NOTE 47, page 146.-Extent of the Authority of the Judges.

Ir is a question which has been scarcely touched by biblical critics, but which is nevertheless of great importance to a clear understanding of this part of sacred history, how far these several subjugations, and the authority of the several judges who obtained deliverance for Israel, extended. When, for instance, we are told that this eastern king was "served" by "the children of Israel," are we to understand that his tyranny extended from Dan to Beersheba? There does not appear to be any ground for such an opinion. It seems very unreasonable to suppose, that his authority could have reached those Hebrews who dwelt among the Philistines and Amorites of the west, or the Canaanites and Sidonians of the north. On the contrary, it may be taken as an undoubted fact, that the whole land which had been promised to Israel, was never brought completely under one government before the time of David. The several servitudes, therefore, must be regarded as affecting in succession various important portions of the land, and, consequently, the corresponding tribes of Israel by which these were occupied. Cusha-rishathaim, therefore, may be regarded as having subdued the Israelites who dwelt in the districts east of the Jordan, and, probably, also, some who occupied the western banks of that river.

NOTE 48, page 148.-The House of Heber.

THE case of Jael affords information respecting some important circumstances in the history and manners of this period. Moses informs us, that when Jethro, his father-in-law, and other members of the family, visited him in the wilderness, he entreated Hobab, the son of Jethro, to accompany the Israelites in their journey. Hobab at first refused, and Moses repeated his request with still greater urgency; but the sacred narrative does not state whether the son of Jethro was prevailed upon to accompany Moses, or still persisted in his refusal. The former seems to be rather implied; for the history proceeds immediately to say, "And they departed from the mount of the Lord three days' journey," &c. Num. x, 29-33. But the question which is thus left uncertain by Moses, is, by the narration of the victory of Deborah and Barak, clearly and fully solved. We are here told, that Heber, the Kenite, who was descended from Jethro, dwelt at this time in "the plain of Zaanaim, which is by Kedesh." Judges iv, 11. This fact removes all doubt as to the conduct of Hobab, and shows that he accompanied the Israelites in their journey; and that, although his family were kept entirely distinct and separate from the descendants of Jacob, they took up their residence in the land of Canaan.

But this incident also casts light upon the manners and civil polity of this age. It shows that this branch of the Kenite family, after their location in Palestine, still adhered to their primitive nomadic manner of life: they lived in tents. And the circumstance of Sisera's seeking concealment in the tent of the wife of Heber, shows that the patriarchal mode of life, which made this place one of perfect privacy and seclusion, still prevailed.

It is further worthy of remark, that the house of Heber was regarded as of sufficient importance to be exempted from the impending or existing collision between Jabin and the children of Israel; "for there was peace between Jabin the king of Hazor and the house of Heber the Kenite." Judges iv, 17.

NOTE 49, page 168.—The Sin and Punishment of Beth-shemesh. THERE can be no doubt that this sin consisted in the prying curiosity of these persons; who had forgotten that these sacred things were in the immediate care of God, and that, being consecrated to him, it was profane in them to doubt his protecting

care; and still more so, to open the holy ark. The principal difficulty in this passage, however, is the statement given in the authorized version respecting the number of men slain on this occasion: "Even he smote of the people fifty thousand and threescore and ten men." 1 Sam. vi, 19. The improbability that so large a number of men as is here specified could have been slain out of the population of a small country town, has been admitted on all hands; and various ingenious efforts have been made to make the text speak some other meaning. Bochart proposed to insert the preposition, "out of;" and thus to read, "seventy men, (to wit,) fifty out or a thousand." Le Clerc proposes the same unauthorized addition in another place; thus rendering the text, "Seventy men out of fifty thousand." Bishop Patrick adopts Bochart's rendering, as most "reasonable." Kennicott gives a literal trans lation of the Hebrew text, thus: "And he smote among the men of Beth-shemesh, because they looked into the ark of Jehovah; even he smote among the people SEVENTY MEN, FIFTY THOUSAND MEN." This learned Hebraist, in a very lengthened argument, seems to show, that of these two numbers one is an interpolation: it will be perceived, they are not joined by a conjunction, as would be "absolutely necessary, in order to make of the two one sum total." And, having inferred that one of these numbers has been erroneously inserted into the text, he concludes, as fifty thousand appears to be a very improbable number, that "seventy" was the correct reading.

In support of this it is urged, that Josephus has precisely this number: "But the anger and indignation of God pursued them; so that he slew seventy men of the village of Beth-shemesh."-Antiquities, lib. vi, cap. i, sect. 4. A similar number is found in the sacred text in an old manuscript of particular excellence, between five and six hundred years old, in the University of Oxford; which has, " He smote among the people seventy men, and the people lamented." Nor is this the only instance in which old manuscripts retain the number seventy, omitting entirely the fifty thousand.

But what appears decisive as to the meaning of the text, is the fact that, after recording this destruction, the sacred writer proceeds to say, that "the people lamented," and "the men of Beth-shemesh" sent a message to Kirjath-jearim. Now, if fifty thousand men had been slain, the people could not have remained, the men would not have been alive. The context, therefore, renders it indisputable, that the smaller number (seventy) was originally in the text alone, and gives the meaning of the sacred writer: in what manner the alteration was introduced, it is not necessary to decide.

NOTE 50, page 169.-Samuel and the Philistines.

Ir is not easy to define the exact import of this text. A few years after the event here recorded, we find the Philistines holding garrisons in the country, and exercising a tyranny so complete, that they permitted no smith to remain in all the land of Israel; but compelled the Hebrews to go to the country of the Philistines to obtain instruments of iron for agricultural purposes. When it is remembered that this took place in "the days of Samuel,” it seems clear that the text under consideration cannot mean that the Philistines were driven out of the country, and exercised no more authority over Israel during the remainder of Samuel's life. Nor is it probable that the country was now perfectly delivered, and that the Philistines afterward made renewed aggressions upon it. The passage, as explained by the general course of the history, appears to teach us this,-that the cities of which the Philistines had taken possession during this irruption, were retaken by the Israelites after this miraculous victory; and that, although the Philistines held several posts in the country, and exercised authority over the Israelites who resided in those parts of

the land bordering upon Philistia, they never marched a hostile force into the land of Israel, nor attempted to revenge this defeat, or repair its consequences, during the whole of the time that Samuel discharged the duties of chief magistrate.

NOTE 51, page 169.—The judicial Circuit of Samuel.

FROM this statement it has been generally supposed that, while Samuel ordinarily heard causes and judged the people at his residence in Ramah, he went annually to the more important towns, in distant districts; that, by administering justice in the several parts of the country, disorder might be more effectually checked, and grievances more easily redressed. But when it is known that, while the length of the land of Israel, from Mount Hermon in the north, to Kadesh-Barnea in the south, was one hundred and eighty miles, and its average breadth about sixty-five miles; Bethel was but five miles from Ramah, Mizpeh less than four, and Gilgal about seventeen; it will be admitted that the object of the prophet in itinerating to those places could not have been for the purpose of placing the seat of judgment at the most convenient distance from the several great sections of the population.

Yet this appears to have been the opinion of Dr. Adam Clarke, who, on this text, says, “When he was at Bethel, the tribe of Ephraim and all the northern parts of the country could attend him; when at Gilgal, the tribe of Benjamin and those beyond Jordan might have easy access to him; and when at Mizpeh, he was within reach of Judah, Simeon, and Gad." But is it probable that Samuel would leave his home at Ramah, to go five miles to Bethel to judge the people there, for the convenience of the northern tribes, when the inhabitants of Dan would then be ninety miles distant? or, that he would remove his court four miles to Mizpeh, when there was then an inhabited territory extending forty miles farther to the south? Surely, if Judah and Gad could easily wait upon the prophet at Mizpeh, they might, without difficulty, have gone four miles farther to Ramah; and if Ephraim could come to Bethel, they might go five miles farther, to meet the judge at his home. It seems, therefore, that this circuit could not have been taken merely for the sake of placing the seat of judgment nearer the residence of the people; consequently, we must inquire whether this institution of Samuel cannot be accounted for on other grounds. When it is remembered that Bethel was the scene of the most glorious revelations which were made by Jehovah to the founder of the Hebrew nation; that Gilgal was the first resting-place of the ark, and where the tabernacle was first raised after the passage of the Jordan; and that Mizpeh was the site selected for holding the most solemn assemblies of the people; it seems reasonable to conclude, that Samuel chose to fix his seat of judgment alternately at these places, that he might thus have an opportunity of recalling public attention to the most prominent and affecting facts in the history of the Hebrew people, and of enforcing on their mind the importance of their steady devotedness to the God of their fathers. (For the geography of Mizpeh, Gilgal, and Ramah, see Robinson and Wilson.)

NOTE 52, page 170.—The Schools of the Prophets.

THE origin and character of these schools are subjects which, notwithstanding the labor and learning that have been spent in their investigation, are still veiled in much obscurity. The prophetical office, as it existed under the Mosaic economy, was evidently designed to be a great and influential element in the theocracy. When the people rebelliously murmured against the administration of Moses, instead of strengthening the hands of his servant by larger temporal powers, as might have been done, God was pleased to meet the case by a religious provision; and seventy men were divinely inspired to uphold the authority of God and of his servant, by

speaking under the influence of the Holy Spirit to the people. From this time this class of religious teachers was maintained; and even in the darkest periods of Hebrew history, God left not himself without inspired witnesses to the truth of his revelation, and the spirituality of his religion. But in what manner new members were added to the number of these extraordinary ministers, we are not informed. There can be no doubt that it was by special Divine appointment; but whether this was preceded by any particular training or education, is not told us until the time of Samuel.

During the administration of this inspired judge, we read of companies of prophets living together, and acting in concert, under the direction of Samuel, in a manner which has led to the universal conviction, that these several companies were so many schools of young men, taught and disciplined under the direction of Samuel, and other aged prophets who succeeded him; and that from these, ordinarily, (although not always,) the prophets were selected by God, through the communication to them of the gift of inspiration. Both the rule and the exception are proved in the account which Amos gives of himself: "I was no prophet, neither was I a prophet's son; but I was an herdman, and a gatherer of sycamore fruit: and the Lord took me as I followed the flock, and the Lord said unto me, Go, prophesy unto my people Israel." Amos vii, 14, 15. This statement seems clearly to show, that prophets were usually selected from "the sons of the prophets," as these students were called; (see 2 Kings ii, 3, 5, 7, 15;) but that, in his case, the rule was not observed, he having been divinely called from his labors in the field.

But then the obvious difficulty presents itself, which is so well put by Stillingfleet: "It is hard to conceive what influence any antecedent and preparatory dispositions can have upon receiving the prophetical spirit." Without staying to notice the requisites insisted on by Jewish writers, the absurdity of most of which this learned author sufficiently exposes, we may refer to two, which he regarded as important,the improvement of their natural faculties, and their advancement in piety; but to these another may be added,—a thorough acquaintance with the Mosaic law.

The first of these must have been important, in an age and country where means of instruction were very limited. It must then have been necessary that men intended to hold such a position, as extraordinary teachers of their countrymen, should themselves be rescued from gross ignorance, and be brought under the influence of real religion. The whole scope of the narrative goes to show that Samuel labored to supply this want.

But, if general instruction was necessary, it was still more important that the prophets should have ample and correct knowledge of those revelations which were given by God to Moses, as the basis of the national faith. If we may judge of the teaching of the prophets from the character of those portions which are preserved in the Scriptures, this point will be very clear. The writings of all the prophets constantly refer to the law: the institution of the order was certainly for the purpose of enforcing the spirit of the Mosaic covenant, and inducing a universal obedience to its requirements. It must, therefore, have been necessary, that those men who were to sustain this office should be well instructed in the law of Moses. (Calmet on the Schools of the Hebrews, in the Journal of Sacred Literature for January, 1843. See also Stillingfleet's Origines Sacræ, vol. i, p. 191; and Stackhouse's History of the Bible, vol. ii, p. 122.)

NOTE 53, page 170.-The Cause of Hebrew Monarchy.

MANY reasons have been assigned for this great change in the political constitution of the Hebrews. Some have said that it was occasioned by the importance which

was now attached to Palestine by the great kingdoms of Assyria and Egypt; others, that it was the result of the inconveniences found inseparable from the irregular government of the judges; while a third class, supposing that the Israelites had, since their location in Palestine, consolidated their institutions, and risen in their national character and power, speak of this change as "incident to the progress of society." However agreeable these views may be to the popular taste, we regard them as utterly groundless. There may be some truth in each of the premises; but neither of them separately, nor all united, formed the great reason for the establishment of monarchy. This is to be found in the necessity which, under the theocracy, existed for national piety, in order to national power. Faithful to God, one should “chase a thousand, and two put ten thousand to flight." But, when "they provoked him to jealousy with strange gods," then "the sword without, and terror within," destroyed them. Deut. xxxii, 30, 16, 25.

While the elders of Israel lamented their political weakness and national prostration, two ways opened before them as means to an improvement in public affairs. The first invited them to give their hearts to God, and, uniting their influence and exertions to the efforts of the prophet, to aim at a perfect restoration of Hebrew prosperity and power, by means of a thorough revival of their religion: the other was, to pass by the peculiar claims and privileges of the theocracy, and to fall back upon the principles and policy of other nations. Unhappily for Israel and the world, the latter was adopted; and hence, when the prophet lamented over this decision before God, the Lord said, "They have not rejected thee, but they have rejected ME." 1 Sam. viii, 7.

In consequence of this, the world never saw the theocracy in action, as it was divinely intended to operate. Unfaithful to their glorious vocation, the Hebrews chose an earthly head, and placed that trust in their king and their sword which should have been centred in “the God of Jeshurun." But it is objected that Moses foresaw this change, and pointed out the character which the king would manifest, and gave directions for the guidance of his conduct. But this prophecy does not prove that the establishment of monarchy was originally a part of the Divine purpose. Moses also predicted the captivity and dispersion of Israel; but, as in the case of the appointment of a king, these prophecies were conditional; and nothing but the unfaithfulness and iniquity of Israel produced the certain accomplishment of these predictions.

NOTE 54, page 174.-The Threat of Nahash.

THE excessive and apparently unmeaning character of this cruelty has excited considerable attention. It has appeared improbable, if the haughty Ammonite had been disposed to maim the men of Jabesh-Gilead, that he might lay it for a reproach upon all Israel, that he should select their right eyes for destruction. But ancient authors afford ample explanation of the difficulty. Theodoret says, "He that exposes his shield to the enemy with his left hand, thereby hides his left eye, and looks at the enemy with his right eye: he, therefore, that plucks out that eye, makes men useless in war." And this was the object and practice of Nahash; for Josephus informs us that "he put out the right eyes of those that either delivered themselves to him upon terms, or were taken by him in war; and this he did, that, when their left eyes were covered by their shields, they might be wholly useless in war." (Antiquities, book vi, chap. v, sect. 1.)

This shows the object of the threatening, and proves that the infliction was intended not only as a great reproach and a perpetual badge of slavery, but also as an effectual means of preventing them from ever after revenging the injury, or asserting their independence.