A commentary upon the whole Old Testament, added to that of the same author upon the whole New Testament published many years before, to make a compleat work upon the whole Bible. Vols. 2-4. Wherein the divers translations and expositions, literall and mysticall, of all the most famous commentators both ancient and modern are propounded, examined, and judged of, for the more full satisfaction of the studious reader in all things, and many most genuine notions inserted for edification in the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ. A work, the like unto which hath never yet been published by any man, yet very necessary, nor only for students in divinity; but also for every Christian that loveth the knowledge of divine things, or humane, whereof this comment is also full. Consisting of IV parts. I Upon the Pentateuch, or five books of Moses. II Upon the historical part, from Joshua to Esther. III Upon Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Solomons Song. IV Upon all the prophets both great and small. By John Mayer, doctor of divinity.

CHAP. XV.

HEre is shewed, that by a singular providence of God, the lot came first up for Judah, and that in a most eminent and fruitfull place, and very large, that the prophesie of Jacob touching Judah his preference might appeare to

come from God, this his prelation in his part, being a praeludium of his future eminency in the Kingdom.

Amongst all the Tribes, Judah hath his part in the Land of Canaan first, saith Lyra, because that was the Kingly Tribe, and Joseph next, Ch. 16. because he came into the place of the firstborne Reuben, who was dis-inherited, Gen. 49. Touching Judah, his part is described by the 4 sides, the south, the east, the north, and the west. For the first, it is said, The wildernesse of Zin, was his uttermost part southward; to shew, that his lot lay most southerly of all the land of Canaan, see Numb. 34. 3. and this was nearest to Egypt where this tribe was placed, as being most warlike to resist the Enemy. And the South border was from the shoare of the salt Sea, &c. This was the dead Sea, lying in a corner, where the South and the East part met, and hence they began to measure to the west, all the coasts by which they went along, being said to be southward. For the se∣cond side, viz the east, The East border was the salt Sea, even to the end of Jordan, &c. that is, where Jordan entreth into the salt, or dead Sea: and here it is to bee conceived, that the line of measuring went northward, this being a description of all the east side, even to the north. For the third, viz. the north side, v. 7. And the border went up toward Debir, and from the valley of Achor, and so north∣ward, &c. and the goings out thereof were at Enrogel. This En, or fountaine of Rogell, was neare Jerusalem, 2 Kings 18. being a fountaine, or water where Fullers washed their cloaths, from whence it had this name Enrogel, the Fullers pool, or well; so the Hebrews.

And the border went up by the valley of the son of Hinnom, unto the southside of the Jebusite, the same is Jerusalem. In this part on the north, the lot of Judoh was divided from the lot of Benjamin, for it came home to Jerusalem, but Jeru∣salem it selfe fell to the lot of Benjamin, where the Temple was afterwards built, but by it went up the northside of Judah from east to west.

And the West border was to the great Sea, &c. This was the Mediterranean Sea, where the west side, and the north met, and this was the utmost part of the Land of Canaan westward; so that the whole length of that Land, from the south to the west, fell to Judah. Here againe the gift of Hebron to Caleb is repeated, being shewed to lye within the lot of Iudah; and hee is said to have expelled the three sonnes of Anak thence. But this is not to bee conceived now to have been done; for both this, and that of Othniel taking Kiriath-sepher, &c. were done after the death of Joshua, Iudg. 1. 9. and therefore they are here put downe by anticipation, as Expositors generally agree, being inserted by some other man; that Calebs faith in God to drive out the Anakims, and to take this place, might soon appeare to the Reader not to have been vaine, and hee might not be left to seek farre off for the fulfilling of the thing given and hoped for, as touching the actuall enjoying thereof, Ch. 14. But there it is said, that the tribe of Iudah went up against Hebron, and slew the 3 sonnes of Anak, this being ascribed here to Caleb, with whom they went, as the chief in that expedition.

Here the Cities of Iudah lying south, and so about Hebron the possession of Caleb, are first reckoned up by name, and then are summed up, v. 32. twenty and nine; but if wee count them one by one, we shall finde 37, the reason of this difference yeelded by the Rabbins, is, because eight of them were againe ta∣ken away and given to the Simeonites, as may bee seen, Ch. 19. and so 29 onely remained to Iudah. Masius and Serrarius thinke, that the walled Cities onely are put in to the summe; but together with them Villages also are reckoned, when they are counted one by one. But this last seemeth not to bee so proba∣ble, because Villages are spoken of, as pertaining to these Cities.

The second numeration of their Cities here followeth in the valleys, about which also the summe differeth from the number mentioned, for they are 15, but are summed up 14, v. 36. this, saith Lyra, was, because one was called by two names, Tappuah and Enam, v. 34. The third numeration of 16 Cities, and the fourth of 9 Cities, v. 44. and the fifth of 11 Cities, v. 51. and the sixth of 9 Cities, v. 54. and the seventh of 10 Cities, v. 57. and the eighth of 6 Cities,

v. 59. and the ninth of 2 Cities, v. 60. and the tenth of 6 Cities, v. 62. doe all agree. But out of these were subtracted to the Danites, Eshtaol and Garea in the second numeration, and to the Simeonites, Ether, and Asan in the third, Ch. 19. So that the whole number reckoned up, besides those deducted, was of 118 Ci∣ties with their Villages, and yet these were not all, for Ekron, Ashdod, and Gaza of the Philistims, v. 45, 46. under which the other two Lordships also are to bee understood, are not summed up, because in the enemies hands. But Ekron was given afterwards to the Danites; and as Iosephus hath it, Gath and Azotus, Asca∣lon and Gaza onely remaining to Iudah. Moreover, Ch. 21. 14, 15, 16. Estemo, Holon, and Bethshemesh given to Levites are omitted here; and Bethlehem said to be of Iudah, Iudg. 19. 1. and unto it, upon v. 59. ten Cities more are added in the Septuagint Translation, Theco, Phagor, Etham, Culon, Tamai, Soris, Carim, Gallim, Bather and Manocho, all which are here left out, which Ierome conjectu∣reth to have been done through the malice of the Jewes, razing them out of the Hebrew, that it might not appeare, that Iesus came of the Tribe of Iudah.

Touching Lachish, v. 39. Lyra noteth noteth, that it was a diverse City from Lachish taken by the Danites, Iudg. 18. for this stood southward, that north, and differed in the name being called Laish.

Touching Kiriath-Sannath, which is Debir: this was the City before called Kiriath-sepher, that is, Civitas literarum, and Debir, verbum vel eloquentia. Ki∣riath-Sannath, civitas acuminis, because 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifieth acuere, to sharpen, and in the Syriack tongue 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 docte, vel acute dicere. It is thought to have had this name, because it was an Academy of the Canaanites, wherein were Schooles of Lear∣ning.

Touching the City of Salt, v. 62. it was neare the Sea, most probably having the name from Salt made there, and not the same with Bethshemesh, civitas solis, as some have thought.

As for the Iebusites, the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the children of Judah could not drive them out, &c. Jerusalem is called also Jebus, Judg. 19. 10. from whence, saith Lyra, the Iebusites had their name, being of the posterity of Abimelech King of Gerar, with whom Abraham had made a Covenant, Gen. 21. the time of which was not yet expired. Wherefore they held their one Fort still, even till Davids time, who expelled them, but by reason of that Covenant, they could not yet be expelled. Calvin ascribeth the not expelling of the Iebusites, to the sloath of the Israelites, although Jerusalem was the most holy place of all the Land, and the most excellent, that sanctified all the rest, and was the glory of all, yet they through their owne negligence, and love of ease, forbeare to fight with the Iebusites, in the strong Fort of Zion therein: so that this is spo∣ken to their reproach, they could not expell them, because they laboured not to doe it, being content with some part of the City, and leaving the rest to the Enemy: for which cause it is said, That the Jebusites dwelt in this city with the chil∣dren of Judah to this day; that is, the men of Iudah in one part, and they in ano∣ther. For there being nothing yet to hinder Gods favour and help from them, if they had attempted the expulsion of these Iebusites, they should certainly have effected it. But I can see no reason why the not possessing yet of all parts of Ierusalem, should be ascribed to the negligence of Iudah, for then some such thing should have been intimated, and it would not have been said, they could not expell them. The Fort of Zion, which they held was high, and most strong by nature, and unaccessible; and therefore it is rather to be held, that God would not yet help them in the expelling of it, reserving that so difficult a worke to another Worthy, even David, whom hee would raise up after∣wards, and make famous by this exploit, permitting the Iebusites to live here still, as other of the Israelites enemies in other places for their tryall, as is said, Iudg. 3. 1, 6. especially, seeing they had for the present houses and land enough to dwell comfortably in, till they should bee more multiplyed. For that of Lyra, ascribing the Iebusites dwelling here still, to an old Covenant made by Abraham, as hee hath it from the Rabbins, so it may well be suspected as a tale

of their owne coyning: for how may it appeare that they came of Abimelech, sith the Jebusites are commonly reckoned as one of the seven Peoples desti∣ned to destruction? and if they were included in the Covenant, and this Cove∣nant was not yet expired, how shal we know that it expired so soon as David was King? Iudg. 1. 21. and that which is said here of the children of Iudah, is said of the Benjamites, but before that, v. 8. The children of Judah had fought against Jerusalem, and taken it, and smitten it with the edge of the sword, and set the City on fire. If it be here demanded, how could the men of Iudah dwell here, [Qu.] and the Benjamites also? Answ. The south part of the City was within the lot of Iudah, but the north part belonged to Benjamin, and herein the Temple stood, and it was the farre greater part, see Ch. 18. 28. If it bee further de∣manded, [Qu.] how it it said here, the children of Iudah could not expell the Iebu∣sites out of Ierusalem, when as Iudg. 1. 8. it is said, they had taken the City, &c. Answ. In part they had taken it, and destroyed the inhabitants, but in part they had not, viz. in that part, where the Fort of Zion stood. And this ta∣king of it, saith Josephus, was after the death of Joshua. But happily being ta∣ken as Hebron and Debir in Joshua his time, the enemies re-possessed it againe, and were afterwards againe destroyed.

Mystically, by the Iebusite dwelling still in Ierusalem, saith Origen, understand the wicked in the Church; for the Tares cannot be separated from the Wheat til the last day. The Iebusite signifieth one treading under foot, they then, that with dogs and swine tread holy things under their feet, be the Iebusites in the Church, to expell whom, we must endeavour more and more unto the end.

Notes

• Gen. 49.
• Lyra.
• V. 1.
• V. 2.
• V. 5.
• V. 7.
• 2 King. 18. 17.
• V. 8.
• V. 12.
• V. 13, 14.
• V. 16, 17.
• V. 21. V. 32.
• Rabbini.
• Masius. Serrarius.
• V. 33.
• Lyra.
• Ch. 19. Josephus.
• Hieron, in Mich. 5.
• V. 39.
• V. 49.
• V. 62.
• V. 63.
• Lyra.
• 2 Sam. 5. 7.
• Calvin.
• Ioseph lib. 5. Antiq c. 2.
• The Mysterie. Origen.