would have contained only 25,100 + 600 = 25,700 fighting men, or 25,000 + 600 = 25,600. Accordingly, in Jdg 20:15, the lxx (Cod. Al. etc.) and Vulgate give only 25,000 men; whilst the rest of the ancient versions have 26,000, in agreement with the Masoretic text. Josephus (Ant. v. 2, 10) also gives the number of fighting men in Benjamin as 25,600, of whom 600 were splendid slingers; but he has merely taken the numbers from Jdg 20:44-47. Now, although mistakes do frequently occur in the numbers given, it is a most improbable supposition that we have a mistake of this kind (26,000 for 25,000) in the instance before us, since even the latter number would not agree with Jdg 20:44.; and the assumption, that in Jdg 20:35 and Jdg 20:44. we have an account of all the Benjaminites who fell, finds no support whatever in the history itself. In the verses referred to we have simply a statement of the number of Benjaminites who fell in the defeat which they sustained on the third day, whereas the victories which they gained on the first and second days could hardly have been obtained without some loss on their part; on the contrary, we may confidently assume that they would not lose less than a thousand men, though these are not mentioned in the brief account before us. The other difference between Jdg 20:35 and Jdg 20:44-46, viz., that 25,100 are given in the one and 25,000 in the other, may be explained on the simple assumption that we have only the full thousands mentioned in the latter, whilst the exact number is given in the former. "Left-handed:" see at Jdg 3:15. Judges 20:17

1 Kings (1 Samuel)

t1Kings 26:1The repetition not only of the treachery of the Ziphites, but also of the sparing of Saul by David, furnishes no proof in itself that the account contained in this chapter is only another legend of the occurrences already related in 1 Samuel 23:19-24:22. As the pursuit of David by Saul lasted for several years, in so small a district as the desert of Judah, there is nothing strange in the repetition of the same scenes. And the assertion made by Thenius, that "Saul would have been a moral monster, which he evidently was not, if he had pursued David with quiet deliberation, and through the medium of the same persons, and had sought his life again, after his own life had been so magnanimously spared by him," not only betrays a superficial acquaintance with the human heart, but is also founded upon the mere assertion, for which there is no proof, that Saul was evidently no so; and it is proved to be worthless by the fact, that after the first occasion on which his life was so magnanimously spared by David, he did not leave off seeking him up and down in the land, and that David was obliged to seek refuge with the Philistines in consequence, as may be seen from Sa1 27:1-12, which Thenius himself assigns to the same source as 1 Samuel 24. The agreement between the two accounts reduces it entirely to outward and unessential things. It consists chiefly in the fact that the Ziphites came twice to Saul at Gibeah, and informed him that David was stopping in their neighbourhood, in the hill Hachilah, and also that Saul went out twice in pursuit of David with 3000 men. But the three thousand were the standing body of men that Saul had raised from the very beginning of his reign out of the whole number of those who were capable of bearing arms, for the purpose of carrying on his smaller wars (Sa1 13:2); and the hill of Hachilah appears to have been a place in the desert of Judah peculiarly well adapted for the site of an encampment. On the other hand, all the details, as well as the final results of the two occurrences, differ entirely from one another. When David was betrayed the first time, he drew back into the desert of Maon before the advance of Saul; and being completely surrounded by Saul upon one of the mountains there, was only saved from being taken prisoner by the circumstance that Saul was compelled suddenly to relinquish the pursuit of David on account of the report that the Philistines had invaded the land (Sa1 23:25-28). But on the second occasion Saul encamped upon the hill of Hachilah, whilst David had drawn back into the adjoining desert, from which he crept secretly into Saul's encampment, and might, if he had chosen, have put his enemy to death (Sa1 26:3.). There is quite as much difference in the minuter details connected with the sparing of Saul. On the first occasion, Saul entered a cave in the desert of Engedi, whilst David and his men were concealed in the interior of the cave, without having the smallest suspicion that they were anywhere near (Sa1 24:2-4). The second time David went with Abishai into the encampment of Saul upon the hill of Hachilah, while the king and all his men were sleeping (Sa1 26:3, Sa1 26:5). It is true that on both occasions David's men told him that God had given his enemy into his hand; but the first time they added, Do to him what seemeth good in thy sight; and David cut off the lappet of Saul's coat, whereupon his conscience smote him, and he said, "Far be it from me to lay my hand upon the Lord's anointed" (Sa1 24:5-8). In the second instance, on the contrary, when David saw Saul in the distance lying by the carriage rampart and the army sleeping round him, he called to two of his heroes, Ahimelech and Abishai, to go with him into the camp of the sleeping foe, and then went thither with Abishai, who thereupon said to him, "God hath delivered thine enemy into thy hand: let me alone, that I may pierce him with the spear." But David rejected this proposal, and merely took away the spear and water-bowl that were at Saul's head (Sa1 26:6-12). And lastly, notwithstanding the fact that the words of David and replies of Saul agree in certain general thoughts, yet they differ entirely in the main. On the first occasion David showed the king that his life had been in his power, and yet he had spared him, to dispel the delusion that he was seeking his life (Sa1 24:10-16). On the second occasion he asked the king why he was pursuing him, and called to him to desist from his pursuit (Sa1 26:18.). But Saul was so affected the first time that he wept aloud, and openly declared that David would obtain the kingdom; and asked him to promise on oath, that when he did, he would not destroy his family (Sa1 24:17-22). The second time, on the contrary, he only declared that he had sinned and acted foolishly, and would to David no more harm, and that David would undertake and prevail; but he neither shed tears, nor brought himself to speak of David's ascending the throne, so that he was evidently much more hardened than before (Sa1 26:21-25). These decided differences prove clearly enough that the incident described in this chapter is not the same as the similar one mentioned in 1 Samuel 23 and 24, but belongs to a later date, when Saul's enmity and hardness had increased.
Sa1 26:1-2
The second betrayal of David by the Ziphites occurred after David had married Abigail at Carmel, and when he had already returned to the desert of Judah. On Sa1 26:1 and Sa1 26:2 compare the explanations of Sa1 23:19 and Sa1 24:3. Instead of "before (in the face of) Jeshimon" (i.e., the wilderness), we find the situation defined more precisely in Sa1 23:19, as "to the right (i.e., on the south) of the wilderness" (Jeshimon).
Sa1 26:3-4
When David saw (i.e., perceived) in the desert that Saul was coming behind him, he sent out spies, and learned from them that he certainly had come (אל־נכון, for a certainty, as in Sa1 23:23).
Sa1 26:5-7
Upon the receipt of this information, David rose up with two attendants (mentioned in Sa1 26:6) to reconnoitre the camp of Saul. When he saw the place where Saul and his general Abner were lying - Saul was lying by the waggon rampart, and the fighting men were encamped round about him - he said to Ahimelech and Abishai, "Who will go down with me into the camp to Saul?" Whereupon Abishai declared himself ready to do so; and they both went by night, and found Saul sleeping with all the people. Ahimelech the Hittite is never mentioned again; but Abishai the son of Zeruiah, David's sister (Ch1 2:16), and a brother of Joab, was afterwards a celebrated general of David, as was also his brother Joab (Sa2 16:9; Sa2 18:2; Sa2 21:17). Saul's spear was pressed (stuck) into the ground at his head, as a sign that the king was sleeping there, for the spear served Saul as a sceptre (cf. Sa1 18:10).
Sa1 26:8-11
When Abishai exclaimed, "God hath delivered thine enemy into thy hand: now will I pierce him with the spear into the ground with a stroke, and will give no second" (sc., stroke: the Vulgate rendering gives the sense exactly: et secundo non opus erit, there will be no necessity for a second), David replied, "Destroy him not; for who hath stretched out his hand against the anointed of the Lord, and remained unhurt?" נקּה, as in Exo 21:19; Num 5:31. He then continued (in Sa1 26:10, Sa1 26:11): "As truly as Jehovah liveth, unless Jehovah smite him (i.e., carry him off with a stroke; cf. Sa1 25:38), or his day cometh that he dies (i.e., or he dies a natural death; 'his day' denoting the day of death, as in Job 14:6; Job 15:32), or he goes into battle and is carried off, far be it from me with Jehovah (מיהוה, as in Sa1 24:7) to stretch forth my hand against Jehovah's anointed." The apodosis to Sa1 26:10 commences with חלילה, "far be it," or "the Lord forbid," in Sa1 26:11. "Take now the spear which is at his head, and the pitcher, and let us go."
Sa1 26:12
They departed with these trophies, without any one waking up and seeing them, because they were all asleep, as a deep sleep from the Lord had fallen upon them. שׁאוּל מראשׁתי stands for שׁ ממראשׁתי, "from the head of Saul," with מ dropped. The expression "a deep sleep of Jehovah," i.e., a deep sleep sent or inflicted by Jehovah, points to the fact that the Lord favoured David's enterprise. 1 Kings (1 Samuel) 26:13

2 Kings (2 Samuel)

t2Kings 23:8The following list of David's heroes we also find in 1 Chron 11:10-47, and expanded at the end by sixteen names (Ch1 11:41-47), and attached in Ch1 11:10 to the account of the conquest of the fortress of Zion by the introduction of a special heading. According to this heading, the heroes named assisted David greatly in his kingdom, along with all Israel, to make him king, from which it is evident that the chronicler intended by this heading to justify his appending the list to the account of the election of David as king over all the tribes of Israel (Ch1 11:1), and of the conquest of Zion, which followed immediately afterwards. In every other respect the two lists agree with one another, except that there are a considerable number of errors of the text, more especially in the names, which are frequently corrupt in both texts, to that the true reading cannot be determined with certainty. The heroes enumerated are divided into three classes. The first class consists of three, viz., Jashobeam, Eleazar, and Shammah, of whom certain brave deeds are related, by which they reached the first rank among David's heroes (Sa2 23:8-12). They were followed by Abishai and Benaiah, who were in the second class, and who had also distinguished themselves above the rest by their brave deeds, though they did not come up to the first three (Sa2 23:18-23). The others all belonged to the third class, which consisted of thirty-two men, of whom no particular heroic deeds are mentioned (vv. 24-39). Twelve of these, viz., the five belonging to the first two classes and seven of the third, were appointed by David commanders of the twelve detachments into which he divided the army, each detachment to serve for one month in the year (1 Chron 27). These heroes, among whom we do not find Joab the commander-in-chief of the whole of the forces, were the king's aides-de-camp, and are called in this respect השּׁלשׁי (Sa2 23:8), though the term השּׁלשׁים (the thirty, Sa2 23:13, Sa2 23:23, Sa2 23:24) was also a very customary one, as their number amounted to thirty in a round sum. It is possible that at first they may have numbered exactly thirty; for, from the very nature of the case, we may be sure than in the many wars in which David was engaged, other heroes must have arisen at different times, who would be received into the corps already formed. This will explain the addition of sixteen names in the Chronicles, whether the chronicler made us of a different list from that employed by the author of the books before us, and one belonging to a later age, or whether the author of our books merely restricted himself to a description of the corps in its earlier condition.
Sa2 23:8-12
Heroes of the first class. - The short heading to our text, with which the list in the Chronicles also beings (Ch1 11:11), simply gives the name of these heroes. But instead of "the names of the mighty men," we have in the Chronicles "the number of the mighty men." This variation is all the more striking, from the fact that in the Chronicles the total number is not given at the close of the list as it is in our text. At the same time, it can hardly be a copyist's error for מבחר (selection), as Bertheau supposes, but must be attributable to the fact that, according to Sa2 23:13, Sa2 23:23, and Sa2 23:24, these heroes constituted a corps which was named from the number of which it originally consisted. The first, Jashobeam, is called "the chief of the thirty" in the Chronicles. Instead of ישׁבעם (Jashobeam), the reading in the Chronicles, we have here בּשּׁבת ישׁב (Josheb-basshebeth), unquestionably a spurious reading, which probably arose, according to Kennicott's conjecture, from the circumstance that the last two letters of ישׁבעם were written in one MS under בּשּׁבת in the line above (Sa2 23:7), and a copyist took בשׁבת from that line by mistake for עם. The correctness of the reading Jashobeam is established by Ch1 27:2. The word תּחכּמני is also faulty, and should be corrected, according to the Chronicles, into בּן־חכמוני (Ben-hachmoni); for the statement that Jashobeam was a son (or descendant) of the family of Hachmon (Ch1 27:32) can easily be reconciled with that in Ch1 27:2, to the effect that he was a son of Zabdiel. Instead of השּׁלשׁים ראשׁ (head of the thirty), the reading in the Chronicles, we have here השּׁלשׁי ראשׁ (head of the three). Bertheau would alter our text in accordance with the Chronicles, whilst Thenius proposes to bring the text of the Chronicles into accordance with ours. But although the many unquestionable corruptions in the verse before us may appear to favour Bertheau's assumption, we cannot regard either of the emendations as necessary, or even warrantable. The proposed alteration of השּׁלשׁי is decidedly precluded by the recurrence of השּׁלשׁי ראשׁ in Sa2 23:18, and the alteration of השּׁלשׁים in the Chronicles by the repeated allusion to the שׁלשׁים, not only in Sa2 23:15, 42; Sa2 12:4, and Ch1 27:6 of the Chronicles, but also in Sa2 23:13, Sa2 23:23, and Sa2 23:24 of the chapter before us. The explanation given of שׁלשׁי and שׁלשׁים, as signifying chariot-warriors, is decidedly erroneous;
(Note: This explanation, which we find in Gesenius (Thes. and Lex.) and Bertheau, rests upon no other authority than the testimony of Origen, to the effect that an obscure writer gives this interpretation of τριστάτης, the rendering of שׁלישׁ, an authority which is completely overthrown by the writer of the gloss in Octateuch. (Schleussner, Lex. in lxx t. v. p. 338), who gives this explanation of τριστάτας: τοὺς παρὰ χεῖρα τοῦ βασιλέως ἀριστερὰν τρίτης μοίρας ἄρχοντας. Suidas and Hesychius give the same explanation (s. v. τριστάται). Jerome also observes (ad Ezek 23): "It is the name of the second rank next to the king.")
for the singular השּׁלישׁ is used in all the passages in which the word occurs to signify the royal aide-de-camp (Kg2 7:2, Kg2 7:17, Kg2 7:19; Kg2 9:25; Kg2 15:25), and the plural שׁלישׁים the royal body-guard, not only in Kg2 15:25, but even in Kg1 9:22, and Exo 14:7; Exo 15:4, from which the meaning chariot-warriors has been derived. Consequently השּׁלשׁי ראשׁ is the head of the king's aides-de-camp, and the interchange of השּׁלשׁי with the השּׁלשׁים of the Chronicles may be explained on the simple ground that David's thirty heroes formed his whole body of adjutants. The singular שׁלשׁי is to be explained in the same manner as הכּרתי (see at Sa2 8:18). Luther expresses the following opinion in his marginal gloss with regard to the words which follow (העצנו עדינו הוּא עדינו): "We believe the text to have been corrupted by a writer, probably from some book in an unknown character and bad writing, so that orer should be substituted for adino, and ha-eznib for eth hanitho:" that is to say, the reading in the Chronicles, "he swung his spear," should be adopted (cf. Sa2 23:18). This supposition is certainly to be preferred to the attempt made by Gesenius (Lex.) and v. Dietrich (s. v. עדין) to find some sense in the words by assuming the existence of a verb עדּן and a noun עצן, a spear, since these words do not occur anywhere else in Hebrew; and in order to obtain any appropriate sense, it is still necessary to resort to alterations of the text. "He swung his spear over eight hundred slain at once." This is not to be understood as signifying that he killed eight hundred men at one blow, but that in a battle he threw his spear again and again at the foe, until eight hundred men had been slain. The Chronicles give three hundred instead of eight hundred; and as that number occurs again in Sa2 23:18, in the case of Abishai, it probably found its way from that verse into this in the book of Chronicles.
Sa2 23:9-10
"After him (i.e., next to him in rank) was Eleazar the son of Dodai the Ahohite, among the three heroes with David when they defied the Philistines, who had assembled there, and the Israelites drew near." The Chethib דדי is to be read דּודי, Dodai, according to Ch1 27:4, and the form דּודו (Dodo) in the parallel text (Ch1 11:12) is only a variation in the form of the name. Instead of בּן־אחחי (the son of Ahohi) we find העחחי (the Ahohite) in the Chronicles; but the בּן must not be struck out on that account as spurious, for "the son of an Ahohite" is the same as "the Ahohite." For גּבּרים בּשׁלשׁה we must read הגּבּרים בּשׁלשׁה, according to the Keri and the Chronicles. שׁלשׁה is not to be altered, since the numerals are sometimes attached to substantives in the absolute state (see Ges. 120, 1). "The three heroes" are Jashobeam, Eleazar, and Shammah (Sa2 23:11), who reached the first rank, according to Sa2 23:19, among the heroes of David. Instead of בּפּלשׁתּים בּחרפם (when they defied the Philistines), we find in the Chronicles והפּלשׁתּים דּמּים בּפּס, "at Pas-dammim," i.e., most probably Ephes-dammim (Sa1 17:1), where the Philistines were encamped when Goliath defied the Israelites. Thenius, Bertheau, and Bttcher therefore propose to alter our text so as to make it correspond to that of the Chronicles, and adduce as the reason the fact that in other passages חרף is construed with the accusative, and that שׁם, which follows, presupposes the previous mention of the place referred to. But the reasons are neither of them decisive. חרף .evisiced is not construed with the accusative alone, but also with ל (Ch2 32:17), so that the construction with ב is quite a possible one, and is not at variance with the idea of the word. שׁם again may also be understood as referring to the place, not named, where the Philistines fought with the Israelites. The omission of אשׁר before נעספוּ is more difficult to explain; and והפּלשׁתּים, which we find in the Chronicles, has probably dropped out after בּפּלשׁתּים. The reading in the Chronicles דּמּים בּפּס (בּאפס) is probably only a more exact description of the locality, which is but obscurely indicated in our text by בּפּלשׁתּים בּחרפם; for these words affirm that the battle took place where the Israelites had once been defied by the Philistines (Sa1 17:10), and where they repaid them for this defiance in a subsequent conflict. The Philistines are at any rate to be regarded as the subject to נעספוּ, and these words are a circumstantial clause: the Philistines had assembled together there to battle, and the Israelites had advanced to the attack. The heroic act of Eleazar is introduced with "he arose." He arose and smote the Philistines till his hand was weary and clave to his sword, i.e., was so cramped as to be stiffened to the sword. Through this Jehovah wrought a great salvation for Israel on that day, "and the people (the soldiers) turned after him only to plunder," sc., because he had put the enemy to flight by himself. אחריו שׁוּב does not mean to turn back from flight after him, but is the opposite of מאחרי שׁוּב, to turn away from a person (Sa1 15:11, etc.), so that it signifies "to turn to a person and follow behind him." Three lines have dropped out from the parallel text of the Chronicles, in consequence of the eye of a copyist having wandered from נעספוּ פלשׁתּים in Sa2 23:9 to פלשׁתּים ויּעספוּ in Sa2 23:11.
Sa2 23:11-12
The third leading hero was Shammah, the son of Age the Hararite (הררי is probably contracted from ההררי, Sa2 23:33). He also made himself renowned by a great victory over the Philistines. The enemy had gathered together לחיּה, "as a troop," or in a crowd. This meaning of היּה (here and Sa2 23:13, and possibly also in Psa 68:11) is thoroughly established by the Arabic (see Ges. Thes. p. 470). But it seems to have fallen into disuse afterwards, and in the Chronicles it is explained in Sa2 23:13 by מלחמה, and in Sa2 23:15 by מחנה. "On a portion of a field of lentils there," sc., where the Philistines had gathered together, the people (of Israel) were smitten. Then Shammah stationed himself in the midst of the field, and יצּילה, "wrested it," from the foe, and smote the Philistines. Instead of עדשׁים, lentils, we find in the Chronicles שׁלעורים, barley, a very inconsiderable difference.
Sa2 23:13-15
To this deed there is appended a similar heroic feat performed by three of the thirty heroes whose names are not given. The Chethib שׁלשׁים is evidently a slip of the pen for שׁלשׁה (Keri and Chronicles). The thirty chiefs are the heroes named afterwards. As שׁלשׁה has no article either in our text or the Chronicles, the three intended are not the three already mentioned (Jashobeam, Eleazar, and Shammah), but three others out of the number mentioned in Sa2 23:24. These three came to David in the harvest time unto the cave of Adullam (see at Sa1 22:1), when a troop of the Philistines was encamped in the valley of Rephaim, and David was on the mountain fortress, and a Philistian post was then in Bethlehem. And David longed for water, and said, "Oh that one would bring me water to drink out of the well of Bethlehem at the gate!" The encampment of the Philistines in the valley of Rephaim, and the position of David on the mountain fortress (בּמּצוּדה), render it probable that the feat mentioned here took place in the war with the Philistines described in Sa2 5:17. Robinson could not discover any well in Bethlehem, "especially none 'by the gate,' except one connected with the aqueduct on the south" (Palestine, vol. ii. p. 158). בּשּׁער need not be understood, however, as signifying that the well was in or under the gate; but the well referred to may have been at the gate outside the city. The well to which tradition has given the name of "David's well" (cisterna David), is about a quarter of an hour's walk to the north-east of Bethlehem, and, according to Robinson's description, is "merely a deep and wide cistern or cavern now dry, with three or four narrow openings cut in the rock." But Ritter (Erdk. xvi. p. 286) describes it as "deep with clear cool water, into which there are three openings from above, which Tobler speaks of as bored;" and again as a cistern "built with peculiar beauty, from seventeen to twenty-one feet deep, whilst a house close by is pointed out to pilgrims as Jesse's house."
Sa2 23:16-17
The three heroes then broke through the camp of the Philistines at Bethlehem, i.e., the outpost that occupied the space before the gate, fetched water out of the well, and brought it to David. He would not drink it, however, but poured it out upon the ground to the Lord, as a drink-offering for Jehovah. "He poured it out upon the earth, rendering Him thanks for the return of the three brave men" (Clericus). And he said, "Far be it from me, O Jehovah, to do this! The blood of the men who went with their lives (i.e., at the risk of their lives)," sc., should I drink it? The verb אשׁתּה is wanting in our text, but is not to be inserted according to the Chronicles as though it had fallen out; the sentence is rather to be regarded as an aposiopesis. יהוה after לי חלילה is a vocative, and is not to be altered into מיהוה according to the מאלחי of the Chronicles. The fact that the vocative does not occur in other passages after לי חלילה proves nothing. It is equivalent to the oath יהוה חי (Sa1 14:45). The chronicler has endeavoured to simplify David's exclamation by completing the sentence. בּנפשׁותם, "for the price of their souls," i.e., at the risk of their lives. The water drawn and fetched at the risk of their lives is compared to the soul itself, and the soul is in the blood (Lev 17:11). Drinking this water, therefore, would be nothing else than drinking their blood.
Sa2 23:18-19
Heroes of the second class. - Sa2 23:18, Sa2 23:19. Abishai, Joab's brother (see Sa1 26:6), was also chief of the body-guard, like Jashobeam (Sa2 23:8 : the Chethib השּׁלשׁי is correct; see at Sa2 23:8). He swung his spear over three hundred slain. "He had a name among the three," i.e., the three principal heroes, Jashobeam, Eleazar, and Shammah. The following words, מן־השּׁלשׁה, make no sense. השּׁלשׁה is an error in writing for השּׁלשׁים, as Sa2 23:23 shows in both the texts (Sa2 23:25 of the Chronicles): an error the origin of which may easily be explained from the word שׁלשׁה, which stands immediately before. "He was certainly honoured before the thirty (heroes of David), and became their chief, but he did not come to the three," i.e., he was not equal to Jashobeam, Eleazar, and Shammah. הכי has the force of an energetic assurance: "Is it so that," i.e., it is certainly so (as in Sa2 9:1; Gen 27:36; Gen 29:15).
Sa2 23:20-23
Benaiah, the son of Jehoiada, "Jehoiada the priest" according to Ch1 27:5, possibly the one who was "prince for Aaron," i.e., of the family of Aaron, according to Ch1 12:27, was captain of the Crethi and Plethi according to Sa2 8:18 and Sa2 20:23. He was the son of a brave man, rich in deeds (חי is evidently an error for חיל in the Chronicles), of Kabzeel in the south of Judah (Jos 15:21). "He smote the two Ariels of Moab." The Arabs and Persians call every remarkably brave man Ariel, or lion of God (vid., Bochart, Hieroz. ii. pp. 7, 63). They were therefore two celebrated Moabitish heroes. The supposition that they were sons of the king of the Moabites is merely founded upon the conjecture of Thenius and Bertheau, that the word בּני (sons of) has dropped out before Ariel. "He also slew the lion in the well on the day of the snow," i.e., a lion which had been driven into the neighbourhood of human habitations by a heavy fall of snow, and had taken refuge in a cistern. The Chethib האריה and בּאר are the earlier forms for the Keris substituted by the Masoretes הארי and הבּור, and consequently are not to be altered. He also slew an Egyptian of distinguished size. According to the Keri we should read מראה אישׁ (instead of מראה fo daetsni( א אשׁר), "a man of appearance," i.e., a distinguished man, or a man of great size, ἄνδρα ὀρατόν (lxx); in the Chronicles it is simplified as מדּה אישׁ, a man of measure, i.e., of great height. This man was armed with a spear or javelin, whereas Benaiah was only armed with a stick; nevertheless the latter smote him, took away his spear, and slew him with his own weapon. According to the Chronicles the Egyptian was five cubits high, and his spear like a weaver's beam. Through these feats Benaiah acquired a name among the three, though he did not equal them (Sa2 23:22, Sa2 23:23, as in Sa2 23:18, Sa2 23:19); and David made him a member of his privy council (see at Sa1 22:14).
Sa2 23:24-25
Heroes of the third class. - Sa2 23:24. "Asahel, the brother of Joab, among the thirty," i.e., belonging to them. This definition also applies to the following names; we therefore find at the head of the list in the Chronicles, החילים וגבּורי, "and brave heroes (were)." The names which follow are for the most part not further known. Elhanan, the son of Dodo of Bethlehem, is a different man from the Bethlehemite of that name mentioned in Sa2 21:19. Shammah the Harodite also must not be confounded with the Shammahs mentioned in Sa2 23:11 and Sa2 23:33. In the Chronicles we find Shammoth, a different form of the name; whilst ההרורי is an error in writing for החרדי, i.e., sprung from Harod (Jdg 7:1). This man is called Shamhut in Ch1 27:8; he was the leader of the fifth division of David's army. Elika or Harod is omitted in the Chronicles; it was probably dropped out in consequence of the homoioteleuton החרדי.
Sa2 23:26
Helez the Paltite; i.e., sprung from Beth-pelet in the south of Judah (Jos 15:27). He was chief of the seventh division of the army (compare Ch1 27:10 with Ch1 11:27, though in both passages הפּלטי is misspelt הפּלני). Ira the son of Ikkesh of Tekoah in the desert of Judah (Sa2 14:2), chief of the sixth division of the army (Ch1 27:9).
Sa2 23:27
Abiezer of Anathoth (Anata) in Benjamin (see at Jos 18:24), chief of the ninth division of the army (Ch1 27:12). Mebunnai is a mistake in spelling for Sibbechai the Hushathite (compare Sa2 21:18 and Ch1 11:29). According to Ch1 27:11, he was chief of the eighth division of the army.
Sa2 23:28
Zalmon the Ahohite, i.e., sprung from the Benjaminite family of Ahoah, is not further known. Instead of Zalmon we find Ilai in the Chronicles (Sa2 23:29); but which of the two names is the correct one it is impossible to decide. Maharai of Netophah: according to Ezr 2:22 and Neh 7:26, Netophah was a place in the neighbourhood of Bethlehem, but it has not yet been discovered, as Beit Nattif, which might be thought of, is too far from Bethlehem (vid., Rob. Pal. ii. p. 344, and Tobler, Dritte Wanderung, pp. 117-8). According to Ch1 27:13, Maharai belonged to the Judahite family of Serah, and was chief of the tenth division of the army.
Sa2 23:29
Cheleb, more correctly Cheled (Ch1 11:30; or Cheldai, Ch1 27:15), also of Netophah, was chief of the twelfth division of the army. Ittai (Ithai in the Chronicles), the son of Ribai of Gibeah of Benjamin, must be distinguished from Ittai the Gathite (Sa2 15:19). Like all that follow, with the exception of Uriah, he is not further known.
Sa2 23:30
Benaiah of Phir'aton in the tribe of Ephraim, a place which has been preserved in the village of Fer'ata, to the south-west of Nablus (see at Jdg 12:13). Hiddai (wrongly spelt Hudai in the Chronicles), out of the valleys of Gaash, in the tribe of Ephraim by the mountain of Gaash, the situation of which has not yet been discovered (see at Jos 24:30).
Sa2 23:31
Abi-Albon (written incorrectly Abiel in the Chronicles) the Arbathite, i.e., from the place called Beth-haarabah or Arabah (Jos 15:61 and Jos 18:18, Jos 18:22) in the desert of Judah, on the site of the present Kasr Hajla (see at Jos 15:6). Azmaveth of Bahurim: see at Sa2 16:5.
Sa2 23:32-33
Eliahba of Shaalbon or Shaalbin, which may possibly have been preserved in the present Selbit (see at Jos 19:42). The next two names, יהונתן ישׁן בּני and ההררי שׁמּה (Bneyashen Jehonathan and Shammah the Hararite), are written thus in the Chronicles (Sa2 23:34), ההררי בּן־שׁגא יונתן הגּזוני השׁם בּני: "Bnehashem the Gizonite, Jonathan the son of Sage the Hararite," The text of the Chronicles is evidently the more correct of the two, as Bne Jashen Jehonathan does not make any sense. The only question is whether the form השׁם בּני is correct, or whether בּני has not arisen merely through a misspelling. As the name does not occur again, all that can be said is that Bne hashem must at any rate be written as one word, and therefore should be pointed differently. The place mentioned, Gizon, is unknown. שׁמּה for בּן־שׁגא probably arose from Sa2 23:11. Ahiam the son of Sharar or Sacar (Chron.) the Ararite (in the Chronicles the Hararite).
Sa2 23:34
The names in Sa2 23:34, Eliphelet ben-Ahasbai ben-Hammaacathi, read thus in the Chronicles (Sa2 23:35, Sa2 23:36): Eliphal ben-Ur; Hepher hammecerathi. We see from this that in ben-Ahasbai ben two names have been fused together; for the text as it lies before us is rendered suspicious partly by the fact that the names of both father and grandfather are given, which does not occur in connection with any other name in the whole list, and partly by the circumstance that בּן cannot properly be written with המּעכתי, which is a Gentile noun. Consequently the following is probably the correct way of restoring the text, המּעכתי חפר בּן־אוּר אליפלט, Eliphelet (a name which frequently occurs) the son of Ur; Hepher the Maachathite, i.e., of Maacah in the north-east of Gilead (see at Sa2 10:6 and Deu 3:14). Eliam the son of Ahithophel the Gilonite, the clever but treacherous counsellor of David (see at Sa2 15:12). This name is quite corrupt in the Chronicles.
Sa2 23:35
Hezro the Carmelite, i.e., of Carmel in the mountains of Judah (Sa1 25:2). Paarai the Arbite, i.e., of Arab, also in the mountains of Judah (Jos 15:52). In the Chronicles we find Naarai ben-Ezbi: the latter is evidently an error in writing for ha-Arbi; but it is impossible to decide which of the two forms, Paarai and Naarai, is the correct one.
Sa2 23:36
Jigal the son of Nathan of Zoba (see at Sa2 8:3): in the Chronicles, Joel the brother of Nathan. Bani the Gadite: in the Chronicles we have Mibhar the son of Hagri. In all probability the names inf the Chronicles are corrupt in this instance also.
Sa2 23:37
Zelek the Ammonite, Nacharai the Beerothite (of Beeroth: see at Sa2 4:2), the armour-bearer of Joab. Instead of נשׂאי, the Keri and the Chronicles have נשׂא: the latter reading is favoured by the circumstance, that if more than one of the persons named had been Joab's armour-bearers, their names would most probably have been linked together by a copulative vav.
Sa2 23:38
Ira and Gareb, both of them Jithrites, i.e., sprung from a family in Kirjath-jearim (Ch1 2:53). Ira is of course a different man from the cohen of that name (Sa2 20:26).
Sa2 23:39
Uriah the Hittite is well known from Sa2 11:3. "Thirty and seven in all." This number is correct, as there were three in the first class (Sa2 23:8-12), two in the second (Sa2 23:18-23), and thirty-two in the third (vv. 24-39), since Sa2 23:34 contains three names according to the amended text. Next: 2 Kings (2 Samuel) Chapter 24

3 Kings (1 Kings)

t3Kings 10:23In Kg1 10:23-29 everything that had to be stated concerning the wealth, wisdom, and revenue of Solomon is summed up as conclusion (cf. Ch2 9:22-28 and Ch2 1:14-17).
Kg1 10:23-25
Kg1 10:23, Kg1 10:24 point back to Kg1 5:9-14. ויּגדּל: Solomon became greater, not was greater, on account of the Vv consec. כּל־הארץ, all the world, corresponds to כּל־העמּים in Kg1 5:14. The foreigners out of all lands, who came on account of his wisdom, brought Solomon presents: gold and silver vessels, clothes (שׂלמות, court dresses, which are still customary presents in the East), נשׁק, armour, spices, horses and mules.
Kg1 10:26-27
Kg1 10:26 is simply a repetition of Kg1 5:6 (compare also Kg1 9:19); and Kg1 10:27 is merely a further extension of Kg1 10:21. The words of Kg1 10:27, "Solomon made silver like stones in Jerusalem, and cedars like the sycamores in the lowland for abundance," are a hyperbolical description of his collection of enormous quantities of precious metals and costly wood. שׁקמים, sycomori, mulberry fig-trees, are very rare in Palestine in its present desolate state (see Rob. Pal. iii. 27), and are only met in any abundance in Egypt; but in ancient times they abounded in the lowlands of Palestine to such an extent, that they were used as common building wood (vid., Isa 9:9, on which Theodoret observes, τούτων (συκαμίνων) ἡ Παλαιστίνη πεπλήρωται). According to Ch1 27:28, the sycamore forests in the lowland of Judah were royal domains.
Kg1 10:28-29
(cf. Ch2 1:16-17). "And (as for) the going out of horses from Egypt for Solomon, a company of king's merchants fetched (horses) for a definite price." This is the only possible explanation of the verse according to the Masoretic punctuation; but to obtain it, the first מקוה must be connected with סחרי in opposition to the accents, and the second must be pointed מקוה. This is the rendering adopted by Gesenius in his Thesaurus and Lexicon (ed. Dietr. s. v. מקוה). The meaning company or troop may certainly be justified from Gen 1:10; Exo 7:19, and Lev 11:36, where the word signifies an accumulation of water. Still there is something very strange not only in the application of the word both to a company of traders and also to a troop of horses, but also in the omission of סוּסים (horses) after the second מקוה. Hence the rendering of the lxx and Vulgate deserves attention, and may possibly be the one to be preferred (as Michaelis, Bertheau on Chron., and Movers assume). The translators of these versions have taken מקוה as the name of a place, ἐξ Ἐκουέ, or rather ἐκ Κουέ, de Coa.
(Note: That Κουέ or Κωέ is the earliest reading of the lxx, and not the ἐκ Θεκουέ of the Cod. Vat. and Alex., is very evident from the statement which we find in the Onomast. of Eusebius (ed. Larsow et Parth. p. 260), Κώδ, πλησίον Αἰγύπτου; for which Jerome has Coa, quae est juxta Aegyptum, after the Vulgate.)
According to this, the rendering would be: "And as for the going out of horses from Egypt and Koa (or Kawe) for Solomon, the king's traders fetched them from Joa (Kawe) for a fixed price." It is true that the situation of Koa cannot be more precisely defined; but there seems to be very little doubt that it was a place for the collection of customs upon the frontier of Egypt.
Kg1 10:29
"And there came up and went out a chariot from Egypt for six hundred shekels of silver, and a horse for a hundred and fifty shekels; and so (in the same manner as for Solomon) they led them out for all the kings of the Hittites and the kings of Aram through their hand." מרכּבה, like רכב in Sa2 8:4; Sa2 10:18, and Eze 39:20, denotes a chariot with the team of horses belonging to it, possibly three horses (see at Kg1 5:6), not quadriga (Clericus and others), or two draught horses and two as a reserve (Thenius). For the inference, that if a horse cost 150 shekels, a team of four would be obtained for 600, is not quite a certain one, since the chariot itself would certainly not be given in. A hundred and fifty shekels are a little more than 130 thalers (19, 10s. - Tr.), and 600 would be 525 thalers (78, 15s.). These amounts are sufficient to show how untenable the opinion of Movers is, that the sums mentioned are not the prices paid for horses and chariots, but the payment made for their exit, or the customs duty. And his other opinion is quite equally erroneous, namely that the chariots and horses were state carriages and horses of luxury intended for the king. - The merchants are called the king's traders, not because a portion of their profits went into the royal treasury as the tax upon trade (Bertheau), nor as the brokers who bought for the king (Thenius), but because they carried on their trade for the king's account. בּידם cannot be adduced as evidence to the contrary; for linguists require no proof that this cannot mean "auf ihre Hand," as Thenius assumes. Bttcher's explanation is the right one, namely, "through their hand," inasmuch as they brought the horses and chariots themselves even to those kings who lived at a greater distance, without employing intermediate agents. The kings of the חתּים, the Hittites in the wider sense (= Canaanites, as in Jos 1:4; Kg2 7:6; Eze 16:3), and of Aram, were in part Solomon's vassals, since his rule extended over all the Canaanites with the exception of the Phoenicians, and over several kingdoms of Aram. Next: 3 Kings (1 Kings) Chapter 11

3 Kings (1 Kings)

t3Kings 11:1The idolatry into which Solomon fell in his old age appears so strange in a king so wise and God-fearing as Solomon showed himself to be at the dedication of the temple, that many have been quite unable to reconcile the two, and have endeavoured to show either that Solomon's worship of idols was psychologically impossible, or that the knowledge of God and the piety attributed to him are unhistorical. But great wisdom and a refined knowledge of God are not a defence against the folly of idolatry, since this has its roots in the heart, and springs from sensual desires and the lust of the flesh. The cause assigned in the biblical account for Solomon's falling away from the Lord, is that he loved many strange, i.e., foreign or heathen, wives, who turned his heart from Jehovah to their own gods in his old age. Consequently the falling away did not take place suddenly, but gradually, as Solomon got old, and was not a complete renunciation of the worship of Jehovah, to whom he offered solemn sacrifices three times a year, and that certainly to the day of his death (Kg1 9:25), but consisted simply in the fact that his heart was no longer thoroughly devoted to the Lord (Kg1 11:4), and that he inclined towards the idols of his foreign wives and built them altars (Kg1 11:5-8); that is to say, it consisted merely in a syncretic mixture of Jehovah-worship and idolatry, by which the worship which should be paid solely and exclusively to the true God was not only injured, but was even turned into idolatry itself, Jehovah the only true God being placed on a level with the worthless gods of the heathen. - Love to foreign wives no doubt presupposed an inclination to foreign customs; it was not, however, idolatry in itself, but was still reconcilable with that sincere worship of Jehovah which is attributed to Solomon in the earlier years of his reign. At the same time it was a rock on which living faith and true adherence to the Lord might at last suffer shipwreck. And we may even infer from the repeated warnings of God (Kg1 3:14; Kg1 6:12; Kg1 9:4), that from the earliest years of his reign Solomon was in danger of falling into idolatry. This danger did, indeed, spring in his case from his inclination to foreign customs; but this inclination was again influenced by many of the circumstances of his reign, which we must regard as contributing more remotely to his eventual fall. And among the first of these we must place the splendour and glory of his reign. Through long and severe conflicts David had succeeded in conquering all the enemies of Israel, and had not only helped his people to peace and prosperity, but had also raised the kingdom to great power and glory. And Solomon inherited these fruits of his father's reign. Under the blessings of peace he was not only able to carry out the work of building a splendid temple, which his father had urged upon him, but was also able, by a wise use of the sources already existing and by opening new ones, still further to increase the treasures which he had collected, and thereby to exalt the splendour of his kingdom. The treaty with Hiram of Tyre, which enabled him to execute the intended state buildings in Jerusalem, was followed by alliances for the establishment of a widespread commerce both by sea and land, through which ever increasing treasures of gold and silver, and other costly goods, were brought to the king. As this accumulation of riches helped to nourish his inclination to a love of show, and created a kind of luxury which was hardly reconcilable with the simplicity of manners and the piety of a servant of God, so the foreign trade led to a toleration of heathen customs and religious views which could not fail to detract from the reverence paid to Jehovah, however little the trade with foreigners might be in itself at variance with the nature of the Old Testament kingdom of God. And again, even the great wisdom of king Solomon might also become a rock endangering his life of faith, not so much in the manner suggested by J. J. Hess (Gesch. Dav. u. Sal. ii. p. 413), namely, that an excessive thirst for inquiry might easily seduce him from the open and clearer regions of the kingdom of truth into the darker ones of the kingdom of lies, i.e., of magic, and so lead him to the paths of superstition; as because the widespread fame of his wisdom brought distinguished and wise men from distant lands to Jerusalem and into alliance with the king, and their homage flattered the vanity of the human heart, and led to a greater and greater toleration of heathen ways. But these things are none of them blamed in the Scriptures, because they did not of necessity lead to idolatry, but might simply give an indirect impulse to it, by lessening the wall of partition between the worship of the true God and that of heathen deities, and making apostasy a possible thing. The Lord Himself had promised and had given Solomon wisdom, riches, and glory above all other kings for the glorification of his kingdom; and these gifts of God merely contributed to estrange his heart from the true God for the simple reason, that Solomon forgot the commandments of the Lord and suffered himself to be besotted by the lusts of the flesh, not only so as to love many foreign wives, but so as also to take to himself wives from the nations with which Israel was not to enter into any close relationship whatever.
Kg1 11:1-2
Solomon's Love of Many Wives and Idolatry. - Kg1 11:1, Kg1 11:2.
"Solomon loved many foreign wives, and that along with the daughter of Pharaoh." ואת־בּת פ, standing as it does between נכריּות ר נשׁים and מואביּות, cannot mean "and especially the daughter of P.," as Thenius follows the earlier commentators in supposing, but must mean, as in Kg1 11:25, "and that with, or along with," i.e., actually beside the daughter of Pharaoh. She is thereby distinguished from the foreign wives who turned away Solomon's heart from the Lord, so that the blame pronounced upon those marriages does not apply to his marriage to the Egyptian princess (see at Kg1 3:1). All that is blamed is that, in opposition to the command in Deu 17:17, Solomon loved (1) many foreign wives, and (2) Moabitish, Ammonitish, and other wives, of the nations with whom the Israelites were not to intermarry. All that the law expressly prohibited was marriage with Canaanitish women (Deu 7:1-3; Exo 34:16); consequently the words "of the nations," etc., are not to be taken as referring merely to the Sidonian and Hittite women (J. D. Mich.); but this prohibition is extended here to all the tribes enumerated in Kg1 11:2, just as in Ezr 9:2., Kg1 10:3; Neh 13:23; not from a rigour surpassing the law, but in accordance with the spirit of the law, namely, because the reason appended to the law, ne in idololatriam a superstitiosis mulieribus pellicerentur (Clericus), applied to all these nations. The Moabites and Ammonites, moreover, were not to be received into the congregation at all, not even to the tenth generation, and of the Edomites only the children in the third generation were to be received (Deu 23:4, Deu 23:8-9). There was all the less reason, therefore, for permitting marriages with them, that is to say, so long as they retained their nationality or their heathen ways. The words בּכם...לא־תבאוּ are connected in form with Jos 23:12, but, like the latter, they really rest upon Exo 34:16 and Deu 7:1-3. In the last clause בּהם is used with peculiar emphasis: Solomon clave to these nations, of which God had said such things, to love, i.e., to enter into the relation of love or into the marriage relation, with them. דּבק is used of the attachment of a man to his wife (Gen 2:4) and also to Jehovah (Deu 4:4; Deu 10:20, etc.).
Kg1 11:3-8
Kg1 11:3-8 carry out still further what has been already stated. In Kg1 11:3 the taking of many wives is first explained. He had seven hundred שׂרות נשׁים, women of the first rank, who were exalted into princesses, and three hundred concubines. These are in any case round numbers, that is to say, numbers which simply approximate to the reality, and are not to be understood as affirming that Solomon had all these wives and concubines at the same time, but as including all the women who were received into his harem during the whole of his reign, whereas the sixty queens and eighty concubines mentioned in Sol 6:8 are to be understood as having been present in the court at one time. Even in this respect Solomon sought to equal the rulers of other nations, if not to surpass them.
(Note: Nevertheless these numbers, especially that of the wives who were raised to the rank of princesses, appear sufficiently large to suggest the possibility of an error in the numeral letters, although Oriental rulers carried this custom to a very great length, as for example Darius Codomannus, of whom it is related that he took with him 360 pellices on his expedition against Alexander (see Curtius, iii. 3, 24; Athen. Deipnos. iii. 1).
- These women "inclined his heart," i.e., determined the inclination of his heart.
Kg1 11:4
In the time of old age, when the flesh gained the supremacy over the spirit, they turned his heart to other gods, so that it was no longer wholly with Jehovah, his God. שׁלם, integer, i.e., entirely devoted to the Lord (cf. Kg1 8:61), like the heart of David his father, who had indeed grievously sinned, but had not fallen into idolatry.
Kg1 11:5-7
He walked after the Ashtaroth, etc. According to Kg1 11:7, the idolatry here condemned consisted in the fact that he built altars to the deities of all his foreign wives, upon which they offered incense and sacrifice to their idols. It is not stated that he himself also offered sacrifice to these idols. But even the building of altars for idols was a participation in idolatry which was irreconcilable with true fidelity to the Lord. עשׁתּרת, Astarte, was the chief female deity of all the Canaanitish tribes; her worship was also transplanted from Tyre to Carthage, where it flourished greatly. She was a moon-goddess, whom the Greeks and Romans called sometimes Aphrodite, sometimes Urania, Σεληναίη, Coelestis, and Juno (see the Comm. on Jdg 2:13). מלכּם, which is called מלך (without the article) in Kg1 11:7, and מלכּם in Jer 49:1, Jer 49:3, and Amo 1:15, the abomination of the Ammonites, must not be confounded with the Molech (המּלך, always with the article) of the early Canaanites, to whom children were offered in sacrifice in the valley of Benhinnom from the time of Ahaz onwards (see the Comm. on Lev 18:21), since they had both of them their separate places of worship in Jerusalem (cf. Kg2 23:10, Kg2 23:13), and nothing is ever said about the offering of children in sacrifice to Milcom; although the want of information prevents us from determining the precise distinction between the two. Milcom was at any rate related to the Chemosh of the Moabites mentioned in Kg1 11:7; for Chemosh is also described as a god of the Ammonites in Jdg 11:24, whereas everywhere else he is called the god of the Moabites (Num 21:29; Amo 1:15, etc.). Chemosh was a sun-god, who was worshipped as king of his people and as a god of war, and as such is depicted upon coins with a sword, lance, and shield in his hands, and with two torches by his side (see at Num 21:29). The enumeration of the different idols is incomplete; Chemosh being omitted in Kg1 11:5, and Astarte, to whom Solomon also built an altar in Jerusalem, according to Kg2 23:13, in Kg1 11:7. Still this incompleteness does not warrant our filling up the supposed gaps by emendations of the text. וגו/ .txe הרע ויּעשׂ, as in Jdg 2:11; Jdg 3:7, etc. יי אהרי מלּא, a pregnant expression for יי אח ללכת מלּא, as in Num 14:24; Num 32:11-12, etc. - These places of sacrifice (בּמה, see at Kg1 3:2) Solomon built upon the mountain in front, i.e., to the east, of Jerusalem, and, according to the more precise account in Kg2 23:13, to the right, that is to say, on the southern side, of the Mount of Corruption, - in other words, upon the southern peak of the Mount of Olives; and consequently this peak has been called in church tradition from the time of Brocardus onwards, either Mons Offensionis, after the Vulgate rendering of המּשׁחית הר in Kg2 23:13, or Mons Scandali, Mount of Offence (vid., Rob. Pal. i. 565 and 566).
Kg1 11:8
"So did he for all his foreign wives," viz., built altars for their gods; for instance, in addition to those already named, he also built an altar for Astarte. These three altars, which are only mentioned in the complete account in Kg2 23:13, were sufficient for all the deities of the foreign wives. For the Hittites and Edomites do not appear to have had any deities of their own that were peculiar to themselves. The Hittites no doubt worshipped Astarte in common with the Sidonians, and the Edomites probably worshipped Milcom. In the whole of the Old Testament the only place in which gods of the Edomite are mentioned is in Ch2 25:20, and there no names are given. Of course we must except Pharaoh's daughter, according to Kg1 11:1, and the remarks already made in connection with that verse; for she brought no idolatrous worship to Jerusalem, and consequently even in later times we do not find the slightest trace of Egyptian idolatry in Jerusalem and Judah.
(Note: From the fact that these places of sacrifice still existed even in the time of Josiah, notwithstanding the reforms of Asa, Jehoshaphat, Joash, and Hezekiah, which rooted out all public idolatry, at least in Jerusalem, Movers infers (Phniz. ii. 3, p. 207), and that not without reason, that there was an essential difference between these sacred places and the other seats of Israelitish idolatry which were exterminated, namely, that in their national character they were also the places of worship for the foreigners settled in and near Jerusalem, e.g., the Sidonian, Ammonitish, and Moabitish merchants, which were under the protection of treaties, since this is the only ground on which we can satisfactorily explain their undisturbed continuance at Jerusalem. But this would not preclude their having been built by Solomon for the worship of his foreign wives; on the other hand, it is much easier to explain their being built in the front of Jerusalem, and opposite to the temple of Jehovah, if from the very first regard was had to the foreigners who visited Jerusalem. The objection offered by Thenius to this view, which Bertheau had already adopted (zur Gesch. der. Isr. p. 323), has been shown by Bttcher (N. exeg. Aehrenl. ii. p. 95) to be utterly untenable.)
Burning incense (מקטירות) is mentioned before sacrificing (מזבּחות), because vegetable offerings took precedence of animal sacrifices in the nature-worship of Hither Asia (vid., Bhr, Symbolik, ii. pp. 237ff.).
Kg1 11:9-13
Through this apostasy from the Lord his God, who had appeared to him twice (Kg1 3:5. and Kg1 9:2.) and had warned him against idolatry (וצוּה is a continuation of the participle הנּראה), Solomon drew down upon himself the anger of Jehovah. The emphasis lies upon the fact that God had appeared to him Himself for the purpose of warning him, and had not merely caused him to be warned by prophets, as Theodoret has explained. In consequence of this, the following announcement is made to him, no doubt through the medium of a prophet, possibly Ahijah (Kg1 11:29): "Because this has come into thy mind, and thou hast not kept my covenant, ... I will tear the kingdom from thee and give it to thy servant; nevertheless I will not do it in thy lifetime for thy father David's sake: howbeit I will not tear away the whole kingdom; one tribe I will give to thy son." In this double limitation of the threatened forfeiture of the kingdom there is clearly manifested the goodness of God (δείκνυσι τὴν ἄμετρον ἀγαθότητα - Theodoret); not, however, with reference to Solomon, who had forfeited the divine mercy through his idolatry, but with regard to David and the selection of Jerusalem: that is to say, not from any special preference for David and Jerusalem, but in order that the promise made to David (2 Sam 7), and the choice of Jerusalem as the place where His name should be revealed which was connected with that promise, might stand immoveably as an act of grace, which no sin of men could overturn (vid., Kg1 11:36). For אחד שׁבט see the Comm. on Kg1 11:31, Kg1 11:32. 3 Kings (1 Kings) 11:14

3 Kings (1 Kings)

t3Kings 15:3Abijam walked as king in the footsteps of his father. Although he made presents to the temple (Kg1 15:15), his heart was not שׁלם, wholly or undividedly given to the Lord, like the heart of David (cf., Kg1 11:4); but (כּי, after a previous negative) for David's sake Jehovah had left him a light in Jerusalem, to set up his son after him and to let Jerusalem stand, because (אשׁר) David had done right in the eyes of God, etc., i.e., so that it was only for David's sake that Jehovah did not reject him, and allowed the throne to pass to his son. For the fact itself compare Kg1 11:13, Kg1 11:36; and for the words, "except in the matter of Uriah the Hittite," see 2 Sam 11 and 12. 3 Kings (1 Kings) 15:6

4 Kings (2 Kings)

t4Kings 7:3"Four men were before the gate as lepers," or at the gateway, separated from human society, according to the law in Lev 13:46; Num 5:3, probably in a building erected for the purpose (cf. Kg2 15:5), just as at the present day the lepers at Jerusalem have their huts by the side of the Zion gate (vid., Strauss, Sinai u. Golgatha, p. 205, and Tobler, Denkbltter aus Jerus. p. 411ff.). These men being on the point of starvation, resolved to invade the camp of the Syrians, and carried out this resolution בּנּשׁף, in the evening twilight, not the morning twilight (Seb. Schm., Cler., etc.), on account of Kg2 7:12, where the king is said to have received the news of the flight of the Syrians during the night. Coming to "the end of the Syrian camp," i.e., to the outskirts of it on the city side, they found no one there. For (Kg2 7:6, Kg2 7:7) "the Lord had caused the army of the Syrians to hear a noise of chariots and horses, a noise of a great army," so that, believing the king of Israel to have hired the kings of the Hittites and Egyptians to fall upon them, they fled from the camp in the twilight אל־נפשׁם, with regard to their life, i.e., to save their life only, leaving behind them their tents, horses, and asses, and the camp as it was. - The miracle, by which God delivered Samaria from the famine or from surrendering to the foe, consisted in an oral delusion, namely, in the fact that the besiegers thought they heard the march of hostile armies from the north and south, and were seized with such panic terror that they fled in the greatest haste, leaving behind them their baggage, and their beasts of draught and burden. It is impossible to decide whether the noise which they heard had any objective reality, say a miraculous buzzing in the air, or whether it was merely a deception of the senses produced in their ears by God; and this is a matter of no importance, since in either case it was produced miraculously by God. The kings of the Hittites are kings of northern Canaan, upon Lebanon and towards Phoenicia; חתּים in the broader sense for Canaanites, as in Kg1 10:29. The plural, "kings of the Egyptians," is probably only occasioned by the parallel expression "kings of the Hittites," and is not to be pressed. 4 Kings (2 Kings) 7:8

1 Chronicles

t1Chron 4:7The first wife, Helah, bore three sons, Zereth, Jezoar, and Ethnan, who are not elsewhere met with. For the Kethibh יצחר there is in the Keri וצחר, the name of a son of Simeon (Gen 46:10), and of a Hittite chief in the time of the patriarchs (Gen 23:8), with whom the son of Helah has nothing to do. 1 Chronicles 4:8

1 Chronicles

t1Chron 11:21Ch1 11:21 should be translated: honoured before the three as two; i.e., doubly honoured-he became to them prince, leader. With regard to בשּׁנים, which, as meaningless, Bertheau would alter so as to make it correspond with הכי (Sam.), cf. Ew. Lehrb. 269, b. For Benaiah and his exploits, Ch1 11:22-25, see the commentary on Sa2 23:20-23.
No special deeds of the heroes enumerated in vv. 26-47 are related, so that we may regard them as a third class, who are not equal to the first triad, and to the second pair, Abishai and Benaiah, and consequently occupied a subordinate place in the collective body of the royal body-guards. In 2 Sam 23 thirty-two names are mentioned, which, with the above-mentioned three and two of the first and second classes, amount in all to thirty-seven men, as is expressly remarked in Sa2 23:39 at the conclusion. In the text of the Chronicle no number is mentioned, and the register is increased by sixteen names (Ch1 11:41-47), which have been added in the course of time to the earlier number. The words החילים וגבּורי, Ch1 11:26, are to be regarded as a superscription: And valiant heroes were, etc.; equivalent to, But besides there, there remain still the following valiant heroes. The words החילים גּבּורי are not synonymous with החילים שׂרי, leaders of the host, Kg1 15:20; Jer 40:7, (Berth.), but signify heroes in warlike strength, i.e., heroic warriors, like חילים גּבּורי (Ch1 7:5, Ch1 7:7,Ch1 7:11, Ch1 7:40). That חילים has here the article, while it is not found in the passages quoted from the seventh chapter, does not make any difference in the meaning of the words. The article is used, here, as with הגּבּורים, Ch1 11:10, Ch1 11:11, because the heroes of David are spoken of, and לדויד אשׁר is to be mentally supplied from Ch1 11:10. As to the names in vv. 26-41, which are also found in the register in the book of Samuel, see the commentary to 2 Sam 23:24-39. This list, which is common to both books, begins with Asahel, a brother of Joab, who was slain by Abner in the war which he waged against David (Sa2 2:19-23), and concludes in the book of Samuel with Uriah the Hittite, so well known from Sa2 11:3. (Ch1 11:41), with whose wife David committed adultery. But to the continuation of the register which is found in Ch1 11:41-47 of our text, there is no parallel in the other writings of the Old Testament by which we might form an idea as to the correctness of the names. The individual names are indeed to be met with, for the most part, in other parts of the Old Testament, but denote other men of an earlier or later time. The names ידיעאל, Ch1 11:45, and אליאל, Ch1 11:46., are found also in Ch1 12:20, Ch1 12:11, among those of the valiant men who before Saul's death went over to David, but we cannot with any certainty ascertain whether the persons meant were the same. The expression שׁלשׁים ועליו (Ch1 11:42) is also obscure, - "and to him in addition," i.e., together with him, thirty, - since the thought that with Adina the chief of the Reubenites, or besides him, there were thirty (men), has no meaning in this register. The lxx and the Vulgate read עליו, while the Syriac, on the contrary, makes use of the periphrasis, "And even he was a ruler over thirty heroes;" and Bertheau accordingly recommends the emendation השּׁלשׁים על, and thence concludes that the tribe of Reuben had thirty leaders in its army-a conjecture as bold as it is improbable. Were השּׁלשׁים על to be read, we could not but refer the words to the thirty heroes of Ch1 11:11, and hold Adina to be their leader, which could not be easily reconciled with Ch1 11:11. See on Ch1 12:4. 1 Chronicles 11:43

Nehemiah

tNeh 9:6In Neh 9:6 this praising of God begins with the acknowledgment that Jahve, the Creator of heaven and earth, chose Abram and made a covenant with him to give the land of Canaan to his seed, and had performed this word (Neh 9:6-8). These verses form the theme of that blessing the name of His glory, to which the Levites exhorted. This theme is then elucidated by facts from Israel's history, in four strophes. a. When God saw the affliction of His people in Egypt, He delivered them by great signs and wonders from the power of Pharaoh, gave them laws and judgments on Sinai, miraculously provided them with food and water in the wilderness, and commanded them to take possession of the promised land (Neh 9:9-15). b. Although their fathers rebelled against Him, even in the wilderness, God did not withdraw His mercy from them, but sustained them forty years, so that they lacked nothing; and subdued kings before them, so that they were able to conquer and possess the land (Neh 9:16-25). c. After they were settled in the land they rebelled again, and God delivered them into the hand of their oppressors; but as often as they cried unto Him, He helped them again, till at length, because of their continued opposition, He gave them into the power of the people of the lands, yet of His great mercy did not wholly cast them off (Neh 9:26-31). d. May He now too look upon the affliction of His people, as the God that keepeth covenant and mercy, although they have deserved by their sins the troubles they are suffering (Neh 9:32-37).
Neh 9:6
"Thou art Jahve alone; Thou hast made heaven, the heaven of heavens, and all their host, the earth and all that is thereon, the sea and all therein; and Thou givest life to them all, and the host of heaven worshippeth Thee. Neh 9:7 Thou art Jahve, the God who didst choose Abram, and broughtest him forth out of Ur of the Chaldees, and gavest him the name of Abraham: Neh 9:8 And foundest his heart faithful before Thee, and madest a covenant with him to give the land of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Amorites, and the Perizzites, and the Jebusites, and the Girgashites, to give to his seed, and hast performed Thy word; for Thou art righteous." Jahve alone is God, the Creator of heaven and earth, and of all creatures in heaven and on earth. In order duly to exalt the almightiness of God, the notion of heaven is enhanced by the addition "heaven of heavens," as in Deu 10:14; Kg1 8:27; and that of earth by the addition "the sea and all therein;" comp. Psa 146:6. כּל־צבאם, Gen 2:1, here refers only to heaven. מחיּה, to cause to live = to give and preserve life. כּלּם relates to all creatures in heaven and earth. The host of heaven who worshipped God are the angels, as in Psa 148:2; Psa 103:21. This only God chose Abram; comp. Gen 12:1 with Gen 11:31 and Gen 15:7; Gen 17:5, where God bestowed upon the patriarch Abram the name of Abraham. The words, "Thou foundest his heart faithful," refer to בּיהוה האמין there mentioned. The making of a covenant alludes to Gen 17:5.; the enumeration of six Canaanitish nations to Deu 7:1; Exo 3:8; comp. with Gen 15:20. This His word God performed (fulfilled), for He is righteous. God is called צדּיק, inasmuch as with Him word and deed correspond with each other; comp. Deu 32:4. Nehemiah 9:9

Proverbs

tProv 18:8A pair of proverbs regarding the flatterer and the slothful:
8 The words of the flatter are as dainty morsels,
And they glide down into the innermost parts.
An "analogy, with an epexegesis in the second member" (Fl.), which is repeated in Pro 26:22. Ewald, Bertheau, Hitzig, and others, are constrained to interpret המו as introducing a contrast, and in this sense they give to מתלהמים all kinds of unwarrantable meanings. Ewald translates: a burning (להם, cogn. להב), and offers next: as whispering (להם, cogn. רעם, נהם); Ch. B. Michaelis, Bertheau, and others: as sporting (להם, cogn. להה); Hitzig: like soft airs (להם, cogn. Arab. hillam, flaccus, laxus). All these interpretations are without support. The word להם has none of all these significations; it means, as the Arab. lahima warrants, deglutire. But Bttcher's explanation also: "as swallowed down, because spoken with reserve," proceeds, like those others, from the supposed syntactically fine yet false supposition, that 8b is an antithetic "dennoch" [tamen]. In that case the poet would have written והם ירדים (cf. והוא, as the beginning of a conditional clause, Pro 3:29; Pro 23:3). But והוא, והם, with the finite following, introduces neither here nor at Deu 33:3; Jdg 20:34; Psa 95:10, cf. Gen 43:23, a conditional clause. Thus 8b continues the clause 8a by one standing on the same line; and thus we do not need to invent a meaning for כמתלהמים, which forms a contrast to the penetrating into the innermost parts. The relation of the parts of the proverb is rightly given by Luther:
The words of the slanderer are stripes,
And they go through the heart of one.
He interprets להם as transposed from הלם (Rashi and others); but stripes cannot be called מתלהמים - they are called, 6b, מהלמות. This interpretation of the word has always more support than that of Symmachus: ὡς ἀκέραιοι; Jerome: quasi simplicia; Aquila, xxvi. 22: γοητικοί; which last, as also that of Capellus, Clericus, and Schultens: quasi numine quodam afflata, seems to support itself on the Arab. âhm iv. inspirare. But in reality âhm does not mean afflare; it means deglutire, and nothing else. The Jewish lexicographers offer nothing worth considering; Kimchi's חלקים, according to which the Venet. translates μαλθακιζόμενοι, is fanciful; for the Talm. הלם, striking = hitting, suitable, standing well, furnishes no transition to "smooth" and "soft." Immanuel compares âhm = בלע; and Schultens, who is followed by Gesenius and others, has already, with perfect correctness, explained: tanquam quae avidissime inglutiantur. Thus also Fleischer: things which offer themselves to be eagerly gulped down, or which let themselves be thus swallowed. But in this way can one be truly just to the Hithpa.? The Arab. âlthm (stronger form, âltkm, according to which van Dyk translates mthl uḳam ḥlwt, like sweet morsels) means to swallow into oneself, which is not here appropriate. The Hithpa. will thus have here a passive signification: things which are greedily swallowed. Regarding נרגּן from רגן, vid., at Pro 16:28. המו refers to the words of the flatterer, and is emphatic, equivalent to aeque illa, etiam illa, or illa ipsa. ירד is here connected with the obj. accus. (cf. Pro 1:12) instead of with אל, Pro 7:27. חדרי, penetralia, we had already at Pro 7:27; the root-word is (Arab.) khdr, to seclude, to conceal, different from ḥdr, demittere, and ḥkhr (cogn. חזר), to finish, circumire. בּטן is the inner part of the body with reference to the organs lying there, which mediate not only the life of the body, but also that of the mind - in general, the internal part of the personality. The lxx does not translate this proverb, but has in its stead Pro 19:15, in a different version, however, from that it gives there; the Syr. and the Targ. have thereby been drawn away from the Hebr. text. Proverbs 18:9

Proverbs

tProv 23:1Pro 22:29, which speaks of a high position near the king, is appropriately followed by a hexastich referring to the slipperiness of the smooth ground of the king's court.
1 When thou sittest to eat with a ruler,
Consider well whom thou hast before thee.
2 And put thy knife to thy throat
If thou art a man of good appetite.
3 Be not lustful after his dainties,
Because it is deceitful food.
The ל of ללחום is that of end: ad cibum capiendum, thus as one invited by him to his table; in prose the expression would be לאכל לחם; לחם, to eat, is poet., Pro 4:17; Pro 9:5. The fut. תּבין clothes the admonition in the form of a wish or counsel; the infin. intens. בּין makes it urgent: consider well him whom thou hast before thee, viz., that he is not thine equal, but one higher, who can destroy thee as well as be useful to thee. With ושׂמתּ the jussive construction begun by תבין is continued. Zckler and Dchsel, after Ewald and Hitzig, translate incorrectly: thou puttest..., the perf. consec. after an imperf., or, which is the same thing, a fut. meant optatively (e.g., Lev 19:18 with לא, and also Lev 19:34 without לא) continues the exhortation; to be thus understood, the author ought to have used the expression שׂכּין שׂמתּ and not ושׂמת שׂכין. Rightly Luther: "and put a knife to thy throat," but continuing: "wilt thou preserve thy life," herein caught in the same mistake of the idea with Jerome, the Syr., and Targ., to which נפשׁ here separates itself. שׂכּין (סכּין) (Arab. with the assimilated a sikkı̂n, plur. sekâkı̂n, whence sekâkı̂ni, cutler) designates a knife (R. סך שך, to stick, vid., at Isa 9:10). לוע, from לוּע, to devour, is the throat; the word in Aram. signifies only the cheek, while Lagarde seeks to interpret בּלעך infinitively in the sense of (Arab.) bwlw'ak, if thou longest for (from wl'a); but that would make 2b a tautology. The verb לוּע (cf. Arab. l'al', to pant for) shows for the substantive the same primary meaning as glutus from glutire, which was then transferred from the inner organ of swallowing (Kimchi, בית הבליעה, Parchon; הוּשׂט, aesophagus) to the external. "Put a knife to thy throat, is a proverbial expression, like our: the knife stands at his throat; the poet means to say: restrain thy too eager desire by means of the strongest threatening of danger - threaten as it were death to it" (Fleischer). In בּעל נפשׁ, נפשׁ means, as at Pro 13:2, desire, and that desire of eating, as at Pro 6:30. Rightly Rashi: if thou art greedy with hunger, if thou art a glutton; cf. Sir. 34:12 (31:12), "If thou sittest at a great table, then open not widely thy throat (φάρυγγα), and say not: There is certainly much on it!" The knife thus denotes the restraining and moderating of too good an appetite.
In 3a the punctuation fluctuates between תתאו (Michlol 131a) and תתאו; the latter is found in Cod. 1294, the Erfurt 2 and 3, the Cod. Jaman., and thus it is also to be written at Pro 23:6 and Pro 24:1; ויתאו, Ch1 11:17 and Psa 45:12, Codd. and older Edd. (e.g., Complut. 1517, Ven. 1515, 1521) write with Pathach. מטעמּות, from טעם, signifies savoury dishes, dainties, like (Arab.) dhwâkt, from dhâk (to taste, to relish); cf. sapores, from sapere, in the proverb: the tit-bits of the king burn the lips (vid., Fleischer, Ali's Hundred Proverbs, etc., pp. 71, 104). With והוּא begins, as at Pro 3:29, a conditioning clause: since it is, indeed, the bread of deceit (the connection like עד־כּחבים, Pro 21:28), food which, as it were, deceives him who eats it, i.e., appears to secure for him the lasting favour of princes, and often enough herein deceives him; cf. the proverb by Burckhardt and Meidani: whoever eats of the sultan's soup burns his lips, even though it may be after a length of time (Fleischer). One must come near to a king, says Calovius, hitting the meaning of the proverb, as to a fire: not too near, lest he be burned; nor too remote, so that he may be warmed therewith. Proverbs 23:4

Isaiah

tIs 18:4The prophet knows for certain that the messengers may be home and announce this act of Jehovah to their own people and to all the world. "For thus hath Jehovah spoken to me: I will be still, and will observe upon my throne during clear weather in sunshine, during a cloud of dew in the heat of harvest. For before the harvest, when the blossom falls off, and the fruit becomes the ripening grape: then will He cut off the branches with pruning-hooks; and the tendrils He removes, breaks off. They are left altogether to the birds of prey on the mountains, and to the cattle of the land; and the birds of prey summer thereon, and all the cattle of the land will winter thereon." The prophecy explains itself here, as is very frequently the case, especially with Isaiah; for the literal words of v. 6 show us unquestionably what it is that Jehovah will allow to develop itself so prosperously under favourable circumstances, and without any interposition on His part, until He suddenly and violently puts an end to the whole, must as it is approaching perfect maturity. It is the might of Assyria. Jehovah quietly looks on from the heavenly seat of His glorious presence, without disturbing the course of the thing intended. This quietness, however, is not negligence, but, as the hortative expressions show, a well-considered resolution. The two Caphs in v. 4 are not comparative, but indicate the time. He remains quiet whilst there is clear weather with sunshine (עלי indicating continuance, as in Jer 8:18; Sa1 14:32), and whilst there is a dew-cloud in the midst of that warmth, which is so favourable for the harvest, by causing the plants that have been thoroughly heated in the day and refreshed at night by the dew, to shoot up and ripen with rapidity and luxuriance. The plant thought of, as v. 5 clearly shows, is the vine. By liphnē kâtzir (before the harvest) we are either to understand the period just before the wheat-harvest, which coincides with the flowering of the grape; or, since Isaiah uses kâtzir for bâzri in Isa 16:9, the time at the close of the summer, immediately preceding the vintage. Here again the Caph indicates the time. When the blossoming is over, so that the flower fades away, and the fruit that has set becomes a ripening grape (boser, as in Job 15:33, not in the sense of labruscum, but of omphax; and gâmal, maturescere, as in Num 17:8, maturare), He cuts off the branches (zalzalilm, from zilzēl, to swing to and fro; compare the Arabic dâliye, a vine-branch, from dalâ, to hang long and loose) upon which the nearly ripened grapes are hanging, and removes or nips off
(Note: התז = התז with a pausal sharpening of the tzere, which is lengthened by the tone, from tâzaz or tı̄z in post-biblical Hebrew, to knock off, knock to pieces, or weaken (compare tâshash). On this change of vowels in pause, see at Gen 17:14; and compare Olshausen, 91, d. For an example of the post-biblical use of the word, vid., b. Sanhedrin 102a, "like two sticks hammattı̄zōth," i.e., one of which "hits the other in two" (hittiz, apparently from tūz, or tiz, like hinnı̄ach from nuach).)
the tendrils (netishoth, as in Jer 5:10, from nâtash, to stretch far out; niphal, to twist about a long way, Isa 16:8, compare Jer 48:32); an intentional asyndeton with a pictorial sound. The words of Jehovah concerning Himself have here passed imperceptibly into words of the prophet concerning Jehovah. The ripening grapes, as Isa 18:6 now explains, are the Assyrians, who were not far from the summit of their power; the fruit-branches that are cut off and nipped in pieces are their corpses, which are now through both summer and winter the food of swarms of summer birds, as well as of beasts of prey that remain the whole winter through. This is the act of divine judgment, to which the approaching exaltation of the banner, and the approaching blast of trumpets, is to call the attention of the people of Ethiopia. Isaiah 18:7

Ezekiel

tEzek 16:1Israel, by nature unclean, miserable, and near to destruction (Eze 16:3-5), is adopted by the Lord and clothed in splendour (Eze 16:6-14). Eze 16:1 and Eze 16:2 form the introduction. - Eze 16:1. And the word of Jehovah came to me, saying, Eze 16:2. Son of man, show Jerusalem her abominations. - The "abominations" of Jerusalem are the sins of the covenant nation, which were worse than the sinful abominations of Canaan and Sodom. The theme of this word of God is the declaration of these abominations. To this end the nation is first of all shown what it was by nature. - Eze 16:3. And say, Thus saith the Lord Jehovah to Jerusalem, Thine origin and thy birth are from the land of the Canaanites; thy father was the Amorite, and thy mother a Hittite. Eze 16:4. And as for thy birth, in the day of thy birth thy navel was not cut, and thou wast not bathed in water for cleansing; and not rubbed with salt, and not wrapped in bandages. Eze 16:5. No eye looked upon thee with pity, to do one of these to thee in compassion; but thou wast cast into the field, in disgust at thy life, on the day of thy birth. - According to the allegory, which runs through the whole chapter, the figure adopted to depict the origin of the Israelitish nation is that Jerusalem, the existing representative of the nation, is described as a child, born of Canaanitish parents, mercilessly exposed after its birth, and on the point of perishing. Hitzig and Kliefoth show that they have completely misunderstood the allegory, when they not only explain the statement concerning the descent of Jerusalem, in Eze 16:3, as relating to the city of that name, but restrict it to the city alone, on the ground that "Israel as a whole was not of Canaanitish origin, whereas the city of Jerusalem was radically a Canaanitish, Amoritish, and Hittite city." But were not all the cities of Israel radically Canaanaean? Or was Israel not altogether, but only half, of Aramaean descent? Regarded merely as a city, Jerusalem was neither of Amoritish nor Hittite origin, but simply a Jebusite city. And it is too obvious to need any proof, that the prophetic word does not refer to the city as a city, or to the mass of houses; but that Jerusalem, as the capital of the kingdom of Judah at that time, so far as its inhabitants were concerned, represents the people of Israel, or the covenant nation. It was not the mass of houses, but the population, - which was the foundling, - that excited Jehovah's compassion, and which He multiplied into myriads (Eze 16:7), clothed in splendour, and chose as the bride with whom He concluded a marriage covenant. The descent and birth referred to are not physical, but spiritual descent. Spiritually, Israel sprang from the land of the Canaanites; and its father was the Amorite ad its mother a Hittite, in the same sense in which Jesus said to the Jews, "Ye are of your father the devil" (Joh 8:44). The land of the Canaanites is mentioned as the land of the worst heathen abominations; and from among the Canaanitish tribes, the Amorites and Hittites are mentioned as father and mother, not because the Jebusites are placed between the two, in Num 13:29, as Hitzig supposes, but because they were recognised as the leaders in Canaanitish ungodliness. The iniquity of the Amorites (האמרי) was great even in Abraham's time, though not yet full or ripe for destruction (Gen 15:16); and the daughters of Heth, whom Esau married, caused Rebekah great bitterness of spirit (Gen 27:46). These facts furnish the substratum for our description. And they also help to explain the occurrence of האמרי with the article, and חתּית without it. The plurals מכרתיך and מלדתיך also point to spiritual descent; for physical generation and birth are both acts that take place once for all. מכרה or מכוּרה (Ezekiel 21:35; Eze 29:14) is not the place of begetting, but generation itself, from כּוּר = כּרה, to dig = to beget (cf. Isa 51:1). It is not equivalent to מקוּר, or a plural corresponding to the Latin natales, origines. תולדת: birth.
Eze 16:4 and Eze 16:5 describe the circumstances connected with the birth. וּמלדתיך (Eze 16:4) stands at the head as an absolute noun. At the birth of the child it did not receive the cleansing and care which were necessary for the preservation and strengthening of its life, but was exposed without pity. The construction הוּלדת אותך (the passive, with an accusative of the object) is the same as in Gen 40:20, and many other passages of the earlier writings. כּרּת: for כּרת (Jdg 6:28), Pual of כּרת; and שרּּך: from שׁר, with the reduplication of the r, which is very rare in Hebrew (vid., Ewald, 71). By cutting the navel-string, the child is liberated after birth from the blood of the mother, with which it was nourished in the womb. If the cutting be neglected, as well as the tying of the navel-string, which takes place at the same time, the child must perish when the decomposition of the placenta begins. The new-born child is then bathed, to cleanse it from the impurities attaching to it. משׁעי cannot be derived from שׁעה = שׁעע; because neither the meaning to see, to look (שׁעה), nor the other meaning to smear (שׁעע), yields a suitable sense. Jos. Kimchi is evidently right in deriving it from משׁע, in Arabic m_', 2 and 4, to wipe off, cleanse. The termination י is the Aramaean form of the absolute state, for the Hebrew משׁעית, cleansing (cf. Ewald, 165a). After the washing, the body was rubbed with salt, according to a custom very widely spread in ancient times, and still met with here and there in the East (vid., Hieron. ad h. l. Galen, de Sanit. i. 7; Troilo Reisebeschr. p. 721); and that not merely for the purpose of making the skin drier and firmer, or of cleansing it more thoroughly, but probably from a regard to the virtue of salt as a protection from putrefaction, "to express in a symbolical manner a hope and desire for the vigorous health of the child" (Hitzig and Hvernick). And, finally, it was bound round with swaddling-clothes. Not one of these things, so indispensable to the preservation and strengthening of the child, was performed in the case of Israel at the time of its birth from any feeling of compassionate love (להמלה, infinitive, to show pity or compassion towards it); but it was cast into the field, i.e., exposed, in order that it might perish בּגועל in disgust at thy life (compare גּעל, to thrust away, reject, despise, Lev 26:11; Lev 15:30). The day of the birth of Jerusalem, i.e., of Israel, was the period of its sojourn in Egypt, where Israel as a nation was born, - the sons of Jacob who went down to Egypt having multiplied into a nation. The different traits in this picture are not to be interpreted as referring to historical peculiarities, but have their explanation in the totality of the figure. At the same time, they express much more than "that Israel not only stood upon a level with all other nations, so far as its origin and its nature were concerned, but was more helpless and neglected as to both its nature and its natural advantages, possessing a less gifted nature than other nations, and therefore inferior to the rest" (Kliefoth). The smaller gifts, or humbler natural advantages, are thoughts quite foreign to the words of the figure as well as to the context. Both the Canaanitish descent and the merciless exposure of the child point to a totally different point of view, as indicated by the allegory. The Canaanitish descent points to the moral depravity of the nature of Israel; and the neglected condition of the child is intended to show how little there was in the heathen surroundings of the youthful Israel in Canaan and Egypt that was adapted to foster its life and health, or to educate Israel and fit it for its future destination. To the Egyptians the Israelites were an abomination, as a race of shepherds; and not long after the death of Joseph, the Pharaohs began to oppress the growing nation. Ezekiel 16:6

Ezekiel

tEzek 16:35As Israel has been worse than all the heathen, Jehovah will punish it notwithstanding its election, so that its shame shall be uncovered before all the nations (Eze 16:36-42), and the justice of the judgment to be inflicted upon it shall be made manifest (Eze 16:43-52). According to these points of view, the threat of punishment divides itself into two parts in the following manner: - In the first (Eze 16:35-42) we have, first of all (in Eze 16:36), a recapitulation of the guilty conduct described in vv. 16-34; and secondly, an announcement of the punishment corresponding to the guilt, as the punishment of adultery and murder (Eze 16:37 and Eze 16:48), and a picture of its infliction, as retribution for the enormities committed (Eze 16:39-42). In the second part (Eze 16:43-52) there follows a proof of the justice of this judgment.
Eze 16:35-42
The punishment will correspond to the sin. - Eze 16:35. Therefore, O harlot, hear the word of Jehovah! Eze 16:36. Thus saith the Lord Jehovah, Because thy brass has been lavished, and thy shame exposed in thy whoredom with thy lovers, and because of all the idols of thine abominations, and according to the blood of thy sons, which thou hast given them; Eze 16:37. Therefore, behold, I will gather together all thy lovers, whom thou hast pleased, and all whom thou hast loved, together with all whom thou hast hated, and will gather them against thee from round about, and will expose thy shame to them, that they may see all thy shame. Eze 16:38. I will judge thee according to the judgment of adulteresses and murderesses, and make thee into blood of wrath and jealousy. Eze 16:39. And I will give thee into their hand, that they may destroy thy arches, and pull down thy heights; that they may strip thy clothes off thee, and take thy splendid jewellery, and leave thee naked and bare. Eze 16:40. And they shall bring up a company against thee, and stone thee, and cut thee in pieces with their swords. Eze 16:41. And they shall burn thy houses with fire, and execute judgment upon thee before the eyes of many women. Thus do I put an end to thy whoredom.; and thou wilt also give payment no more. Eze 16:42. And I quiet my fury toward thee, and will turn away my jealousy from thee, that I may repose and vex myself no more. - In the brief summary of the guilt of the whore, the following objects are singled out, as those for which she is to be punished: (1) the pouring out of her brass and the exposure of her shame; (2) the idols of her abominations (with על before the noun, corresponding to יען before the infinitive); (3) the blood of her sons, with the preposition כּ, according to, to indicate the measure of her punishment. Two things are mentioned as constituting the first ground of punishment. The first is, "because thy brass has been poured out." Most of the commentators have explained this correctly, as referring to the fact that Israel had squandered the possessions received from the Lord, viz., gold, silver, jewellery, clothing, and food (Eze 16:10-13 and Eze 16:16-19), upon idolatry. The only difficulty connected with this is the use of the word nechōsheth, brass or copper, in the general sense of money or metal, as there are no other passages to support this use of the word. At the same time, the objection raised to this, namely, that nechōsheth cannot signify money, because the Hebrews had no copper coin, is an assertion without proof, since all that can be affirmed with certainty is, that the use of copper or brass as money is not mentioned anywhere in the Old Testament, with the exception of the passage before us. But we cannot infer with certainty from this that it was not then in use. As soon as the Hebrews began to stamp coins, bronze or copper coins were stamped as well as the silver shekels, and specimens of these are still in existence from the time of the Maccabees, with the inscription "Simon, prince of Israel" (cf. Cavedoni, Bibl. Numismatik, transl. by Werlhof, p. 20ff.). Judging from their size, these coins were in all probability worth a whole, a half, and a quarter gerah (Caved. pp. 50, 51). If, then, the silver shekel of the value of 21 grains contained twenty gerahs in Moses' time, and they had already silver pieces of the weight of a shekel and half shekel, whilst quarter shekels are also mentioned in the time of Samuel, there would certainly be metal coins in use of the value of a gerah for the purposes of trade and commerce, and these would in all probability be made of brass, copper, or bronze, as silver coins of the value of a penny would have been found too small. Consequently it cannot be positively denied that brass or copper may have been used as coin for the payment of a gerah, and therefore that the word nechōsheth may have been applied to money. We therefore adhere to the explanation that brass stands for money, which has been already adopted by the lxx and Jerome; and we do so all the more, because every attempt that has been made to fasten another meaning upon nechōsheth, whether by allegorical interpretation (Rabb.), or from the Arabic, or by altering the text, is not only arbitrary, but does not even yield a meaning that suits the context.
השׁפך, to be poured out = squandered or lavished. To the squandering of the possessions bestowed by the Lord upon His congregation, there was added the exposure of its shame, i.e., the disgraceful sacrifice of the honour and dignity of the people of God, of which Israel had made itself guilty by its whoredom with idols, i.e., by falling into idolatry, and adopting heathen ways. על־מאהביך, to (towards), i.e., with thy lovers (על standing for אל, according to later usage: vid., Ewald, 217i, p. 561), is to be explained after the analogy of זנה אל, as signifying to commit adultery towards a person, i.e., with him. But it was not enough to sacrifice the gifts of the Lord, i.e., His possessions and His glory, to the heathen and their idols; Israel also made for itself כּל־גּלּוּלי תּועבות, all kinds of logs of abominations, i.e., of idols, upon which it hung its ornaments, and before which it set oil and incense, meal and honey (Eze 16:18 and Eze 16:19). And it was not even satisfied with this, but gave to its idols the blood of its sons, by slaying its children to Moloch (Eze 16:20). Therefore (Eze 16:37.) the Lord will uncover the shame of His people before all the nations. He will gather them together, both friend and foe, against Jerusalem, and let them execute the judgment. The punishment will correspond to the sin. Because Israel has cultivated friendship with the heathen, it shall now be given up altogether into their power. On the uncovering of the nakedness as a punishment, compare Hos 2:12. The explanation of the figure follows in Eze 16:38. The heathen nations shall inflict upon Jerusalem the punishment due to adultery and bloodshed. Jerusalem (i.e., Israel) had committed this twofold crime. It had committed adultery, by falling away from Jehovah into idolatry; and bloodshed, by the sacrifices offered to Moloch. The punishment for adultery was death by stoning (see the comm. on Eze 16:40); and blood demanded blood (Gen 9:6; Exo 21:12). 'וּנתתּיך דּם וגו' does not mean, "I will put blood in thee" (Ros.), or "I will cause thy blood to be shed in anger" (De Wette, Maurer, etc.); but I make thee into blood; which we must not soften down, as Hitzig proposes, into cause thee to bleed. The thought is rather the following: thou shalt be turned into blood, so that nothing but blood may be left of thee, and that the blood of fury and jealousy, as the working of the wrath and jealousy of God (compare Eze 16:42). To this end the heathen will destroy all the objects of idolatry (גּב and רמות, Eze 16:39, as in Eze 16:24, Eze 16:25), then take from the harlot both clothes and jewellery, and leave her naked, i.e., plunder Jerusalem and lay it waste, and, lastly, execute upon her the punishment of death by stoning and by sword; in other words, destroy both city and kingdom. The words 'העלוּ , they bring (up) against thee an assembly, may be explained from the ancient mode of administering justice, according to which the popular assembly (qâhâl, cf. Pro 5:14) sat in judgment on cases of adultery and capital crimes, and executed the sentence, as the law for stoning expressly enjoins (Lev 20:2; Num 15:36; Deu 22:21; compare my Bibl. Archol. II. p. 257). But they are also applicable to the foes, who would march against Jerusalem (for qâhâl in this sense, compare Eze 17:17). The punishment of adultery (according to Lev 20:10) was death by stoning, as we may see from Lev 20:2-27 and Deu 22:24 compared with Joh 8:5. This was the usual mode of capital punishment under the Mosaic law, when judicial sentence of death was pronounced upon individuals (see my Archol. II. p. 264). The other form of punishment, slaying by the sword, was adopted when there were many criminals to be put to death, and was not decapitation, but cutting down or stabbing (bâthaq, to hew in pieces) with the sword (see my Archol. l.c.). The punishment of death was rendered more severe by the burning of the corpse (Lev 20:14; Lev 21:9). Consequently the burning of the houses in Eze 16:41 is also to be regarded as intensifying the punishment; and it is in the same light that the threat is to be regarded, that the judgment would be executed "before the eyes of many women." The many women are the many heathen nations, according to the description of Jerusalem or Israel as an unfaithful wife. "As it is the greatest punishment to an adulterous woman to be exposed in her sin before the eyes of other women; so will the severest portion of Israel's punishment be, that it will stand exposed in its sin before the eyes of all other nations" (Kliefoth). This is the way in which God will put an end to the fornication, and appease His wrath and jealousy upon the harlot (Eze 16:41 and Eze 16:42). השׁבּית, with מן, to cause a person to cease to be or do anything. For Eze 16:42, compare Eze 5:13. By the execution of the judgment the jealousy (קנאה) of the injured husband is appeased.
Eze 16:43-52
This judgment is perfectly just; for Israel has not only forgotten the grace of its God manifested towards it in its election, but has even surpassed both Samaria and Sodom in its abominations. - Eze 16:43. Because thou hast not remembered the days of thy youth, and hast raged against me in all this; behold, I also give thy way upon thy head, is the saying of the Lord Jehovah, that I may not do that which is wrong above all thine abominations. Eze 16:44. Behold, every one that useth proverbs will use this proverb concerning thee: as the mother, so the daughter. Eze 16:45. Thou art the daughter of thy mother, who casteth off her husband and her children; and thou art the sister of thy sisters, who cast off their husbands and their children. Your mother is a Hittite, and your father an Amorite. Eze 16:46. And thy great sister is Samaria with her daughters, who dwelleth at thy left; and thy sister, who is smaller than thou, who dwelleth at thy right, is Sodom with her daughters. Eze 16:47. But thou hast not walked in their ways and done according to their abominations a little only; thou didst act more corruptly than they in all thy ways. Eze 16:48. As I live, is the saying of the Lord Jehovah, Sodom thy sister, she with her daughters hath not done as thou hast done with thy daughters. Eze 16:49. Behold, this was the sin of Sodom, thy sister: pride, superabundance of food, and rest undisturbed had she with her daughters, and the hand of the poor and needy she did not hold. Eze 16:50. They were haughty, and did abominations before me; and I swept them away when I saw it. Eze 16:51. And Samaria, she hath not sinned to the half of thy sins; thou hast increased thine abominations more than they, and hast made thy sisters righteous by all thine abominations which thou hast done. Eze 16:52. Bear, then, also thy shame, which thou hast adjudged to thy sisters. Through thy sins, which thou hast committed more abominably than they, they become more righteous than thou. Be thou, then, also put to shame, and bear thy disgrace, as thou hast justified thy sisters. - יען אשׁר, which corresponds to יען in Eze 16:36, introduces a new train of thought. Most of the commentators take Eze 16:43 in connection with what precedes, and place the pause at Eze 16:44. But the perfect נתתּי shows that this is wrong. If Eze 16:43 simply contained a recapitulation, or a concluding summary, of the threat of judgment in Eze 16:35-42, the punishment would be announced in the future tense, as it is in Eze 16:37. By the perfect נתתּי, on the contrary, the punishment is exhibited as a completed fact, and further reasons are then assigned in vindication of the justice of the divine procedure, which we find in Eze 16:44. To this end the guilt of Jerusalem is mentioned once more: "thou didst not remember the days of thy youth," i.e., what thou didst experience in thy youth; the misery in which thou didst find thyself, and out of which I rescued thee and exalted thee to glory (Eze 16:4-14). To this there was added rage against Jehovah, which manifested itself in idolatrous acts. רגז , to be excited upon or against any person, to rage; thus in Hithpael with אל in Kg2 19:27-28. For נתן דּרך , compare Eze 9:10. The last clause of Eze 16:43, 'ולא עשׂיתי וגו, has been misinterpreted in many ways. According to the Masoretic pointing, עשׂיתי is the second person; but this does not yield a suitable meaning. For עשׂה זמּה is not used in the sense adopted by the Targum, upon which the Masoretic pointing is undoubtedly based, and which Raschi, Kimchi, and Rosenmller retain, viz., cogitationem facere: "thou hast not take any thought concerning all thy abominations," i.e., has not felt any remorse. The true meaning is to commit a crime, a wrong, and is used for the most part of unnatural offences (cf. Jdg 20:6; Hos 6:9). There is all the more reason for retaining this meaning, that זמּה (apart from the plural זמּוה = מזמּות) only occurs sensu malo, and for the most part in the sense of an immoral action (vid., Job 31:11). Consequently we should have to adopt the rendering: and thou no longer committest this immorality above all thine abominations. But in that case not only would עוד have to be supplied, but a distinction would be drawn between the abominations committed by Israel and the sin of lewdness, i.e., adultery, which is quite foreign to the connection and to the contents of the entire chapter; for, according to these, the abominations of Israel consisted in adultery or the sin of lewdness. We must therefore take עשׂיתי as the first person, as Symm. and Jerome have done, and explain the words from Lev 19:29, where the toleration by a father of the whoredom of a daughter is designated as zimmâh. If we adopt this interpretation, Jehovah says that He has punished the spiritual whoredom of Israel, in order that He may not add another act of wrong to the abominations of Israel by allowing such immorality to go on unpunished. If He did not punish, He would commit a zimmâh Himself, - in other words, would make Himself accessory to the sins of Israel.
The concluding characteristic of the moral degradation of Israel fits in very appropriately here in Eze 16:44., in which Jerusalem is compared to Samaria and Sodom, both of which had been punished long ago with destruction on account of their sins. This characteristic is expressed in the form of proverbial sayings. Every one who speaks in proverbs (mōsheel, as in Num 21:27) will then say over thee: as the mother, so her daughter. Her abominable life is so conspicuous, that it strikes every one, and furnishes occasion for proverbial sayings. אמּה may be a feminine form of אם, as לבּה is of לב (Eze 16:30); or it may also be a Raphe form for אמהּ: as her (the daughter's) mother, so her (the mother's) daughter (cf. Ewald, 174e, note, with 21, 223). The daughter is of course Jerusalem, as the representative of Israel. The mother is the Canaanitish race of Hittites and Amorites, whose immoral nature had been adopted by Israel (cf. Eze 16:3 and Eze 16:45). In Eze 16:45 the sisterly relation is added to the maternal, to carry out the thought still further. Some difficulty arises here from the statement, that the mothers and the sisters despise their husbands and their children, or put them away. For it is unquestionable that the participle גּעלת belongs to אמּך, and not to בּת, from the parallel relative clause אשׁר גּעלוּ, which applies to the sisters. The husband of the wife Jerusalem is Jehovah, as the matrimonial head of the covenant nation or congregation of Israel. The children of the wives, viz., the mother, her daughter, and her sisters, are the children offered in sacrifice to Moloch. The worship of Moloch was found among the early Canaanites, and is here attributed to Samaria and Sodom also, though we have no other proofs of its existence there than the references made to it in the Old Testament. The husband, whom the mother and sisters have put away, cannot therefore be any other than Jehovah; from which it is evident that Ezekiel regarded idolatry generally as apostasy from Jehovah, and Jehovah as the God not only of the Israelites, but of the heathen also.
(Note: Theodoret has explained it correctly in this way: "He shows by this, that He is not the God of Jews only, but of Gentiles also; for God once gave oracles to them, before they chose the abomination of idolatry. Therefore he says that they also put away both the husband and the children by denying God, and slaying the children to demons.")
אחותך (Eze 16:45) is a plural noun, as the relative clause which follows and Eze 16:46 clearly show, and therefore is a contracted form of אחותיך (Eze 16:51) or אחיותך (Eze 16:52; vid., Ewald, 212b, p. 538). Samaria and Sodom are called sisters of Jerusalem, not because both cities belonged to the same mother-land of Canaan, for the origin of the cities does not come into consideration here at all, and the cities represent the kingdoms, as the additional words "her daughters," that is to say, the cities of a land or kingdom dependent upon the capital, clearly prove. Samaria and Sodom, with the daughter cities belonging to them, are sisters of Jerusalem in a spiritual sense, as animated by the same spirit of idolatry. Samaria is called the great (greater) sister of Jerusalem, and Sodom the smaller sister. This is not equivalent to the older and the younger, for Samaria was not more deeply sunk in idolatry than Sodom, nor was her idolatry more ancient than that of Sodom (Theodoret and Grotius); and Hvernick's explanation, that "the finer form of idolatry, the mixture of the worship of Jehovah with that of nature, as represented by Samaria, was the first to find an entrance into Judah, and this was afterwards followed by the coarser abominations of heathenism," is unsatisfactory, for the simple reason that, according to the historical books of the Old Testament, the coarser forms of idolatry forced their way into Judah at quite as early a period as the more refined. The idolatry of the time of Rehoboam and Abijam was not merely a mixture of Jehovah-worship with the worship of nature, but the introduction of heathen idols into Judah, along with which there is no doubt that the syncretistic worship of the high places was also practised. גּדול and קטן do not generally mean old and young, but great and small. The transferred meaning old and young can only apply to men and animals, when greatness and littleness are really signs of a difference in age; but it is altogether inapplicable to kingdoms or cities, the size of which is by no means dependent upon their age. Consequently the expressions great and small simply refer to the extent of the kingdoms or states here named, and correspond to the description given of their situation: "at the left hand," i.e., to the north, and "at the right hand," i.e., to the south of Jerusalem and Judah.
Jerusalem had not only equalled these sisters in sins and abominations, but had acted more corruptly than they (Eze 16:47). The first hemistich of this verse, "thou walkest not in their ways," etc., is more precisely defined by ותּשׁחתי מהן in the second half. The link of connection between the two statements is formed by כּמעט קט yb d. This is generally rendered, "soon was there disgust," i.e., thou didst soon feel disgust at walking in their ways, and didst act still worse. But apart from the fact that while disgust at the way of the sisters might very well constitute a motive for forsaking those ways, i.e., relinquishing their abominations, it could not furnish a motive for surpassing those abominations. This explanation is exposed to the philological difficulty, that קט by itself cannot signify taeduit te, and the impersonal use of קוּט would at all events require לך, which could not be omitted, even if קט were intended for a substantive. These difficulties fall away if we interpret קט from the Arabic qaṭṭ omninô tantum, as Alb. Schultens has done, and connect the definition "a little only" with the preceding clause. We then obtain this very appropriate thought: thou didst walk in the ways of thy sisters; and that not a little only, but thou didst act still more corruptly than they. This is proved in Eze 16:48. by an enumeration of the sins of Sodom. They were pride, satiety, - i.e., superabundance of bread (vid., Pro 30:9), - and careless rest or security, which produce haughtiness and harshness, or uncharitableness, towards the poor and wretched. In this way Sodom and her daughters (Gomorrah, Admah, and Zeboim) became proud and haughty, and committed abominations לפני, i.e., before Jehovah (alluding to Gen 18:21); and God destroyed them when He saw this. The sins of Samaria (Eze 16:51) are not specially mentioned, because the principal sin of this kingdom, namely, image-worship, was well known. It is simply stated, therefore, that she did not sin half so much as Jerusalem; and in fact, if we except the times of Ahab and his dynasty, pure heathenish idolatry did not exist in the kingdom of the ten tribes, so that Samaria seemed really a righteous city in comparison with the idolatry of Jerusalem and Judah, more especially from the time of Ahaz onward (vid., Jer 3:11). The punishment of Samaria by the destruction of the kingdom of the ten tribes is also passed over as being well known to every Israelite; and in Eze 16:52 the application is directly made to Jerusalem, i.e., to Judah: "Thou also, bear thy shame, thou who hast adjudged to thy sisters," - sc. by pronouncing an uncharitable judgment upon them, thinking thyself better than they, whereas thou hast sinned more abominably, so that they appear more righteous than thou. צדק, to be righteous, and צדּק, to justify, are used in a comparative sense. In comparison with the abominations of Jerusalem, the sins of Sodom and Samaria appeared perfectly trivial. After וגם אתּ , the announcement of punishment is repeated for the sake of emphasis, and that in the form of a consequence resulting from the sentence with regard to the nature of the sin: therefore be thou also put to shame, and bear thy disgrace. Ezekiel 16:53

Daniel

tDan 11:40The last Undertakings of the Hostile King, and His End
By the words קץ בּעת, which introduce these verses, the following events are placed in the time of the end. Proceeding from the view that the whole of the second half of this chapter (vv. 21-45) treats of Antiochus and his undertakings, most modern interpreters find in the verses the prophecy of a last expedition of this Syrian king against Egypt, and quote in support of this view the words of Jerome: Et haec Porphyrius ad Antiochum refert, quod undecimo anno regni sui rursus contra sororis filium, Ptolem. Philometorem dimicaverit, qui audiens venire Antiochum congregaverit multa populorum millia, sed Antiochus quasi tempestas valida in curribus et in equitibus et in classe magna ingressus sit terras plurimas et transeundo universa vastaverit, veneritque ad Judaeam et arcem munierit de ruinis murorum civitatis et sic perrexerit in Aegyptum. But regarding this expedition not only are historians silent, but the supposition of such a thing stands in irreconcilable contradiction to the historical facts regarding the last undertakings of Antiochus. According to 1 Macc. 3:27ff., Antiochus, on receiving tidings of the successful insurrection of the Maccabees, and of the victory which Judas had won, since he found that money was wanting to him to carry on the war, resolved to return to Persia, "there to collect the tribute of the countries" (1 Macc. 3:31); and after he had made Lysias governor, he delivered to him the one half of his army, that he might with it "destroy and root out the strength of Israel," and with the other half departed from Antioch and crossed the Euphrates into the high countries, i.e., the high-lying countries on the farther side of the Euphrates (1 Macc. 3:33-37). There he heard of the great treasures of a rich city in Persia, and resolved to fall upon this city and to take its treasures; but as the inhabitants received notice of the king's intention, he was driven back and compelled to return to Babylon, having accomplished nothing. On his return he heard in Persia the tidings of the overthrow of Lysias in a battle with the Maccabees, and of the re-erection of the altar of Jehovah at Jerusalem; whereupon he was so overcome with terror and dismay, that he fell sick and died (1 Macc. 6:1-16). The historical truth of this report is confirmed by Polybius, who mentions (Fragm. xxxi. 11) that Antiochus, being in difficulty for want of money, sought to spoil the temple of Artemis and Elymas, and in consequence of the failure of his design he fell ill at Tabae in Persia, and there died. By these well-established facts the supposition of an invasion of Egypt by Antiochus in the eleventh, i.e., the last year of his reign, is excluded. The Romans also, after they had already by their intervention frustrated his design against Egypt, would certainly have prevented a new war, least of all would they have permitted an entire subjugation of Egypt and the south, which we must accept after Dan 11:42, Dan 11:43. Besides, the statement made by Porphyry shows itself to be destitute of historical validity by this, that according to it, Antiochus must have made the assault against Egypt, while on the contrary, according to the prophecy, Dan 11:40, the king of the south begins the war against the king of the north, and the latter, in consequence of this attack, passes through the lands with a powerful host and subdues Egypt.
For these reasons, therefore, v. Lengerke, Maurer, and Hitzig have abandoned the statement of Porphyry as unhistorical, and limited themselves to the supposition that the section (Dan 11:40-45) is only a comprehensive repetition of that which has already been said regarding Antiochus Epiphanes, according to which "the time of the end" (Dan 11:40) denotes not the near time of the death of Antiochus, but generally the whole period of this king. But this is, when compared with Dan 11:27, Dan 11:35, impossible. If thus, according to Dan 11:35, the tribulation with which the people of God shall be visited by the hostile king for their purification shall last till the time of the end, then the time of the end to which the prophecies of Dan 11:40-45 fall cannot designate the whole duration of the conduct of this enemy, but only the end of his reign and of his persecutions, in which he perishes (Dan 11:40). On the contrary, the reference to Dan 8:17 avails nothing, because there also קץ עת has the same meaning as here, i.e., it denotes the termination of the epoch referred to, and is there only made a more general expression by means of לעת than here, where by בּעת and the connection with Dan 11:35 the end is more sharply defined. To this is to be added, that the contents of Dan 11:40-45 are irreconcilable with the supposition that in them is repeated in a comprehensive form what has already been said of Antiochus, for here something new is announced, something of which nothing has been said before. This even Maurer and Hitzig have not been able to deny, but have sought to conceal as much as possible, - Maurer by the remark: res a scriptore iterum ac saepius pertractatas esse, extremam vero manum operi defuisse; and Hitzig by various turnings - "as it seems," "but is not more precisely acknowledged," "the fact is not elsewhere communicated" - which are obviously mere make-shifts.
Thus Dan 11:40-45 do not apply to Antiochus Epiphanes, but, with most ancient interpreters, they refer only to the final enemy of the people of God, the Antichrist. This reference has been rightly vindicated by Kliefoth. We cannot, however, agree with him in distinguishing this enemy in Dan 11:40 from the king of the south and of the north, and in understanding this verse as denoting "that at the time of this hostile king, which shall be the time of the end, the kings of the south as well as of the north shall attack him, but that he shall penetrate into their lands and overthrow them." Without taking into account the connection, this interpretation is not merely possible, but it is even very natural to refer the suffix in עליו and in עמּו to one and the same person, namely, to the king who has hitherto been spoken of, and who continues in Dan 11:40-45 to be the chief subject. But the connection makes this reference impossible. It is true, indeed, that the suffix in עמּו refers without doubt to this king, but the suffix in עליו can be referred only to the king of the south named immediately before, who pushes at him, because the king against whom the king of the south pushes, and of whom mention is made vv. 21-39, is not only distinctly designated as the king of the north (Dan 11:13-21), but also, according to Dan 11:40-43, he advances from the north against the Holy Land and against Egypt; thus also, according to Dan 11:40-43, must be identical with the king of the north. In Dan 11:40-43 we do not read of a war of the hostile king against the king of the south and the king of the north. The words in which Kliefoth finds indications of this kind are otherwise to be understood.
Dan 11:40
If we now more closely look into particulars, we find that קץ עת is not the end of the hostile king, but, as in Dan 11:27, Dan 11:35, the end of the present world-period, in which also, it is true, occurs the end of this king (קצּו, Dan 11:45). For the figurative expression יתנגּח (shall push), cf. Dan 8:4. In the word there lies the idea that the king of the south commences the war, makes an aggression against the hostile king. In the second clause the subject is more precisely defined by "the king of the north" for the sake of distinctness, or to avoid ambiguity, from which it thence follows that the suffix in עליו refers to the king of the south. If the subject were not named, then "the king of the south" might have been taken for it in this clause. The words, "with chariots, and with horsemen, and with many ships," are an oratorical exemplification of the powerful war-host which the king of the north displayed; for the further statement, "he presses into the countries, overflows and passes over" (ועבר שׁטף as Dan 11:10), does not agree with the idea of a fleet, but refers to land forces. The plur. בּארצות (into the countries) does not at all agree with the expedition of a Syrian king against Egypt, since between Syria and Egypt there lay one land, Palestine; but it also does not prove that "the south-land and the north-land, the lands of the kings of the south and of the north, are meant" (Klief.), but it is to be explained from this, that the north, from which the angry king comes in his fury against the king of the south, reached far beyond Syria. The king of the north is thought of as the ruler of the distant north.
Dan 11:41
Penetrating into the countries and overflowing them with his host, he comes into the glorious land, i.e., Palestine, the land of the people of God. See at Dan 11:16 and Dan 8:9. "And many shall be overthrown." רבּות is not neuter, but refers to ארצות, Dan 11:40. For "that the whole lands are meant, represented by their inhabitants (cf. The verb masc. יכּשׁלוּ [shall be overthrown]), proceeds from the exceptions of which the second half of the verse makes mention" (Kran.). The three peoples, Edomites, Moabites, and Ammonites, are represented as altogether spared, because, as Jerome has remarked, they lay in the interior, out of the way of the line of march of Antiochus to Egypt (v. Leng., Hitzig, and others). This opinion Hitzig with justice speaks of as altogether superficial, since Antiochus would not have omitted to make war against them, as e.g., his father overcame the Ammonites in war (Polyb. v. 71), if they had not given indubitable proofs of their submission to him. Besides, it is a historical fact that the Edomites and Ammonites supported Antiochus in his operations against the Jews (1 Macc. 5:3-8; 4:61); therefore Maurer remarks, under ימּלטוּ (they shall escape): eorum enim in oppremendis Judaeis Antiochus usus est auxilio. But since the king here spoken of is not Antiochus, this historizing interpretation falls of itself to the ground. There is further with justice objected against it, that at the time of Antiochus the nation of Moab no longer existed. After the Exile the Moabites no longer appear as a nation. They are only named (Neh 13:1 and Ezr 9:1), in a passage cited from the Pentateuch, along with the Philistines and the Hittites, to characterize the relations of the present after the relations of the time of Moses. Edom, Moab, and Ammon, related with Israel by descent, are the old hereditary and chief enemies of this people, who have become by name representatives of all the hereditary and chief enemies of the people of God. These enemies escape the overthrow when the other nations sink under the power of the Antichrist. עמּון בּני 'ראשׁית, "the firstling of the sons of Ammon," i.e., that which was most valued or distinguished of the Ammonites as a first-fruit, by which Kranichfeld understands the chief city of the Ammonites. More simply others understand by the expression, "the flower of the people, the very kernel of the nation;" cf. Num 24:20; Amo 6:1; Jer 49:35. The expression is so far altogether suitable as in the flower of the people the character of the nation shows itself, the enmity against the people of God is most distinctly revealed; but in this enmity lies the reason for this people's being spared by the enemy of God.
Dan 11:42
The stretching forth of his hand upon the countries is a sign expressive of his seizing them, taking possession of them, for which he falls upon them. בּארצות are not other countries besides those which, according to Dan 11:40, he overflowed (Klief.), but the same. Of these lands Egypt is specially noticed in Dan 11:42 as the most powerful, which had hitherto successfully withstood the assaults of the king of the north, but which in the time of the end shall also be overthrown. Egypt, as the chief power of the south, represents the mightiest kingdoms of the earth. לפּליטה תּהיה לא (and there shall not be for an escape), expressive of complete overthrow, cf. Joe 2:3; Jer 50:29.
Dan 11:43
Along with the countries all their treasures fall into the possession of the conqueror, and also all the allies of the fallen kingdom shall be compelled to submit to him. The genitive מצרים belongs not merely to חמות (precious things), but to all the before-named objects. בּמצעדיו (at his steps) = בּרגליו, Jdg 4:10, denotes the camp-followers, but not as mercenary soldiers (v. Leng., Hitz.). The Lybians and Cushites represent all the allies of the Egyptians (cf. Eze 30:5; Nah 3:9), the most southern nations of the earth. Daniel 11:44