And Manasseh did not dispossess Beth-shean and its dependent villages, nor Taanach and its dependent villages, nor the inhabitants of Dor and its dependent villages, nor the inhabitants of Ibleam and its dependent villages, nor the inhabitants of Megiddo and its dependent villages; and the Canaanites would dwell in that land.
After Judah's early victories, the chapter turns into a list of things left undone. Manasseh's name heads that list. Five towns with their villages stayed in Canaanite hands. The reason given is not a lack of strength. It is the settled will of the Canaanites to stay.
The verse is careful about wording. It never says Manasseh was beaten. It says only that he did not drive the inhabitants out.
We are not told they could not do it, but only that they did not. It seems they did not even try. Are we not often too much like them? We easily grow careless and unconcerned about obeying the Lord closely and taking hold of what is rightly ours.
The verse ends with the Canaanites' determination to stay. One writer weighs that determination against Manasseh's failure to look to God.
If Manasseh had looked to God, the stubbornness of the Canaanites would have been a weak defence… They did what suited themselves, with no care for the word of the Lord.
Another writer treats the same phrase as a measure of spiritual health.
Sadly, there were many cities that Manasseh did not take over. Notice the wording: "The Canaanites would dwell in that land." The world has more power over a Christian in a low state than the Word and promises of God.
Note that Rossier is quoting an older translation; the ESV renders the clause "the Canaanites persisted in dwelling in that land."
Some writers weigh the meaning of the name Manasseh itself, and find the charge heavier because he leads the list.
Manasseh heads the tribes on this list of accusations. That means a great deal when we remember that Manasseh stands for progress — forgetting what lies behind and pressing on. Yet his record is five cities left to the Canaanite, with the villages that depended on them, and that when he also had the power to drive them out. How could a loss of energy be shown more plainly?
The same writer takes the first city on the list, Beth-shean, and explains what its name means.
First, Beth-shean, "the house of quiet." Linked as it is with Manasseh and with Issachar (Joshua 17:11), it would speak of the practical rest of heart that a right walk gives to the one who presses on… So the loss of Beth-shean is a very serious one. And yet a Manasseh who has failed may indeed agree to such a loss, bought off by some shameful bargain with the Canaanite!
Verse 27 is not a one-off lapse. It belongs to a refrain that runs through the chapter, and the enemy's foothold grows with each verse.
In verse 19, "they could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley because they had chariots of iron." In verse 27, "the Canaanites would dwell in that land"… And sadly it goes on — "the Asherites dwelt among the Canaanites, for they did not drive them out" (verse 32). At the end you have the "Amorites forced the children of Dan into the mountain"… a humbling position for Israel, as good as a defeat for them, and leaving the enemy's border untouched and unbroken.
Rossier follows the same drift down two further steps.
Ephraim and Zebulun let the Canaanites live among them (v. 29, 30). From then on, the world was part of the people of God. Asher and Naphtali (v. 31-33) went a step further: they lived among the Canaanites. The Canaanites swallowed Israel up.
God had promised to drive these nations out. Israel would not act, so God took the promise back.
The book of Judges shows us that, despite their best intentions and their promises to Joshua, Israel failed in their own responsibility to drive out the Canaanites (see Jdg. 1:27–36). The result was that God had to withdraw His promise to drive them out; the angel of the Lord came to Bochim and solemnly declared: "I will not drive them out before you, but they shall become thorns in your sides, and their gods shall be a snare to you" (Jdg. 2:3).
- Wording. The verse says Manasseh did not drive them out, not that he could not. No defeat is recorded, and no sign that he even tried.
- Will. The Canaanites' determination settled the matter. For a people looking to God, that stubbornness would have been a weak defence.
- Weakness. A believer in a low state feels the pull of the world more than the weight of God's promises.
- Worse. Verse 27 is one link in a chain: enemies tolerated, then living among Israel, then Israel living among them, then Israel pushed into the hills.
- Wages. What Israel spared, God then refused to remove — thorns in their sides and a snare in the gods of the neighbours they kept.
And it came to pass when Israel became strong, that they made the Canaanites tributary; but they did not utterly dispossess them.
Judges 1 tracks, tribe by tribe, how much of the land Israel actually took. Verse 28 is the turning point: the moment Israel had the strength to finish the job, it made a deal with the enemy instead.
Earlier verses in the chapter say the tribes "could not" drive out the inhabitants. Verse 28 calls the same people strong. One writer draws the conclusion:
Their strength exposed the secret of their inability. They "could not" because they "would not" drive them out. They preferred to make a profit from these pagan peoples rather than obey God.
The enemy's refusal to move was not the real obstacle. Another writer looks at the tribe of Manasseh:
Had Manasseh looked to God, the stubbornness of the Canaanites would have proved a weak defence... They suited their own convenience, without care for the word of the Lord.
(Where the ESV says "forced labor," older translations say "tribute.")
Putting the Canaanites to work looks like victory. Israel is on top and the enemy pays. One commentator sees weakness in it, not strength:
The world has more power over a Christian in a low state than the Word and promises of God. It is true that "when Israel was strong, they put the Canaanites to tribute," but that was ruling, not driving out. The Christian world, grown rich and powerful, did the same with paganism. It may have been permitted by God in His providential ways that it should be so, but it was not faith.
The arrangement is named plainly by another writer, who reads the profit motive as the heart of it:
When Israel became strong enough they put the Canaanites under tribute, making them pay for what gains they made, but did not drive them out. This was compromise with the enemy, not obedience to God.
Verse 28 is not an isolated failure. It sits at one point on a line running down through the whole chapter:
That first chapter of Judges tells us about the conquests of the tribes. It begins with Judah, and speaks of victory going on in a vigorous way... As you go on you find everything done in part only. At first they simply put the enemy to flight. Then they are no longer able to do that, and the enemy is driven into the mountain strongholds to live there alone. Then, a little further on, they are not able to do even that. They make the enemies of God pay tribute to them. The next step shows us no power even for this; they dwell among them. Last of all, you find that they could not drive them out of the rich valleys, the choice pastures. The children of Israel had to live in the mountains, and the enemy had the best of all the land. What a progress that is!
The story did not stop at a payment arrangement. One writer follows where it ended:
In time, Israel learned all the detestable practices of the Canaanites, and served them as a punishment for their sins. Making terms with the enemy, in disobedience to God, was a shortsighted principle. It ended with those who had paid the tribute becoming thorns in their eyes and pricks in their sides, and at last their masters. When faith in God, with its hard life, is traded for compromise with evil and a life of self-seeking, the day of reaping will show, by its sorrowful fruits, how bitter it is to depart from God.
God had promised to clear the land. That promise assumed Israel would act on it:
Israel had the best intentions and had made promises to Joshua. The book of Judges shows that they still failed in their own responsibility to drive out the Canaanites (see Judges 1:27–36). The result was that God had to withdraw His promise to drive them out. The angel of the Lord came to Bochim and solemnly declared: "I will not drive them out from before you; but they shall be as thorns in your sides, and their gods shall be a snare to you" (Judges 2:3).
- Strength. Israel's strength exposed the old "could not" as "would not." Ability was never the issue.
- Substitution. Israel spent its strength ruling the Canaanites instead of removing them. Putting an enemy to work is not obedience.
- Profit. The deal paid. Israel preferred gain from the enemy to the harder path God had commanded.
- Slide. Tribute was one rung on a ladder going down: flight, then tribute, then living among them, then losing the best land.
- Sequel. Because Israel would not drive them out, God said He would not either. Israel picked up the Canaanites' ways, and those who once paid tribute became thorns in its side, and at last its masters.
And Ephraim did not dispossess the Canaanites that dwelt in Gezer; but the Canaanites dwelt among them in Gezer.
Judges 1 does not end in victory. It ends with a list of jobs left undone. This verse is one line in that list: a strong tribe living next to an enemy it never removed. Note the wording. Ephraim did not drive the Canaanites out, so they stayed on as neighbours.
The chapter lists one tribe after another. A commentator traces every case back to one root, and points to the remedy.
The rest of this first chapter has failure stamped upon it... Manasseh failed. Ephraim did not drive out the Canaanites that lived in Gezer. Zebulun, Asher and Naphtali all failed to dislodge the enemies God had commanded them to destroy entirely. And Dan, instead of conquering, was conquered... Unbelief, lack of confidence in Jehovah, was the cause of it all. These enemies stand for the flesh and its sinful desires in the believer. And these desires, the old nature, must be put in the place of death and kept there. We are able to do this by faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, and through the power of the Holy Spirit, whom God has given us.
Earlier in the chapter, Judah could not drive out every enemy. Ephraim's case reads differently, and one writer says Scripture marks that difference on purpose.
The men of Judah could not drive out all of them; the men of Ephraim did not. And Ephraim turned their slackness into a source of gain.
Scripture records only one lost town against Ephraim. Its name, and its standing as a city set apart for the Levites, make that one loss heavier than it looks.
Ephraim loses only one place to the Canaanites — or at least Scripture records only one loss: Gezer. It is a very important place, though, since it is a Levitical city... Gezer means "isolation," "a place cut off"; in Canaanite hands it is simply the picture of natural independence, of life away from God. But for Israel, and as a city of the Levites, it speaks of that land cut off into which Christ has carried the sins of His people... It is a sad thing for us when the Canaanite grip on Gezer has never been broken! Ephraim's one city lost is no small loss!
One writer asks what Ephraim's fruitfulness stands for, and ties this failure to Manasseh's in the verse before.
Ephraim is the fruitful tribe. It represents work among the Lord's people — the proper fruit of faith, which shows itself by works, as the apostle James tells us. If Manasseh has failed, if there is failure in oneness of purpose to press on, Ephraim will fail too. The works of our daily life will cease, and the enemy will take or keep possession of that which ought to be for God.
Zebulun did the same as Ephraim, then went further and made the Canaanites pay tribute. One writer asks what keeps that kind of deal alive.
Ephraim failed to drive out the Canaanites from Gezer, so they too suffered the painful results of having an enemy inside (v. 29). The same was true of Zebulun and two specific cities, though Zebulun compromised by putting the Canaanites under tribute also. Look beneath the surface. Will we not likely find that we tolerate this spirit of making money out of the things of God because of our own selfishness?
Another writer names the same instinct in one line, and warns where it ends:
Sins are far too often spared because they seem useful... And because a gracious God still blesses, we think He cares very little. Yet a day of reckoning comes at last.
The verse does not report a battle lost. It reports a deal accepted, and one writer follows that deal to its end.
Ephraim and Zebulun allowed the Canaanites to dwell among them (v. 29, 30). From then on, the world formed part of the people of God. Asher and Naphtali went a step further: they dwelt among the Canaanites. The Canaanites swallow Israel up.
Controlling an enemy is not the same as removing one, and the arrangement does not hold:
An enemy half conquered is an enemy unconquered. The power of evil wants to keep you out of one corner of your inheritance. Unless you overthrow it completely, you will find that enemy come up again. You may bring him under control for a time, and make him pay tribute, treating him as something secondary... Still, if the enemy is not really a conquered enemy, he will conquer us one day. Be assured of that.
- Unbelief. One cause lies under every tribe's failure to clear the land: they did not trust God.
- Unwilling. Judah could not; Ephraim did not. Scripture marks the difference on purpose, because Ephraim's slackness paid.
- Useful. We spare the sins that look useful. Making money out of God's things survives because our selfishness shelters it.
- Unremoved. Gezer means a place cut off: independence from God. One lost city was no small loss for the fruitful tribe.
- Unconquered. A half-conquered enemy is no conquered enemy. Tolerate him, and he moves in and takes over.
Zebulun did not dispossess the inhabitants of Kitron, nor the inhabitants of Nahalol; but the Canaanites dwelt among them, and became tributaries.
Judges 1 lists what each tribe did with the land God gave it. Zebulun left Kitron and Nahalol in Canaanite hands and put their people to forced labor instead — a bargain that cost more than it gained.
The verse says Zebulun did not drive these people out. It does not say they could not. Instead the tribe made an arrangement with them, and one writer asks what lies under such arrangements.
Ephraim failed to drive the Canaanites out of Gezer. So they too were left open to the painful results of having an enemy inside (v. 29). The same was true of Zebulon and two of its cities. But Zebulon also compromised, by putting the Canaanites under tribute. Look beneath the surface. Will we not likely find that we tolerate this spirit of making merchandise of the things of God because of our own selfishness?
Tribute is the older word for what this verse calls forced labor: the Canaanites stayed, and Zebulun drew a profit from them. Their name fits the arrangement.
Their name means "traffickers." They stand for people who make merchandise of the things of God… If unbelievers gain materially from being linked with Christianity, they will not easily give up such a profitable business. But the child of God should judge that spirit thoroughly, as the Lord Jesus judged it.
Putting a beaten enemy to work looks like control. One writer sets out where such an arrangement leads, step by step.
Look at the order, and see how evil must progress. First, they fail to drive out the enemy. Second, they bring them into servitude and make them tributary. Third, there is intermarriage, linking themselves with them. Fourth, they adopt the false gods of those people and depart from God. And last, there can be only one result: God hands them over to an enemy, to make them taste what an evil and bitter thing it is to depart from Him.
The reason the chain holds is that money creates connection. An enemy you collect from is an enemy you keep dealing with.
We may make them tributary and seem to have them under our power. But a tributary enemy is more dangerous than one in the field. The reason is simple: you now have links with them, just as Israel had.
Writers differ over what Kitron means. One weighs the options, then ties both town names to Zebulun's own name.
On the whole, the Hebrew clearly favors the meaning "fuming" — either perfuming or the use of incense, and above all the second. The link with Kattath is very uncertain, and in the word of God every change in a name must have meaning. Zebulon plainly stands for "dwelling in relationship" with God. So the lack of incense would carry a sad meaning: the lack of prayer and praise, and also the lack of what Nahalol speaks of — "pasture." These things do go largely together; they are enjoyed together or lost together.
Zebulun's name means devotion to God. One writer notes that its failure follows the failure of the tribes named just before it.
In the same way, Zebulun means devotion or consecration to God. If Manasseh and Ephraim fail, Zebulun too will be too weak to hold his own.
By the end of the chapter, the nation is sharing its home with the people it was sent to remove.
Ephraim and Zebulon allowed the Canaanites to live among them (v. 29, 30). From then on, the world formed part of the people of God.
The list is easy to read as ancient history. One writer refuses to let it stay there.
It is easy to talk about it… But what about ourselves? In practice, how is it with each of us? How much of what belongs to us do we possess? How much of it do we share with the enemy himself? Are you enjoying your boundaries? Are you enjoying all that God has given you? If not, then your name and mine can be added to this list.
- Did not. The text does not say Zebulun was unable to take Kitron and Nahalol, only that they did not drive them out.
- Traded. Tribute turned the enemy into income. The Canaanite name points to trading — to making merchandise of the things of God.
- Linked. An enemy who pays you is more dangerous than one in the field, because payment creates links.
- Lost. Zebulun means dwelling in relationship with God. The two town names speak of incense and pasture — prayer, praise and nourishment, kept or lost together.
- Spread. When Manasseh and Ephraim failed, Zebulun grew too weak to hold its own. In the end, the world formed part of the people of God.
Asher did not dispossess the inhabitants of Accho, nor the inhabitants of Zidon, nor Ahlab, nor Achzib, nor Helbah, nor Aphik, nor Rehob;
Judges 1 works down the tribe list, and with each name comes a report of ground left in enemy hands. Asher's entry names seven towns on the northern coast, and it ends with a line that reverses who is at home in the land.
These towns were not minor losses at the edge of the map. They cost Asher the whole western side of its inheritance.
The meaning of the name, as given in the margin, is "happy." ... Their west border was surely meant to be the Great Sea. But we read that they did not drive out the inhabitants of Acco, Sidon, Ahlab, Achzib, Helbah, Aphik and Rehob. Instead the Asherites lived among the Canaanites (Judges 1:31-32). This left a stretch of land on the sea coast that Asher never occupied.
One of those unconquered towns troubled Israel for centuries. Sidon was left standing, and Israel paid for it long afterwards.
Israel's troubles throughout Ahab's reign came mainly from Sidon. This is all the more striking when we go back in Scripture. Sidon — called "great Sidon" — was part of the promise to Abraham. At Joshua's conquest it was given to Asher. But Asher never had enough faith and energy to root out the evils centred there and take the city. Judges 1 is a miserable chapter of slackness and indifference... Let us not miss the lesson of Asher's failure. If we do not master the evils within us by faith, they will gain terrible influence over us as the years pass.
Earlier in the chapter the Canaanites stay on among the tribes. In this verse the wording turns around.
Asher... follows with a long list of cities. Here we find, for the first time, a phrase that reveals at once a still lower state of things. It says, "The Asherites lived among the Canaanites, the inhabitants of the land." It does not say the Canaanites lived among the Asherites, which would be bad enough. This is easy to understand. The Phoenician sea coast lay in Asher's inheritance, and Israel never brought those rich trading cities even partly under its rule — not even in the days of David and Solomon.
One writer traces the slide through the tribes on either side of Asher.
Ephraim and Zebulun allowed the Canaanites to live among them (v. 29, 30). From then on, the world formed part of the people of God. Asher and Naphtali (v. 31-33) went a step further: they lived among the Canaanites. Israel is swallowed up by them.
Why would a tribe settle for second place in its own land? One writer finds the answer in the wealth of those trading ports.
The Canaanites here were dominant. This tells us that material gain was dominant over spiritual prosperity, a sad fact too often repeated in church history, and glaringly so in the boast of the Laodicean church, "I am rich, I have prospered, and I need nothing" (Rev. 3:17).
One writer works from the meanings of the last four names on Asher's list.
Achzib, "a flow indeed," has already been taken as applying to the Spirit. With it Helbah, "fatness," Aphik, "a channel," and Rehob, "room," are easily associated... Together, the loss of these cities means much spiritual loss to the failing Asherite. He loses the experience of the Spirit's energy and the "fatness" that speaks of plentiful nourishment. He also loses the ability to pass on to others the blessing we have received, and last, liberty and enlargement of heart. How necessary these things are to true Christian happiness hardly needs stating.
The tribe's name means "happy." One writer turns that into questions for the reader.
Has Asher failed in your case to drive out the inhabitants of the land? Are the cities that ought to belong to Christian joy still owned by the enemy? What thief is stealing your happiness? What little foxes are spoiling the tender grapes of your vine?
The next chapter shows what God did about all this unfinished conquest.
Israel promised Joshua they would drive out the Canaanites, and they meant it. But the book of Judges shows that they failed in their own responsibility to do it (see Judg. 1:27–36). So God had to withdraw His promise to drive them out. The angel of the Lord came to Bochim and solemnly declared: "I will not drive them out before you, but they shall become thorns in your sides, and their gods shall be a snare to you" (Judg. 2:3).
- Ground. The sea was meant to be Asher's western border. Seven named towns stayed Canaanite, and the tribe never took that stretch of coast.
- Reversal. For the first time the text says the tribe lived among the Canaanites, not the other way round. The Canaanites were dominant.
- Reason. These were rich trading ports. Material gain won out over spiritual prosperity, as it did later in Laodicea's boast.
- Cost. One writer turns the unconquered names into a list of losses: the Spirit's energy, nourishment, the power to pass blessing on, and freedom of heart.
- Result. The tribe named "happy" let the enemy hold its joy. God then left those nations as thorns and their gods as a snare.
and the Asherites dwelt among the Canaanites, the inhabitants of the land; for they did not dispossess them.
Asher's land ran along the northern coast. Seven of its cities stayed in enemy hands, and the verse's wording leaves Israel the smaller party. Commentators read it as a new low in the chapter.
Earlier verses say the Canaanites lived among the tribes. Here it is the other way round. One writer explains why that could happen in Asher's land.
Asher comes next, with a long list of cities. Here, for the first time, we find wording that shows an even lower state of things. It says the Asherites "lived among the Canaanites, the inhabitants of the land" — not the Canaanites among the Asherites, bad as that would have been. This is easy to understand. The Phoenician coast lay inside Asher's inheritance, and those rich trading cities were never brought under Israel's control, even in part, even in the days of David and Solomon.
One writer traces the drop tribe by tribe through the chapter.
Ephraim and Zebulon allowed the Canaanites to dwell among them (v. 29, 30). From then on, the world formed part of the people of God. Asher and Naphtali (v. 31-33) went a step farther: they dwelt among the Canaanites. Israel is engulfed by them.
One writer names what Asher put ahead of spiritual prosperity, and hears the same note much later in church history.
Seven cities are listed whose people Asher failed to drive out (v. 31). Here it does not say that the Canaanites lived among Asher, but that the Asherites lived among the Canaanites! So the Canaanites were the dominant ones. This tells us that material gain mattered more to them than spiritual prosperity. That sad fact has been repeated far too often in Church history. It shows most openly in the boast of the church at Laodicea: "I am rich, I have prospered, and I need nothing" (Rev. 3:17)... This enemy stands for the policy of using spiritual things for material gain, and Israel has been afflicted by this evil for centuries. The Church has sadly followed the same path.
Asher's name means "happy." The tribe named for joy is the tribe that let the enemy keep the ground. One writer turns that into a question for the reader.
Then we have Asher, whose name significantly means the happy one... Tell me, what is the sorrow or the dullness in your own heart? What is that lack of joy that so many of us have, sadly, to confess to God? Is it not the failure of Asher, the happy one?... Has Asher failed in your case to drive out the inhabitants of the land? Are the cities which ought to belong to Christian joy still owned by the enemy? What thief is it that is stealing your happiness?
The verse gives no reason for the failure. It only says they did not drive them out. One writer puts the cause inside Israel, and then applies the enemies to the believer.
Zebulun, Asher and Naphtali all failed to drive out the enemies God had commanded them to destroy completely... Unbelief, a lack of confidence in the Lord, was the cause of it all. These enemies stand for the flesh and its desires in the believer. And these desires, the old sinful nature, must be put and kept in the place of death.
The cities left standing did not stay neutral. One writer follows the story from Joshua's promise to the warning that followed.
He assured the Israelites that God would drive them out before them. Israel only had to obey all that God had said. The book of Judges shows what followed. Despite their best intentions, and despite their promises to Joshua, Israel failed in their own responsibility to drive out the Canaanites (see Judg. 1:27–36). So God had to withdraw His promise to drive them out. The angel of the Lord came to Bochim and solemnly declared: "I will not drive them out before you, but they shall become thorns in your sides, and their gods shall be a snare to you" (Judg. 2:3).
- Unbelief starts it. The verse gives no reason for leaving the seven cities. One writer traces the failure to unbelief and lack of confidence in God, not to the strength of the enemy.
- Compromise follows. Leaving the Canaanites in place meant living beside them. Israel never brought the rich coastal trading cities under its control.
- The balance tips. The verse does not say the Canaanites lived among Asher. It says Asher lived among them — the enemy is now the dominant party, and Israel is engulfed.
- Joy is the loss. Asher means "happy." Yet this tribe let the enemy keep its cities. One writer asks what thief is stealing the reader's own joy.
- The leftovers turn hostile. What Israel tolerated God then left in place, as thorns in their sides and a snare through the Canaanites' gods. Half a conquest is no conquest.
Naphtali did not dispossess the inhabitants of Beth-shemesh, nor the inhabitants of Beth-anath; and he dwelt among the Canaanites, the inhabitants of the land, but the inhabitants of Beth-shemesh and of Beth-anath became tributaries to them.
Judges 1 ends with a list of tribes that never took full possession of their land. Naphtali's line is one of the last and lowest. Two cities stayed in Canaanite hands. Those cities paid Naphtali, yet the wording has turned around: Naphtali lives among the Canaanites, not the Canaanites among Naphtali.
Read the chapter in order and you can watch the ground shift. Earlier tribes let the enemy stay inside their borders. Here Israel is the one living inside the enemy's world.
Ephraim and Zebulun allowed the Canaanites to dwell among them (v. 29, 30). From then on, the world formed part of the people of God. Asher and Naphtali (v. 31-33) went a step further: they dwelt among the Canaanites. Israel is swallowed up by them.
Where the ESV says the two cities "became subject to forced labor," older translations say they became "tributaries." Naphtali was not the weaker side here.
It is similarly said of Naphtali that, failing to drive out the inhabitants of two cities, they dwelt among the Canaanites (v. 33). However, in this case, the inhabitants of those cities were put under tribute, showing that Naphtali did have the ascendancy. But this compromise again left them too closely identified with the enemy, the Canaanites. So there are congregations today that do put spiritual things first. Yet they think money matters must be a very important part of church life. This is a compromise. In all these cases — Manasseh, Ephraim, Zebulun, Asher and Naphtali — it was the Canaanites who were left to trouble them. This enemy stands for using spiritual things for material gain. Israel has suffered from this evil for centuries, and the Church has sadly followed the same course.
The same writer traces the pattern back a few verses: when Israel grew strong enough, they made the Canaanites pay rather than clear them out.
This was compromise with the enemy, not obedience to God.
The names of the two lost cities are worth hearing.
Naphtali comes next, with two cities: Bethshemesh and Bethanath. The names are simple enough — "house of the sun" and "house of response." They need little explaining. Many still ask who will show them any good. Yet every believing soul can find it for himself, as the psalmist did, in the light of God's face. This alone is our sun, and it is indeed a pleasant thing to behold it. Bethanath, the "house of response," speaks of what goes with this. It is God's answer to the soul that seeks Him, and the soul's answer to God — that sweet and tender intimacy of fellowship which is strength for all the way.
Naphtali's own name points to the very thing he failed to do here.
Naphtali is the next one, representing the man of vigour and of valour. Naphtali means "a wrestler." In a spiritual sense he is no longer a worldly wrestler trusting his own power, but a mighty wrestler for God. That is what he is in the mind of God, and in the sense of his sonship as belonging to God. He represents that spirit of a man's power with God, the weak with the mighty One. Here again the dismal tale of shortcoming is told. The weak one has forgotten his weakness, and so he has forgotten God, the source of his strength. So there is no power to wrestle, to overcome the enemy who is taking his portion.
Because his inheritance was so good, his loss cuts deeper than most.
The greater the blessing here, the greater the loss, of course. Naphtali, the struggler, needs this home in the sanctuary so that he may be the overcomer he is called to be. Sadly, like the other tribes here, he is losing his character. The precious things God has made his own are now only witnesses of a glory that has left him.
A managed arrangement with the enemy does not hold. In the end the tenant becomes the landlord.
Putting false things under tribute is common in the church of God. But trifling with evil ends in ruin and misery. Spiritual enemies kept under tribute will claim the right to rule, just as these Canaanites did. … Ignoring evil, giving in to sin, smoothing over the false teaching or conduct of favourite leaders — that is just putting the enemy under tribute. Such disloyalty to the Lord always ends with the tribute-payers mastering the people of God and enslaving them.
- Reversed. A step down from the tribes before: the enemy is no longer a guest in Israel. Israel now lives among the enemy.
- Able. The tribute shows Naphtali held the upper hand. The failure was not weakness but choice — compromise, not obedience.
- Costly. The two lost cities mean "house of the sun" and "house of response" — the light of God's face, and the answer God gives the soul that seeks Him.
- Weakened. Naphtali means "a wrestler." The man who forgets his own weakness forgets God, his strength. Then he has no power to drive out what holds his inheritance.
- Mastered. Enemies kept on tribute terms claim the right to rule. What looks profitable ends in slavery.
And the Amorites forced the children of Dan into the hill-country, for they would not suffer them to come down to the valley.
Judges 1 ends with the tribe of Dan, and here the story turns: the other tribes failed to drive the enemy out, but Dan is the one driven out. The Amorites push them off the valley floor into the hills, and the question is how so large a tribe ended up penned in on its own land.
Chapter 1 records a slide, and this verse is the bottom of it. One writer traces that slide from its first sign to its last:
After the death of Joshua and the elders who outlived him, the first sign of losing touch with God was a slackening in the forward movement. The Lord was with those who went on, but it is solemn to notice how many flagged. You can see the growing determination of the enemy to keep a footing among them... Finally the Amorites force the children of Dan into the mountain — a humbling position for Israel, as good as defeat for them, and leaving an undisturbed and unbroken frontier for the enemy.
Another writer follows the same decline step by step, and each step has less power in it than the last:
At first they simply put the enemy to flight. Then they are no longer able to do that, and the enemy is driven into the mountain strongholds to live there alone. Then, a little further on, they are not able to do even that. They make the enemies of God pay tribute to them. The next step shows us no power even for this; they dwell among them. Last of all, you find that they could not drive them out of the rich valleys, the choice pastures. Instead the children of Israel had to live in the mountains, and the enemy had the best of all the land. What a progress that is!
Dan was not a small tribe. The numbers leave only one explanation for the collapse, and a later song in Judges brings the same charge:
The tribe of Dan was, however, large: at the Exodus there were 62,700 fighting men, more than all the tribes except Judah; and at the second numbering they had increased to 64,400 (Numbers 1:39; Numbers 26:42-43)... This showed a great lack of faith in the Danites. In her song, Deborah asked why Dan stayed by the ships while the Lord's enemies were being destroyed.
The valley was the fertile ground, and Dan lost it. One writer sets the meaning of the valley beside the meaning of the name "Amorite":
The valley suggests lowliness and fruitfulness; fruitfulness because of lowliness... And here you have the Amorites instead of the people of God dwelling in the valleys. Amorite means "the lofty ones" — those who are lifted up... The Amorite means the lofty speaker. It means a people who talk a great deal... They are high talkers, and they drive God's people out of the valleys. Sometimes the people of God talk instead of living the reality. They make great claims and speak big, swelling words. Whenever you find that, you may be sure that no lowly dweller is left in the valleys, and so there is no fruitfulness.
Behind the lost ground is a deliberate aim:
The world, at last, gets what it wants, and robs the children of God of their inheritance. Satan's aim is always to rob us of the things that make up our joy and strength; and he succeeds only too well.
This verse is not an isolated setback. It explains why Dan later went looking for easier land instead of fighting for the land already given:
Forced into the mountains by the Amorites, and lacking the faith to take possession of his inheritance, Dan sent out five men to search out the portion he still lacked... Dan had a battle to fight inside his own borders, a victory to win over the Amorites of the valley. But that fight would have cost him too much. He preferred a conquest without danger, won at the far end of the land. It was far from the eyes of the Lord's witnesses, and far from the place where his real enemy was — an enemy left in undisputed possession of Dan's true inheritance.
The practical test, then, is whether our language matches our ground:
Let us beware of mere talking. When tempted to talk glibly about being dead and risen with Christ, let us ask, is that an Amorite or is it an Israelite that is dwelling in the valley?
- Gradual — Decline comes by stages: fail to drive the enemy out, then tax him, then live beside him, then be driven out by him. Dan is the last and lowest step.
- Given — The valley was Dan's own inheritance, and the tribe was second in size only to Judah. What was missing was faith, not resources.
- Ground — The valley stands for lowliness, and lowliness is where fruit grows. Lose the low place and you lose the harvest.
- Gone — The enemy is not after land but after joy and strength. Dan kept the name of a tribe; the Amorite kept the valley.
- Grasping — A defeat left unfixed looks for an easier win: Dan went looking for land elsewhere instead of fighting the enemy at home.
And the Amorites would dwell on mount Heres, in Ajalon and in Shaalbim; but the hand of the house of Joseph prevailed, and they became tributaries.
Judges 1 ends not with a roll of victories but with a list of enemies left in place, tribe by tribe. Verse 35 is the last entry: the Amorites keep their grip on three named places, and the strongest house in Israel does not remove them but taxes them instead — older translations call this putting them "to tribute."
Forced labour on a beaten enemy sounds like success. In the chapter's sequence it is one rung on a ladder going the wrong way.
It begins with Judah, and the victory moves ahead strongly. But right at the very beginning, instead of killing Adoni-zedek, they only cut off his thumbs and toes... As you go on, you find everything done only in part. At first they simply put the enemy to flight. Then they can no longer do that, and they only drive the enemy into the mountain strongholds to live there alone. A little further on, they cannot do even that; they make the enemies of God pay them tribute... and last of all, they could not drive them out of the rich valleys, the best pasture land. Israel had to live in the mountains, and the enemy had the best of all the land. What a progress that is!
The verse names three places: Mount Heres, Aijalon and Shaalbim. One writer treats those names as a picture of what Dan gave up, and of who took it.
The Amorites force the Danites out of the valley, the low ground so necessary for true spiritual judgment; and the Danites lived, besides, in Mount Heres, the "mountain of the sun," in Ajalon and in Shaalbim. The last two speak, as we have seen elsewhere, of the judgment of the world: its dread of God, and its hollowness at heart. If Mount Heres belongs with these, it would speak of the world praising itself. So the Danite loses the ability for true judgment — and he loses it to the Amorite (the "talker"?).
The house of Joseph is Ephraim and Manasseh. Their hand "rested heavily" on the Amorites, so weakness was not the problem here.
Though Dan was so weak, the house of Joseph (Manasseh and Ephraim) clearly had more energy, for when they became strong they put the Amorites under tribute (v. 35)... Putting the Amorites under tribute was again a compromise. It is like admitting in public that hypocrisy is bad, while still allowing it in practice. To judge it fully takes the decision of true faith and self-judgment. Which of us is not guilty of hypocrisy in some way?
Another writer weighs the excuse Israel had given for leaving the enemy in place.
Their strength exposed the secret of their inability: they "could not" because they "would not" drive them out. They preferred to make a profit out of these nations rather than obey God. So in time Israel learned all the detestable practices of the Canaanites, and served them as a punishment for their sins. This short-sighted way of making terms with the enemy, in disobedience to God, ended with the tribute-payers becoming thorns in their eyes and pricks in their sides, and at last their masters.
Tribute is not where the story stops. One writer lists the steps that follow.
Look at the order, and see how evil must progress. First, there is the failure to drive out the enemy. Second, they bring them into servitude and make them pay tribute. Third, there is intermarriage, linking themselves with them. Fourth, they take up their false gods and depart from God. And last, there can be only one result: God hands them over to an enemy, to make them taste what an evil and bitter thing it is to depart from Him.
One writer brings the same policy into church life today.
Putting false things under tribute is a common practice in the church of God, but playing with evil will end in ruin and misery. Spiritual foes placed under tribute will claim the right to rule, just as these Canaanites did... Do we not see Christian men putting up with known sin in their communities, and allowing among them people and practices that are enemies to God? Turning a blind eye to evil, catering to sin, smoothing over the false doctrines or practice of favourite leaders — this is simply putting the enemy under tribute. Such disloyalty to the Lord always ends with the tribute-payers mastering the people of God and enslaving them.
- Tribute, not triumph. The chapter slides down step by step: victory, then partial victory, then enemies pushed aside, then enemies taxed. Forced labour on the Amorites is a stage in that decline, not a win.
- Would not, not could not. Strength came; obedience did not. When Israel grew strong, they made a profit from the enemy God told them to remove.
- Hollow ground. One writer reads the three place names as the world praising itself, afraid of God, and hollow at heart. Look for that same hypocrisy at home.
- Links, then chains. A taxed enemy is a connected enemy: failure to remove leads to servitude, intermarriage, false gods, and finally to bondage.
- Masters in the end. Tolerated evil never stays a tributary; the ones put under tribute end up ruling the people who spared them.
And the border of the Amorites was from the ascent of Akrabbim, from the rock, and upwards.
The last line of Judges 1 does not measure Israel's conquest. It measures the enemy's border, running from a pass south of the Dead Sea up through the rock country. The chapter ends by counting what the Amorites still held — and that raises the question the rest of the book answers: what happens to a people who leave their enemies in place?
The first landmark named is a mountain pass, and it marked the southern edge of the land.
A climb or mountain pass at the south of the Dead Sea. It formed the border of Palestine, and it was also the border of the Amorites. Numbers 34:4; Judges 1:36. It is also called Maaleh-acrabbim in Joshua 15:3. It is thought to lie some miles south of the Dead Sea, but no one has identified the exact spot.
Their name describes where they lived. They were also the worst of their neighbours, so Scripture sometimes uses their name for all the people of Canaan.
A people descended from Canaan, son of Ham (Genesis 10:16). They lived in the mountains, as their name means. At times they seem to have been in the mountains both east and west of the Jordan. Numbers 13:29; Joshua 5:1; Judges 1:34-36; Judges 10:8; 1 Kings 4:19. They were the most dominant and the most corrupt people or tribe, so they sometimes stand for the Canaanites in general. Genesis 15:16; 1 Kings 21:26.
Commentators differ on the name's sense. One ties it to the mountains they lived in; others tie it to talking.
This verse follows straight after the report that the Amorites pushed Dan up out of the lowlands. One writer reads the closing note as the measure of how far that pressure reached.
The Amorites force the Danites out of the valley, the low ground that is so necessary for true spiritual judgment... The Danite loses in this way the ability for true judgment; and it is striking that he loses it to the Amorite — the "talker," as the name may mean. The Amorite, we are told, had occupied all this land from its southern border.
after_note: DELETE
The verse is the bottom of a slope that starts in verse 1 with real victory. One writer traces the chapter stage by stage, and shows each step down.
It begins with Judah, and speaks of victory going on in a vigorous way... As you go on, you find everything done in part only. At first they only put the enemy to flight. Then they are no longer able to do that... A little further on, they cannot do even that; they make the enemies of God pay tribute to them instead... The next step shows no power even for this: they live among them. And last of all, they could not drive them out of the rich valleys, the choice pastures. The children of Israel had to live in the mountains, and the enemy had the best of all the land. What a progression that is!
The same writer explains why the high ground was a loss, not a promotion.
The valley suggests lowliness and fruitfulness; fruitfulness because of lowliness. It is because the Lord went down into the valley of death that He could bear fruit for us... "Amorite" means "the lofty one," one who is lifted up. The Amorite is the lofty speaker, a people who talk a great deal... They are high talkers, and they drive God's people out of the valleys. Whenever you find the people of God given to talking instead of reality, making a great profession, speaking great swelling words, you can be sure there is no lowly dweller in the valleys, and so no fruitfulness.
The next chapter answers in judgment what this chapter records on the map. God's messenger comes to the people at Bochim, which means "weepers."
Now we see the declared judgment of God on this widespread departure from His plain command. The angel of Jehovah, who in Joshua's day had taken His place with them at Gilgal as Captain of the Lord's host, now comes from Gilgal to Bochim ("weepers"). He announces that in righteous government He accepts their own decision. They would not drive out the nations, and so He would not; and the consequences of this, predicted again and again, would come upon them. The people weep and sacrifice to Jehovah; but there is no real repentance.
- Border. Akrabbim was a mountain pass south of the Dead Sea. It marked the edge of the land, and this verse gives that border to the Amorites, not to Israel.
- Enemy. The Amorites lived in the mountains. They were the strongest and most corrupt of the Canaanites, so their name can stand for all of them.
- Reversal. Chapter 1 slides from victory, to flight, to tribute, to living beside the enemy. In the end Israel is on the hills and the enemy holds the best land.
- Valleys. The valley stands for lowliness, and lowliness is where fruit grows. High talk drives God's people out of it.
- Verdict. They would not drive out the nations, so God would not either. Tears at Bochim were not the same thing as repentance.