Judges 1:28

Jdg 1:28 And it came to pass, when Israel was strong, that they put the Canaanites to tribute, and did not utterly drive them out.

Ver. 28. They put the Canaanites to tribute.] When they could have cast them out: this they did out of covetousness, that root of all evil, neglecting the command of God to the contrary. Well might David pray, "Incline mine heart to thy testimonies, and not to covetousness." {Psa 119:36} Sallust saith, Ubi divitiae clarae habentur, ibi omnia bona vilia sunt, fides, probitas, pudor, pudicitia; Where money is in price, there honesty and fidelity are easily parted with.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Jdg 1:28. When Israel was strong they put the Canaanites to tribute — Herein they violated the law, whereby they were enjoined to destroy or expel that people when they were able. And as they were strong enough to impose tribute on them, they undoubtedly might have driven them entirely out of the land. But it cost them less trouble, and brought them more profit, to make them tributaries, than to expel them; and therefore they preferred it, being influenced by sloth and covetousness. And this seems to be here spoken of as their common fault at this time.

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

(28) Did not utterly drive them out.—This is mentioned by way of blame, as the cause of their future sins and disasters (Jdg_2:2; Josh. 16:16, Jos_17:13). As to the morality of these exterminating wars, we must bear in mind that men and nations must alike be judged by the moral standard of their own day, not by the advanced morality of later ages. We learn from unanimous testimony that the nations of Canaan had sunk to the lowest and vilest depths of moral degeneracy. When nations have fallen thus low, the cup of their iniquity is full; they are practically irreclaimable. To mingle with them would inevitably be to learn their works, for their worst abominations would find an ally in the natural weakness and corruption of the human heart. The Israelites therefore believed that it was their positive duty to destroy them, and the impulse which led them to do so was one which sprang from their best and not from their worst instincts. It must not be forgotten that the teaching of Christ has absolutely changed the moral conceptions of the world. It intensified, to a degree which we can hardly estimate, our sense of the inalienable rights of humanity and of the individual man. In these days there is scarcely any amount of evidence which would convince us that we were bidden to exterminate a whole population, and involve women and children in one indistinguishable massacre. But neither the Israelites nor any other ancient nations, at this early stage of their moral development, had any conception corresponding to those which would in our minds rightly excite horror, were we to receive a command like that given by Moses, that “thou shalt save nothing alive that breatheth” (Deu_22:16), or by Samuel, “Slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass” (1Sa_15:3). We should instantly declare it to be impossible that God—as Christ has revealed to us the character of our Father in heaven—should give us commands which would militate against our sense of justice no less than against our sense of compassion. To quote such commands as an excuse for, or an incentive to, such horrible acts of wickedness as the Sack of Beziers, or the Massacre of St. Bartholomew, is ignorantly and recklessly to obliterate the whole results of God’s progressive moral education of our race. It is to ignore the fact that we are living under a wholly different dispensation, and to disavow every blessing which has accrued to humanity from the broadening light and divine revelation of three thousand years. But the ancient Israelites, living as they did in the “days of ignorance” which God “winked at” (Act_17:30), had never attained to that idea of human individuality—that sense of the independence and infinite worth of each human life—which would have shown them that they knew not what manner of spirit they were of (Luk_9:56). The wild and passionate sense of severe justice, the comparative indifference to human life, the familiarity with pain and death which blunted the keen edge of pity, “the deficient sense of individuality, the exaggerated sense of the solidarity which united a criminal with all his surroundings and possessions,” prevented them from regarding the execution of their ban on guilty nations, cities, or families in any other light than that of the zeal for righteousness by which it was impelled. Their deeds must be estimated by the elements of nobleness which mingled with them, and not indiscriminately condemned by standards of judgment of which neither they nor the age in which they lived had any conception. They firmly believed that in exterminating Canaan they were acting under Divine commands; and there was nothing in such commands which would in that day have shocked the moral sense of the world. “They did not look unnatural to the ancient Jew; they were not foreign to his standard; they excited no surprise or perplexity; they appealed to a genuine but rough idea of justice which existed, when the longing for retribution upon crime in the human mind was not checked by the strict sense of human individuality” (Mozley, Lectures on the Old Test., p. 103).

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

28. By the time of Solomon these cities had become Israelite possessions, 1Ki_4:11 f.; it was probably David who subdued them, after they had been weakened by the Philistines. The latter were masters of Beth-shean in Saul’s time, 1Sa_31:10 ff.

taskwork] or forced labour. The word mas properly denotes a body of men engaged upon forced labour; here it is used of the Canaanites when reduced to subjection, cf. Deu_20:11; Isa_31:8. As an institution in Israel, the corvée or labour-gang (employed in the East down to modern times) first appears at the end of David’s reign, 2Sa_20:24; it was further organized by Solomon for his public works, 1Ki_5:13; 1Ki_9:15; 1Ki_9:21. Though Canaanites may have been employed for the fortifying of Megiddo and Gezer (1Ki_9:15), the levying of Israelites for this slavery was deeply resented, ib. 1Ki_12:4; 1Ki_12:18. The word does not mean ‘tribute.’

did not utterly drive them out] Even when subjugated, the Canaanites in many places continued to live among the dominant population, a constant danger, as the subsequent history shews, to Israelite religion and morals. The extermination of the Canaanites was but the theory of later times. Of the cities named, Beth-shean, for instance, harboured an alien population throughout its history; see G. A. Smith, Hist. Geogr., p. 358.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

And it came to pass, when Israel was strong,.... All the tribes of Israel were become numerous, and able to drive the Canaanites out of the land everywhere, and particularly were able to assist Manasseh in expelling the Canaanites out of the above places, yet they did not; but all they did was:

that they put the Canaanites to tribute, and did not utterly drive them out; which flowed from covetousness, and a love of ease; they did not care to be at the trouble of expelling them, as they found it turned more to their account and present advantage to make them tributaries; and this was true of the Israelites in general, and of the half tribe of Manasseh in particular; which, as Abarbinel thinks, is here respected.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Them. We shall see the punishment of their prevarication during the greatest part of this book. (Calmet)

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

28. When Israel was strong — The lack of strength was the excuse for their cowardice and disobedience to a positive command, notwithstanding they had the assurance of aid from God. Perhaps, too, their previous weakness was owing to their fear of the war chariots. See note on Jdg_1:19. Nearly all these towns were on the great plain of Esdraelon; and bordering, as they did, the track of oriental commerce with the great cities of Phenicia, they were probably well fortified. But, in course of time, it seems that Israel became strong enough to bring them into subjection.

They put the Canaanites to tribute — The love of money is now added to their love of ease and disobedience. When they became strong they were no more disposed to obey the voice of God than they were before. By long familiarity with them their pagan foes had ceased to be abominable in their eyes, while the command to exterminate them had become in their estimation more and more unreasonable and barbarous. Yet they soon learned, to their sorrow, that they had planted the seeds of social and national ruin by refusing to apply to themselves the divinely appointed safeguard of their well-being — the radical extermination of their enemies.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Put the Canaanites to tribute, or made them tributaries, as in vers. 30, 33, i.e. imposed forced labour upon them, as the Gibeonites were made hewers of wood and drawers of water. (Jos_9:21, Jos_9:27; see 1Ki_9:21)

Human wisdom versus Divine.

No option was left to the Israelites as to the mode in which they were to deal with the Canaanites. Even if they were unable to subdue the Canaanites because of their own weakness, it would not be without fault; for had they not to sustain and direct them? But the sin of Israel was the greater that, when they were able to obey God"s direction, they set it aside in favour of a policy of their own. This was direct disobedience, however it might be disguised by the name of prudence or expediency. In the end they had to rue their own folly.

I PEOPLE IN PROSPEROUS CIRCUMSTANCES ARE FREQUENTLY TEMPTED TO FOLLOW A WORLDLY INSTEAD OF A HEAVENLY LINE OF CONDUCT, AND TO QUALIFY THE DICTATES OF OBVIOUS DUTY BY CONSIDERATIONS THAT ARE PURELY SELFISH AND PRESUMPTUOUS IN THEIR NATURE.

II WHEN MEN THUS SHIRK OBVIOUS DUTY, THEY DO IT FROM A TWOFOLD MISCONCEPTION

(1) of their own power and wisdom, and

(2) of the true character of that with which they tamper.

III IN THE END THEIR FOLLY WILL MANIFEST ITSELF IN DISASTER AND RUIN. M.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.