Lange Commentary - Judges 20:29

Lange Commentary - Judges 20:29 - 20:48

Online Resource Library

Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | Download

Lange Commentary - Judges 20:29 - 20:48

(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)

This Chapter Verse Commentaries:

The men of Israel recommence hostilities. By feigned flight they draw the Benjamites away from Gibeah, which thereupon falls into their hands and is destroyed, together with nearly the whole tribe.

Jdg_20:29-48.

²⁹And Israel set liers in wait round about Gibeah. ³⁰And the children [sons] of Israel went up against the children [sons] of Benjamin on the third day, and put themselves in array against Gibeah, as at other times. ³¹And the children [sons] of Benjamin went out against the people, and were [thus] drawn away from the city; and they began to smite of the people, and kill, as at other times, in the highways, of which one goeth up to the house of God [Beth-el], and the other to Gibeah in the field, about thirty men of Israel. ³²And the children [sons] of Benjamin said, They are smitten down [omit: down] before us, as at the first. But the children [sons] of Israel said, Let us flee, and draw them from the city unto the highways. ³³And all the men of Israel rose up out of their place, and put themselves in array at Baal-tamar: and the liers in wait of Israel came forth [also] out of their places³⁴[place], even out of the meadows [naked fields] of Gibeah. And there [they] came against Gibeah ten thousand chosen men out of all Israel, and the battle ³⁵[there] was sore: but they [i. e. the Benjamites] knew not that evil was near them. And the Lord [Jehovah] smote Benjamin before Israel: and the children [sons] of Israel destroyed of the Benjamites that day twenty and five thousand and an hundred men: all these drew the sword.

³⁶So [Now] the children [sons] of Benjamin saw that they [the sons of Israel] were smitten: for the men of Israel gave place to the Benjamites, because they trusted unto the liers in wait which they had set beside [against] Gibeah. ³⁷And the liers in wait hasted, and rushed upon Gibeah; and the liers in wait drew themselves along, and smote all the city with the edge of the sword. ³⁸Now there was [omit: there was] an [the] appointed sign between the men of Israel and the liers in wait [was], that they should make a great flame [cloud—lit. elevation, rising] with [of] ³⁹smoke rise up out of the city. But when [omit: when] the men of Israel retired in the battle, [and] Benjamin began to smite and kill of the men of Israel about thirty persons: for they said, Surely they are smitten down [omit: down] ⁴⁰before us, as in the first battle. And when the flame [cloud—cf. Jdg_20:38] began to arise up out of the city with [omit: with] a pillar of smoke, the Benjamites looked behind them, and behold, the flame [whole] of the city ascended up [in flames, or smoke] ⁴¹to heaven. And when [omit: when] the men of Israel turned again, [and] the men of Benjamin were amazed [confounded]: for they saw that evil was come upon them. ⁴²Therefore they turned their backs before the men of Israel unto the way of the wilderness; but the battle overtook [or, pursued after] them; and them ⁴³which came out of the cities they destroyed in the midst of them. Thus [omit: Thus] they [They] inclosed the Benjamites round about, and chased them, and trode them down with ease [at their place of rest,] over against [as far as before] Gibeah toward the sun-rising [on the east.] ⁴⁴And there fell of Benjamin eighteen thousand men; all these were men of valour. ⁴⁵And they turned and fled toward the wilderness unto the rock of Rimmon: and they gleaned of them in the highways five thousand men; and pursued hard after them unto Gidom, and slew two thousand men [more] of them. ⁴⁶So that all which fell that day of Benjamin were twenty and five thousand men that drew the sword; all these were men of valour. ⁴⁷But six hundred men turned and fled to the wilderness unto the rock Rimmon, and abode in the rock Rimmon four months. ⁴⁸And the men of Israel turned again upon [returned unto] the children [sons] of Benjamin, and smote them with the edge of the sword, as well the men of every city, as the beast [cattle], and all that came to hand [was found]: also they set on fire all the cities that they came to that were found].

TEXTUAL AND GRAMMATICAL

[¹ Jdg_20:31.— åַéָּçֵìåּ ìְäַëּåֹú îֵäָìָí çֲìָìִéí : “and they began to smite of the people, slain;” i. e, they smote so that the smitten became slain. çֲìָìִéí is the accusative of closer definition. Dr. Cassel takes it as nomi-native: “They began to smite, (so that,) as at the former times, slain of the people were [i.e., lay] on the highways, of which one,” etc. Similarly in ver 39.—Tr.]

[² Jdg_20:33.— îַòֲøֶä . Dr. Cassel: Blösse, “nakedness”; cf. his remarks below. The Peshito read îְòָøָä , a cave; the LXX. in Cod. Alex., and the Vulgate, îַòֲøָë , “from the west.” Fürst (in his Lexicon) defines îַòֲøֶä as “forest,” and derives it from a conjectural root òָøָä III., to sprout thickly, to which he also assigns the participle in Psa_37:35. Keil seeks to remove the difficulty of connecting the ambuscade with an open, treeless plain, by remarking that “the words of the text do not require us to suppose that the forestless region was the place of hiding, but may be so understood as to affirm that the ambuscade, having broken up from its hiding-place, advanced against the city from the forestless region.” But he has failed to notice that the participle îֵâִéúַ speaks precisely of the “breaking forth,” and leaves the idea of “advancing on the city” entirely unexpressed.—Tr.]

[³ Jdg_20:34.— åַéָּáֹàåּ îִðֶּâֶø ìַâִּáְòָä : “from before Gibeah.” Dr. Cassel, like the E. V., has “against.” Bertheau says: “The ambuscade, consisting of ten thousand chosen men, came ‘from straight before’ Gibeah; whither they came, is not stated, but from the connection it appears that they attacked the Benjamites, who were fighting at some distance from the city, in the rear.” Keil adopts the same explanation. But it is manifest from Jdg_20:37-38, and especially Jdg_20:40-41, that Bertheau and Keil are wrong, and the E. V. and our author right.”—Tr.]

[⁴ Jdg_20:36.— åַéִּøִàåּ áְðֵéÎáִðְéָîִï ëִּé ðִâָּôåּ . With this verse, a new and more detailed account of the conflict begins. So Bertheau, Keil, and Bunsen, as well as our author. To indicate this to the eye, we have introduced a new paragraph division into the text. Bertheau and Bunsen agree with our author that the subject of ðִâָּôåּ is “the sons of Israel.” According to Keil, “the sons of Benjamin saw that they were smitten, and that the men of Israel only gave way before them because they depended on the ambuscade which they had laid against Gibeah. They became aware of this when the ambuscade fell on their rear.” But this is inconsistent with Jdg_20:37, and certainly with Jdg_20:40. Jdg_20:36 is a restatement of Jdg_20:32, introductory to the detailed account that now follows.—Tr.]

[⁵ Jdg_20:37.— åַéִּîְùֹׁãְ . Dr. Cassel translates: “and the ambuscade overpowered and smote the whole city;” and adds in a foot-note: “In the sense of Job_24:22 : îָùַׁãְ àַáִּéøִéí áְּëֹçåּ ”. But there the word probably means “to hold fast, to preserve,” cf. Delitzsch in locum. It seems better to take it here in the sense “to march, advance,” cf. Jdg_4:6.—Tr.]

[⁶ Jdg_20:38.— äֶøֶá ìְäַòֲìåֹúָí . The first of these words being taken as the apocopated hiphil imperative, a mixture of the direct with the indirect address arises from the suffix of the third person in the second word. Dr. Cassel avoids this by declaring äֶøֶë to be an apocopated infinitive (see below); but it is better to admit the existence of a grammatical inaccuracy.—Tr.]

[⁷ Jdg_20:42.— åַàֲùֶׁø îֵäֶòָøִéí îַùְׁçִéúִéí àåֹúåֹ áְּúåֹëåֹ . Dr. Cassel translates: “and they of the cities (through which Benjamin came) destroyed them in the midst of them.” Compare the exegetical remarks. Keil: “The words åַàùֶׁø îäֶòִøéí can only be an appositional explanation of the suffix in äִøְëִּé÷ַúְäåּ , in the sense: Benjamin, namely, they who out of the cities of Benjamin had came to the aid of Gibeah (cf. Jdg_20:14 f), i.e., all Benjamites The following îַùְׁçִéúּéí åéå is a circumstantial clause illustrative of the preceding ãֶøֶêְ äַîִּãְáָּø : ‘in that they (the men of Israel) destroyed him (Benjamin) in the midst of it.’ The singular suffix in áִúåֹëåֹ , refers not to Benjamin—for that yields no tolerable sense—but to the preceding ãֶøֶêְ äַîִּãְáָּø : ‘in the midst of the way to the desert.’ ”

[⁸ Jdg_20:43.—This verse continues the description begun in Jdg_20:42, by means of an animated constructio asyndeta. ëִּúְּøåּ àֶúÎáִּðְéָîï , they surrounded Benjamin (by throwing out bodies of men on his flanks); äּøְãִéôֻäåּ , pursued after him; îְðåּçָä äִãְøִéëֻäåּ , fell upon and trode him down at his resting-place (that is, when, exhausted, he halted to take breath— îðåּçָä , accusative of place); and this pursuit and slaughter continued until the pursuers, who started from some distance north of Gibeah (Jdg_20:31), had come south “as far as before Gibeah on its eastern side.” There the remnant of the pursued found means to turn northward again, Jdg_20:45; and were again pursued as far as Gidom (a place evidently somewhere between east of Gibeah and Rimmon). Compare our author’s remarks below, which, however, indicate a slightly different conception on some points.—Tr.]

[⁹ Jdg_20:48.— îֵòִéø îְúֹí . Dr. Cassel renders: “everything of the city, to the cattle and whatever else was found;” and adds the following note: “Many MSS., and the more recent expositors, point îְúִí , men, and yet it cannot be said that with áְּäֵîָä , this forms an altogether suitable antithesis, inasmuch as it still fails to express the idea that everything was put under the ban of destruction. The pointing îְúֹí finds support in Jos_8:24; Jos_10:20, where similar instructions òַøÎúֻּîָּí are spoken of.”—Tr.]

EXEGETICAL AND DOCTRINAL

Jdg_20:29 ff. From the determined purpose of the ten tribes to prosecute the war, Benjamin should have taken occasion to yield. Since Israel continued firm, notwithstanding severe losses, it might have concluded that it was impossible to resist permanently. It might also have observed that another spirit animated this second war, and that Israel had become thoroughly in earnest to complete the work it had taken in hand. Another interval of time had manifestly passed by. After the dissolution of the first army, Israel had to levy a new one (illustrative examples of this may be found in the North American Union war). Accordingly, the first engagements are spoken of together, as the “former” or the “first” war (Jdg_20:32; Jdg_20:39). The tribes of Israel now first conclude to use strategic arts. This circumstance incidentally affords data which enable us to obtain a somewhat clearer idea of the theatre of the war. Gibeah lay high; the attack of the Israelites came from the direction of Bethel, i.e., from the Northwest. Two highways are mentioned, along which the sons of Benjamin advanced to meet the assailants—one leading to Bethel, the other to “Gibeah-in-the-Field” (a Lower, or Field-Gibeah in contrast with the Higher, or Mountain-Gibeah). The Israelites allure the Benjamites, rendered unwary by former successes, farther and farther away from the heights and the city. It is expressly said that Benjamin went out “to meet them” ( ìִ÷ְøַàú , Jdg_20:31). They offer scarcely any resistance, but retreat, constantly followed by Benjamin, who already sees the triumphs of the first two battle days reenacted (Jdg_20:32). Not until they have reached Baal Tamar, doubtless at a suitable distance from Gibeah, do they halt, and wait for the prearranged signal from other divisions who lay in ambush, and who were to attack the city as soon as the Benjamites should leave it. The place from which the city is thus suddenly attacked, is called îòøäÎâëò (Jdg_20:33). The Masora has pointed îַòֲøֵä , evidently deriving the word from òָøָä , to be naked, and intending to express by it, as Raschi also explains, the “nakedness” of Gibeah, i.e., its accessible part. The Targum renders it by îֵéùַׁø ; the same term by which it constantly renders òֲøָëָä , so that possibly it may have read îֵòֲøָáָä . It might then be understood of the point where the hill slopes down to the plain, and thus becomes more accessible. The simplest way would be to point so as to read îְòָøָä , a cave, as the Septuagint also seems to do: ÌááñáãÝâá (instead of ÌáñááãåâÝ ). North of the present Jeba, with which our Gibeah is held to be identical, runs the Wady es-Suweinît. It comes from Beitîn and el-Bîreh, to the Northwest, and, after passing Jeba, runs between high precipices, in one of which is a large cavern called Jâihah (Rob. i. 441).

Jdg_20:34-35. And they came against Gibeah, ten thousand men. We now first learn the numerical strength of the ambuscade, the placing of which was stated in Jdg_20:29. It is scarcely necessary to point out that we have here another fact going to show the improbability of a besieging army of 400,000, who could have surrounded the whole of Gibeah on all sides. Verses 34 and 35, while telling about the ambuscade, take occasion briefly to indicate the result of the whole war, according to what, as Keil justly observes, is a characteristic practice of Hebrew historiography. This is followed, Jdg_20:36 ff., by the more detailed account derived from ancient notes. Nor is there any discrepancy between Jdg_20:35, which states that there fell 25,100 men of Benjamin, and Jdg_20:46, which gives the number at 25,000. The latter is only the sum total of the three round numbers of Jdg_20:44-45, namely, 18,000 + 5,000 + 2,000; and the great fidelity of the report shows itself in the fact that since the hundred over 25,000 is not divided between the round sums, it is also not included in the sum total, although according to Jdg_20:35 its inclusion was only a matter of course. The artifice employed by the Israelites against the Benjamites, was in a different way also used against Shechem by Abimelech. Similar stratagems, practiced by Scipio, Hannibal, and others, are collected by Frontinus (Stratagematicon, lib. iii. cap. 10). Scipio besieged a city in Sardinia, feigned to take to flight before the besieged, and when they thoughtlessly followed him, per eos, quos in proximo occultaverat, oppidum invasit.

Jdg_20:36. For the sons of Benjamin had thought that they were smitten. The “they” of this sentence refers to the Israelites, as appears from the succeeding words. The verse is a recapitulation of verse 32, and is therefore to be rendered by the pluperfect: “they had seen or thought.” They actually had seen, that the sons of Israel allowed themselves to be smitten.

Jdg_20:38. And the appointed sign between the men of Israel and the liers in wait was, that they should cause a great cloud of smoke to rise up out of the city. The form äֶøֶá ( äֶøá ìְäַòֲìåֹúָí ) is explained by the phrase ëַáְּñֵðִé äַøִáֵּä , Psa_51:4, where the keri has äֶøֶë . For not the imperative only, but precisely the infinitive, which forms it (both äַøְëֵּä ), is also apocopated into äֶøֶë , and takes in consequence the adverbial signification, “strongly,” “very,” “fully.” The word is quite essential to the full understanding of the sentence. The men of the ambuscade are to cause a great pillar of smoke, like that of a burning city, to ascend, such as could not fail to be visible at a distance, and could not be mistaken. Bertheau must have overlooked this, when he proposed to remove the word out of the text.

Jdg_20:42 ff.. And the inhabitants of the cities destroyed them in the midst of them. The men of Benjamin fled; and in flight passed through the cities that lay in their course. Thereupon the inhabitants of these cities also arise, and slay the fugitives in their midst. The same thing occurs in all wars, when disorganized, fugitive troops must pass through the enemy’s land. Other explanations, such as have been given from time immemorial, do not appear to harmonize with the connection and the language. The clause cannot refer to those who burned the city; for how could they be called “ àֲùֶׁø îֵäֶòָøִéí ”? Equally incomprehensible is the reason for using this expression, and the áְּúåִëåֹ connected with it, if Bertheau’s explanation, which Keil has mostly followed, be adopted; for the pursuit and inclosure are first delineated in Jdg_20:43. The explanation of Le Clerc appears to me to come nearest the sense: Cum confugerunt Benjaminitœad urbes aliorum Israelitarum, ab iis occidebantur. Only, this must not be understood of a systematic application for refuge on the part of the Benjamites; but of the natural phenomenon that against a pursued and smitten foe everything rises up. The narrator evidently points in this way to the embittered feelings against Benjamin which everywhere prevailed. In proportion to Benjamin’s former overbearing haughtiness, is his present experience of misery. Not only is the hostile army continually at his heels, but he meets with enemies everywhere. Only the wilderness, which he endeavors to reach by fleeing in an eastern and northeastern direction toward the Jordan, promises safety. But before he arrives there, divisions of his men are cut off and surrounded ( ëִּúְּøåּ , Jdg_20:43). The pursuit is unceasing (this is the sense of äִøְåִéôֻäåּ îְðåּçָä , “they chase his rest,” hence probably the hiphil), he scarcely thinks to be able to take breath for a moment, before they are behind him again: in this way he is driven until he finds himself within the limits of the wilderness east of Gibeah. Finally, still pursued as far as an unknown place called Gidom, a remnant of his shattered hosts finds an asylum in the rock Rimmon, northeast of Gibeah and below Ophra, for the modern Rummôn, lying high, on a rocky Tell, on the north side of the great Wady el-’Asas, is held to be the rock Rimmon of our narrative (Rob. iii. 290; ii. 440).

Six hundred men of the whole tribe saved themselves on that rock. All the rest fell slain by the hands of brethren. They owed their safety to the eagerness of their pursuers to turn back, and destroy everything belonging to Benjamin, cities, houses, and herds. The cities are put under the ban and burned, like Jericho and other cities of the enemy. The Israelites are even more severe in their treatment of Benjamin, than the Pythia was toward the hostile Crissa, which was to be “warred on by day and by night and be made desolate, and whose inhabitants were to become slaves.” But grief and regret did not fail to come.

Footnotes:

[Jdg_20:31.— åַéָּçֵìåּ ìְäַëּåֹú îֵäָìָí çֲìָìִéí : “and they began to smite of the people, slain;” i. e, they smote so that the smitten became slain. çֲìָìִéí is the accusative of closer definition. Dr. Cassel takes it as nomi-native: “They began to smite, (so that,) as at the former times, slain of the people were [i.e., lay] on the highways, of which one,” etc. Similarly in ver 39.—Tr.]

[Jdg_20:33.— îַòֲøֶä . Dr. Cassel: Blösse, “nakedness”; cf. his remarks below. The Peshito read îְòָøָä , a cave; the LXX. in Cod. Alex., and the Vulgate, îַòֲøָë , “from the west.” Fürst (in his Lexicon) defines îַòֲøֶä as “forest,” and derives it from a conjectural root òָøָä III., to sprout thickly, to which he also assigns the participle in Psa_37:35. Keil seeks to remove the difficulty of connecting the ambuscade with an open, treeless plain, by remarking that “the words of the text do not require us to suppose that the forestless region was the place of hiding, but may be so understood as to affirm that the ambuscade, having broken up from its hiding-place, advanced against the city from the forestless region.” But he has failed to notice that the participle îֵâִéúַ speaks precisely of the “breaking forth,” and leaves the idea of “advancing on the city” entirely unexpressed.—Tr.]

[Jdg_20:34.— åַéָּáֹàåּ îִðֶּâֶø ìַâִּáְòָä : “from before Gibeah.” Dr. Cassel, like the E. V., has “against.” Bertheau says: “The ambuscade, consisting of ten thousand chosen men, came ‘from straight before’ Gibeah; whither they came, is not stated, but from the connection it appears that they attacked the Benjamites, who were fighting at some distance from the city, in the rear.” Keil adopts the same explanation. But it is manifest from Jdg_20:37-38, and especially Jdg_20:40-41, that Bertheau and Keil are wrong, and the E. V. and our author right.”—Tr.]

[Jdg_20:36.— åַéִּøִàåּ áְðֵéÎáִðְéָîִï ëִּé ðִâָּôåּ . With this verse, a new and more detailed account of the conflict begins. So Bertheau, Keil, and Bunsen, as well as our author. To indicate this to the eye, we have introduced a new paragraph division into the text. Bertheau and Bunsen agree with our author that the subject of ðִâָּôåּ is “the sons of Israel.” According to Keil, “the sons of Benjamin saw that they were smitten, and that the men of Israel only gave way before them because they depended on the ambuscade which they had laid against Gibeah. They became aware of this when the ambuscade fell on their rear.” But this is inconsistent with Jdg_20:37, and certainly with Jdg_20:40. Jdg_20:36 is a restatement of Jdg_20:32, introductory to the detailed account that now follows.—Tr.]

[Jdg_20:37.— åַéִּîְùֹׁãְ . Dr. Cassel translates: “and the ambuscade overpowered and smote the whole city;” and adds in a foot-note: “In the sense of Job_24:22 : îָùַׁãְ àַáִּéøִéí áְּëֹçåּ ”. But there the word probably means “to hold fast, to preserve,” cf. Delitzsch in locum. It seems better to take it here in the sense “to march, advance,” cf. Jdg_4:6.—Tr.]

[Jdg_20:38.— äֶøֶá ìְäַòֲìåֹúָí . The first of these words being taken as the apocopated hiphil imperative, a mixture of the direct with the indirect address arises from the suffix of the third person in the second word. Dr. Cassel avoids this by declaring äֶøֶë to be an apocopated infinitive (see below); but it is better to admit the existence of a grammatical inaccuracy.—Tr.]

[Jdg_20:42.— åַàֲùֶׁø îֵäֶòָøִéí îַùְׁçִéúִéí àåֹúåֹ áְּúåֹëåֹ . Dr. Cassel translates: “and they of the cities (through which Benjamin came) destroyed them in the midst of them.” Compare the exegetical remarks. Keil: “The words åַàùֶׁø îäֶòִøéí can only be an appositional explanation of the suffix in äִøְëִּé÷ַúְäåּ , in the sense: Benjamin, namely, they who out of the cities of Benjamin had came to the aid of Gibeah (cf. Jdg_20:14 f), i.e., all Benjamites The following îַùְׁçִéúּéí åéå is a circumstantial clause illustrative of the preceding ãֶøֶêְ äַîִּãְáָּø : ‘in that they (the men of Israel) destroyed him (Benjamin) in the midst of it.’ The singular suffix in áִúåֹëåֹ , refers not to Benjamin—for that yields no tolerable sense—but to the preceding ãֶøֶêְ äַîִּãְáָּø : ‘in the midst of the way to the desert.’ ”

[Jdg_20:43.—This verse continues the description begun in Jdg_20:42, by means of an animated constructio asyndeta. ëִּúְּøåּ àֶúÎáִּðְéָîï , they surrounded Benjamin (by throwing out bodies of men on his flanks); äּøְãִéôֻäåּ , pursued after him; îְðåּçָä äִãְøִéëֻäåּ , fell upon and trode him down at his resting-place (that is, when, exhausted, he halted to take breath— îðåּçָä , accusative of place); and this pursuit and slaughter continued until the pursuers, who started from some distance north of Gibeah (Jdg_20:31), had come south “as far as before Gibeah on its eastern side.” There the remnant of the pursued found means to turn northward again, Jdg_20:45; and were again pursued as far as Gidom (a place evidently somewhere between east of Gibeah and Rimmon). Compare our author’s remarks below, which, however, indicate a slightly different conception on some points.—Tr.]

[Jdg_20:48.— îֵòִéø îְúֹí . Dr. Cassel renders: “everything of the city, to the cattle and whatever else was found;” and adds the following note: “Many MSS., and the more recent expositors, point îְúִí , men, and yet it cannot be said that with áְּäֵîָä , this forms an altogether suitable antithesis, inasmuch as it still fails to express the idea that everything was put under the ban of destruction. The pointing îְúֹí finds support in Jos_8:24; Jos_10:20, where similar instructions òַøÎúֻּîָּí are spoken of.”—Tr.]

Movers (phönizier, i. 661) proposes to explain this name of a place by means of the Phœnician Tamyrus, Zeus Demarus. Raschi, on the other hand, connected it with the district of Jericho.

This is supported by the Syriac-Hexaplar version of Paul of Tella, which has îï îòøëà , which gives us a gendering of ἀðὸ äõóìῶí (Rördam, p. 179).

On the very ancient false reading çֶøֶë , found in some Hebrew MSS. and in the LXX., cf. Keil. Paul of Tella has given a similar rendering in his Syriac version (Rördam, p. 180).

[But on this occasion the fugitives do not pass through the enemy’s land. From first to last, whether fighting or fleeing, Benjamin moves on his own soil within his own boundaries; and this fact makes our author’s explanation of the last clause of Jdg_20:42 impossible. Cf. note 7 under “Textual and Grammatical.”—Tr.]