Judges 5:19 · Bible study
Judges 5:19 Commentary: Plunder Denied
Hebrew · 10 what the commentators say
Meaning in one sentence
Why does Deborah stress that the Canaanite kings took no plunder?
Research Summary
- Meaning: The Canaanite coalition failed to seize any plunder, highlighting God’s complete victory.
- Key words: בֶּצַע (betsa), profit/gain, often negative, here meaning a piece of silver; the kings took none.
- Main debate: Whether the phrase means the kings got no booty (their expectation dashed) or they did not accept ransom (Gill citing Kimchi). Also whether it refers to Israel or Canaan.
- Theological theme: Divine sovereignty over battle and the futility of opposing God’s people.
- Best use: As part of the Song of Deborah, it encourages trust in God’s deliverance and challenges greed.
Translation Comparison
BSB Berean Standard Bible 2020
Kings came and fought; then the kings of Canaan fought at Taanach by the waters of Megiddo, but they took no plunder of silver.
WEB World English Bible 2000
“The kings came and fought, then the kings of Canaan fought at Taanach by the waters of Megiddo. They took no plunder of silver.
KJV King James Version 1769
The kings came and fought, then fought the kings of Canaan in Taanach by the waters of Megiddo; they took no gain of money.
ASV American Standard Version 1901
The kings came and fought; Then fought the kings of Canaan, In Taanach by the waters of Megiddo: They took no gain of money.
YLT Young's Literal Translation 1898
Kings came--they fought; Then fought kings of Canaan, In Taanach, by the waters of Megiddo; Gain of money they took not!
Darby Darby Bible 1890
Kings came, — they fought; Then fought the kings of Canaan; At Taanach, by the waters of Megiddo; They took no spoil of silver.
Douay-Rheims Douay-Rheims Bible 1899
The kings came and fought, the kings of Chanaan fought in Thanac, by the waters of Mageddo and yet they took no spoils.
Translations in other languages (10 available)
Vinieron reyes y pelearon: entonces pelearon los reyes de Canaán en Taanac, junto á las aguas de Megiddo, mas no llevaron ganancia alguna de dinero.
Vieram reis e lutaram: Então lutaram os reis de Canaã Em Taanaque, junto às águas de Megido, Mas não levaram despojo algum de dinheiro.
Les rois vinrent, ils combattirent,
Die Könige kamen und stritten; da stritten die Könige der Kanaaniter zu Thaanach am Wasser Megiddos; aber sie brachten keinen Gewinn davon.
De koningen kwamen, zij streden; toen streden de koningen van Kanaan, te Thaanach aan de wateren van Megiddo; zij brachten geen gewin des zilvers daarvan.
I re vennero, pugnarono; allora pugnarono i re di Canaan a Taanac, presso le acque di Meghiddo; non ne riportarono un pezzo d’argento.
Przyszli królowie, walczyli; na ten czas walczyli królowie Chananejscy w Tanach u wód Magieddo, jednak korzyści srebra nie odnieśli.
Пришли цари, сразились, тогда сразились цари Ханаанские в Фанаахе у вод Мегиддонских, но не получили нимало серебра.
君王 都來 爭戰。那時 迦南 諸王 在 米吉多 水旁 的他納 爭戰，卻未 得擄掠 銀錢。
The kings came on to the fight, the kings of Canaan were warring; in Taanach by the waters of Megiddo: they took no profit in money.
Verse in Context
Original Language (Biblical Hebrew)
Old Testament · Biblical Hebrew · Judges 5:19
Source: STEPBible TAGNT/TEHB (CC-BY 4.0). Click or tap a morphology code to see the full parsing.
Scholars' Consensus
Commentators broadly agree that this verse highlights the complete defeat of the Canaanite coalition. Barnes notes the kings “took no gain of money”, either they got no booty despite expecting it, or they did not fight for plunder but for life. Keil and Delitzsch argue the Hebrew word בֶּצַע (betsa) can mean “a piece” of silver, so the verse says they did not carry off even a single piece. The Cambridge Bible links this to their disappointed expectation of spoil, comparing it to 5:30 where Sisera’s mother anticipates plunder. Gill and Jamieson-Fausset-Brown concur. The consensus: the detail underscores divine sovereignty. The mighty Canaanite kings, confident in their chariots and numbers, left empty-handed. The battle was not about material gain but God’s deliverance. This sets up the cosmic perspective in verses 20, 21, where heaven itself fights.
How settled is the interpretation?
Interpretive difficulty: Medium
Main views:
- Disappointed expectation: The kings came expecting booty but got none; supported by 5:30 and ancient Near Eastern warfare norms.
- Israelites' selfless motive: Clarke suggests the text may describe Israel not fighting for gain but for liberty.
- Refusal of ransom: Kimchi (cited by Gill) interprets this as the kings not accepting money to spare captives, showing cruelty.
What is clear: The enemy left empty-handed, demonstrating that God gave Israel the victory and thwarted the enemy's greed.
What Scholars Agree and Debate
| Topic | Agreed | Debated |
|---|---|---|
| Meaning of 'plunder of silver' | The enemy obtained no material gain from the battle. | Some (Cambridge, Barnes) see it as disappointed expectation of booty; others (Kimchi via Gill) interpret it as refusal to take ransom money for captives. |
| Subject of 'they took' | The Canaanite kings are the primary subject. | Clarke suggests it could refer to the Israelites, who fought for liberty rather than plunder. |
| Historical context - same battle as Joshua's? | The battle involves a coalition of Canaanite kings, similar to Joshua 11. | Gill links it to Joshua's battle; others (Keil, Cambridge) see it as the current battle under Deborah. |
| Role of divine intervention | God gave Israel the victory. | The extent to which natural forces (Kishon, stars) are literal or poetic is discussed, but all affirm God's sovereignty. |
Historical & Cultural Context
Taanach and Megiddo were Canaanite fortress cities in the Jezreel Valley, never fully conquered by Israel (Judges 1:27). The “waters of Megiddo” refer to the river Kishon, the same river that later sweeps away the enemy (v.21). The battle described in Judges 5 is part of Israel’s struggle against Jabin king of Hazor, recounted in narrative form in chapter 4. The mention of “kings” indicates a coalition of petty Canaanite rulers, reminiscent of Joshua 11:1, 5 where an earlier Jabin formed alliances. These kings paid tribute to Egypt during the Amarna period, but here they gather for war.
In ancient Near Eastern warfare, plunder was a primary motivation for soldiers and their commanders. Defeated armies expected to be looted; victors collected silver, gold, and goods. Deborah’s song inverts that expectation. The kings came “and fought”, the Hebrew verbs emphasize their aggressive advance, but they left with nothing. “They took no plunder of silver.” The word בֶּצַע (betsa) often has a negative connotation of unjust gain or greed. Here the gain they sought was denied.
The detail also reflects the agrarian context of Israel. Silver was a form of wealth and a means of ransom. By thwarting the enemy’s greed, God protected the resources of His people and demonstrated that victory comes from Him, not from human strength or motives. The geography and the outcome together declare: the Lord fought for Israel.
Textual Notes
The consulted sources note no significant textual variants for this verse. The Hebrew text is consistent across manuscript traditions.
Reception History
The Song of Deborah (Judges 5) is widely considered one of the oldest Hebrew poems, preserved in Israel’s liturgy. Jewish exegesis (e.g., Kimchi) saw the “no plunder” as an act of mercy, the kings refused ransom and killed captives. Christian interpreters from the Reformation (Calvin, Matthew Henry) saw it as God confounding the enemies’ hopes. In modern scholarship (Keil, Lange), the verse underscores the divine warrior theme. The verse has been set to music in hymns celebrating God’s victory.
Preaching This Verse
Three-Point Outline
- The Kings’ Confidence. They came expecting an easy victory and rich plunder. The repeated “fought” stresses their determined assault (v.19a).
- The Divine Reversal. Despite their strength and numbers, they took no silver. Their hopes were shattered (v.19b).
- The Reason: God Fought. Verses 20, 21 show the cosmos itself joined the battle. The lack of plunder proves the victory was the Lord’s, not Israel’s military might.
Five-Point Outline
- Historical setting: the battle at Taanach by Megiddo’s waters.
- The coalition of Canaanite kings and their overwhelming force.
- Their expectation of spoil contrasted with their empty hands.
- The theological interpretation: divine intervention that mocks human greed.
- Application: trust in God for victory, not in material gain or human strategy.
Illustration Hooks
- A sports team heavily favored to win loses to an underdog; the pre-game boasts turn to silence.
- A business deal that promised huge profits falls through at the last moment, leaving the investors with nothing.
- A military ambush where the aggressors, confident in their numbers, are themselves caught off guard and retreat without loot.
Questions Your Congregation Is Asking
- Why would the enemy expect plunder? What does that say about their intentions?
- How does this verse encourage us when we face overwhelming odds?
- What does “no plunder” teach us about God’s provision and our motivations in conflict?
Leading a Discussion
This verse is part of Deborah’s victory song. It captures the irony of the enemy’s expectations. The Canaanite kings came for loot but left with nothing. Discuss what this tells us about God’s sovereignty and the dangers of greed.
Discussion Questions
- What does the mention of “kings” tell us about the opposition Israel faced?
- Why are Taanach and Megiddo named specifically? How does geography shape the story?
- What is the significance of “they took no plunder of silver”? What would normal warfare have looked like?
- How does this verse connect with verse 30, where Sisera’s mother imagines plunder?
- In what ways does God sometimes turn our expectations upside down, as He did for these kings?
- How can we learn to not fight for material gain but for God’s purposes?
- How does this verse encourage us when we face situations that seem hopeless?
Word Study
The key original-language words in this verse. Select any word for its full lexicon entry — meaning, every occurrence in Scripture, and related words.
Cross-References
Source: Treasury of Scripture Knowledge (TSK, public domain)
| Genesis 4:16 | Cain left Yahweh’s presence, and lived in the land of Nod, east of Eden. |
| Genesis 14:22 | Abram said to the king of Sodom, “I have lifted up my hand to Yahweh, God Most High, possessor of heaven and earth, |
| Joshua 10:22 | Then Joshua said, “Open the cave entrance, and bring those five kings out of the cave to me.” |
| Joshua 10:27 | At the time of the going down of the sun, Joshua commanded, and they took them down off the trees, and threw them into the cave in which they had hidden themselves, and laid great stones on the mouth of the cave, which remain to this very day. |
| Joshua 11:1 | When Jabin king of Hazor heard of it, he sent to Jobab king of Madon, to the king of Shimron, to the king of Achshaph, |
| Joshua 11:15 | As Yahweh commanded Moses his servant, so Moses commanded Joshua. Joshua did so. He left nothing undone of all that Yahweh commanded Moses. |
| Judges 1:27 | Manasseh didn’t drive out the inhabitants of Beth Shean and its towns, nor Taanach and its towns, nor the inhabitants of Dor and its towns, nor the inhabitants of Ibleam and its towns, nor the inhabitants of Megiddo and its towns; but the Canaanites would dwell in that land. |
| Judges 4:13 | Sisera gathered together all his chariots, even nine hundred chariots of iron, and all the people who were with him, from Harosheth of the Gentiles, to the river Kishon. |
Interlinear and lexical data from STEPBible (CC BY 4.0). Cross-reference data from OpenBible.info (CC BY 4.0). Commentaries are public domain.
For personal reflection
Read the devotional page — prayer, application, and "for families"
What the Commentators Say
9 public-domain commentaries, condensed into plain language.
Adam Clarke's Commentary Methodist/Wesleyan 1826
Clarke suggests the Canaanite kings invaded Manasseh but were defeated by Zebulun and Naphtali at Taanach and Megiddo while Barak routed Sisera at Mount Tabor. He then notes a dual possibility in the phrase "they took no gain of money": either the defeated kings got no plunder, or the Israelites fought for liberty, not booty.
Barnes' Notes on the Bible Protestant 1832
Barnes highlights that the Canaanite kings fought not for material gain but for survival. The phrase “they took no gain of money” means either they captured no booty as they had anticipated, or more pointedly, they were not fighting for plunder at all but for their very lives and victory.
Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges Anglican 1880
The commentator identifies "the kings of Canaan" as chiefs of major Canaanite cities in the plain, not a unified kingdom, and cites the Amarna letters for historical support. He notes that the battle at the waters of Megiddo (the Kishon) left these kings disappointed in their hope for plunder.
Geneva Bible Notes Reformed 1599
The Geneva note highlights that the Canaanite kings fought at Megiddo but received no profit from their effort. They gained no money or plunder, underscoring the complete futility of their campaign against Israel. Their battle yielded nothing.
Gill's Exposition of the Bible Baptist 1748
Gill highlights the irony that the Canaanite kings assembled for battle expecting rich plunder from Israel but were utterly disappointed. Though they brought their own troops at great expense, they gained nothing and fled empty-handed. Their defeat was complete, leaving them with no profit from their attack.
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Commentary Protestant 1871
JFB notes that Jabin's army was reinforced by other Canaanite princes at this battle. The location was near Taanach by the Kishon river in the plain of Megiddo. Despite the conflict, the defeated Canaanites obtained no plunder from the victory.
Keil & Delitzsch OT Commentary Protestant 1876
Keil-Delitzsch notes the irony of the Canaanite kings' defeat: they came expecting rich plunder but could not carry away so much as a single piece of silver. The Hebrew word for "piece" suggests something cut off, emphasizing they gained absolutely nothing. The battle near the Kishon brook was a total reversal of their hopes.
Matthew Henry's Commentary Reformed/Presbyterian 1710
Henry draws attention to Deborah's self-exhortation: she calls herself awake twice before summoning Barak to lead praise. For Henry, this shows that those who inspire others must first rouse their own souls to thank God, and that celebrating a divine victory serves both God's glory and the encouragement of his people.
Wesley's Explanatory Notes Methodist/Wesleyan 1754
Wesley rejects Matthew Henry's claim that the goodness of God's promised land will intensify the punishment of those who perish. He argues that this reasoning fails under predestination: if some are not elected, they never had a genuine offer, and if all the elect are saved, the grant was never free to the others.