Joshua 10:1

EXPOSITION

THE BATTLE OF BETH - HORON , AND THE SUBJUGATION OF SOUTHERN PALESTINE .—

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 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 יְרוּשׁ and שָׁלֵם signifying "peaceful inheritance" (Ewald, Keil), or from יָרָה and שָׁלֵם "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.