Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadLange Commentary - Judges 21:15 - 21:25
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Jdg_21:15-25
[2 Jdg_21:22.— áַּîִּìְçָîָä . Our author translates: als Kriegsbeute, i.e., as captives of war, cf. the exegetical remarks below. It seems better to refer the word to “the war” against Jabesh-Gilead.—Tr.]
[3 Jdg_21:22.— áָּòú úֶּàְùָׁîåּ . The word áָּòֵú , rendered “at this time” by the E. V., belongs to the last clause of the verse. The two clauses together are well rendered by Dr. Cassel: “for you have not given them to them, in which case ( áָּòֵú ) you would be guilty.” He adds in a foot-note: “ áָּòֵú as in Jdg_13:23; ‘in which case he would not have caused us to hear things like these.’ ” Bertheau refers also to Num_23:23.—Tr.]
Shiloh was the scene of a periodically recurring feast, at which the maidens assembled from all regions, and executed dances in certain fixed places. For the sake of these places, and to enable the Benjamites to reach the proper locality without exciting particular attention, an exact description of the situation of Shiloh is added. For that it is not gone into for the sake of Shiloh itself, is evident from the fact that such descriptions are not elsewhere customary. The Benjamites are told of the vine-hills that enclose the dancing-places. There they are to wait, concealed in the thickets, until the maidens come forth; when they are to rush upon them, seize each a wife, and return with them, along the well-known roads, southward over Rimmon, to their territory, now again peaceably held by them. The Benjamites appear to have directed attention to the consequences of such an exploit, and the ill-will of fathers and brothers likely to be engendered by it. But the elders of the congregation quiet their apprehensions, and say:—
Jdg_21:22 ff.. When their fathers or their brethren come unto us to contend. Verse 22 also has experienced the most singular expositions. The Syriac and Arabic versions have substituted ìָ÷ְçåּ for ìָ÷ִçְðåּ , wherein Studer proposes to follow them. Others, as Bertheau, deem it necessary to leave out the words áַּîּìְçָîָä …. ëִּé ìֹà . Keil thinks that the words express the sense of the Benjamites, as if they had uttered them. And yet the matter is clear. The Benjamites, having recent experience of the consequences of lawlessness, are apprehensive of new troubles, in consequence of the proposed seizure. The elders quiet their fears, and say: No doubt, the fathers or brothers will come and contend warmly; and with us, for it will be manifest that we have given the occasion. Without this, you, the tribe of Benjamin, would not now have dared to do this thing. They will reproach us with having brought them under the curse of having violated their oath, inasmuch as you have obtained their daughters. Then shall we say to them (the fathers): Be quiet and gentle; give the maidens kindly to us. You know that we did not take them in war, as booty, as for instance, at Jabesh. We have indeed allowed them to be taken (for which no grudge is to be held against Benjamin); but in peace, not for injury: and as you did not give them, no guilt attaches to you. What else could we do to provide wives for Benjamin, without involving ourselves in the curse of a broken oath? We therefore allowed your daughters to be seized, but not as captives of war. Your daughters have gone to them involuntarily; and no curse can come on you, since you did not give them to them. The emphasis of the sentence lies on this very word ìָ÷çְðåּ . Since we permitted them to be taken, there can be no thought of disgrace and war, or of insult. Therefore, do not contend; for why should there be contention where there is no war. The “elders” will ask forgiveness for themselves, on the ground that they meant it well with the seizure ( ìà ëַּîִּìְçָîָä ), not in war; and fathers and brothers, whose wrath against Benjamin has now subsided, will all be satisfied, as soon as they are convinced that what has been done does not render them liable to the curse which lights on oath-breakers. For the oath that had been taken was latterly the chief hindrance in the way of reconciliation with Benjamin.
The Benjamites, thus encouraged, and made to feel secure against bad consequences, actually execute the proposed exploit, and with the wives thus won return happy to their renovated inheritance. Roman history, it is well known, has a celebrated occurrence of a similar nature in the rape of the Sabine women. A few analogous features are undoubtedly observable therein. The tribes of Italy refuse to enter into marriage treaties with the Romans; and the latter feared the destruction of their scarcely founded state. The Sabine rape occurred in the fourth month of Rome (Plutarch, Romulus, 14); and four months Benjamin had been sitting in the rock Rimmon. Benjamin received only maidens (Jdg_21:12; Jdg_21:21); and only maidens likewise did the Romans seize (Plut. l. c.; Schwegler, Röm. Gesch. i. 478). It was also a feast for which the Sabine women appeared in Rome, albeit not as active participants. In Israel, it has been thoughtfully conjectured, the dancing maidens perhaps celebrated the memory of Miriam’s festive chorus of timbrel-striking maidens, when Israel had safely passed through the Red Sea. The Romans celebrated the consualia on the anniversary of the rape of the Sabine maidens, and conceived the observance sacred to the sea-god. In like manner, the animal that symbolized Mars, the god whom Romulus chiefly served at Rome, was the wolf, whom also his worshippers did not disgrace. Benjamin is compared with a wolf, and the word çָèַó , used of the seizure of the virgins (Jdg_21:21), is afterwards applied as characterizing the wolf
Schwegler (Röm. Gesch. i. 469) declares that the rape of the Sabines is a myth, sprung from the conception of marriage as a robbery. But it is precisely in this story that the seizure of women is contrasted, as a thing improper in itself, with the regular marriages of the other tribes. The idea of the narrative is rather to show the impossibility of maintaining laws prohibiting intermarriage between different tribes. It contained the lesson that the marriage connections of men overleap the historical divisions of tribes and families, and that just as the ship converts the separating sea into an highway of fellowship (Neptunus Equestris, for the sea is a steed), so connubium, the practice of intermarriage, is the commingling of different tribes. Consualia are, therefore, conjugalia; Consus is Conjux; the veiling and concealment connected with his festivals, corresponds to the concealment of the married (nubere, connubium), and the sacrifice of a mule corresponded to the wish, that although the union was one of heterogeneous elements, analogous to that from which the animal sprang, it might nevertheless not be marked by the barrenness of which he was a symbol.
But all this is yet more clearly taught by Benjamin’s seizure of the maidens of Shiloh. Israel is the type of an organic nationality with different tribes. Should it attempt to abolish the practice of intermarriage, the result must be, either the forcible taking of women, or the death of a member of the living whole. In peace the Benjamites regain what they had lost in war. An ambuscade almost annihilated them: by an ambuscade they now win new life. Then Israel lay breathing forth wrath, in desolate wadys, in order to inflict barrenness: now, Benjamin lies among fertile vine-hills, in order to procure a blessing. It is frightful to think of Benjamin dissolving in flames, and his women and maidens falling by the inexorable sword; so that it must be acknowledged a grateful change when we can picture to ourselves the Benjamites hurrying away with their kidnapped prizes. But the seeming act of war was yet not without its terrors and tears, as suddenly the timbrels ceased to sound, and daughters screamed, and mothers wept. It was an image of war sufficient of itself to mark the horribleness of civil war. The narrative is given for the purpose of pointing out into what irregularities a people naturally falls when it lacks the organic unity of one general regimen. It closes with the words, which might form the superscription of the entire Book: “There was no king in Israel, and every man could do what seemed right in his own eyes.”
Concluding Note.—The time in which the occurrence at Gibeah and the events that grew out of it took place, it is not difficult to ascertain. Everything points back to the time in which the memories and traditions of Israel’s military fellowship under Joshua were yet living and fresh. It is the period concerning which it is said, Jos_24:31, and Jdg_2:7 : “And the people served Jehovah all the days of Joshua, and all the days of the elders that outlived Joshua, who had seen all the great works of Jehovah, which he did for Israel.”
It is also evident from the narrative that God was still zealously served. Counsel was sought from the Urim and Thummim. The people wept and fasted before God. They brought burnt-sacrifices and peace-offerings. Of idolatry, there is not a trace. Union with heathen women is held inconceivable. All Israel still feels itself under a military organization such as obtained under Moses and Joshua. In all probability, no great length of time had elapsed since military operations for the conquest of the land had come to a stand-still. From Jdg_1:22-26, it may be seen what great importance was attached to the conquest of Bethel. When the house of Joseph, in whose territory Shiloh and the estate of the high-priest lay (Jos_24:33), went up against Bethel, “Jehovah was with them.” It is probable that from that time until into the days of the events that have just been related, the ark of the covenant was at Bethel, and that that place was the centre of military actions. The ark must, however, have been removed before the end of the Benjamite war; for when peace is restored, it is found in Shiloh. Its stay at Bethel cannot have been long, for there is there no permanent altar (Jdg_21:4). The maidens of Jabesh, also, are not brought to Bethel, but to Shiloh (Jdg_21:12). The exodus from Egypt is still in living remembrance (Jdg_19:30). Just as after the death of Joshua, the order was, “Judah first” (Jdg_1:1), so it is now (Jdg_20:18). Nothing is visible as yet of the partial efforts of single tribes. All this is most clearly deducible from the fact that Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, and the grandson of Aaron, stands at the head of the sanctuary (Jdg_20:28). He was yet one of those who had seen the great works of Jehovah. Eleazar, his father, had died after Joshua. Until he himself died, Israel’s religious condition was doubtless such as is described in Jdg_2:7. Moreover, his name and character suggest the inference that the events just treated of, are immediately connected with the preceding great age. It was Phinehas whose moral zeal incited him to slay the sinning Israelite in the territory of Moab, for which act he was praised as having “turned away the wrath of God” (Num_25:7-12). To him, therefore, the moral indignation of Israel over the criminal outrage of Benjamin, is doubtless to be especially attributed. He had been selected by Moses to accompany a hostile expedition against Midian by which Israel had been seduced into heathen practices (Num_31:6). This expedition numbered twelve thousand men,—one thousand from each tribe. The expedition against Jabesh-Gilead was organized in a similar manner. If this type of priestly zeal for faith and purity of morals stood at the head of Israel, the whole war against Benjamin, at least so far as its motives are concerned, becomes plain. Before this, a similar war against the two and a half transjordanic tribes had almost occurred. These tribes, as we are told in Joshua 22, had built themselves an altar: the sons of Israel this side the Jordan thought that it was intended for idolatrous purposes. They came together in Shiloh, and resolved to proceed against the supposed apostates. But first an embassy was sent, at whose head Phinehas again stood (Jdg_21:13). The address which he made to them is altogether in the spirit of the action determined on against Benjamin.
But it is precisely this last named occurrence that enables us to characterize yet more narrowly the catastrophe related in chaps, 20 and 21, and to comprehend the design with which it stands, not at the beginning, but at the close of the Book, and alongside of the history of Micah. It is not stated that a solemn embassy, like that in Jos_22:19 ff., was sent to Benjamin, to set his sin before him in the spirit of kindness. Everything is indeed done according to the forms of the law and under priestly instruction, but with such assured consciousness of power, and with such carnal fanaticism, that the zeal is not pleasing, and is finally attended by lamentable consequences. The moral motive of the war against Benjamin is certainly to be praised; but the blind rage in victory is of the flesh. The crime of Benjamin was horrible; but the unity, determination, and perseverance which Israel manifests against this tribe, end in a fanaticism which at last forgot that the war was waged only because Benjamin was a brother, and that he was treated worse than national enemies had ever been. This is the lesson which the narrator designs to teach by placing this narrative at the close of his Book. He censures what his narrative contained, for both at its beginning and at its close he says: “there was no king in those days.”
In the next place, he furnishes an opportunity to compare the tribes of Dan and Benjamin with each other, in their characters, their deeds, and their fortunes. Both were preëminently warlike. But this valor, to what did they turn it? Why was not Dan as bold against the Philistines as against peaceful Laish? or why did not Benjamin turn his martial spirit against Jebus, a place of such importance to him? Dan founds an idolatrous worship in order not to lose his tribe-consciousness; and Benjamin defends a crime by way of resenting the interference of other tribes. Dan’s offense, however, is justly deemed more heinous than that of Benjamin; for it committed a spiritual sin against the Spirit of the eternal God, while Benjamin protected a terrible, indeed, but yet only fleshly crime. The difference shows itself also in the consequences. It is true that both Benjamin and Dan lose their proper importance. The cities and territories of both are taken by Judah. But the hero who comes out of Dan, Samson, is none of theirs who practice idolatry in the north. His fame did not redound to their honor. But out of Benjamin arose, after this, more than one glorious deliverer. When he was yet but a remnant, Ehud rose up in the midst of him to be a deliverer. Saul and Jonathan—the first king and his royal son—were Benjamites.
This being so, the narrator allows the reproach to fall on Israel of having acted so differently with respect to Dan and Benjamin. In the face of deeds like those of Micah and Dan, it remained inactive, neither warned nor took any other measure, although the sins were mortal in their nature; whereas it nearly destroyed Benjamin. And even before these occurrences in Benjamin, where was this united strength, when, in disregard of the law, heathen people, as the prophet tells them in Judges 2, were left to pursue their own modes of life and idol service?
It was this that drew the punishment after it. Had the external unity been in possession of its earlier internal strength, not only would the victory over Benjamin have been gained more quickly, but the servitude under foreign foes would not have come so soon. The observance of external forms, the customary prayer, the usual routine of worship in war and peace, are of no avail, unless animated by living faith.
Israel felt that one tribe was lacking to protect its eastern flank on the Jordan, when Moab invaded the country. True, it was a Benjamite, Ehud, who delivered the country from the tyrant, but it was only by the help of Ephraim (Jdg_3:27) that he gained the complete victory. His own tribe were too few in numbers. Even Saul was still conscious that he came from the smallest tribe of Israel (1Sa_9:21), although under him Israel already felt that “there was a king in the land.”
From all this we may see what the consequences would be were Christianity to become wholly inactive in the state. Persons, who deem themselves virtuous, suppose that the religion of a living God is by no means absolutely necessary for social life. But as soon as religion falls into decay, and before its influence ceases altogether, the moral supports of society fall to pieces. When the ministers of the Word begin to regard good positions more than truth, ruin is at hand. Venality is followed by its evil consequences, although he who is ready to sell himself know enough of the language of the day to conceal it. A Christian must serve no idols. The more surely, therefore, is it a sign of decay, when he makes a business of serving superstition.
Starke: The creature is to be applied for God’s honor, but not in honoring him. Arbitrariness in parts, leads to arbitrariness in the whole. If the foundation-stone, piety, be removed, then the tribes, like stones of a building, fall apart. The fear of God is the beginning of all wisdom, and also the protector of all peace.
On Chaps. 19–21.—When the command of God is no longer in the heart, priests become carnal, and their flocks lawless. As the Levite runs after a concubine, so the people of Gibeah seek the indulgence of bestial lusts. Who will imitate the morals of a master, who rejects God’s sacred command. If in Gibeah the law of Jehovah is dishonored with impunity, how can it be expected that they will show obedience toward their brethren? Israel is indignant at the sins of Benjamin, but does it turn away from its own? Virtuous indignation is not difficult, but careful self-examination is more necessary. The rod may undertake to maintain supremacy, but only truth can succeed in doing it. Civil war arises not from political, but from moral dangers. The love of peace will begin as soon as self-righteousness ceases. Seb. Schmidt observes: “The best way of conciliating an enemy is to do him good.” But kind deeds towards an enemy spring only from love, which is a daughter of repentance. The severest judges of morals often know least of this love. Love is most needed when it becomes necessary to punish. Israel began to grieve bitterly when Benjamin was almost destroyed. Men recognize only when too late, what the root was in the beginning. Lewdness strangles compassion. Carnal zeal consumes considerateness. Self-righteousness irritates the minds of men. Only at the altar of God, through the pious priest, does peace come into being.
Gerlach: In all this it becomes manifest what Israel might have been and continued to be, if it had clung faithfully to the Lord and his commandments, and had preserved its covenant with the Lord, and by that very means its national purity, unimpaired.—The same: The people, drawing near to God in the presentation of expiatory burnt offerings, sought in these offerings to remove the breach between the holiness of the Lord and their own sinfulness; and in the sacred meals that followed the offering, to obtain the assurance of the assistance of divine grace as they went forth into the holy war.
Only where the gospel is heard and followed, is there peace. For that reason, the Lord, our Saviour, says to all his disciples: Peace be with you!
Footnotes:
[Jdg_21:17.— éøֻùùַּׁú ùִּׂìֵéèָä ñְá éָîִï . Dr. Cassel renders: “A portion of escape yet remains for Benjamin,” i.e., a means of delivering the tribe from extinction. This agrees well with the context, but is expressed somewhat singularly. Keil: “ ‘Possession of the saved shall be for Benjamin,’ i.e., the territory of the tribe of Benjamin shall continue to be a separate possession for those Benjamites who have escaped the general slaughter.” But this is not only incongruous with the context, but puts a meaning into the words which, as they stand, they cannot have. It seems to me that the better interpretation is as follows: In Jdg_21:15, the people lament that a tribe is broken off. Thereupon the elders meet for consultation. It is agreed that the only thing needed to avert the catastrophe, lamented by the people as if it had already taken place, is a supply of wives. “There is a possession of escaped to Benjamin,” say the elders (Jdg_21:17), “and a tribe will not be destroyed out of Israel” (as the people lament). “We, it is true, cannot give them our daughters (Jdg_21:18), but behold there is a feast in Shiloh” (Jdg_21:19).—Tr.]
[Jdg_21:22.— áַּîִּìְçָîָä . Our author translates: als Kriegsbeute, i.e., as captives of war, cf. the exegetical remarks below. It seems better to refer the word to “the war” against Jabesh-Gilead.—Tr.]
[Jdg_21:22.— áָּòú úֶּàְùָׁîåּ . The word áָּòֵú , rendered “at this time” by the E. V., belongs to the last clause of the verse. The two clauses together are well rendered by Dr. Cassel: “for you have not given them to them, in which case ( áָּòֵú ) you would be guilty.” He adds in a foot-note: “ áָּòֵú as in Jdg_13:23; ‘in which case he would not have caused us to hear things like these.’ ” Bertheau refers also to Num_23:23.—Tr.]
The description may still be recognized, since Robinson seems to have discovered Shiloh in Seilun, and Lebonah in Lubban. The description of Shiloh as “Shiloh which is in the land of Canaan” (Jdg_21:12), is more peculiar. This was only the full name of the place, cf. Jos_21:2; Jos_22:9, where it is named in the same way. Cf. Lugdunum Batavorum.
[Better Keil: “The exact description of the situation of Shiloh serves to show that it was peculiarly adapted for the execution of the advice given to the Benjamites, who after seizing the maidens, could easily escape into their territory by the highway leading from Bethel to Shechem, with out being apprehended by the citizens of Shiloh.”—Tr.]
Cf. the Targum on Eze_22:27, and my Gold. Thron. Salomonis. p. 164.
The usages, also, of which he makes mention, as, for instance the Spartan, have a different meaning. The mother must be robbed of her child because she loves it. The narrative in question exhibits the necessity of robbery because the stranger does not meet with love.
[The following “Homiletical and Practical” paragraphs are based on the whole of “Part Third” of the Book, from chap. 17 to 21 inclusive. As will be seen, it was impracticable to place them under the several parts of the text to which they refer, according to the plan pursued in the other parts of the volume (cf. the note on p. 19).—Tr.