Judges 1:1–21 sets the stage for the book. It focuses upon the primacy of Judah, which will appear again at the close of the book, as a lead into the story of the united monarchy. Judah, in response to divine guidance, takes the lead in obeying God’s command to possess the land and is for the most part successful. The themes of leadership, unity, and land are especially highlighted, along with an introduction of the theme of disobedience (sin), which will develop into a dominant theme in the rest of the book. Only at the end of the section is there any hint that Judah did not fully enter into their inheritance promised by the Lord. Since failure to do so represents disobedience, this opening section sets the tone for the entire story.
1:1–3 The book of Judges looks backward as well as forward. Its canonical link with what goes before it is immediately evident from the first words of the book: After the death of Joshua. This important notice both demonstrates continuity with Israel’s history and signals a new epoch in that history. The story of Joshua’s death (Josh. 24:29–30) follows upon a great covenant renewal ceremony at Shechem (Josh. 24:1–27), in which he and all the people made a solemn commitment to “serve the LORD . . . and obey him” (v. 24). Joshua had fulfilled his mission on earth: Israel was one united people, completely settled in the promised land with “rest” from enemies “on every side,” in short, having realized “all of the LORD’s good promises to the house of Israel” (Josh. 21:44–45).
Given all that background, we look expectantly for great things from Israel in its land; the words “after the death of Joshua” signal a significant transition in Israel’s history, pregnant with possibility of their fulfilling the blessing of the patriarchs and matriarchs: “all peoples on earth will be blessed through you” (Gen. 12:3).
From this inspiring beginning, however, we read on: the Israelites asked the LORD, “Who will be the first to go up and fight for us against the Canaanites?” and a question immediately arises. Why are the Israelites deliberating about who will go up first and fight against the Canaanites if they have already been wiped out and their territory taken? As the story continues, it appears as if the nation is back to where they were at the beginning of the book of Joshua (Josh. 1:15), merely anticipating entering the land and realizing God’s promises. How do we understand the whole of Judges 1 in the light of the book of Joshua (see p. 130)?
The differing accounts are juxtaposed without explicit comment. Implicitly communicated, however, is the author’s emphasis upon the fact of Israel’s apostasy after the death of Joshua and consequent punishment by captivity to the enemies around them. It continues to press home the message that Israel has been unfaithful to the Lord even from the time they entered the land. We will see that the degree of unfaithfulness increased in scope and intensity throughout the period of the judges.
But first, the Israelites faithfully sought to obey God’s command to possess the land and faithfully sought the Lord’s guidance as to how to proceed after Joshua was no longer on the scene (v. 1b); they united in submission to the Lord’s will. How they asked the Lord is not clear. The Hebrew term denotes a kind of divination, which, although practiced widely in the ancient Near East, was limited to three types in Israel: Urim and Thummim (Exod. 28:30; Num. 27:21), the ephod (1 Sam. 14:18, 41), and prophetic utterance.
The question reflects Israel’s quest for guidance concerning leadership after Joshua’s death, which was the first time in their brief history that such a question had been asked. It was not raised at the transition after Moses’ death, for Joshua was clearly named by the Lord as Moses’ successor (Deut. 31:1–3, 7–8, 14; 34:9). Now, however, no one leader had been named; rather, the tribe of Judah, named by divine speech, took precedence over the others. Judah’s primacy accords with the Deuteronomic author’s agenda, foreshadowing Judah’s primacy at the time of the united monarchy. The book of Judges begins and ends with a similar motif, almost exact in wording: In times of crisis the Lord chose Judah to lead the nation in battle (1:2; 20:18). Both references form an inclusio that frames the book, highlighting the central theme of leadership and the move toward a dynastic monarchy.
The Lord further indicates that Judah inherited the mantle of Moses and Joshua by including a promise that recalls a similar promise to Joshua (Josh. 1:2–5): I have given the land into their hands. Judah then solicits the help of the Simeonites their brothers, pledging that they in turn will help the Simeonites fight for their inheritance. This close relationship between Judah and Simeon, sons of the same mother (Gen. 29:33, 35), is highlighted already in the book of Joshua (Josh. 19:1–9, esp. v. 9; cf. Josh. 15:26–32, 42; 1 Chron. 4:28–33). The appositional phrase, “their brothers,” especially points to the unity enjoyed at this time in Israel’s history, yet so close to the time of Joshua’s leadership. But that unity did not last long.
1:4–8 As Judah and Simeon attempted their first foray into their inheritance, God faithfully fulfilled his promise of success (v. 4). The omission of reference to Simeon reveals the author’s interest in the leadership of Judah exclusively. The terms Canaanites and Perizzites appear together in a generic sense of inhabitants of the land. The precise distinction between the two is unknown; R. G. Boling (Judges: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary [AB 6A; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1975], p. 54) suggests that the pair may pejoratively refer to city dwellers and rural residents, respectively: “city slickers and country bumpkins.”
With the next phrase we are confronted with one of the more difficult interpretive issues in biblical literature. The text reports that they struck down ten thousand men. How are we to understand the number here translated as “thousand”? The Hebrew word ’elep is a term whose semantic range extends beyond the English word “thousand,” often connoting a military contingent of uncertain number, as few as five to fourteen men and later many more, though not literally a thousand.
The most difficult interpretive issue in these verses centers on the names Bezek and Adoni-Bezek. The location of Bezek is problematic because as it has presently been identified, it lies far to the north or to the west of Judah’s allotted territory, in the area allotted to the tribe of Manasseh or Ephraim rather than Judah. Judges 1:1–36 implies that each tribe was responsible for conquering its own territory, so what was Judah doing so far away from its inheritance? Related to this is the question of identifying Adoni-Bezek. A similar name, Adoni-Zedek (Josh. 10:1, 3), appears in some Greek manuscripts of Joshua as Adonibezek, with a clear reference to the king of Jerusalem, thus leading some commentators to posit that a better reading of the text in Judges is adoni-sedeq (i.e., that the king in question is the king of sedeq or Jerusalem; cf. Gen. 14:18–20). This reading would also fit the context better, as Jerusalem is geographically within the sphere of Judah’s inheritance (Josh. 15:8).
The Judahites defeated the Canaanites and Perizzites and took Adoni-Bezek captive; they also cut off his thumbs and big toes (v. 6) Although this sounds extremely harsh, it was commonly practiced in antiquity because it guaranteed that the prisoner would never again take up arms, in addition to serving as an example to others who might attempt to rebel against the victorious adversary. Adoni-Bezek himself acknowledged the justice in his fate, having inflicted the same punishment on his own subjugated enemies (v. 7a). This vignette also points to the fate of Sisera, who likewise will flee his enemy but who will lose more than just his thumbs and big toes (Judg. 4:21; 5:26–27).
There follow two puzzling notices about Jerusalem. In the first case, we are told that the Judahites brought Adoni-Bezek to Jerusalem, and he died there (v. 7b). In the second, they attacked Jerusalem also and took it. They put the city to the sword and set it on fire (v. 8). These notices are puzzling for several reasons, the main one being that the book of Judges indicates that Jerusalem had not been taken and moreover attributes the latter attempt to the Benjamites rather than the Judahites (v. 21). Also, the reference in Judges 19:10–12 to Jerusalem as Jebus, “a city of foreigners,” on the surface would seem to mean that Jerusalem later reverted to Canaanite hegemony. But, as noted in the introduction, the setting of the story was much earlier, and the story was placed at the end of the book for theological reasons, to highlight the degree of Israel’s sinfulness at the end of the period. Some commentators have sought to harmonize the various accounts by suggesting that Jerusalem changed hands several times. In all likelihood the historical reality was that Israel did not fully control the city until the time of David and that the author of Judges placed this story at the beginning to highlight the association between Judah and Jerusalem and to proleptically anticipate the time when Jerusalem will become the capital of the united monarchy under David and Solomon and then the capital of the southern kingdom of Judah. It is no accident that the author begins with both Judah and Jerusalem.
1:9–15 The author summarizes in a general way Judah’s next activity as they moved southward, attacking the Canaanites living in the hill country, the Negev and the western foothills (v. 9). Then, in typical Hebrew narrative style, he goes back to detail a single episode in the campaign, the taking of Hebron (cf. Gen. 23:2; 35:27; Josh. 15:54; 20:7), the most prominent city in the southern hill country and later David’s first capital before he moved to Jerusalem (2 Sam. 5:1–4). This story has a parallel in Joshua, though with a significant variation (Josh. 15:13–14): Joshua attributes the victory to Caleb, while Judges attributes it to Judah. Most likely, Joshua’s version represents the earlier tradition, which has been modified by the author of Judges in accordance with his special interest in Judah and also foreshadowing David’s making Hebron his first capital.
The next episode almost exactly parallels Joshua 15:15–19. Both state that the Judahites next attacked Debir (formerly called Kiriath Sepher), a strategically important town south of Hebron. Othniel son of Kenaz, Caleb’s younger brother, led the attack and was rewarded well by Caleb: He was given Caleb’s daughter Acsah, who was offered as a bride to the man who attacks and captures the city. Later (3:7–11) Othniel will be presented as the paradigmatic judge, which is perhaps why his story is repeated. Here he is introduced, appropriately, as a courageous and competent warrior. Moreover, he married a woman of his own clan, an important value in a book whose author viewed exogamy and idolatry as going hand in hand. This is a concern of the Deuteronomic History, the story of Ahab and Jezebel perhaps being the most vivid example of this form of sin against the Lord (1 Kgs. 16:31–33). Finally, the theme of marriage appears again in Judges 21, thus forming an inclusio framing the book and underscoring the message of covenant fidelity and infidelity.
1:16 In the middle of the narration about Judah’s exploits, the author injects a flashback-style reference to the movement of the Kenites. Possibly this is suggested by alliteration with Kenaz (v. 13)—a common Hebrew literary technique—or by the fact that it foreshadows the story of Jael the Kenite, or both. The Kenites were essentially a nomadic people who allied themselves with Judah and others (4:11, 17). The text indicates that they camped with Judah on the plain of Jericho (the City of Palms; Deut. 34:3; 2 Chron. 28:15) and then participated in Judah’s conquest of desert towns in the Negev.
1:17–20 Here are further references to Judah’s activity in conquering the promised land, along with the Simeonites their brothers. Again the theme of communal unity is emphasized by the appositional phrase, “their brothers”; two tribes worked together, and God blessed their joint effort. The conquered city’s name changed from Zephath to Hormah, because it was destroyed (see Num. 21:3). The Hebrew word horma is linguistically related to the word herem, which means “completely devoted to the deity,” completely prohibited from nonsacral use, and hence destroyed. Though it is admittedly foreign to present-day western understanding, herem was widely practiced in the ancient Semitic world. According to Deuteronomy 7:2–6 and 20:16–18, Israel was to practice herem in every case as they conquered and settled the promised land. Failure to do so was a grave offense against the Lord, for which they would be severely punished.
Then Judah took Gaza, Ashkelon and Ekron (v. 18), three of the five Philistine capital cities. The text is admittedly difficult, for the next verse (v. 19) reports that Judah was unable to drive the people from the plains. These statements seem irreconcilable. Perhaps the author has juxtaposed the second account with that of verse 18 in order to introduce both the theme of (even) Judah’s sinfulness and the Philistines’ opposition to the Israelites, serving as God’s instrument to punish Israel for their rebellion.
Surely this paradoxical perspective is indicated by the fact that the summary statement of Judah’s exploits relates both successes and failures. The text affirms that the LORD was with the men of Judah; thus, they took possession of their inheritance in the hill country. We will again encounter the motif of the Lord’s presence as early as the story of Gideon (6:12); it is implied as well in references to the Spirit of the Lord coming upon a judge. The statement that “the LORD was with the men of Judah” again highlights the special place and important role of Judah. These same words had been used to describe Moses and Joshua, and now the mantle has fallen, as it were, upon Judah.
But despite this favored status, Judah was not strong enough to drive the people from the plains, because they had iron chariots. The Philistines’ ability to work in iron, which they learned from the Hittites, gave them a strategic advantage over other peoples of the region who had not yet developed this technology and thus had to rely on inferior weapons. This, the first directly negative statement in the book, previews the major theme of Judges. We know from later accounts in Judges that even iron chariots should be no challenge for those whom the Lord helps (4:14–15). So why was Judah unable to drive out the people from the plains? Not because the Philistines had iron chariots, but because of spiritual factors that will be explained later (Judg. 2:1–3, 10–15).
There follows a second brief reference to Caleb, whose inheritance fell within the territory of Judah (Josh. 15:13, 54). As Moses had promised, Hebron was given to him. Caleb was a Kenazite (Gen. 36:11, 15, 42), an Edomite (from Esau) who joined with the people of God and received an inheritance along with them. This is a beautiful picture of the Lord’s grace and inclusiveness, even pointing to the very partial fulfillment of the God’s promise to Abraham: In you all the nations of the earth will be blessed. Again, in keeping with the author’s perspective, note that Caleb received an inheritance within the tribe of Judah.
1:21 Finally, the author summarizes Benjamin’s activity—or lack of it. It is a brief account in comparison with the others, and it focuses exclusively upon Jerusalem. Although Jerusalem bordered on Judah’s territory, the actual allotment fell to Benjamin (Josh. 18:27). As with Judah, the statement that Benjamin failed to dislodge the Jebusites is essentially negative. The author’s use of the later Israelite name for the city, Jerusalem, gives the impression that he believed the original name of the city was Jerusalem and that it was later renamed when taken over by the Jebusites; in other words, that the city never belonged to the Jebusites.
Additional Notes
1:1 After the death of Joshua: M. Noth was the first to interpret this portrayal of Israel as one united worshiping community as modeled after Greek amphictyonies, loose associations of tribal groups whose social cohesion lay in their common worship at a central shrine (e.g., at Delphi); a regular and important component of this cultic activity was a yearly renewal their covenant commitment to the god and to each other for harmonious relationships and mutual defense. Noth pointed out that in biblical tribal lists the number twelve remained constant, though the individual components may have varied. He believed that biblical Israel came to exist in the context of this amphictyony, as in this worship context they created a common religious history as the primary force for social cohesion (see M. Noth, The History of Israel, pp. 85–109). In recent years, scholarship has rejected this paradigm because the differences between Israel’s experience and Greek amphictyonies are more numerous than their similarities and also because there is no textual evidence that such existed in early Israel (see A. D. H. Mayes, Israel in the Period of the Judges [SBT 29; Naperville, Ill.: Allenson, 1974]).
1:6 Cut off his thumbs and big toes: The principle of talion, or reciprocal punishment, appears frequently in early Jewish and Christian literature. Adoni-Bezek did not have any kind of faith in the God of Israel, though the author placed within his mouth the statement of this principle in order to highlight its veracity by the king’s graphic example. It is also possible that this verse served as an apologetic for Judah’s and Israel’s conquest of the land of Canaan. Israel did not do anything to the people of the land that they had not already done to others; hence their fate was just. E. J. Hamlin (At Risk in the Promised Land: A Commentary on the Book of Judges [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990], p. 27) makes the intriguing suggestion that cutting off thumbs and big toes desacralized a Canaanite king, who also served as a priest, and that this action signaled “the end of the Canaanite order of sacred kings.”
1:8 The men of Judah attacked Jerusalem also and took it: The absence of clear distinction between Judah and Benjamin is understandable because although Jerusalem fell within the tribal allotment of Benjamin, it bordered on Judah (Josh. 15:8). Later, in the time of the monarchy, it came to be exclusively associated with Judah, the larger, more prominent tribe.
1:9–10 The men of Judah . . . advanced against . . . Hebron: Caleb was not an Israelite but came to worship the God of Israel and was eventually integrated into Judah. He is listed as a Judahite in Num. 13:6. Josh. 15:13 states that the Lord commanded Joshua that Caleb be given a “portion (inheritance) in Judah.”
1:12 I will give my daughter: There is a foreshadowing of another father’s story, a father who promised his daughter to the one who conquered his enemy (Judg. 11:31) and who gave his daughter to that One (v. 39), to the Lord, who is judge (11:27).
1:19 They were unable to drive the people from the plains: The LXX appears to harmonize: “Judah . . . did not take possession of Gaza, nor . . . Ascalon, nor . . . of Akkaron . . .”; the MT represents the more difficult reading.
1:21 To this day: What the author means by “to this day” is not clear, and commentators interpret the date differently. The parallel passage in Joshua reads that Judah continued to live with the Jebusites in Jerusalem “to this day” (15:63). Again, the relationship between Judah and Benjamin was rather fluid. Other sources within the Deuteronomic History indicate that although Jerusalem was later conquered by David, who moved his capital there (2 Sam. 5:9–10, 13–14), some Jebusites continued to live in the city (2 Sam. 24:16).
Northern Tribes’ Settlement
The account proceeds to the northern tribes’ settlement of the land. Things start out well enough, with the house of Joseph moving to take its inheritance in the central hill country. We expect success because “the LORD was with them” (v. 22). But instead the situation almost immediately begins to deteriorate, in keeping with the major theme of Judges. What was begun even with Judah, the most prominent tribe, now moves into full swing with the northern tribes. One by one, each tribe disobeys the Lord’s explicit command by failing to drive out the Canaanites from its respective allotted territory. Each account is quite brief in comparison with Judah’s, which further confirms the author’s greater interest in Judah.
1:22–26 The first campaign in the central hill country was against Bethel. The author begins with a general summary of the account and then specifies the details (vv. 23–26). He does not need to tell us explicitly that the house of Joseph was successful, because the theologically weighted statement the LORD was with them implicitly communicates the same. Bethel played an important role in Israel’s history, being associated with significant encounters between the Lord and ancestors in the faith, Abraham and Jacob (Gen. 12:8; 13:3–4; 28:19–22; esp. 35:1–15), as well as serving as a major cultic center before the united monarchy (Judg. 2:1–5; 20:18; 26; 21:2) and in the northern kingdom (e.g., 1 Kgs. 12:28–33; 2 Kgs. 10:29; 17:28).
Why did the author choose to tell the story of Joseph’s taking Bethel first in the area of the central hill country, in comparison with Joshua’s account, which begins with Jericho and Ai and does not mention Bethel? The version in Judges points to the author’s interest in cultic centers, particularly Jerusalem, Bethel, and Dan. Bethel and Dan were the two major cultic centers of the northern kingdom; surely it is intentional that the author’s account of the northern tribes’ activity begins with Bethel and ends with Dan. Thus these references are not solely geographical or historical but theological as well.
In their way of taking Bethel the tribes of Joseph first disobeyed God’s command to destroy the Canaanites, and thus the downward spiral toward chaos began. The tribe of Joseph was successful, but the displaced people would later come back to trouble them. Significantly, after this point in the narrative appear essentially only negative assessments of the tribes’ success in conquering their enemies.
1:27–29 This division treats together the twin tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh, as they naturally belong (Gen. 48). We are told only what these tribes did not do; they did not drive out the indigenous peoples. The Hebrew of verse 28 (wehores lo’ horiso) emphasizes the negation of the verb “to drive out”; the nuance is that they were not willing to do it and did not make a serious attempt to obey God’s command. Indeed, the Canaanites appear to have had more willpower than did the Israelites (v. 27b), for the Hebrew (wayyoel), translated “were determined,” means to make up one’s mind or to resolve. The Israelites, by contrast, compromised their calling and merely pressed the Canaanites into forced labor when the opportunity arose (cf. Josh. 17:12). The word for “forced labor” (mas) is the same as the word used for what Pharaoh did to the Israelites in Egypt. There is great irony here: The Israelites treated the Canaanites as they had been treated, and although they enslaved the Canaanites, they ended up being the ones enslaved (Judg. 2:3; 3:5–6). The same principle has been at work throughout human history.
Even though Ephraim was the largest tribe and played a significant role in the later sections of the book of Judges, only Gezer is mentioned in connection with their activity, again highlighting the author’s greater interest in Judah than in the northern tribes.
1:30–36 There follows a staccato series of brief summaries of other northern tribes’ activities, each having essentially the same message: “x tribe did not drive out y”; instead “x tribe subjected y to forced labor.” The tribes mentioned are Zebulun (v. 30), Asher (v. 31), and Naphtali (v. 33), all located in the northern part of the country, later to be known generally as Galilee. Most of the cities named here have not been definitively identified. Acco, one city that has been identified, was later renamed Ptolemais; the apostle Paul stopped there on his way to Jerusalem after his third missionary journey (Acts 21:7). Overall the significant point is that all the Israelite tribes except Judah disobeyed God’s command to possess the land promised them and spurned his gift by refusing to take the promised territory.
Finally, the author describes Dan’s experience (vv. 34–36) but does so in a way that differs from all other presentations. Danites is not the subject of the sentence but the object, while the subject is the people who subjugated them, the Amorites. This variation serves to highlight Dan’s weakness and failure to occupy its inheritance. Dan’s weakness is also emphasized by two other points. They were not able to press the Amorites into forced labor, but it was left up to the house of Joseph to do so. Even though the cities mentioned in verse 35 were allotted to Dan (Josh. 19:21), they could not or did not even stand up to fellow Israelites (“the house of Joseph”) who took from them what they wanted. Later this weakness and failure will play a key role in the development of the narrative (Judg. 18).
Thus the author makes two statements in this section. First, the Israelite tribes were in such a state of disunity that no one helped the other, and they were so consumed with selfinterest that they even encroached upon each other’s territory. Second, the author reveals his particular interest in the cultic centers of Bethel and Dan. It is no accident that the close of this account of the northern tribes’ activities involves “the house of Joseph” (whose story of conquering Bethel opened the section) along with Dan, who, in flagrant rebellion against God’s plan, will later migrate far to the north and set up an illegitimate cultic center.
The overarching message of this whole section is that tribe by tribe—with the partial exception of Judah—the Israelites consistently failed to obey the Lord’s command to secure what he had promised to them as one of the covenant benefits. They committed a sin, not so much of commission as of omission. But the omission was serious, representing as it did their rebellion against God’s will and unfaithfulness to their own covenant pledge to obey him. Thus they missed out on the fullness of God’s blessing and also missed out on fulfilling God’s calling that they would be a blessing to all the world.
We also see here an example of an important principle by which God works: Although God promised them the land as a gift, the Israelites had to take the initiative to secure it for themselves. But along with the promise and the command, God also pledged to be with them to empower and enable them to face even the most difficult—indeed humanly impossible—challenges, and succeed.
Additional Notes
1:22 The house of Joseph attacked Bethel: Some elements from the Jericho story appear in the Bethel story. They send men to spy out the city and find a man who helps them sneak into the city, on a promise that he will be treated well (cf. Josh. 2:1–21; 6:17, 25).
1:25 They put to city to the sword: This verse raises perhaps one of the most difficult issues relating to interpreting Judges and other OT books. How do we understand not only God’s condoning of killing and stealing—two prohibitions in the Ten Commandments—but more so his commanding the people to “put the city to the sword”? How could the LORD be with those who committed such atrocities? There are no simplistic answers to these honest and valid questions. People in the ancient Near East (not Israel alone) had the concept of holy war, which viewed human enemies as the god’s (in Israel’s case, the Lord’s) enemies; human beings were not just killing other human beings, but they were destroying those who opposed their God(s). This does not validate genocide and injustice but suggests that God, for whatever reasons, worked within a particular historical, theological context, taking people where they were and then moving them beyond where they were. Throughout the OT, God continued to reveal more and more of himself and his ways, until he ultimately revealed himself in Jesus, who was the perfect revelation of God (John 1:18) and who revealed some things about God that superseded earlier ideas held about God. Too many people, unfortunately even Christians, have used OT Scriptures to justify all sorts of horrible attitudes and acts against others. Just because events occurred in certain OT texts does not mean that they are to be imitated today.
1:27–28 But Manasseh did not drive . . . them out completely: Boling (Judges, p. 60) points out that the city-states not conquered by Manasseh were all strategic centers that controlled “important commercial and military traffic.” Furthermore, archaeological discoveries support the account in Judges, indicating that these city-states did not become Israelite until the time of the united monarchy under David. Gezer did not become Israelite until the time of Solomon, when the Egyptian pharaoh gave it to his daughter, one of Solomon’s wives (1 Kgs. 9:15–17).
1:30–36 Zebulun . . . Asher . . . Naphtali: Curiously, Issachar is missing from this list. Beth Shemesh is located in the extreme north of the country, not to be confused with the Beth Shemesh of Judah.
