A verse by verse commentary on Joshua 10 dealing with the amazing miracle of the Sun standing still to give Israel the victory. Many kings are killed and cities conquered.

1. JOSHUA 10 COMME TARY
EDITED BY GLE PEASE
The Sun Stands Still
1 ow Adoni-Zedek king of Jerusalem heard that
Joshua had taken Ai and totally destroyed[a] it,
doing to Ai and its king as he had done to Jericho
and its king, and that the people of Gibeon had
made a treaty of peace with Israel and had
become their allies.
BAR ES, "Adoni-zedec - i. e “Lord of righteousness” (compare Melchizedek, “King
of righteousness”); probably an official title of the Jebusite kings.
Jerusalem - i. e. “foundation of peace,” compare Gen_14:18. The city belonged to the
inheritance of Benjamin Jos_18:28, but was on the very edge of the territory of Judah
Jos_15:8. Hence, it was the strong and war-like tribe of Judah which eventually
captured the lower part of the city, most likely in the days of Joshua’s later conquests
Jdg_1:8, and after the warlike strength of the Jebusites had been weakened by the defeat
in the open field, recorded in this chapter. The upper town, more especially the fortified
hill of Zion, remained in the hands of the Jebusites, who accordingly kept a footing in
the place, along with the men of Judah and Benjamin, even after the conquest Jos_
15:63; Jdg_1:21; and would seem, indeed, to have so far, and no doubt gradually,
regained possession of the whole, that Jerusalem was spoken of in the days of the Judges
as a Jebusite city. David finally stormed “the stronghold of Zion,” and called it “the City
of David” 2Sa_5:6-9. It was, probably, only after this conquest and the adoption by
David of the city as the religious and political metropolis of the whole nation, that the
name Jerusalem came into use 2Sa_5:5 in substitution for Jehus.
CLARKE, "Adoni-zedec - This name signifies the Lord of justice or righteousness;
and it has been conjectured that the Canaanitish kings assumed this name in imitation

2. of that of the ancient patriarchal king of this city, Melchizedek, whose name signifies
king of righteousness, or my righteous king: a supposition that is not improbable, when
the celebrity of Melchizedek is considered.
Jerusalem - ‫ירושלם‬ Yerushalam. This word has been variously explained; if it be
compounded of ‫שלם‬ shalam, peace, perfection, etc., and ‫ראה‬ raah, he saw, it may signify
the vision of peace - or, he shall see peace or perfection.
GILL, "Now it came to pass, when Adonizedek king of Jerusalem,.... So called,
perhaps by anticipation, Jerusalem, since it seems to have had this name given it by the
Israelites, when they had got possession of it: and Jerusalem signifies "the possession of
Salem" (w), and in memory of this its ancient name, the Jews say (x), they do not put
"jod" in Jerusalem between "lamed" and "mem"; though some make the signification of
it, "they shall see peace" (y); and others, nearer to its old name, and with respect to it,
"fear Salem", O ye enemies. Now the king of this place
had heard how Joshua had taken Ai, and had utterly destroyed it; which,
being nearer to him than Jericho, the more alarmed him:
as he had done to Jericho and her king, so he had done to Ai and her king;
burnt the one, and slew the other; and this terrified him, lest he and his city should
undergo the same fate:
and how the inhabitants of Gibeon had made peace with Israel, and were
among them; which as it weakened the interest of the kings of Canaan, might set an
example to other places to do the like. Abarbinel suggests, that the Gibeonites making
peace with Israel secretly, without the knowledge of their king, as he supposes, made
Adonizedek fearful, lest his subjects should do the like; the Jewish chronologers say (z),
that these three acts respecting Jericho, Ai, and Gibeon, were all finished within three
months.
HE RY 1-6, "Joshua and the hosts of Israel had now been a good while in the land of
Canaan, and no great matters were effected; they were made masters of Jericho by a
miracle, of Ai by stratagem, and of Gibeon by surrender, and that was all; hitherto the
progress of their victories had not seemed proportionable to the magnificence of their
entry and the glory of their beginnings. Those among them that were impatient of
delays, it is probable, complained of Joshua's slowness, and asked why they did not
immediately penetrate into the heart of the country, before the enemy could rally their
forces to make head against them, why they stood trifling, while they were so confident
both of their title and of their success. Thus Joshua's prudence, perhaps, was censured
as slothfulness, cowardice, and want of spirit. But, 1. Canaan was not to be conquered in
a day. God had said that by little and little he would drive out the Canaanites, Exo_
23:30. He that believeth will not make haste, or conclude that the promise will never be
performed because it is not performed so soon as he expected. 2. Joshua waited for the
Canaanites to be the aggressors; let them first make an onset upon Israel, or the allies of
Israel, and then their destruction will be, or at least will appear to be, the more just and
more justifiable. Joshua had warrant sufficient to set upon them, yet he stays till they
strike the first stroke, that he might provide for honest things in the sight, not only of
God, but of men; and they would be the more inexcusable in their resistance, now that

3. they had seen what favour the Gibeonites found with Israel. 3. It was for the advantage
of Israel to sit still awhile, that the forces of these little kings might unite in one body,
and so might the more easily be cut off at one blow. This God had in his eye when he put
it into their hearts to combine against Israel; though they designed thereby to strengthen
one another, that which he intended was to gather them as sheaves into the floor, to fall
together under the flail, Mic_4:12. Thus oftentimes that seeming paradox proves
wholesome counsel, Stay awhile, and we shall have done the sooner.
After Israel had waited awhile for an occasion to make war upon the Canaanites, a fair
one offers itself. 1. Five kings combine against the Gibeonites. Adoni-zedec king of
Jerusalem was the first mover and ring-leader of this confederacy. He had a good name
(it signifies lord of righteousness), being a descendant perhaps from Melchizedek, king
of righteousness; but, notwithstanding the goodness of his name and family, it seems he
was a bad man, and an implacable enemy to the posterity of that Abraham to whom his
predecessor, Melchizedek, was such a faithful friend. He called upon his neighbours to
join against Israel either because he was the most honourable prince, and had the
precedency among these kings (perhaps they had some dependence upon him, at least
they paid a deference to him, as the most public, powerful, and active man they had
among them), or because he was first or most apprehensive of the danger his country
was in, not only by the conquest of Jericho and Ai, but the surrender of Gibeon, which, it
seems, was the chief thing that alarmed him, it being one of the most considerable
frontier towns they had. Against Gibeon therefore all the force he would raise must be
leveled. Come, says he, and help me, that we may smite Gibeon. This he resolves to do,
either, (1.) In policy, that he might retake the city, because it was a strong city, and of
great consequence to this country in whose hands it was; or, (2.) In passion, that he
might chastise the citizens for making peace with Joshua, pretending that they had
perfidiously betrayed their country and strengthened the common enemy, whereas they
had really done the greatest kindness imaginable to their country, by setting them a good
example, if they would have followed it. Thus Satan and his instruments make war upon
those that make peace with God. Marvel not if the world hate you, and treat those as
deserters who are converts to Christ. 2. The Gibeonites send notice to Joshua of the
distress and danger they are in, Jos_10:6. Now they expect benefit from the league they
had made with Israel, because, though it was obtained by deceit, it was afterwards
confirmed when the truth came out. They think Joshua obliged to help them, (1.) In
conscience, because they were his servants; not in compliment, as they had said in their
first address (Jos_9:8), We are thy servants, but in reality made servants to the
congregation; and it is the duty of masters to take care of the poorest and meanest of
their servants, and not to see them wronged when it is in the power of their hand to right
them. Those that pay allegiance may reasonably expect protection. Thus David pleads
with God (Psa_119:94), I am thine, save me; and so may we, if indeed we be his. (2.) In
honour, because the ground of their enemies' quarrel with them was the respect they had
shown to Israel, and the confidence they had in a covenant with them. Joshua cannot
refuse to help them when it is for their affection to him, and to the name of his God, that
they are attacked. David thinks it a good plea with God (Psa_69:7), For thy sake I have
borne reproach. When our spiritual enemies set themselves in array against us, and
threaten to swallow us up, let us, by faith and prayer, apply to Christ, our Joshua, for
strength and succour, as Paul did, and we shall receive the same answer of peace, My
grace is sufficient for thee, 2Co_12:8, 2Co_12:9.
JAMISO ,"Jos_10:1-5. Five kings war against Gibeon.

4. Adoni-zedek — “lord of righteousness” - nearly synonymous with Melchizedek, “king
of righteousness.” These names were common titles of the Jebusite kings.
Jerusalem — The original name, “Salem” (Gen_14:18; Psa_76:2), was superseded by
that here given, which signifies “a peaceful possession,” or “a vision of peace,” in
allusion, as some think, to the strikingly symbolic scene (Gen_22:14) represented on the
mount whereon that city was afterwards built.
inhabitants of Gibeon had made peace with Israel, and were among them
— that is, the Israelites; had made an alliance with that people, and acknowledging their
supremacy, were living on terms of friendly intercourse with them.
K&D 1-4, "The report that Joshua had taken Ai, and put it, like Jericho, under the
ban, and that the Gibeonites had concluded a treaty with Israel, filled Adonizedek the
king of Jerusalem with alarm, as Gibeon was a large town, like one of the king's towns,
even larger than Ai, and its inhabitants were brave men. He therefore joined with the
kings of Hebron, Jarmuth, Lachish, and Eglon, to make a common attack upon Gibeon,
and punish it for its alliance with the Israelites, and at the same time to put a check upon
the further conquests of Israel. Adonizedek, i.e., lord of righteousness, is synonymous
with Melchizedek (king of righteousness), and was a title of the Jebusite kings, as
Pharaoh was of the Egyptian. Jerusalem, i.e., the founding or possession of peace, called
Salem in the time of Abraham (Gen_14:18), was the proper name of the town, which was
also frequently called by the name of its Canaanitish inhabitants Jebus (Jdg_19:10-11;
1Ch_11:4), or “city of the Jebusite” (Ir-Jebusi, Jdg_19:11), sometimes also in a
contracted form, Jebusi (‫י‬ ִ‫בוּס‬ְ‫י‬ ַ‫,ה‬ Jos_18:16, Jos_18:28; Jos_15:8; 2Sa_5:8).
(Note: In our English version, we have the Hebrew word itself simply transposed
in Jos_18:16, Jos_18:28; whilst it is rendered “the Jebusite” in Jos_15:8, and “the
Jebusites” in 2Sa_5:8. - Tr.)
On the division of the land it was allotted to the tribe of Benjamin (Jos_18:28); but
being situated upon the border of Judah (Jos_15:8), it was conquered, and burned by
the sons of Judah after the death of Joshua (Jdg_1:8). It was very soon taken again and
rebuilt by the Jebusites, whom the sons of Judah were unable to destroy (Jos_15:63;
Jdg_19:10-12), so that both Benjaminites and Judahites lived there along with the
Jebusites (Jdg_1:21; Jos_15:63); and the upper town especially, upon the summit of
Mount Zion, remained as a fortification in the possession of the Jebusites, until David
conquered it (2Sa_5:6.), made it the capital of his kingdom, and called it by his own
name, “the city of David,” after which the old name of Jebus fell into disuse. Hebron, the
town of Arba the Anakite (Jos_14:15, etc.; see at Gen_23:2), was twenty-two Roman
miles south of Jerusalem, in a deep and narrow valley upon the mountains of Judah, a
town of the greatest antiquity (Num_13:22), now called el Khalil, i.e., the friend (of
God), with reference to Abraham's sojourn there. The ruins of an ancient heathen temple
are still to be seen there, as well as the Haram, built of colossal blocks, which contains,
according to Mohammedan tradition, the burial-place of the patriarchs (see at Gen_
23:17). Jarmuth, in the lowlands of Judah (Jos_15:35; Neh_11:29), according to the
Onom. (s. v. Jermus) a hamlet, Jermucha (ᅾερµοχωራς), ten Roman miles from
Eleutheropolis, on the road to Jerusalem, is the modern Jarmuk, a village on a lofty hill,
with the remains of walls and cisterns of a very ancient date, the name of which,
according to Van de Velde (Mem. pp. 115-6), is pronounced Tell 'Armuth by the Arabs
(see Rob. Pal. ii. p. 344). Lachish, in the lowlands of Judah (Jos_15:39), was fortified by
Rehoboam (2Ch_11:9), and besieged by Sennacherib and Nebuchadnezzar (2Ki_18:14;

5. 2Ki_19:8; Jer_34:7), and was still inhabited by Jews after the return from the captivity
(Neh_11:30). It is probably to be found in Um Lakis, an old place upon a low round hill,
covered with heaps of small round stones thrown together in great confusion, containing
relics of marble columns; it is about an hour and a quarter to the west of Ajlun, and
seven hours to the west of Eleutheropolis.
(Note: It is true that Robinson dispute the identity of Um Lakis with the ancient
Lachish (Pal. ii. p. 388), but “not on any reasonable ground” (Van de Velde, Mem. p.
320). The statement in the Onom. (s. v. Lochis), that it was seven Roman miles to the
south of Eleutheropolis, cannot prove much, as it may easily contain an error in the
number, and Robinson does not admit its authority even in the case of Eglon (Pal. ii.
p. 392). Still less can Knobel's conjecture be correct, that it is to be found in the old
place called Sukkarijeh, two hours and a half to the south-west of Beit Jibrin
(Eleutheropolis), as Sukkarijeh is on the east of Ajlun, whereas, according to Jos_
10:31-36, Lachish is to be sought for on the west of Eglon.)
Eglon: also in the lowlands of Judah (Jos_15:39). The present name is Ajlân, a heap of
ruins, about three-quarters of an hour to the east of Um Lakis (see Rob. Pal. ii. p. 392,
and Van de Velde, Mem. p. 308). In the Onom. (s. v. Eglon) it is erroneously identified
with Odollam; whereas the situation of Agla, “at the tenth stone, as you go from
Eleutheropolis to Gaza” (Onom. s. v. Βηθαλαιʷ́µ, Bethagla), suits Eglon exactly.
CALVI , "1. ow it came to pass, etc He had formerly briefly glanced at, but now
more fully details the conspiracy of the kings, who dwelt both in the mountains and
in the plain. For after mentioning that they were struck with fear, and leagued
together to make common war, he had broken off abruptly, and proceeded to speak
of the Gibeonites. But what he had previously said of the kings in general, he now
applies only to one individual; not because Adoni-zedek alone was afraid, but
because he stirred up all the others, and was the principal originator and leader in
carrying on the war against the Israelites. This is sufficiently expressed by the plural
number of the verb; for it is said, When Adoni-zedek had heard — they feared
greatly. From this it appears that they were all of the same mind, but that while
some of them held back from fear, he who possessed greater authority, and was
nearer the danger, invited the four others to arms. (90)
In the beginning of the chapter it is again told, how the five kings formed an alliance
to meet the Israelites, and ward off the overthrow with which they were all
threatened. But as the Gibeonites had meanwhile surrendered, they first turned
their arms against them, both that by inflicting punishment upon them, as the
betrayers of their country, they might make them an example to all their neighbors,
and that by striking terror into those vanquished enemies, they might also inspire
their own soldiers with confidence. They resolve, therefore, to attack the Gibeonites
who, by their embassy, had made a disruption and opened a passage to the
Israelites. They had, indeed, a fair pretext for war, in resolving to punish the
effeminacy of those who had chosen to give their sanction to strangers, about to lay
the whole country waste, rather than faithfully defend their neighbors. And the
Gibeonites experienced how useless their crafty counsel must have been, had they
not been saved in pity by the Israelites. Meanwhile the Lord allowed them to be

6. involved in danger, in order that, being twice freed, they might more willingly and
meekly submit to the yoke.
ELLICOTT, "CO QUEST OF THE SOUTHER CO FEDERACY OF THE
ATIO S OF CA AA .
(1) Adoni-zedec king of Jerusalem.—We may compare this name (Lord of
Righteousness) with Melchizedek (King of Righteousness). (See Genesis 14:18 and
Hebrews 7:1.) The similarity of the names makes it probable that the Salem of
Genesis 14:18 is Jerusalem (see otes). The title Lord or King of Righteousness may
have belonged to the king of Jerusalem, not only as a local title, but also in relation
to the surrounding tribes, over whom he may have been a suzerain. But we know
nothing of the matter beyond what we find in the sacred text.
TRAPP, "Joshua 10:1 ow it came to pass, when Adonizedek king of Jerusalem had
heard how Joshua had taken Ai, and had utterly destroyed it; as he had done to
Jericho and her king, so he had done to Ai and her king; and how the inhabitants of
Gibeon had made peace with Israel, and were among them;
Ver. 1. When Adonizedec king of Jerusalem.] A glorious name, fitter for Messiah
the Prince, - for it signifieth the same in effect with Melchizedek, "which is by
interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is
King of peace," - than [Hebrews 7:2] for such a tyrant. [ 1:7] But it is nothing new
for that kind of men to affect glorious titles, as did Antiochus Soter, Ptolomeus
Euergetes, &c. The great Turk styleth himself at this day, Awlem Penawh, that is,
the world’s refuge. (a)
Had heard that Joshua had taken Ai, &c.] And that now their turn was not far off -
“ Iam tun res agitur, paries cure proximus ardet. ”
This they hardly, and not till needs must, take notice of: sin and Satan having cast
them into a dead lethargy, out of which they are hardly roused.
And were among them.] Having embraced their religion, and glad to do them
service. This caused the devil and his imps to set up their bristles, and to seek their
destruction.
PETT, "Chapter 10. Defeat of the Canaanite Confederacy - The Invasion of the
South.
In this chapter we read of an alliance of five Canaanite kings against the Gibeonites,
who then appeal to Joshua for assistance, in virtue of their treaty rights, something
which has to Joshua grant. This is followed by the slaughter of the Canaanite armies
by the forces of Israel, chiefly as a result of hailstones from heaven, and of the

7. standing still or ‘silence’ of the sun and of the moon while vengeance was being
taken on them. The five kings then hide in a cave, and we learn of what was done to
them when they were taken. This is followed by the taking of Makkedah, Libnah,
Lachish, Eglon, Hebron, and Debir, which indicated the initial conquest of the
southern part of the hill country and lowlands.
Verse 1
Chapter 10. Defeat of the Canaanite Confederacy - The Invasion of the South.
In this chapter we read of an alliance of five Canaanite kings against the Gibeonites,
who then appeal to Joshua for assistance, in virtue of their treaty rights, something
which has to Joshua grant. This is followed by the slaughter of the Canaanite armies
by the forces of Israel, chiefly as a result of hailstones from heaven, and of the
standing still or ‘silence’ of the sun and of the moon while vengeance was being
taken on them. The five kings then hide in a cave, and we learn of what was done to
them when they were taken. This is followed by the taking of Makkedah, Libnah,
Lachish, Eglon, Hebron, and Debir, which indicated the initial conquest of the
southern part of the hill country and lowlands.
Joshua 10:1
‘ ow it happened that, when Adoni-zedek king of Jerusalem, heard how Joshua had
taken Ai, and had utterly destroyed it, for as he had done to Jericho and her king, so
he had done to Ai and her king, and how the inhabitants of Gibeon had made peace
with Israel, and were among them.’
ews soon reached surrounding city states about what had happened. One of these
was Jerusalem, whose king was made aware of the full situation. Israel had
captured both Jericho and Ai and had totally destroyed them and annihilated their
inhabitants, and had now entered into a treaty-covenant with the Gibeonite
confederacy. There is total silence about the treaty-covenant with Shechem. That is
because the writer was concentrating on conveying the picture of the capture of the
land by Joshua, and did not want the picture to be affected by such an idea. He was
writing a record of the triumph of YHWH, not the history of the conquest. The
Gibeonite treaty was a different matter as it was obtained by subterfuge and
resulted in the total submission of Gibeon to slavery. However, the total picture is
clear. The way into Canaan over the Jordan and the central hill country was now
mainly in the hands of the Israelites, while the way had been laid open for the
settling of the southern hill country and lowlands..
“Adoni-zedek”. The name means ‘my lord is righteous’ or ‘Zedek is my lord’. We
can compare the former king of Jerusalem ‘Melchizedek - my king is righteous’ or
‘Zedek is my king’. There is not sufficient evidence for a god Zedek in Canaan so
that the other meanings may well be the right ones. At the time of the Amarna
letters the king of Jerusalem was Abdi-heba. The letters also referred to Uru-salim
as the name of the city.

8. BE SO , "Joshua 10:1. Adoni-zedek, king of Jerusalem — Who seems to have
been the most powerful prince in Canaan, and carried in his name, which signifies
The Lord of righteousness, an honourable title, such as had been anciently given to
the kings of this place, who had been famous for doing justice. So Melchizedek
undoubtedly was, of whom we have such honourable mention, Genesis 14:18. King
of Jerusalem — It is thought by many, that this city retained the name of Salem,
which they suppose it had in Abraham’s time, till the Israelites came into the land of
Canaan, and took possession of it, when they called it Jerusalem, from ‫,ירשׁ‬ Jarash,
and ‫,שׁלום‬ Shalum, to possess peace: or from Jerus, the same as Jebus, with the
change of one letter only, and Shalem, the place having belonged to the Jebusites.
How the inhabitants of Gibeon — were among them — Among the Israelites, that is,
were conversant with them, had submitted to their laws, and mingled interests with
them.
COFFMA , "Verse 1
Here we have the record of the conquest of Southern Canaan in which is featured
the great third and final miracle of the Book of Joshua, the miracle of Beth-horon,
the mighty hailstorm and the very long day. Commonly called "the Miracle of the
Sun Standing Still," the event described in this chapter is one of the most talked-
about occurrences in the O.T. A great deal of the scholarly comments focus on
skillful attempts to avoid the acceptance, as fact, of what is related here. We shall
give careful attention to these. It is impossible, of course, for anyone to profess a
knowledge of exactly WHAT happened at Beth-horon, or precisely HOW it
occurred, but there is no good reason whatever for denying God's intervention on
behalf of the Gibeonites and of Israel in this most decisive battle in the conquest of
Canaan. Given the fact that it was GOD who intervened here, where is any
problem? Is anything TOO HARD for God?
We shall turn our attention at once to the text.
" ow it came to pass when Adonizedek king of Jerusalem heard how Joshua had
taken Ai, and utterly destroyed it (as he had done to Jericho and her king, so he had
done to Ai and her king), and how the inhabitants of Gibeon, had made peace with
Israel, and were among them; that they feared greatly, because Gibeon was a great
city, as one of the royal cities, and because it was greater than Ai, and all the men
thereof were mighty. Wherefore Adonizedek king of Jerusalem sent unto Hotham
king of Hebron, and unto Piram king of Jarmuth, and unto Japhia king of Lachish,
and unto Debir king of Eglon, saying, Come up unto me, and help me, and let us
smite Gibeon; for it hath made peace with Joshua and with the children of Israel.
Therefore the five kings of the Amorites, the king of Jerusalem, the king of Hebron,
the king of Jarmuth, the king of Lachish, the king of Eglon, gathered themselves
together and went up, they and all their hosts, and encamped against Gibeon, and
made war against it."
"Adonizedek ..." (Joshua 10:1). This king of Jerusalem, unlike his famous
predecessor, Melchizedek, the king of Salem (Salem here being understood as an
earlier name for Jerusalem), was an evil man. And like every wicked man, he was

9. utterly blind to the presence and purpose of God which promulgated the invasion of
Canaan. otice that Adonizedek did not fear God, but only Joshua. He failed to see
that Joshua was not his primary enemy, but that God Himself was the Person who
would drive the wicked Canaanites out of Palestine, and that Joshua was only God's
I STRUME T in that operation.
REGARDI G ZEDEK
The word "Zedek" means "righteousness." Adonizedek has the meaning of "lord of
righteousness, nearly synonymous with Melchizedek, which means `king of
righteousness.'"[1] There cannot be any doubt that Melchizedek was a "Priest of
God Most High," as emphatically declared in Genesis 14:18, making it absolutely
certain that Melchizedek was a monotheist and a worshipper of the One True and
Almighty God. Otherwise, Abraham's paying tithes to him, and his being singled
out in the .T. as a Great Type of the Son of God Himself (Hebrews 7:1ff) would
make no sense at all. The expression "God Most High" receives further light in the
.T., where the expression is found five times: (1) in Mark 5:7, where a demon
protested an order from Christ, addressing Jesus Christ as, "Jesus, thou Son of God
Most High"; (2) Luke 8:28 states that a demon, pleading with Christ not to torment
him, addressed Our Lord as, "Thou Son of the Most High God"; (3) the Christian
martyr Stephen declared that, "The Most High dwelleth not in temples made with
hands"; (4) the demon-possessed girl who followed Paul and Silas for days at
Philippi, continually cried out, "These men are servants of the Most High God, who
proclaim unto you the way of salvation"; and (5) the passage in Hebrews 7:1 affirms
that, "Melchizedek was a priest of the Most High God."
The critical community, however, have long accepted the false view that
monotheism was unknown until the Jews "developed" the idea, and, therefore, as a
rule, the critical scholars deny that Melchizedek was a priest of the one and only
God Almighty, despite the passage in Hebrews that affirms flatly that he was a
worshipper of "God Most High," which in Biblical history never referred to anyone
else, other than the One True God.
How do they manage to claim this? It is done simply by that old trick of false
teachers, namely, the device of finding some off-beat, unusual use, or alternative
meaning of some well-known word, and then ramming such a bizarre meaning into
the Sacred Text. We gave a classical example of this in our exegesis of 1 Peter 3:21.
(See Vol. 11 of my .T. series of commentaries, pp. 236-237).
How is this wicked device implemented here? ote the following: "Some have
suggested that Zedek was originally the name of a deity. This would make the
meaning of Adonizedek to be, `My lord is Zedek.'"[2] Therefore, unbelievers will
reject what the text plainly declares and announce the postulation that both
Melchizedek and Adonizedek were not worshippers of the One God at all, but
worshippers of Zedek! We need to remember, however, that "There is no sufficient
evidence for this suggestion."[3] Very recent scholars like Boling and Wright have
pointed out that, "The form and meaning of this name (Zedek) tell nothing with

10. certainty about the identity of this (alleged) Jerusalem deity."[4] Morton attempted
to make a big thing out of the Zedek suggestion, as follows: "Since Zedek is known
to have been a Canaanite divine name, its earlier meaning probably was `My lord
(the god) Zedek.' The same element appears also in the name Melchizedek."[5] ote
that Morton uses the word probably, which means that there is no solid evidence
whatever to sustain this evil suggestion. Absolutely nothing is known of any
Canaanite god called Zedek! For generations, the meaning of Zedek has been
understood as "righteous", or "righteousness".[6] Similar efforts have been made to
corrupt the plain meaning of "Most High God" through the `discovery' of a
Babylonian pagan god called Elyon, or "the Most High."[7] In all such cases, the
Biblical usage of "God Most High" (all three of these titles have the same meaning)
squarely denies the aberrations that men would impose upon the word Zedek or
Adonizedek and Melchizedek.
"They feared greatly ... etc." (Joshua 10:2). ot only had the victories of Israel at
Jordan and Ai demonstrated the need for this fear, there was the additional fact
that Gibeon, a powerful city, with some of the most magnificent fighting men of
ancient history enrolled among them, had defected to Israel and was now an ally of
the invaders. As Boling said, "The awareness of the opposition had increased
enormously!"[8] The fact of Gibeon having no king and its related monarchical
system to support enabled them to develop a powerful middle class, many of whom
were prosperous enough to provide armament, and a squire, and the leisure to
become skilled in the use of such equipment. The Hebrew word here rendered
"mighty" is translated "knights" by Boling.[9]
Bible students once had to contend with the bald, unsupported assertions of Biblical
enemies that the account in this chapter is "unhistorical." Samuel Holmes, for
example said: "This section (Joshua 10:28-40) is quite unhistorical."[10] The spade
of the archeologist has proved the historical nature of this account.
Unger noted that:
"When Israel entered Canaan (about 1400 B.C.), there were more than 25 of these
city-states (like the ones mentioned in this chapter), but by 1390 B.C., Israel had
swallowed up many of them. The Tel El-Amarna letters reveal that by 1375 B.C.,
there remained only four main independent states."[11]
"Hebron ..." (Joshua 10:3). This was indeed a powerful city from very ancient
times. Moses tells us that "Hebron was built seven years before Zoan in Egypt"
( umbers 13:22). And who, we might ask, could ever have known a fact like that
except Moses? F. F. Bruce identified Hebron as having the highest elevation of any
city in Palestine 3,040 feet above sea level, situated 19 miles south-southwest of
Jerusalem. The date of its founding was about 1720 B.C.[12] Dating from the times
of Abraham when that patriarch pitched his tent under the Oaks of Mamre near
there, Hebron was destined to play a major role in Jewish history:
(1) There is the cave of Machpelah, purchased from the sons of Heth, where many of
the patriarchs are buried.

11. (2) When the spies were sent out by Moses, they reported on Hebron.
(3) In this chapter Hebron joins the group of five allies who attack Gibeon and were
defeated by Joshua.
(4) Caleb finally took possession of the city and received it as his possession.
(5) In Hebron, David was anointed king of Judah (2 Samuel 2:4).
(6) It remained as David's capital for seven years.
(7) It was also Absalom's capital when he rebelled against David.
(8) It was fortified by Rehoboam (2 Chronicles 11:10).
(9) Exiles returning from Babylon settled here ( ehemiah 11:25).
(10) Today, under the name of El Hilil, it is one of the four sacred cities of the
Muslims.
(11) The most ancient name of the place was Kiriath-arba.
"Jarmuth ..." (Joshua 10:3). "The low hill tract between the high central mountains
and the coastal plain of Palestine was called the Shephelah;[13] and one of the
principal fortified towns on this intermediate strip was called Jarmuth. About the
time of the Israelite invasion of Canaan, Jarmuth was fortified, occupied a site of
about eight acres, and is supposed to have had a population of between 1,500,2,000.
[14]
"Lachish ..." (Joshua 10:3). At one time larger than Jerusalem, Lachish was an
important fortified city guarding the main road up to Jerusalem from Egypt. It was
about 30 miles southwest of Jerusalem.[15] Paganism was thoroughly entrenched
here, and through Lachish, "The idolatry of the orthern Israel was successfully
imported into Judah (Micah 1:13)."[16] (See further comment on this town in Vol. 2
of my series of commentaries on the minor prophets, pp. 291,292).
"Eglon ..." (Joshua 10:3). Little is known of this place except what may be gleaned
from this chapter. W. F. Albright has identified the place as Tel el-Hesi, which was
once thought to be Lachish.[17]
"Come up unto me ... (Joshua 10:4). Since, most of these kings were on the
Shephelah, or even the lowlands, it was circumstantially accurate for the king of
Jerusalem to say, "Come up" unto me, Jerusalem being on much higher ground
(except in the case of Hebron). ote also that Adonizedek did not dare to propose
that they fight Joshua, but only that they smite Gibeon. All such details as these,
which are numerous in this chapter, are in keeping with the whole geography and

12. history and of those times; and, collectively, they constitute an eloquent and
convincing testimonial to the truth and historical accuracy of the whole passage.
Joseph R. Sizoo commented on the illogical and inaccurate allegations of scholars
who would like to deny the historical nature of this narrative, identifying Martin
oth, especially, as having carried out his etiological explanation of the five kings in
the cave (Joshua 10:27) to "a reductio ad absurdum."[18] It is refreshing, although
surprising, to find a comment like that in the Interpreter's Bible!
BI 1-5, "Come up unto me, and help me, that we may smite Gibeon: for it hath made
peace with Joshua.
To arms! To arms!
The greatest poet of Greece has sung in stately numbers the deeds of heroes whom his
race adored. We listen to their counsels, we hear their battle shouts, we see their awful
blows. Yet after all this plain, unvarnished tale depicts with more fidelity and power the
progress and results of a conflict, the most sublime in its accompaniments that this earth
has ever seen. In this chapter we have recorded not only one of Joshua’s most brilliant
victories, but one of the world’s greatest battles: a struggle surpassing in importance and
interest Issus or Arbela, Marathon or Cannae, and affecting to an incalculable extent the
religious and political, the moral and the material, welfare of mankind. First of all we
listen to the summons—“Come up unto me, and help me, that we may smite Gibeon,”
&c. Notice from whom the summons comes. From Adoni-zedek, king of Jerusalem. This
is a strange thing. From this man’s name, Lord of Righteousness, and from his heritage,
Jerusalem, we would have expected something very different. He is certainly the
successor, probably the descendant, of Melchizedek. Here is a man who bears the best of
titles, but is, alas! unworthy of it. Nothing could be better than his name; few things are
worse than his fame. Learn from this sad lesson that piety is not hereditary. The
descendants of the righteous may be a wicked seed. This is a sad thing. A noble ancestry
is not a thing to be despised. It is unwise and ungrateful to ignore the records and the
glories of the past. This is also a dangerous thing. The opposition of those who have thus
fallen is always most dangerous. None are so bitter and remorseless, so vehement and
virulent, so venomous and subtle, as renegades. Notice to whom Adoni-zedek’s message
was sent. It was not sent to all the members of the great national league. That was
impossible, because the submission of the Gibeonites had split the confederacy into two
unequal parts. Instead of one vast army marching to crush the invader there must now
be two: one in the south, the other in the north. That of the south is smaller, therefore
more easily set in motion; and it is also placed nearer the centre of attack. Thus we see
how God has restrained the wrath of the enemy and deprived him of half his might. Even
so all coalition against Him must fall to pieces. Transgressors are always lacking in
cohesion. It was to Gibeon that Adoni-zedek summoned his confederates. Thus his
enmity was manifested against their defection. Still this summons of Adoni-zedek
betokens fear. It is to some extent the blustering of a bully who is at heart a craven. We
know this, for we are told that “When Adoni-zedek king of Jerusalem had heard how
Joshua had taken Ai, and had utterly destroyed it . . . that they feared greatly.” Therefore
because they fear they do not come alone. They keep their courage up by company. How
many are like them. They do fear when spiritual truths are brought before them, when
God’s judgment stares them in the face; yet they try to find comfort in the thought,
“Well, if I am lost a great many will be badly off.” Nay! nay! It is a vain thing to banish
fear by such thoughts. Such a fear as that works destruction; because being

13. accompanied, by a rebellious heart and a darkened mind it led to union against God.
Hatred against the Gibeonites is a very distinct characteristic of Adoni-zedek’s message.
Yet, after all, what right had they to be thus angry with their old friends? Had not the
Gibeonites a right to have a mind of their own, especially in a matter that concerned
their very existence? But the human heart remains the same. When the sinner turns
from his rebellion and humbles himself before God, then is the time for the wrath of
man to be revealed. This hatred is most unreasonable, for, like these Gibeonites, the
penitents in throwing down the weapons of their rebellion set an example which it is the
highest wisdom to follow. The cunning and the impiety of these Canaanites are also
revealed by this confederation. They will prevent further defection; they will gain one of
the most important strongholds in the land; they will make the old league possible. Thus
they displayed their craft. And in doing so they proved their impiety. (A. B. Mackay.)
Rage of the world against deserters from its ranks
It is thus in the spiritual life. Upon no outer enemy does the world turn with such rage
and resentment as upon those who desert their ranks to join the Lord’s host. All the
legions of hell are marshalled forth against the young believer who has newly signed the
terms of treaty with the Joshua of the better covenant. As Bishop Hall says, “If a convert
come home, the angels welcome him with song, the devils follow him with uproar and
fury, his old partners with scorn and obloquy.” In spite of all this, let not those who have
become allied to the Israel of God quail; but let the sequel here before us reassure them.
(G. W. Butler, M. A.)
Combinations against the Church
What combinations have been formed, what artifices practised against the Church!—one
wile to allure, another to frighten, and sometimes to destroy. As against the Lord
Himself, so against His people, the great and the mighty of the earth have consulted
their ruin, and for a season availed to harass and distress the saints; nor can this be
matter of surprise to those who know their own character, and remember what
themselves were till converted by the grace of God. The Church’s gain is the world’s
grief, as it is the world’s loss. Oh, what oppositions in families, what combinations out of
old connections and associates, have been raised against those who, no longer of the
world, have been chosen out of it, and through grace enabled to turn their backs upon its
vanities and pursuits! No sooner is it known that any have made peace with our spiritual
Joshua than the world is up in arms, and war declared, lasting as the irreconcilable
enmity of fallen nature. Not one who openly declares himself on the Lord’s side, and is
inwardly devoted to His glory, but, according to the station he occupies, and the
influence of those around him, will experience a full measure. (W. Seaton.)
PI K, "Peacemaking
As its opening verse shows, the tenth of Joshua is closely connected with chapters 6,
8, and 9, and this needs to be duly heeded by us if we are to discover and
appropriate the spiritual lessons which it has for the Lord’s people today--which

14. should ever be one of our principal quests when reading God’s Word. In chapters 6
and 8, we have an account of Israel’s conquest of the cities of Jericho and Ai, but in
the ninth something quite different is presented. Following the fighting at Ai there
came a lull, and the capitulation of the Gibeonites unto Israel without any strenuous
efforts on the part of the latter. It is often thus in the experience of Christians. When
they have been particularly active in engaging the enemy and a notable victory has
been obtained, the Lord grants a brief season of rest and comparative quietness. Yet
they are not to conclude therefrom that the hardest part of their conflict is now
over, so that it is safe for them to relax a little. What we are about to ponder
indicates the contrary, and warns us that Satan does not readily admit defeat. ot
only was Israel’s warfare far from being ended, but a more determined and
concerted resistance was to be encountered. Instead of having to meet the force of a
single king, the massed armies of five of them had now to be defeated. The same
thing appears in the history of our Savior: the farther His gracious ministry
proceeded, the greater and fiercer the opposition reel with. Sufficient for the disciple
to be as his Master.
Proceeding from the general to the particular, we observe that the opening verses of
Joshua 10 confirm the typical application which we made of the concluding portion
of the preceding chapter. At the close of our last we pointed out that what is there
recorded of the Gibeonites adumbrated sinners surrendering themselves unto
Christ, or, to use an expression which was freely employed by the Puritans, their
"making peace with God." More recently, some have taken decided exception to
that expression. It is affirmed that the sinner can do nothing whatever to make
peace with God, and that it is quite unnecessary for him to essay doing so, seeing
that Christ has "made peace through the blood of His cross. But that is to confound
things which differ, confusing what Christ purchased, and when the same is actually
applied unto us. The question—and a most important one too—is, What does God
require from the sinner in order for him to become a personal partaker of the
benefits of that legal "peace" which Christ made with God? To which some make
answer, othing but faith—simply believing that Christ has fully atoned for all our
sins and relying upon the sufficiency of His sacrifice. But that is only half the
answer, the second half, for it leaves out an essential requirement which must
precede believing.
"Repent ye, and believe the Gospel" (Mark 1:15), "Testifying both to the Jews, and
also to the Greeks, repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus
Christ" (Acts 20:21). It is very clear from these passages that repentance is as
necessary as faith. ay, we go farther, and declare that an impenitent heart is
incapable of exercising a saving faith. Christ complained to Israel’s leaders, "Ye
repented not afterward, that ye might believe in him" (Matthew 21:32)—they
responded not to the ministry of His forerunner because they had no realization of
their sinful and lost condition. Those "dispensationalists" who state that repentance
is required only of the Jews evince their ignorance of the most elementary truths of
Scripture, for in "the great commission" Christ ordered His servants "that
repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name among all nations,
beginning at Jerusalem" (Luke 24:47), and His apostle announced that God "now

15. [in this Christian era!] commandeth all men everywhere to repent" (Acts 17:30). Of
course He does, for such a call is the pressing of His holy claims upon those who
have ignored the same—who have disregarded His authority, slighted His law, and
lived entirely to please themselves. It is because so little repentance has been
preached that Christendom is now crowded with empty professors.
Repentance is a taking sides with God against myself. It is the laying aside of my
awful enmity against Him. It is the privative side of conversion, for there must be a
turning from something before there can be a turning unto God. Repentance
consists of a holy horror and hatred of sin, a complete heart-forsaking of it, a
sincere confessing of it unto God. True repentance is always accompanied by a deep
longing and a genuine determination to abandon that coarse which is displeasing to
God. It is impossible, in the very nature of the case, that a soul could seek God’s
pardon with any honesty while he continued to defy Him and persist in what He
forbids. Thus, repentance is the sinner’s making his peace with God—the throwing
down of the weapons of his rebellion, ceasing his warfare against Him. or is there
anything in the least degree "legalistic" or meritorious about this, for repentance or
making peace with God neither atones for our vile misconduct of the past nor moves
God to be gracious unto us. Repentance no more purchases salvation than does
faith, yet the one is as indispensable as the other. The wicked is required to "forsake
his way . . . and return unto the Lord" before He will have mercy upon him and
abundantly pardon (Isa. 55:7, and cf. 1 Kings 8:47-50; Acts 3:19).
" ow it came to pass, when Adonizedek king of Jerusalem had heard how Joshua
had taken Ai, and had utterly destroyed it; as he had done to Jericho and her king,
so he had done to Ai and her king; and how the inhabitants of Gibeon had made
peace with Israel and were among them; that they feared greatly" (Josh. 10:1, 2).
Once more we would note the very varied effects upon different ones of what they
had "heard" of Israel’s exploits, and how some of them attributed their successes
unto Jehovah, while others did not so. Rahab (Josh. 2:9-11) and the Gibeonites
(Josh. 9:9) were examples of the former, and the kings of Joshua 9:1, and this
Adonizedek of the latter. The king of Jerusalem, despite his high-sounding name,
gave God no place in his thoughts; yet he was thoroughly alarmed at Israel’s
progress. His fear was cumulative. He was rendered uneasy at the tidings of
Jericho’s overthrow, still more so at the news of the destruction of Ai; but when he
and his subjects learned of the Gibeonites having concluded a league of peace with
Joshua, "they feared greatly"—most probably because he had counted on their
considerable support in resisting these aggressors.
We would also attentively heed the Spirit’s emphasis here on the time-mark: "It
came to pass, when Adonizedek . . . heard." There is nothing meaningless or
superfluous in the Scriptures, and it is by noting such a detail as this that we often
obtain the key which opens to us the spiritual significance of what follows. In this
instance the immediate sequel was the banding together of four others with the king
of Jerusalem against Gibeon, and in the light of the closing verses of chapter 9, the
typical force of this is not difficult to perceive. It is when sinners renounce the
service of their former master, and the friendship of the world, in order to make

16. their peace with God and join interests with His people, that they must be prepared
to encounter persecution from the ungodly. That is why the Saviour bade all would-
be disciples of His to sit down first and "count the cost" (Luke 14:28-33), and His
servant warned believers, "Marvel not, my brethren, if the world hate you" (1 John
3:13). In Adonizedek’s determination to slay the Gibeonites we have adumbrated
the inveterate enmity of the serpent against the Redeemer’s "seed" Previously, while
Satan keepeth his palace, "his goods are in peace" (Luke 11:21), but when he loses
any of his captives, his rage against them knows no bounds.
Ere passing on let us ponder one other detail in our opening verse, namely Israel’s
"utter destruction" of Jericho and Ai, for a most important lesson is inculcated by
that adjective. In its application to the spiritual warfare of the Christian it tells us
that we must be ruthlessly thorough in the work of mortification. o half measures
are to be taken against the things which hinder the present possession Of our
heritage. There must be no compromising with our lusts, no trifling with
temptation, no flirting with the world. True, inward corruptions will strongly resist
our onslaughts upon them, as the men of Ai did when Israel came against it. For a
time the king of Ai had the better of the contest, so that Israel were dismayed; but
they did not abandon the fight, instead they humbled themselves before the Lord,
and He graciously undertook for them. ot that they were released from the
discharge of their responsibilities, so that they could passively witness His
operations on their behalf. o, indeed. They were required to perform their duty
and employ different tactics. Accordingly, as they implicitly followed His
instruction, the Lord prospered them and Ai was utterly destroyed": in other
words, complete victory was theirs.
But the overthrowing and destroying of Ai proved to be neither an easy nor a
pleasant task to Israel, for in the course thereof they passed through both a
humiliating and distressing experience. So it is in that work of unsparing
mortification to which the Christian is called. Our Lord likened it unto the plucking
out of a right eye and the cutting off of a right hand (Matthew 5:29, 30). By such
language He intimated the difficulty and severity of the work He has assigned us.
The "eye" represents that which is dearest to the natural man, and the "hand" what
is the most useful to him. The plucking out of the one and the cutting off of the other
signify that we are to exercise the most rigorous denying of self, that however
precious an idol or profitable any unrighteous course may be unto the carnal
nature, they must be sacrificed for Christ’s sake. o matter how unwelcome it
proves to the flesh, its lusts are not to be spared; for unless they be brought into
subjection to God, the soul is gravely imperiled. By Divine grace this difficult task is
not impossible. The "utter destruction" of Ai, then, is recorded both for our
emulation and for our encouragement. Yet remember that, though a brief lull may
follow such a victory, the surrender of our remaining enemies is not to be looked
for; rather must we expect a yet more determined resistance from them, seeking to
prevent any further spiritual advance by us.
"They feared greatly, because Gibeon was a great city, as one of the royal cities, and
because it was greater than Ai, and all the men thereof were mighty" (v. 2). We

17. believe the Holy Spirit’s design in giving us these particulars about the Gibeonites
was at least threefold: to magnify the grace of God in subduing them unto Himself,
to account for the subsequent actions of Adonizedek, and to cast light upon the
typical significance of the sequel. In view of what we are here told about the
Gibeonites, it is the more remarkable that they had not only made peaceful
overtures unto Joshua, but had offered no demur at taking upon them the yoke of
servitude and becoming hewers of wood and drawers of water unto Israel. Therein
we should discern a people, hostile to Him by nature, "made willing" in the day of
God’s power, and the might of His grace in bringing them to submit readily to the
most exacting and pride-abasing terms. Such is the nature of the miracle of
conversion in every case: the slaying of man’s awful enmity against God, the
humbling of his haughty heart, the bending of his stubborn will, the bringing of hint
to a complete surrender unto the lordship of Christ, making him an "obedient
child" (1 Pet. 1:14).
"They feared greatly, because Gibeon was a great city, as one of the royal cities, and
because it was greater than Ai, and all the men thereof were mighty" (v. 2). Gibeon
was not only a formidable frontier town but also the capital of that section, and such
a city and territory yielding so tamely to Israel much alarmed the king of Jerusalem.
ot only had he lost what he probably counted upon as being a powerful ally, but he
feared that other cities would follow suit, so that he now began to tremble for his
own skin. If so powerful a people had capitulated without striking a blow, who
could be expected to take a resolute stand against Joshua and his men? ot only was
he much alarmed, but greatly chagrined and incensed against the Gibeonites, and so
resolved upon their destruction (vv. 4, 5), which indicates the third design of the
Spirit here. The "greater" the trophy which grace secures for Christ, the more
"royal" his status, the fiercer will be the opposition which he meets with from his
enemies. That is why those whom the Lord makes the ministers of His Gospel are
the chief marks of Satan’s malice. But let them not be dismayed thereby. ot only is
it a high honor to suffer for Christ’s sake, but the opposition a faithful preacher
encounters is a good sign that God is using him to make inroads into the Devil’s
kingdom.
"Wherefore Adonizedek king of Jerusalem sent unto Hoham king of Hebron, and
unto Piram king of Jarmuth, and unto Japhia king of Lachich. and unto Debit king
of Eglon, saying, Come up unto me, and help me, that we may smite Gibeon: for it
hath made peace with Joshua and with the children of Israel" (vv. 3, 4). It will be
remembered that the Canaanitish kings whose territories lay farther to the north
and the west had previously decided to federate themselves against Israel (Josh.
9:2), and by this time would probably be engaged in mustering their forces for a
combined assault upon them. But the tidings of Gibeon’s alliance with Joshua so
intimidated and enraged these five kings, whose cities were nearer the point which
Israel had then reached, that they decided to anticipate the plan of their remoter
fellows by falling upon Gibeon. It is likely that the king of Jerusalem reckoned upon
Joshua having his hands so full in making his arrangements and deploying his
forces to meet the impending attack of the northern anti western armies of the
Canaanites that he would be unable to come to the relief of the Gibeonites. It

18. therefore appeared to be a favorable opportunity and a safe venture for these five
kings to fall upon those whom they regarded as their renegade countrymen; yet in
so doing they but accelerated their own destruction.
Verse 2 opens by saving, "That they feared greatly," yet the preceding verse
mentions no one save the king of Jerusalem, and so we would expect it to read that
"he feared greatly." While it is likely that the plural number is designed to include
his subjects, it is also highly probable that the "they" looks forward to the four
kings mentioned in the next verse, and it intimates why they were willing to respond
to Adonizedek’s call. Thus we behold again how widespread was the terror inspired
by the news of Israel’s victories. ot only was this a further fulfillment of what the
Lord had announced in Exodus 23:27, and Deuteronomy 11:25, but we may
perceive therein a shadowing forth of what takes place under the proclamation of
the Gospel. As we pointed out above, the hearing of what the mighty arm of Jehovah
had wrought reacted very differently in them than in others. There was the same
opportunity for rhose kings to make their peace with Joshua as the Gibeonites had.
and their fatal refusal to do so supplies a solemn illustration of the fact that the
Gospel is "the savor of life unto life" to those who believe and are saved, but" the
savor of death unto death" to those who reject it and are lost (2 Cor. 2:15, 16). or
is fear sufficient to move a sinner to throw down the weapons of his warfare against
God, as appears not only from the case before us, but also from that of Pharaoh and
of Felix who "trembled" as he listened to Paul speaking on "judgment to come"
(Acts 24:25).
ot only was Adonizedek unwilling to humble himself and make peace with Joshua,
but he was determined that none of his near neighbors should do so, and in his
persuading them to follow his policy we have a sad instance of a strong character
being able to influence others to evil. To be a personal transgressor is bad enough,
but to be a ringleader in wickedness evinces a high degree of depravity and is
doubly damnable. Adonizedek’s "Come up unto me, and help me" is to be
understood in the light of "that we may smite Gibeon," thereby signifying that it
was a duty devolving equally upon all of them. At first one wonders what they
thought would be gained by such a course: would it not be more prudent to husband
their forces for self-defense when the army of Joshua should invade their section?
Probably their purpose was to make an object lesson of Gibeon and thereby
intimidate other cities from following their example. But the inspiring motive which
prompted the prime mover is clearly seen in the ground of his appeal unto his
fellows: "For it [Gibeon] hath made peace with Joshua and with Israel," and as the
closing words of verse 1 add, "and were among them." Thus it was something more
than an instinct of self-preservation which moved them to act, namely a malignant
spirit against those who had united themselves with the people of God. Thereby they
had alienated themselves from their original associates and evoked their wrath.
COKE, "Ver. 1. ow—when Adoni-zedec, &c.— Adoni-zedec, signifies lord of
righteousness, which is nearly the same as Melchizedec. As these kings were both
kings of Salem, or Jerusalem, some suppose, that the successors of Melchi-zedec

19. affected a name like his to give themselves more dignity, by resembling in some
measure that famous monarch. But while he assumed a name which called forth so
many virtues, Adoni-zedec was not careful to imitate them. Contented to adorn
himself with an amiable appellation, he limited his wishes to the being called just,
without any endeavour to merit so excellent a sirname by just actions. It is very
evident, that Jerusalem retained its ancient name of Salem till the Israelites took
possession of it, and called it Jeru-salem. But the Benjamites, to whose lot it fell,
being unable entirely to dislodge the Jebusites who occupied it, Judges 1:21 and the
latter having at length driven off the former, the Jebusites continued to call it Jebus,
(Judges 19:10.) while the Israelites on their part called it
Jerusalem, says Bishop Patrick. It must, however, be acknowledged, that all this is
but conjecture. It is neither proved, that Jerusalem is precisely the same city as the
ancient Salem, nor that the Israelites gave it the name of Jerusalem when they made
the conquest of it. This latter name did not begin to supplant those of Jebus, Sion,
and city of David, till the time of Solomon. Whatever is urged to account for this
change is dubious; nor are authors agreed respecting the true signification of the
name Jerusalem. The Massoretes pronounce it Jerushalaim; but, according to the
method in which the Chaldees pronounce the Hebrew, it should be read
Jeroushelem, which come nearer to the Jerousalem of the Greeks, and our
Jerusalem. This name is probably composed of Shalum, or Shalem, i.e. peace, and,
as many persons think, of jarab, which signifies to fear, or from jarash, to inherit, to
possess, (see Reland. Palaest. lib. 3: p. 834.) or from jerus, the same word as jebus,
with the change only of a single letter.
CO STABLE, "Verses 1-5
Israel"s continuing success led her enemies to exert increasing opposition against
the people of God. This chapter records the Canaanites" first aggressive action
against the Israelites.
The Jebusites lived in and around Jebus, ancient Salem ( Genesis 14:18). The writer
called this town Jerusalem here for the first time in Scripture. "Jerusalem" means
"the founding (or possession) of peace." Adonizedek (lit. lord of righteousness) and
Melchizedek (king of righteousness, Genesis 14:18) were titles of the Jebusite kings,
as Pharaoh was a title of the Egyptian kings. Jerusalem lay closer to Gibeon than
any of the other towns that allied with Jerusalem against Gibeon. Probably for this
reason Adonizedek took the initiative in this alliance.
"The Amarna letters indicate that Jerusalem was the center of political activity in
the fourteenth century B.C. and was always conscious of its own security." [ ote:
Davis and Whitcomb, p63.]
EXPOSITOR'S BIBLE COMME TARY
THE BATTLE OF BETHHORO .

20. Joshua 10:1-43.
OUT of the larger confederacy of the whole Canaanite chiefs against Joshua and his
people recorded in the beginning of chap 9, a smaller number, headed by
Adonizedec, undertook the special task of chastising the Gibeonites, who had not
only refused to join the confederacy, but, as it was thought, basely and
treacherously surrendered to Joshua. It is interesting to find the King of Jerusalem,
Adonizedec, bearing a name so similar to that of Melchizedek, King of Salem, in the
days of Abraham. o doubt, since the days of Jerome, there have been some who
have denied that the Salem of Melchizedek was Jerusalem. But the great mass of
opinion is in favour of the identity of the two places. Melchizedek means King of
Righteousness; Adonizedec, Lord of Righteousness; in substance the same. It was a
striking name for a ruler, and it was remarkable that it should have been kept up so
long, although in the time of Adonizedec its significance had probably been
forgotten. Jerusalem was but five miles south of Gibeon; the other four capitals,
whose chiefs joined in the expedition, were farther off. Hebron, eighteen miles south
of Jerusalem, was memorable in patriarchal history as the dwelling-place of
Abraham and the burial-place of his family; Jarmuth, hardly mentioned in the
subsequent history, is now represented by Yarmuk, six miles from Jerusalem;
Lachish, of which we have frequent mention in Scripture, is probably represented
by Um Lakis, about fifteen miles south-west of Jerusalem; and Eglon by Ajlan, a
little farther west. The five little kingdoms embraced most of the territory
afterwards known as the tribe of Judah, and they must have been far more than a
match for Gibeon. Their chiefs are called ''the five Amorite kings," but this does not
imply that they were exclusively of the Amorite race, for "Amorite," like
"Canaanite," is often used generically to denote the whole inhabitants (as in Genesis
15:16). The five chiefs were so near Gibeon that it was quite natural for them to
undertake this expedition. o doubt they reckoned that, by making a treaty with
Joshua, the Gibeonites had strengthened his hands and weakened those of his
opponents; they had made resistance to Joshua more difficult for the confederacy,
and therefore they deserved to be chastised. To turn their arms against Gibeon,
when they had Joshua to deal with, was probably an unwise proceeding; but to their
resources it would seem a very easy task. Gibeon enjoyed nothing of that aid from a
great unseen Power that made Joshua so formidable; little could they have dreamt
that Joshua would come to the assistance of his new allies, and with God's help
inflict on them a crushing defeat. "The Lord bringeth the counsel of the heathen to
nought, He maketh the devices of the people of none effect. The counsel of the Lord
standeth for ever, the thoughts of His heart to all generations."
The case was very serious for the Gibeonites. As Gibeon lay so near Jerusalem and
the cities of the other confederates, it is likely that the appearance of the enemy
before its walls was the first, or nearly the first, intimation of the coming attack. In
their extremity they sent to Joshua imploring help, and the terms in which they
besought him not to lose a moment, but come to them at his utmost speed, show the
urgency of their danger. To appeal to Joshua at all after their shameful fraud was a
piece of presumption, unless - and this is very unlikely - the treaty between them
had promised protection from enemies. Had Joshua been of a mean nature he would

21. have chuckled over their distress, and congratulated himself that now he would get
rid of these Gibeonites without trouble on his part. But the same generosity that had
refused to take advantage of their fraud when it was detected showed itself in this
their time of need. Joshua was encamped at Gilgal on the banks of the Jordan; for
the arguments that suppose him to have been at another Gilgal are not consistent
with the terms used in the narrative (e.g. Joshua 10:9, "went up from Gilgal all
night"). From Gilgal to Gibeon the distance is upwards of twenty miles, and a great
part of the way is steep and difficult.
Encouraged by the assurance of Divine protection and favoured by the moonlight,
Joshua, by a marvellous act of pluck and energy, went up by night, reached Gibeon
in the morning, fell upon the army of the assembled kings, possibly while it was yet
dark, and utterly discomfited them. It would have been natural for the routed
armies to make for Jerusalem, only five miles off, by the south road, but either
Joshua had occupied that road, or it was too difficult for a retreat. The way by
which they did retreat, running west from Gibeon, is carefully described. First they
took the way "that goeth up to Bethhoron." As soon as they had traversed the plain
of Gibeon, they ascended a gentle slope leading towards Bethhoron the upper, then
fled down the well-known pass, through the two Bethhorons, upper and nether,
making for Jarmuth, Lachish, and other towns at the bottom of the hills. In the
course of their descent a hailstorm overtook them, one of those terrific storms which
seem hardly credible to us, but are abundantly authenticated both in ancient and
modern times, and "they which died with hailstones were more than they whom the
children of Israel slew with the sword." The Israelites, exhausted, no doubt, with
their night march and morning exertions, seem to have been outstripped by the
flying army, and in this way to have escaped the shower of hail. By the time the five
kings, who had had to fly on foot, reached Makkedah at the foot of the mountains,
they were unable to go farther and hid themselves in a cave. As Joshua passed he
was informed of this, but, unwilling to stop the pursuit of the fugitives, he ordered
large stones to be rolled to the door of the cave, locking the kings up as it were in a
prison, and no doubt leaving a guard in charge. Then, when the pursuit had been
carried to the very gates of the walled cities, he returned to the cave. The five kings
were brought out, and the chiefs of the Israelite army put their feet upon their
necks. The kings were slain, and their bodies hanged on trees till the evening.
Thereafter Joshua attacked the chief cities of the confederates, and took in
succession Makkedah, Libnah, Lachish, Eglon, Hebron, and Debir. othing is said
of his taking Jerusalem; indeed it appears from the after history that the stronghold
of Jerusalem on Mount Zion remained in Jebusite hands up to the time of David.
Many of the inhabitants were able to escape destruction, but substantially Joshua
was now in possession of the whole southern division of the land, from the Jordan
on the east to the borders of the Philistines on the west, and from Gibeon on the
north to the wilderness on the south. It does not appear, however, that he retained
full possession; while he was occupied in other parts of the country the people
returned and occupied their cities. The clemency of Joshua in not destroying the
inhabitants proved the source of much future trouble.
In all the subsequent history of the country, the victory of Gibeon was looked back

22. on, and justly, as one of the most memorable that had ever been known. For
promptitude, dash, and daring it was never eclipsed by any event of the kind; while
the strength of the confederate army, the completeness of its defeat, and the
picturesqueness of the whole situation constantly supplied materials for wonder and
delight. Moreover, the hand of God had been conspicuous shown in more ways than
one. The hailstorm that wrought such havoc was ascribed to His friendly hand, but
a far more memorable token of His interest and support lay in the miracle that
arrested the movements of the sun and the moon, in order that victorious Israel
might have time to finish his work. And after the victory the capture of the fortified
towns became comparatively easy. The remnant that had escaped could have no
heart to defend them, Joshua must have smiled at the fate of the ''cities walled up to
heaven" that had so greatly distressed his brother spies when they came up to
examine the land. And as he found them one by one yield to his army, as though
their defence had really departed from them, he must have felt with fresh gratitude
the faithfulness and loving-kindness of the Lord, and earnestly breathed the prayer
that neither his faith nor that of his people might ever fail until the whole campaign
was brought to an end.
In some respects this victory had a special significance. In the first place, it had a
most important bearing on the success of the whole enterprise; its suddenness, its
completeness, its manifold grandeur being admirably fitted to paralyse the enemy in
other parts of the country, and open the whole region to Joshua. By some it has been
compared to the battle of Marathon, not only on account of the suddenness with
which the decisive blow was struck, but also on account of the importance of the
interests involved. It was a battle for freedom, for purity, for true religion, in
opposition to tyranny, idolatry, and abominable sensuality; for all that is wholesome
in human life, in opposition to all that is corrupt; for all that makes for peaceful
progress, in opposition to all that entails degradation and misery. The prospects of
the whole world were brighter after that victory of Bethhoron. The relation of
heaven to earth was more auspicious, and more full of promise for the days to come.
Had any hitch occurred in the arrangements; had Israel halted half-way up the
eastern slopes, and the troops of Adonizedec driven them back; had the tug of war
in the plain of Gibeon proved too much for them after their toilsome night march;
had no hailstorm broken out on the retreating enemy; had he been able to form
again at the western foot of the hills and arrest the progress of Joshua in pursuit, the
whole enterprise would have had a different complexion. o doubt the Divine arm
might have been stretched out for Israel in some other way; but the remarkable
thing was, that no such supplementary mode of achieving the desired result was
required. At every point the success of Israel was complete, and every obstacle
opposed to him by the enemy was swept away for the time being as smoke before the
wind.
In the next place, the tokens of Divine aid were very impressive. After the
experience which Joshua had had of the consequences of failing to ask God for
direction when first the Gibeonites came to him, we may be very sure that on the
present occasion he would be peculiarly careful to seek Divine counsel. And he was
well rewarded. For "the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had

23. avenged themselves upon their enemies." It does not need to be said that this
miraculous incident has from first to last given birth to an immensity of perplexity
and discussion. It will be observed that the record of it does not come in as part of
the narrative, but as a quotation from a pre-existing book. Concerning that book we
know very little. From its name, Jashar, ''The upright," we may believe it to have
been a record of memorable deeds of righteous men. In form it was poetical, the
extract in the present case being of that rhythmical structure which was the mark of
Hebrew poetry. The only other occasion on which it is mentioned is in connection
with the song composed by David, after the death of Saul and Jonathan (2 Samuel
1:18). ''David " (as the Revised Version puts it) ''bade them teach the children of
Israel the song of the bow; behold, it is written in the book of Jashar." As to the
origin and nature of this book we can only conjecture. It may have been a public
record, contributed to from time to time by various writers, under conditions and
arrangements which at this distance of time, and under the obscurity of the whole
subject, we cannot ascertain.
Then as to the miracle of the sun and the moon standing still. It is well known that
this was one of the passages brought forward by the Church of Rome to condemn
Galileo, when he affirmed that the earth and the moon revolved round the sun, and
that it was not the motion of the sun round the earth, but the rotation of the earth
on her own axis that produced the change of day and night. o one would dream
now of making use of this passage for any such purpose. Whatever theory of
inspiration men may hold, it is admitted universally that the inspired writers used
the popular language of the day in matters of science, and did not anticipate
discoveries which were not made till many centuries later. That expressions occur in
Scripture which are not in accord with the best established conclusions of modern
science would never be regarded by any intelligent person as an argument against
the Scriptures as the inspired records of God's will, designed especially to reveal to
us the way of life and salvation through Jesus Christ, and to be an infallible guide to
us on all that ''man is to believe concerning God, and the duty that God requires of
man."
A far more serious question has been raised as to whether this miracle ever
occurred, or could have occurred. To those who believe in the possibility of miracles,
it can be no conclusive argument that it could not have occurred without producing
injurious consequences the end of which can hardly be conceived. For if the rotation
of the earth on its axis was suddenly arrested, all human beings on its surface, and
all loose objects whatever must have been flung forward with prodigious violence;
just as, on a small scale, on the sudden stoppage of a carriage, we find ourselves
thrown forward, the motion of the carriage having been communicated to our
bodies. But really this is a paltry objection; for surely the Divine power that can
control the rotation of the earth is abundantly able to obviate such effects as these.
We can understand the objection that God, having adjusted all the forces of nature,
leaves them to operate by themselves in a uniform way without disturbance or
interference; but we can hardly comprehend the reasonableness of the position that
if it is His pleasure miraculously to modify one arrangement, he is unable to adjust
all relative arrangements, and make all conspire harmoniously to the end desired.

24. But was it a miracle? The narrative, as we have it, implies not only that it was, but
that there was something in it stupendous and unprecedented. It comes in as a part
of that supernatural process in which God had been engaged ever since the
deliverance of His people from Egypt, and which was to go on till they should be
finally settled in the land. It naturally joins on to the miraculous division of the
Jordan, and the miraculous fall of the walls of Jericho. We must remember that the
work in which God was now engaged was one of peculiar spiritual importance and
significance. He was not merely finding a home for His covenant people; He was
making arrangements for advancing the highest interests of humanity; He was
guarding against the extinction on earth of the Divine light which alone could guide
man in safety through the life that now is, and in preparation for that which is to
come. He was taking steps to prevent a final and fatal severance of the relation
between God and man, and He was even preparing the way for a far more complete
and glorious development of that relation - to be seen in the person of His Incarnate
Son, the spiritual Joshua, and made possible for men through that great work of
propitiation which He was to accomplish on the cross. Who will take upon him to
say that at an important crisis in the progress of the events which were to prepare
the way for this grand consummation, it was not fitting for the Almighty to suspend
for a time even the ordinances of heaven, in order that a day's work, carrying such
vast consequences, might not be interrupted before its triumphant close?
There are commentators worthy of high respect who have thought that the fact of
this incident being noticed in the form of a quotation from the Book of Jashar
somewhat diminishes the credit due to it. It looks as if it had not formed part of the
original narrative, but had been inserted by a subsequent editor from a book of
poetry, expressed with poetic licence, and perhaps of later date. They are disposed
to regard the words of Joshua, "Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou Moon,
in the valley of Ajalon," as a mere expression of his desire that the light would last
long enough to allow the decisive work of the day to be brought to a thorough
conclusion. They look on it as akin to the prayer of Agamemnon (''Iliad," 2:412 sq.)
that the sun might not go down till he had sacked Troy; and the form of words they
consider to be suited to poetical composition, like some of the expressions in the
eighteenth psalm - "There went up a smoke out of His nostrils, and fire out of His
mouth devoured: coals were kindled by it. He bowed the heavens also, and did come
down: He rode upon a cherub, and did fly."
But whatever allowance we may make for poetical licence of speech, it is hardly
possible not to perceive that the words as they stand imply a miracle of
extraordinary sublimity; nor do we see any sufficient ground for resisting the
common belief that in whatsoever way it was effected, there was a supernatural
extension of the period of light, to allow Joshua to finish his work.*
*It seems hardly necessary to notice an explanation of the phenomenon that has
been made lately - to the effect that it was in the morning, not the evening of the day,
that Joshua expressed his wish. It was to prevent the allied kings about Gibeon
knowing of his approach that he desired the sun to delay his rising in the east, a

25. desire which was virtually fulfilled by that dark, cloudy condition of the sky which
precedes a thunderstorm. The natural sense of the narrative admits neither of this
explanation of the time nor of the miracle itself.
One other notable feature in the transaction of this day was the completeness of the
defeat inflicted by Joshua on the enemy. This defeat went on in successive stages
from early morning till late at night. First, there was the slaughter in the plain of
Gibeon. Then the havoc produced by the hail and by Joshua on the retreating army.
Then the destruction caused as Joshua followed the enemy to their cities. And the
work of the day was wound up by the execution of the five kings. Moreover, there
followed a succession of similar scenes at the taking and sacking of their cities.
When we try to realize all this in detail, we are confronted with a terrible scene of
blood and death, and possibly we may find ourselves asking, Was there a particle of
humanity in Joshua, that he was capable of such a series of transactions? Certainly
Joshua was a great soldier, and a great religious soldier, but he was in many ways
like his time. He had many of the qualities of Oriental commanders, and one of these
qualities has ever been to carry slaughter to the utmost limit that the occasion
allows. His treatment of the conquered kings, too, was marked by characteristic
Oriental barbarity, for he caused his captains to put their feet upon their necks,
needlessly embittering their dying moments, and he exposed their dead bodies to the
needless humiliation of being hanged on a tree. But it must be said, and said firmly
for Joshua, that there is no evidence of his acting on this or on other such occasions
in order to gratify personal feelings; it was not done either to gratify a thirst for
blood, or to gratify the pride of a conqueror. Joshua all through gives us the
impression of a man carrying out the will of another; inflicting a judicial sentence,
and inflicting it thoroughly at the first so that there might be no need for a constant
series of petty executions afterwards. This certainly was his aim; but the enemy
showed themselves more vital than he had supposed.
And when we turn to ourselves and think what we may learn from this transaction,
we see a valuable application of his method to the spiritual warfare. God has
enemies still, within and without, with whom we are called to contend. "For we
wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities and powers, against
the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places."
When we are fighting with the enemy within our own hearts leniency is our great
temptation, but at the same time our greatest snare. What we need here is, courage
to slay. We content ourselves with confessions and regrets, but the enemy lives,
returns to the attack, and keeps us in perpetual discomfort. Oh that in this battle we
resembled Joshua, aiming at killing the enemy outright, and leaving nothing
belonging to him that breathes!
And in reference to the outside world, want of thoroughness in warfare is still our
besetting sin. We play at missions; we trifle with the awful drunkenness and
sensuality around us; we look on, and we see rural districts gradually depopulated;
and we wring our hands at the mass of poverty, vice, and misery in our great
crowded cities. How rare is it for any one to arise among us like General Booth, to
face prevailing evils in all their magnitude, and even attempt to do battle with them

26. along the whole line! Why should not such a spirit be universal in the Christian
Church? Who can tell the evil done by want of faith, by languor, by unwillingness to
be disturbed in our quiet, self-indulged life, by our fear of rousing against us the
scorn and rage of the world? If only the Church had more faith, and, as the fruit of
faith, more courage and more enterprise, what help from heaven might not come to
her! True, she would not see the enemy crushed by hailstones, nor the sun standing
in Gibeon, nor the moon in the valley of Ajalon; but she would see grander sights;
she would see men of spiritual might raised up in her ranks; she would see tides of
strong spiritual influence overwhelming her enemies. Jerichos dismantled, Ai
captured, and the champions of evil falling like Lucifer from heaven to make way
for the King of kings and Lord of lords. Let us go to the cross of Jesus to revive our
faith and recruit our energies. The Captain of our salvation has not only achieved
salvation for us, but He has set us a blessed example of the spirit and life of true
Christian warriors.
"At the ame of Jesus, Satan's legions flee; On then, Christian soldiers, On to
victory. Hell's foundations quiver At the shout of praise; Brothers, lift our voices,
Loud your anthems raise!"
PULPIT, "THE BATTLE OF BETH-HORO , A D THE SUBJUGATIO OF
SOUTHER PALESTI E.—
Joshua 10:1
Adoni-zedec (cf. Melchizedek in Genesis 14:18). The name given to the king of
Jerusalem was good enough, and no doubt was a survival of earlier and purer times.
In the days of Melchizedek the name corresponded to the character. Jerusalem.
Hebrew, Jerushalaim, with the usual dual termination. It has been generally
supposed to be the same with Salem, or rather Shalem, the city of which
Melehizedek was king, and this is supported by the fact that the name of Salem is
given to Jerusalem in Psalms 76:2. But it is by no means certain that this is the case.
The first to dispute the identity of the two places was St. Jerome, who declares that
the Salem of Melchizedek was eight miles from Scythopolis, and that the ruins of the
palace of Melchizedek could still be seen there (see also Genesis 33:18). The term
Salem, as indicative of the security and strength of Jerusalem, might not
unnaturally be applied to it by the Psalmist; while; on the other hand, the dual form
of Jerusalem seems difficult to account for on the theory of the identity of Jerusalem
and Salem. This dual form has been a difficulty to critics; and Mr. Grove, in the
'Dictionary of the Bible,' conjectures that it may have arisen from an attempt to
twist the archaic Phoenician form into agreement with the more modern Hebrew
idiom, just as the Greeks afterwards twisted the name into Hierosolyma, or the holy
Solyma. But a simpler explanation may be found in the fact that Jerusalem, like
many other cities, consisted of two parts, the upper and the lower town (cf. 1:8 with
1:1, 1:7 and 1:21, and 2 Samuel 5:6-8), while in earlier times the upper or lower
town alone existed. Plural names of cities were not uncommon in later ages, as
Athenae and Thebae. The name has been variously derived. Some have thought that
as it is also called Jebus (Joshua 18:28; 19:10), from its being the chief city of the

27. Jebusites, it was originally Jebus-salem, and hence by a corruption Jerusalem. But
this derivation has now been abandoned, and opinions differ as to whether it is
derived from ‫ְרוּשׁ‬‫י‬ and ‫ֵם‬‫ל‬ ָ‫שׁ‬ signifying "peaceful inheritance" (Ewald, Keil), or from
‫ה‬ ָ‫ָר‬‫י‬ and ‫ֵם‬‫ל‬ ָ‫שׁ‬ "peaceful settlement" (Gesenius, Lee). Gesenius objects to the former
derivation that it would require dagesh in the ‫שׁ‬ . The fathers and mediaeval divines,
misled by Origen, translate it "vision of peace." This translation is alluded to in the
well-known hymns Urbs beata Sion and O quanta qualia. Origen supposed it to
come from ‫ראה‬ . Another difficult question is when the name was given, for there
can be little doubt that the Book of Joshua was written before the time of David. It
is possible that the name may have been given by the Jebusites themselves in
consequence of their secure possession of it, notwithstanding the subjugation of the
surrounding country by the Israelites. And when David had seized upon it and
made it his capital, he would not be likely to change so suitable a name. For the
Jebusites, evidently by their invariable position last among the nations of Canaan,
the most insignificant among them, were enabled to defy the Israelite power long
after their more powerful neighbours had succumbed. and David no doubt chose the
situation of Jerusalem for his capital not only because, unlike Hebron, it enabled
him to dwell among his own people without cutting himself off from intercourse
with the other tribes of Israel; but because, as a mountain fastness remote from the
plains of Esdraelon and the Orontes, which were the great highways of the Egyptian
and Assyrian kings on their military expeditions, it would enable him to consolidate
his power, and to secure that empire which became his from the force of his genius
and the favour of God. We may remark upon the antecedent probability of the fact
that the king of a place situated as Jerusalem is should stand at the head of this
league.
2 He and his people were very much alarmed at
this, because Gibeon was an important city, like
one of the royal cities; it was larger than Ai, and
all its men were good fighters.
CLARKE, "As one of the royal cities - Not a regal city, but great, well inhabited

28. and well fortified, as those cities which served for the royal residence generally were. It
does not appear that the Gibeonites had any king - they seem to have been a small but
powerful republic, all the men thereof were mighty, merely governed by their elders: for
in their address to Joshua, Jos_9:11, they mention no king, but simply state that they
were sent by their elders and the inhabitants of their country; nor do we any where read
of their king; and therefore we may naturally suppose that they had none.
GILL, "That they feared greatly,.... The king of Jerusalem and his people, lest they
should fall into the hands of the Israelites, and be used as Jericho and Ai, and the kings
and inhabitants of them were, and that they would be the next that should fall a sacrifice
to them; for Gibeon was fifty furlongs from Jerusalem, as Josephus says (a); and in
another place he says (b) but forty, which were but five miles; and if fifty, but little more
than six miles; according to Bunting (c), it was but four miles: and what added to their
terror was:
because Gibeon was a great city; being a metropolitan city, and having others
subject to it; therefore the surrender of that to the Israelites might intimidate other
cities, and lead them by example to do the like, and so of bad consequence:
as one of the royal cities; the Vulgate Latin version omits the note of similitude, and
reads, "and one of the royal cities"; and sometimes "caph" or "as" is not a note of
likeness, but of reality; yet as we nowhere read of a king of Gibeon, the sense may be,
that though it was not a royal seat, it was equal to those that were, and like one, being a
metropolitan city: and
because it was greater than Ai: had more inhabitants in it, and perhaps better
fortified:
and all the men thereof were mighty; men of strength, courage, and valour,
warlike men, and therefore for such a city to yield so easily, and in such a base, mean,
and cowardly way, was setting a very bad example.
JAMISO ,"they feared greatly — The dread inspired by the rapid conquests of
the Israelites had been immensely increased by the fact of a state so populous and so
strong as Gibeon having found it expedient to submit to the power and the terms of the
invaders.
as one of the royal cities — Although itself a republic (Jos_9:3), it was large and
well-fortified, like those places in which the chiefs of the country usually established
their residence.
PETT, "‘That they were deeply afraid, for Gibeon was a great city, as one of the
royal cities, and because it was greater than Ai and all its men were mighty men.’
The shock of the capitulation of Gibeon was greater than that of the defeat of
Jericho and Ai. The latter were only relatively small, but Gibeon and her
confederacy were seen as powerful and militarily effective. Yet they had
surrendered without a fight. It provided even greater reason to fear Israel. ‘A great

29. city’, that is one with other cities under it and in confederacy with it. ‘As one of the
royal cities’ may refer to the fact that Gibeon, which was ruled by its elders, was as
great as the royal cities which had kings. Indeed there was a feeling that Gibeon had
betrayed them by joining with Israel.
“They were deeply afraid.” ‘They’, that is Adoni-zedek and his advisers. Terror
struck them for they recognised the fate that awaited them and the calibre of the
forces they faced.
“All its men were mighty men.” Its army had a reputation for being good fighters.
Gibeon is often depicted as cowardly, but some might feel that they were wise. They
were right in the path of the victorious Israelite army.
PULPIT, "Joshua 10:2
That they feared greatly. Joshua had certainly obtained an excellent strategic
position in the heart of the country; but it was not this which apparently most
alarmed the kings who constituted the confederacy, though they did not fail to
observe that, as the words "and were among them" show. It was the weight and
importance of Gibeon itself, and the fact that its inhabitants were now enlisted, not
on the side of the Canaanites, but against them. As one of the royal cities. Observe
the minute accuracy of the historian. o king is mentioned in the narrative in
Joshua 9:1-27. We now earn indirectly that they had none. The Vulgate misses the
point of the historian by leaving out "as" altogether.
3 So Adoni-Zedek king of Jerusalem appealed to
Hoham king of Hebron, Piram king of Jarmuth,
Japhia king of Lachish and Debir king of Eglon.
BAR ES, "For Hebron, see Gen_13:18. Jarmuth, afterward one of the cities of Judah
Jos_15:35, is probably identified with the modern Yarmuk. Lachish was also a city of
Judah Jos_15:39, and, like Jarmuth, occupied by Jews after the captivity, Neh. 11:39. It
was fortified by Rehoboam after the revolt of the Ten tribes 2Ch_11:9, and seems to have
been regarded as one of the safest places of refuge 2Ki_14:19. Through Lachish the
idolatry of Israel was imported into Judah Mic_1:13, and of this sin the capture of the
city by Sennacherib was the punishment 2Ki_18:14-17; 2Ki_19:8. Lachish is by most

30. authorities identified with Um Lakis, lying some twenty miles west of Eleutheropolis, on
the road to Gaza (and by Conder with El Hesy).
Eglon is the modern Ajlan.
CLARKE, "Hoham king of Hebron - This city was situated in the mountains,
southward of Jerusalem, from which it was about thirty miles distant. It fell to the tribe
of Judah.
Piram king of Jarmuth - There were two cities of this name; one belonged to the
tribe of Issachar, see Jos_21:29; that mentioned here fell to the tribe of Judah, see Jos_
15:35; it is supposed to have been about eighteen miles distant from Jerusalem.
Japhia king of Lachish - This city is celebrated in Scripture; in that city Amaziah
was slain by conspirators, 2Ki_14:19. It was besieged by Sennacherib, 2Ki_18:14, 2Ki_
18:17; and without effect by the king of Assyria, as we learn from Isa_37:8 : it was also
besieged by the army of Nebuchadnezzar, see Jer_34:7; it also fell to the lot of Judah,
Jos_15:39.
Debir king of Eglon - Where this city was situated is very uncertain; but we learn
from Jos_15:39, that it fell to the lot of the tribe of Judah.
GILL, "Wherefore Adonizedek king of Jerusalem sent to Hoham king of
Hebron,.... Which, according to Jerom (d) was twenty two miles from Jerusalem; it was
an ancient city built seven years before Zoan in Egypt; See Gill on Gen_13:18 and See
Gill on Num_13:22,
and unto Piram king of Jarmuth; a city which fell to the lot of Judah, as did
Hebron, Jos_15:35; according to Jerom (e), it was four miles distant from
Eleutheropolis; according to Procopius (f) fourteen, about the village Eshtaol, near to
which Samson was buried, Jdg_16:31; but Jerom (g) speaks of a city called Jermus, in
the tribe of Judah, which seems to be the same with this; and which he says in his day
was a village, that went by the name of Jermucha, ten miles from Eleutheropolis, as you
go to Aelia or Jerusalem; and as Eleutheropolis lay twenty miles from Jerusalem, this
place must be ten miles from it, lying between them both:
and unto Japhia king of Lachish; which the above writer says (h) was a city in the
tribe of Judah, and in his time a village, seven miles from Eleutheropolis, as you go to
Daroma, or the south; and, according to Bunting (i), it lay between Eleutheropolis and
Hebron, and was twenty miles from Jerusalem towards the southwest:
and unto Debir king of Eglon; which the Septuagint version calls Odollam or
Adullam; and Jerom, following this version, makes Eglon the same with Adullam, when
it is certain they were different places, and had distinct kings over them, Jos_12:12; and
which he says (k) in his time was a very large village, twelve miles from Eleutheropolis to
the east; and, according to Bunting (l) it was twelve miles from Jerusalem southward. To
these four kings the king of Jerusalem sent:
JAMISO ,"Wherefore Adoni-zedek ... sent, ... saying, Come up unto me,
and help me — A combined attack was meditated on Gibeon, with a view not only to
punish its people for their desertion of the native cause, but by its overthrow to

31. interpose a barrier to the farther inroads of the Israelites. This confederacy among the
mountaineers of Southern Palestine was formed and headed by the king of Jerusalem,
because his territory was most exposed to danger, Gibeon being only six miles distant,
and because he evidently possessed some degree of pre-eminence over his royal
neighbors.
TRAPP, "Joshua 10:3 Wherefore Adonizedek king of Jerusalem sent unto Hoham
king of Hebron, and unto Piram king of Jarmuth, and unto Japhia king of Lachish,
and unto Debir king of Eglon, saying,
Ver. 3. Sent unto Hoham king of Hebron.] "Sic squamae Satan ita cohaerent ut
earum opere textili densato quasi loricatus incedat Satan et cataphractus: quod de
Faedere Concordiae qua malignantes ecclesiae membra se complexa muniebant et
circumvallabant," - elegantissime Lutherus, et vere. Persecutors conspire and
complot against God’s people, who may boldly say unto them, as Isaiah 8:9-10,
"Associate yourselves, O ye people, and ye shall be broken in pieces; gird
yourselves, and ye shall be broken in pieces: take counsel together, and it shall come
to nought; for God is with us: … the enemy is come into the breadth of thy land, O
Immanuel." These words Basil bade the persecuted Christians use to the heathen
princes, Animo praesenti et intrepido, with an undaunted spirit and well-knit
resolution.
PETT, "‘For that reason Adonizedek, king of Jerusalem, sent to Hoham king of
Hebron, and to Piram king of Jarmuth, and to Japhia king of Lachish, and to Debir
king of Eglon, saying.’
In view of the disturbing situation and the capitulation of Gibeon, the king of
Jerusalem connected possible allies in the southern hill country and the Shephelah
(the lowlands or lower slopes). We know from the Amarna letters that Jerusalem
headed a small confederacy, and with Shechem was one of the two most powerful
forces in the hill country. In the time of Abraham its king had been an influential
figure to whom Abraham had paid tribute (Genesis 14), because he was allowed to
graze his lands.
Hebron (el-Halil) was about thirty two kilometres (twenty miles) south of Jerusalem,
Yarmuth (Khirbet Yarmuk) twenty five kilometres (sixteen miles) west south west,
Lachish about forty kilometres (twenty five miles) south west and Eglon (el-Hesi)
thirteen kilometres (eight miles) beyond Lachish. Hebron and Lachish were major
cities. Lachish is a thirty one acre tell but was unfortified at this time, although the
houses on the edge possibly formed a defensive ring.
PULPIT, "Joshua 10:3
Hoham king of Hebron. It was a powerful confederacy which the Phoenician tribes
in their desperation formed against Joshua. At its head stood the king of Jerusalem,
which, from its central situation and its almost impregnable position (see notes on