Lange Commentary - Judges 20:1

Lange Commentary - Judges 20:1 - 20:13

Online Resource Library

Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | Download

Lange Commentary - Judges 20:1 - 20:13

(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)

This Chapter Verse Commentaries:

The tribes of Israel, convened at Mizpah, resolve to punish the outrage committed at Gibeah. They call on the tribe of Benjamin to deliver up the guilty, but are met with a refusal

Jdg_20:1-13

¹Then all the children [sons] of Israel went out, and the congregation was gathered together as one man, from Dan even to Beer-sheba, with [and] the land of Gilead, unto the Lord [Jehovah] in Mizpeh [Mizpah]. ²And the chief [chiefs] of all the people, even of all the tribes of Israel, presented themselves in the assembly of the people of God, [which assembly numbered] four hundred thousand footmen that drew sword. ³(Now the children [sons] of Benjamin heard that the children [sons] of Israel were gone up to Mizpeh). Then said the children [sons] of Israel, ⁴Tell us, how was [happened] this wickedness? And [the man,] the Levite, the husband of the woman that was slain, answered and said, I came into [unto] Gibeah that belongeth to Benjamin, I and my concubine, to lodge. ⁵And the men [lords] of Gibeah rose against me, and beset the house round about upon me by night, and thought to have slain me: and my concubine have they forced [humbled], that she is dead [that she died]. ⁶And I took my concubine, and cut her in pieces, and sent her throughout all the country of the inheritance of Israel: for they have ⁷committed lewdness and folly in Israel. Behold, ye are all children [sons] of Israel; give here your advice and counsel. ⁸And all the people arose as one man, saying, We will not any of us go to his tent, neither will we any of us turn into his house: ⁹But now this shall be the thing which we will do to Gibeah: we will go up by lot against it; ¹⁰And we will take ten men of an hundred throughout all the tribes of Israel, and an hundred of a thousand, and a thousand out of ten thousand, to fetch victual for the people, that they may do, when they come to Gibeah of Benjamin, according to all the folly that they have wrought in Israel. ¹¹So all the men of Israel were gathered against the city, knit together as one man. ¹²And the tribes of Israel sent men through [into] all the tribe [tribes] of Benjamin, saying, What wickedness is this that is [was] done among you? ¹³Now therefore deliver us the men, the children of Belial [worthless fellows], which are in Gibeah, that we may put them to death, and put away evil from Israel. But the children [sons] of Benjamin would not hearken to the voice of their brethren the children [sons] of Israel.

TEXTUAL AND GRAMMATICAL

[¹ Jdg_20:2.—Dr. Cassel renders this verse as follows: “And the heads of the whole people, out of all the tribes of Israel, formed themselves into a Congregation of the People of God, which [sc. people] furnished four hundred thousand men (namely) footmen, practiced with the sword.” The E. V. is better; only, to make it unequivocally clear, it needs some such interpolation as we have suggested in the text.—Tr.]

[² Jdg_20:9.—Dr. Cassel translates: “And now in the matter which we do against Gibeah, (proceed we) against it according to the lot.” This does not differ essentially from the E. V., but is noted here as explaining what the author means by saying that the words “which we do against Gibeah” are parenthetical (see below). Bertheau and Keil explain: “This is the thing we will do against Gibeah: against it with the lot!” “The words òָìֶéäָ áְּâåֹøָì ,” says Keil, “contain the resolution taken with reference to the sinful city, and are characterized by the enigmatical brevity of judicial sentences, and are to be explained by the proceedings prescribed by the Mosaic law against the Canaanites. The Canaanites were to be destroyed, and their land was then to be divided among the Israelites by lot. Accordingly, to proceed with the lot against Gibeah, is to proceed with it as with the cities of the Canaanites, to conquer and burn it, and to divide its territory by lot.” One argument advanced in favor of this (the view of the Peshito: “we will cast the lot over it!”) and against the current view (that of the LXX.), that the latter leaves the judgment itself unexpressed, and passes at once to a subordinate point which has reference only to the execution of the judgment, has no great force. For is not the judgment sufficiently expressed in òָìֶéä , “against it!”? The other, however, that according to Jdg_20:10, as ordinarily understood, the lot decides, not who shall go against Gibeah, but who shall act as purveyors for the army, it is difficult to meet, except by rendering Jdg_20:10 as Dr. Cassel does. Compare the next note.—Tr.]

[³ Jdg_20:10.—Dr. Cassel’s rendering is as follows: (Jdg_20:9 b) “proceed we against it according to the lot; (Jdg_20:10 : and take ten men of a hundred out of all the tribes of Israel, and a hundred of a thousand, and a thousand of ten thousand, to take to themselves provisions for the host, and when they come to Gibeah of Benjamin to do according to all the abomination which it wrought in Israel (i.e., to inflict just retribution).” The only difficulty in this rendering is the expression “to take provisions for the host” (lit. people), which strikes one as an unnatural way of saying, “to take provisions for themselves.” But this difficulty is less serious than that which arises if we adopt the common rendering, and explain (as we must do in that case) Jdg_20:9 as Bertheau and Keil do (cf. preceding note). For the fact that before proceeding to extremities, demand is made for the surrender of the guilty, is incompatible with a prior determination to “cast the lot” over Gibeah, to say nothing of the fact that such a confiscation of territory belonging to Benjamin, as this is supposed to imply, would have been in glaring conflict with one of the most important laws of the nation, that which rendered land an inalienable possession, first in the family, then in the tribe. On the other hand, it certainly seems as if 40,000 men must have been deemed sufficient to meet the 26,700 of Benjamin (Jdg_20:15); and the statement of Jdg_20:17, where the 400,000 of Israel are set over against the 26,700 of Benjamin, may be explained by supposing that the narrator, being about to relate the terrible losses on the national side in the first two engagements, wishes to remind the reader of the reserved strength from which the beaten army could draw reinforcements.—Tr.]

EXEGETICAL AND DOCTRINAL

Jdg_20:1-2. And the chiefs of all the people formed themselves into a congregation of the People of God. The consciousness of an organic community is as yet fully alive in Israel. All the tribes were horrified at the crime in Benjamin. The necessity of conferring together is felt everywhere, from the north to the south. The natural representatives of the people (cf. on Jdg_1:1) hasten to Mizpah, “to Jehovah,” that is to say, at the invitation of the high-priest in the name of Jehovah, against whose holy law the crime was directed. For it may be assumed that whenever a popular movement, which has Jehovah for its centre, is spoken of, while no human personage as that of a Judge, is named, the priesthood was still the leading spiritual power. An òֵãָä , congregation, assembled itself, åַúִּ÷ּäֵì ; or rather, was convoked, for ÷ָäַì is the Greek êáëÝù , old Latin calare (i.e. curia calabra). It was formed of the heads of the people who constituted themselves a “Congregation of the People of God.” ( éִúְéַöּáåּ , from ðָöַá = éָöַá , constituere). It is not by way of tautology that the narrator says: “the whole people, all the tribes;” for the fact is to be made prominent that, except Benjamin, not one tribe was wanting. The addition: “four hundred thousand men,” explains why only the “heads” constitute the “congregation,” namely, because the “People of God,” as a whole, was too numerous. The number is mentioned with reference to Jdg_20:10. Israel is still the warlike people which took possession of Canaan. The number of its sword-practiced warriors is the measure of its greatness. Those who assemble themselves here about “Jehovah,” are the heads of a community of warriors (ecclesia militans.)

Jdg_20:3. And the sons of Benjamin heard that an assembly of the tribes took place in Mizpah. This Mizpah is probably the same as that which in Samuel’s time also was the national gathering place (1Sa_7:5), and which is regarded as represented by the Neby Samwîl of the present day, in the western part of the Benjamite territory. The Levite, the narrator informed us, divided his unhappy concubine into twelve parts, and sent them throughout all Israel. We must agree, therefore, with the Jewish expositors, who maintain that he sent a part to Benjamin also. It must likewise be assumed that Benjamin was invited to the council at Mizpah, both on account of the sense of national community which characterized the period, and because the assembly was summoned at a place within the borders of Benjamin. The tribe already manifested its partisan feeling in favor of Gibeah, when it “heard,” indeed, of what was going on, but neither sent representatives to the assembly, nor gave any token whatever of indignation at the deed, or of desire to exculpate itself.

Jdg_20:4-7. And the man, the Levite, made answer. When the assembly proceeded to investigate the facts, the accuser only appeared; the accused were wanting. The speech of the Levite is remarkable in more respects than one. Of the aged Ephraimite who took him into his house, he makes no mention; for in order to a right judgment of the matter it is not necessary to consider whose guest he was, but that his right to hospitality has been violated. Hence he says, “they rose against me” ( òָìé ); and, “they surrounded the house, òָìé , on my account.” The men in Gibeah had no designs against his host: he alone was the object of their attack. Nor does he speak of individuals in Gibeah, but of the “lords of Gibeah,” as if the whole city were guilty; which inasmuch as it had not prevented the excess, was indeed true. His accusation, “they thought to murder me,” is not literally in accordance with their intentions, because he is ashamed to speak of the matter by its right name. Moreover, the crime intended was worse than death, and submission to it punishable with disgrace and death. But he does not say that he himself delivered his concubine up into their hands, that they might treat her according to their lusts, instead of himself. And finally, he does not represent the violent deed as directed against an individual, but tells the assembled tribes that he cut the woman in pieces, and sent her throughout the whole country, because, as we already remarked above, it was a crime against all Israel. “Behold, all of you are sons of Israel.” Without delay, he desires, that here and now, they consult, and that they separate not before they have formed a resolve. He fears lest otherwise the impression of the moment might wear off, and the crime be left unpunished.

Jdg_20:8 ff.. And all the people arose. The people comprehend this, and unanimously proceed to action. Not one tribe shall be entrusted with the execution of the common resolve, but all shall take part in it, in order that the labor and odium may not fall on any one exclusively. The words àֲùֶׁø ðַòֲùֶׂä ìַâִּáִòָä , Jdg_20:9, are to be regarded as parenthetical. The sense is that the executive army is to be selected out of the tribes, not by votes, but according to the lot. It is thought that the tenth part of Israel, or forty thousand men, will suffice; for these, who belong to all Israel, since they were raised out of the whole, provisions and equipments are to be supplied. This is looked to, in order that Israel may need no sustenance from Benjamin, while desolating its territory in war. The words ìָ÷ַçַú öֵãָä ìָòí remind us of Jdg_7:8, where we have åַéִּ÷ְçåּ àֶúÎöãָä äָòָí , and make it probable that there also ìָòָí should be read.

The expression, Jdg_20:11, “and all the men of Israel were gathered together as one man çֲáֵøִéí ,” is to be understood of the army, which, forty thousand men strong, was gathered from all Israel as if no tribe distinctions existed. It was precisely in this perfect national unity and unanimity, that Israel sought its right to take the step it had in view. From the consciousness of this national character of the army, proceeded the effort to induce Benjamin to surrender the guilty, before the final resort to extreme measures. In the statement that “they sent into all the tribes of Benjamin,” the expression, “tribes of Benjamin,” forming as it were an antithesis to the “tribes of Israel,” is peculiar. Properly speaking, there could not be “tribes” within a “tribe”; but since Benjamin formed an opposition camp, his “families” might be so named.

Footnotes:

[Jdg_20:2.—Dr. Cassel renders this verse as follows: “And the heads of the whole people, out of all the tribes of Israel, formed themselves into a Congregation of the People of God, which [sc. people] furnished four hundred thousand men (namely) footmen, practiced with the sword.” The E. V. is better; only, to make it unequivocally clear, it needs some such interpolation as we have suggested in the text.—Tr.]

[Jdg_20:9.—Dr. Cassel translates: “And now in the matter which we do against Gibeah, (proceed we) against it according to the lot.” This does not differ essentially from the E. V., but is noted here as explaining what the author means by saying that the words “which we do against Gibeah” are parenthetical (see below). Bertheau and Keil explain: “This is the thing we will do against Gibeah: against it with the lot!” “The words òָìֶéäָ áְּâåֹøָì ,” says Keil, “contain the resolution taken with reference to the sinful city, and are characterized by the enigmatical brevity of judicial sentences, and are to be explained by the proceedings prescribed by the Mosaic law against the Canaanites. The Canaanites were to be destroyed, and their land was then to be divided among the Israelites by lot. Accordingly, to proceed with the lot against Gibeah, is to proceed with it as with the cities of the Canaanites, to conquer and burn it, and to divide its territory by lot.” One argument advanced in favor of this (the view of the Peshito: “we will cast the lot over it!”) and against the current view (that of the LXX.), that the latter leaves the judgment itself unexpressed, and passes at once to a subordinate point which has reference only to the execution of the judgment, has no great force. For is not the judgment sufficiently expressed in òָìֶéä , “against it!”? The other, however, that according to Jdg_20:10, as ordinarily understood, the lot decides, not who shall go against Gibeah, but who shall act as purveyors for the army, it is difficult to meet, except by rendering Jdg_20:10 as Dr. Cassel does. Compare the next note.—Tr.]

[Jdg_20:10.—Dr. Cassel’s rendering is as follows: (Jdg_20:9 b) “proceed we against it according to the lot; (Jdg_20:10 : and take ten men of a hundred out of all the tribes of Israel, and a hundred of a thousand, and a thousand of ten thousand, to take to themselves provisions for the host, and when they come to Gibeah of Benjamin to do according to all the abomination which it wrought in Israel (i.e., to inflict just retribution).” The only difficulty in this rendering is the expression “to take provisions for the host” (lit. people), which strikes one as an unnatural way of saying, “to take provisions for themselves.” But this difficulty is less serious than that which arises if we adopt the common rendering, and explain (as we must do in that case) Jdg_20:9 as Bertheau and Keil do (cf. preceding note). For the fact that before proceeding to extremities, demand is made for the surrender of the guilty, is incompatible with a prior determination to “cast the lot” over Gibeah, to say nothing of the fact that such a confiscation of territory belonging to Benjamin, as this is supposed to imply, would have been in glaring conflict with one of the most important laws of the nation, that which rendered land an inalienable possession, first in the family, then in the tribe. On the other hand, it certainly seems as if 40,000 men must have been deemed sufficient to meet the 26,700 of Benjamin (Jdg_20:15); and the statement of Jdg_20:17, where the 400,000 of Israel are set over against the 26,700 of Benjamin, may be explained by supposing that the narrator, being about to relate the terrible losses on the national side in the first two engagements, wishes to remind the reader of the reserved strength from which the beaten army could draw reinforcements.—Tr.]

ôִּðָּä , the pinnacle, or highest point of a building, and thence transferred to the heads of the people, summi. The word is philologically identical with the Latin pinna as saput propugnaculi.

The regular designation, for which modern nations have substituted the less spiritual and noble terms “parliament,” “meeting,” “chamber,” “house.” [How could they otherwise, seeing they are not theocracies?—Tr.]

[So Dr. Robinson, B. R. i. 460. Dean Stanley (Sin. and Pal. p. 212), claims Nebi-Samuel for the “high place” of Gibeon, and transfers Mizpah to Scopus (p. 222). The difficulty arising from the fact that in either case the assembly was held within the territorial limits of Benjamin, who nevertheless only “heard” of it, is met by Mr. Grove (Smith’s Bible Dict., s. v. “Mizpah”) by the apparently no less difficult supposition that the Mizpah of the present passage is to be located beyond the Jordan.—Tr.]