The Fallible · Synthetic · Study Bible
Wives for the Benjamites
Judges 21:1–25 — Wives for the Benjamites. Each verse below carries the full apparatus: the Berean Standard Bible, the vocalized original (tap any word), and a parsed breakdown of every term transcribed from the interlinear. Synthesized commentary, canonical threads, and the reading of Christ gather at the end, over the whole unit.
1Now the men of Israel had sworn an oath at Mizpah, saying, “Not one of us will give his daughter in marriage to a Benjamite.”
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
wə·’îš yiś·rā·’êl niš·ba‘ bam·miṣ·pāh lê·mōr ’îš lō- mim·men·nū bit·tōw yit·tên lə·ḇin·yā·min lə·’iš·šāh
Literal — word-for-word from the original
And-a-man of-Israel had-sworn-himself at-the-Mizpah, saying: “A-man from-us shall-not give his-daughter to-Benjamin for-a-wife.”
Where the English smooths the original
This was a rash oath, and not from judgment: for they later broke it, showing secretly the means to marry certain of their daughters.The Geneva annotator names in one line what the rest of the chapter will cost: a vow made in heat, kept in the letter, and evaded in the dark.
This solemn oath, which could neither be broken nor withdrawn, is an essential feature of both narratives ( Jdg 21:18 ; Jdg 21:22 A; 7 B); it created the problem for which some solution had to be found.
It is clear from the sequel ( Judges 21:18 ) that the oath was not only an oath but “a vow under a curse,”
2So the people came to Bethel and sat there before God until evening, lifting up their voices and weeping bitterly.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
hā·‘ām way·yā·ḇō bêṯ- ’êl way·yê·šə·ḇū šām lip̄·nê hā·’ĕ·lō·hîm ‘aḏ- hā·‘e·reḇ way·yiś·’ū qō·w·lām way·yiḇ·kū bə·ḵî ḡā·ḏō·wl
Literal — word-for-word from the original
And-came the-people Beth-El, and-they-sat there before-the-God until the-evening; and-they-lifted-up their-voice and-they-wept a-weeping great.
Where the English smooths the original
The characteristic fickleness of the Israelites was not long in being displayed; for scarcely had they cooled from the fierceness of their sanguinary vengeance, than they began to relent and rushed to the opposite extreme of self-accusation and grief at the desolation which their impetuous zeal had produced.
With passionate Oriental feelings they passed the whole day weeping, and probably fasting (see ch. 20:26), before the tabernacle.
and abode there till even before God; fasting and praying, instead of feasting and rejoicingGill places the scene at Shiloh rather than Bethel, against Ellicott and Barnes; the phrase is quoted for its insight into the mood, not as a settlement of the location.
3“Why, O LORD God of Israel,” they cried out, “has this happened in Israel? Today in Israel one tribe is missing!”
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
lā·māh Yah·weh ’ĕ·lō·hê yiś·rā·’êl way·yō·mə·rū zōṯ hā·yə·ṯāh bə·yiś·rā·’êl hay·yō·wm mî·yiś·rā·’êl ’e·ḥāḏ šê·ḇeṭ lə·hip·pā·qêḏ
Literal — word-for-word from the original
And-they-said: “Why, O-YHWH, God of-Israel, has-this come-to-be in-Israel — to-be-mustered-missing today from-Israel one tribe?”
Where the English smooths the original
The repetition of the name of Israel is very striking in connection with the title of Yahweh as "God of Israel." It contains a very forcible pleading of the covenant, and memorial of the promises. The very name "Israel" comprehended all the twelve tribes; with one of them blotted out, the remnant would not be Israel.
The repetition of the name “Israel” three times shows that the nation had not yet lost its sense of corporate unity, often as that unity had been rent asunder by their civil dissensions. Their wild justice is mingled with a still wilder mercy.
Strange! when they uttered this for the loss of the tribe which they imagined must be extinct, because there were no women left to match with the six hundred men who had saved themselves in the rock Rimmon, that they did not pour forth the deepest expressions of sorrow and contrition for their own wickedness, in having been guilty of such inhumanity toward the innocent among the Benjamites, particularly the women and children, who could not be culpable in any degree. Alas! what crimes is human nature capable of!Benson's outrage is the moral question the narrative itself never asks aloud: they mourn the tribe and not the innocents they killed to punish it.
4The next day the people got up early, built an altar there, and presented burnt offerings and peace offerings.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
way·hî mim·mā·ḥo·rāṯ hā·‘ām way·yaš·kî·mū way·yiḇ·nū- miz·bê·aḥ šām way·ya·‘ă·lū ‘ō·lō·wṯ ū·šə·lā·mîm
Literal — word-for-word from the original
And-it-came-to-pass on-the-morrow, and-the-people rose-early, and-they-built there an-altar, and-they-brought-up ascent-offerings and-peace-offerings.
Where the English smooths the original
Built there an altar; not for a monument of the victory, as some say, but for sacrifices, as the next words show.
knowing as they did that their proposal would not succeed without reconciliation to the Lord, and a return to the fellowship of His grace.
But an altar must have existed in the sanctuary at Beth-el when the sacrifices were offered before, Jdg 20:26 . Either these words, or the whole verse, must be a glossCambridge writes from a source-critical frame the older commentators reject; the observation that an altar already stood at Bethel (Judges 20:26) is a textual fact either way.
5The Israelites asked, “Who among all the tribes of Israel did not come to the assembly before the LORD?” For they had taken a solemn oath that anyone who failed to come up before the LORD at Mizpah would surely be put to death.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
bə·nê yiś·rā·’êl way·yō·mə·rū mî ’ă·šer mik·kāl šiḇ·ṭê yiś·rā·’êl lō- ‘ā·lāh ḇaq·qā·hāl ’el- Yah·weh kî hā·yə·ṯāh hag·gə·ḏō·w·lāh haš·šə·ḇū·‘āh la·’ă·šer lō- ‘ā·lāh ’el- Yah·weh ham·miṣ·pāh lê·mōr mō·wṯ yū·māṯ
Literal — word-for-word from the original
And-said the-sons-of-Israel: “Who is-the-one from-all the-tribes of-Israel who did-not come-up in-the-assembly unto YHWH?” For the-great oath was concerning-him-who came-not-up unto YHWH to-the-Mizpah, saying: “Dying he-shall-be-put-to-death.”
Where the English smooths the original
We see once more in this narrative both the force derivable from a vow and the folly and wickedness of fierce vows rashly taken in moments of passion.
We learn from this supplementary remark, that when important meetings of the congregation were called, all the members were bound by an oath to appear.
A great oath. i.e. a solemn oath, joined with some terrible execration against the offenders herein.
6And the Israelites grieved for their brothers, the Benjamites, and said, “Today a tribe is cut off from Israel.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
bə·nê yiś·rā·’êl way·yin·nā·ḥă·mū ’el- ’ā·ḥîw bin·yā·min way·yō·mə·rū hay·yō·wm ’e·ḥāḏ šê·ḇeṭ niḡ·da‘ mî·yiś·rā·’êl
Literal — word-for-word from the original
And-the-sons-of-Israel were-moved-to-pity concerning Benjamin their-brother, and-they-said: “Felled today is-one tribe from-Israel.”
Where the English smooths the original
Children of Israel repented them; not for the war, which was just, and necessary, and good; but for their immoderate severity in the execution of it, and for thee dreadful consequences of it.Poole's 1685 text reads “thee dreadful consequences”; the typography is his printer's, and it is left exactly as it stands.
cut down ; the figure is that of hewing down trees, cf. Isaiah 10:33
The prospect of such a blank in the catalogue of the twelve tribes, such a gap in the national arrangements, was too painful to contemplate, and immediate measures must be taken to prevent this great catastrophe.
7What should we do about wives for the survivors, since we have sworn by the LORD not to give them our daughters in marriage?”
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
mah- na·‘ă·śeh lā·hem lə·nā·šîm lan·nō·w·ṯā·rîm wa·’ă·naḥ·nū niš·ba‘·nū Yah·weh lə·ḇil·tî têṯ- lā·hem mib·bə·nō·w·ṯê·nū lə·nā·šîm
Literal — word-for-word from the original
“What shall-we-do for-them, for-the-ones-left-over, for-wives? And-we — we-have-sworn by-YHWH not to-give to-them from-our-daughters for-wives.”
Where the English smooths the original
and such an oath with them was a sacred thing, and to be kept inviolable, even to their own hurt: that we will not give them of our daughters to wives; as in Judges 21:1 and therefore they must either marry among the Heathens, which was forbidden, or they must make void their oath, or the tribe in a little time would be extinct
anxiety for the preservation of this tribe which sprang from compassion towards Benjamin, and was shown in their endeavour to provide such as remained with wives, without violating the oath that none of them would give them their own daughters as wives, - formed the two factors which determined the course to be adopted by the congregation.
8So they asked, “Which one of the tribes of Israel failed to come up before the LORD at Mizpah?” And, in fact, no one from Jabesh-gilead had come to the camp for the assembly.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
way·yō·mə·rū mî ’e·ḥāḏ miš·šiḇ·ṭê yiś·rā·’êl ’ă·šer lō- ‘ā·lāh ’el- Yah·weh ham·miṣ·pāh wə·hin·nêh lō ’îš mî·yā·ḇêš gil·‘āḏ ’el- ḇā- ’el- ham·ma·ḥă·neh haq·qā·hāl
Literal — word-for-word from the original
And-they-said: “Who is-the-one from-the-tribes of-Israel who did-not come-up unto YHWH to-the-Mizpah?” And-behold, there-came not a-man from-Jabesh-Gilead unto the-camp, to-the-assembly.
Where the English smooths the original
For some reason with which we are unacquainted, there seems to have been a bond of intense sympathy between the inhabitants of this town and Benjamin.
Condemning them as lovers of evil, who would not punish it.Geneva supplies the charge the text leaves unstated; it is the annotator's inference about Jabesh's motive, not the narrator's.
It has been suggested that this narrative of the war against Jabesh was dictated by Judaean animosity against Saul1[64]; but it is clear that the narrative dates from a period later than that of the kingdom of Judah.Cambridge reports and then qualifies the theory that the episode was shaped by later hostility to Saul, whose deliverance of Jabesh (1 Samuel 11) made the city his loyal ally; the suggestion is contested and is recorded here as a scholarly proposal, not a finding.
9For when the people were counted, none of the residents of Jabesh-gilead were there.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
hā·‘ām wə·hin·nêh way·yiṯ·pā·qêḏ ’ên- ’îš mî·yō·wō·šə·ḇê yā·ḇêš gil·‘āḏ šām
Literal — word-for-word from the original
And-mustered-itself the-people, and-behold, there-was-no man from-the-dwellers-of Jabesh-Gilead there.
Where the English smooths the original
In order, however, to confirm the correctness of this answer, which might possibly have been founded upon a superficial and erroneous observation, the whole of the (assembled) people were mustered
It is doubtful whether this implies another numbering besides that at Mizpeh ( Judges 20:1-17 ). In the tale which had then been made up, the absence of inhabitants of a single town might for the present escape notice.
and very probably the muster roll was taken before they went to battle, and they were not on that.
10So the congregation sent 12,000 of their most valiant men and commanded them: “Go and put to the sword those living in Jabesh-gilead, including women and children.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
hā·‘ê·ḏāh way·yiš·lə·ḥū- šə·nêm- ‘ā·śār ’e·lep̄ mib·bə·nê he·ḥā·yil ’îš šām way·ṣaw·wū ’ō·w·ṯām lê·mōr lə·ḵū wə·hik·kî·ṯem ’eṯ- lə·p̄î- ḥe·reḇ yō·wō·šə·ḇê yā·ḇêš gil·‘āḏ wə·han·nā·šîm wə·haṭ·ṭāp̄
Literal — word-for-word from the original
And-sent there the-congregation twelve thousand men from-the-sons-of-valour, and-they-commanded them saying: “Go, and-you-shall-strike the-dwellers-of Jabesh-Gilead to-the-mouth of-the-sword, and-the-women and-the-little-ones.”
Where the English smooths the original
And the congregation sent 12,000 men - A thousand from each tribe; they followed the precedent of Numbers 31:4 .
No doubt reckoning 1000 men from each tribe, cf. Numbers 31:4 f.; the writer forgot that Benjamin could not be counted.
Revolting to our feelings as such wholesale massacres are, including women and children, it must be remembered in mitigation that the ' hereto was the solemn devotion of a thing or person to destruction under the sanction of an oath.Pulpit is explaining the institution of the ban, not defending the deed; the sentence immediately concedes how the act reads to any conscience.
11This is what you are to do: Devote to destruction every male, as well as every female who has had relations with a man.”
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
wə·zeh had·dā·ḇār ’ă·šer ta·‘ă·śū ta·ḥă·rî·mū kāl- zā·ḵār wə·ḵāl ’iš·šāh yō·ḏa·‘aṯ miš·kaḇ- zā·ḵār
Literal — word-for-word from the original
“And-this is-the-word which you-shall-do: every male, and-every woman knowing the-lying-of a-male, you-shall-devote-to-the-ban.”
Where the English smooths the original
The words are easy to read; it is needless to dwell on the horror of the massacre which they describe.
Strange infatuation of the human mind! That they should imagine the Divine Majesty would be more honoured and pleased by an action quite contrary to, and abhorrent from, his essential nature and attributes, than if they had implored his pardon for a rash oath, and honoured him by not keeping it! Would to God that this had been the only time that the human race have thought to honour God by acts which are the most hateful to him! The cruel havocs made by religious persecution in different ages and countries have, alas! too fully witnessed how far the mind of man is capable of erring in this respect! O shocking blindness and infatuation! that men should think that the God of love, he who is love itself, can be pleased or honoured by acts of the most barbarous cruelty!Benson widens the charge from Israel to “the cruel havocs made by religious persecution in different ages and countries”; his target includes his own church's history, not only theirs.
It is questionable whether they were not obliged to destroy these also by virtue of their oath, and of God’s express command concerning devoted persons, such as these certainly were, that they should surely be put to death . Leviticus 27:29 , which was also particularly enjoined and practised in such cases, as Deu 13 Jos 7 , &c. But the natural and necessary duty of preserving a tribe from total ruin, might seem to render the case difficult and doubtful, and incline their opinions, as well as their affections, to the more favourable side.
12So they found among the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead four hundred young women who had not had relations with a man, and they brought them to the camp at Shiloh in the land of Canaan.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
way·yim·ṣə·’ū mî·yō·wō·šə·ḇê yā·ḇêš gil·‘āḏ ’ar·ba‘ mê·’ō·wṯ na·‘ă·rāh ḇə·ṯū·lāh ’ă·šer lō- yā·ḏə·‘āh ’îš lə·miš·kaḇ zā·ḵār way·yā·ḇî·’ū ’ō·w·ṯām ’el- ham·ma·ḥă·neh ši·lōh ’ă·šer bə·’e·reṣ kə·nā·‘an
Literal — word-for-word from the original
And-they-found from-the-dwellers-of Jabesh-Gilead four hundred girl-virgin who had-not known a-man to-the-lying-of a-male; and-they-brought them to-the-camp at-Shiloh, which is-in-the-land of-Canaan.
Where the English smooths the original
If the vow they had made would admit of their sparing the virgins, why could they not also, in consistency with that oath, have spared the other women and children, and innocent persons, and only punished the guilty? But it is evident “that convenience, rather than justice or piety, induced them to spare the virginsBenson is quoting Thomas Scott in the closing clause; the judgment is Scott's, endorsed by Benson.
Young virgins; not married, yet marriageable. It is probable there were other and younger virgins; but whether they were slain or spared Scripture determines not, and the learned do not agree.
but how it was that they were not obliged, or did not think themselves obliged by their oath to put these to death, as well as others, is not easy to say; whether they thought the necessity of the case would excuse it, or they had a dispensation from the Lord for it, on consulting him; however, so it wasGill's candour is worth the citation: he can find no principled reason the ban was relaxed for these four hundred, and says so.
The fighting men found 400 such virgins in Jabesh, and brought them to the camp at Shiloh in the land of Canaan. אותם ( Judges 21:12 ) refers to the virgins, the masculine being used as the more common genus in the place of the feminine.
13Then the whole congregation sent a message of peace to the Benjamites who were at the rock of Rimmon.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
kāl- hā·‘ê·ḏāh way·yiš·lə·ḥū way·ḏab·bə·rū way·yiq·rə·’ū lā·hem šā·lō·wm ’el- bə·nê ḇin·yā·min ’ă·šer bə·se·la‘ rim·mō·wn
Literal — word-for-word from the original
And-sent the-whole congregation, and-they-spoke unto the-sons-of-Benjamin who were-in-the-crag of-Rimmon, and-they-called to-them peace.
Where the English smooths the original
They sent ambassadors or heralds to them as it were with a flag of truce.
to proclaim peace to them, and assure them of it, and to let them know that they had no ill design against them, that they might come safely to them, and would be kindly received and protected by them.
That is, about four months after the punishment, Jud 20:47.The four-month interval is the annotator's inference from the length of the siege at the rock in Judges 20:47, not a figure given in this chapter.
14And at that time the Benjamites returned and were given the women who were spared from Jabesh-gilead. But there were not enough women for all of them.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
ha·hî bā·‘êṯ bin·yā·min way·yā·šāḇ way·yit·tə·nū lā·hem han·nā·šîm ’ă·šer ḥî·yū min·nə·šê yā·ḇêš gil·‘āḏ wə·lō- mā·ṣə·’ū kên lā·hem
Literal — word-for-word from the original
And-returned Benjamin at-that time, and-they-gave to-them the-women whom they-had-kept-alive of-the-women of-Jabesh-Gilead; and-not did-they-find for-them so.
Where the English smooths the original
Came again —i.e., returned to their desolate towns. Yet so they sufficed them not. —There would still be 200 Benjamites left without wives.
in doing which they supposed they had not violated their oath, since though they had sworn that they would not give their own daughters, they had not sworn they would not give the daughters of othersGill reports the reasoning; the verb “supposed” carries his reserve about it.
a prosaic attempt to harmonize with the old story in Jdg 21:15-23 , as though the rape at Shiloh were a supplementary device to bring the number of wives up to the total requiredCambridge's source-critical judgment that the clause harmonizes two narratives is a critical hypothesis, not a textual datum.
15The people grieved for Benjamin, because the LORD had made a void in the tribes of Israel.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
wə·hā·‘ām ni·ḥām lə·ḇin·yā·min kî- Yah·weh ‘ā·śāh pe·reṣ bə·šiḇ·ṭê yiś·rā·’êl
Literal — word-for-word from the original
And-the-people was-moved-to-pity for-Benjamin, because YHWH had-made a-breach in-the-tribes of-Israel.
Where the English smooths the original
The breach ( perets, 1Kings 11:24 ) had been caused by their own headstrong fury and unreasoning passion, even though it had been in a righteous cause; but in the Hebrew conception the results even of man’s sin and follies is referred to Jehovah as overruled by Him
The Lord had made a breach; the Benjamites were the only authors of the sin, but God was the chief author of the punishment, and the Israelites were but his executioners.
In early civilization it was felt to be a grave disaster if a family died out (hence the custom of the levirate marriage, Genesis 38:8 , Deuteronomy 25:5 ff.), still more if a clan or tribe were allowed to become extinct.Cambridge explains the dread anthropologically, by the cessation of family rites; the text itself grounds it instead in the covenant number twelve, as Pulpit and Ellicott argue.
The Benjamites were the only authors of the sin, but God was the author of the punishment, who employed the Israelites as his executioners to inflict it. They, however, had greatly exceeded their commission, and exercised a severity not enjoined.
16Then the elders of the congregation said, “What should we do about wives for those who remain, since the women of Benjamin have been destroyed?”
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
ziq·nê hā·‘ê·ḏāh way·yō·mə·rū mah- na·‘ă·śeh lə·nā·šîm lan·nō·w·ṯā·rîm kî- ’iš·šāh mib·bin·yā·min niš·mə·ḏāh
Literal — word-for-word from the original
And-said the-elders of-the-congregation: “What shall-we-do for-the-ones-left-over for-wives, for destroyed is-woman from-Benjamin?”
Where the English smooths the original
They want to keep their vow in the letter, while they break it in the spirit. The sense of the binding nature of the “ban” was intensely strong ( Exodus 20:7 ; Ezekiel 17:18-19 ), but, as is so often the case among rude and ignorant people, they fancied that it was sufficient to keep it literally, while in effect they violated it.
Though the young women of Jabesh-gilead had been carefully spared, the supply was found inadequate, and some other expedient must be resorted to.
and as for the Israelites which came to Mizpeh, who were of all the tribes of Israel, they had solemnly sworn that they would not give any of their daughters to them, and therefore it was a very difficult thing to provide wives for them.
Judges 21:15 , Judges 21:16 , and Judges 21:18 are only a repetition of Judges 21:6 and Judges 21:7 , with a slight change of expression.
17They added, “There must be heirs for the survivors of Benjamin, so that a tribe of Israel will not be wiped out.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
way·yō·mə·rū yə·ruš·šaṯ pə·lê·ṭāh lə·ḇin·yā·min šê·ḇeṭ mî·yiś·rā·’êl wə·lō- yim·mā·ḥeh
Literal — word-for-word from the original
And-they-said: “A-possession of-the-escaped for-Benjamin — and-not shall-a-tribe be-wiped-out from-Israel.”
Where the English smooths the original
The Hebr. has only An inheritance of the escaped for (or of ) Benjamin , which yields no sense, and suggests corruption in the text.Cambridge's proposed emendation (reading the clause as a question) is conjectural and supported only by some LXX manuscripts; the observation about the difficulty stands independently of the cure.
There must be a succession for the escaped of Benjamin , i.e. there must be heirs to succeed, and therefore we must find wives for them.
Benjamin never quite recovered this crushing blow. Even though it furnished the second judge (Ehud) and the first king (Saul) to Israel, and was advantageously situated, and was often honoured by the residence of Samuel, it became a mere satellite to the more powerful tribe of Judah.
18But we cannot give them our daughters as wives.” For the Israelites had sworn, “Cursed is he who gives a wife to a Benjamite.”
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
wa·’ă·naḥ·nū lō nū·ḵal lā·ṯêṯ- lā·hem mib·bə·nō·w·ṯê·nū nā·šîm kî- ḇə·nê- yiś·rā·’êl lê·mōr niš·bə·‘ū ’ā·rūr nō·ṯên ’iš·šāh lə·ḇin·yā·min
Literal — word-for-word from the original
“And-we, we-are-not-able to-give to-them wives from-our-daughters” — for the-sons-of-Israel had-sworn, saying: “Cursed is-the-one-giving a-wife to-Benjamin.”
Where the English smooths the original
For the children of Israel have sworn - See Judges 21:1 . Compare Saul's rash oath 1 Samuel 14:24 , and his breach of the oath made to the Gideonites 2 Samuel 21:2 . For the guilt of a broken oath, see Ezekiel 17:15-20 ; Exodus 20:7 .
We are not able . Note again the evil of rash vows, and how often chicanery is necessary in order to evade their evil consequences.
i.e. To this generation of Benjamites who have made themselves guilty of this foul wickedness; but this oath did not extend to their posterity.Poole reports a limiting construction of the oath (and a further conjectured exception) that the text itself does not state; he offers it as opinion — “some think” — not as exegesis.
19“But look,” they said, “there is a yearly feast to the LORD in Shiloh, which is north of Bethel east of the road that goes up from Bethel to Shechem, and south of Lebonah.”
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
hin·nêh way·yō·mə·rū mî·yā·mîm yā·mî·māh ḥaḡ- Yah·weh bə·ši·lōw ’ă·šer miṣ·ṣə·p̄ō·w·nāh lə·ḇêṯ- ’êl miz·rə·ḥāh haš·še·meš lim·sil·lāh hā·‘ō·lāh mib·bêṯ- ’êl šə·ḵe·māh ū·min·ne·ḡeḇ lil·ḇō·w·nāh
Literal — word-for-word from the original
And-they-said: “Behold, a-feast of-YHWH in-Shiloh from-days to-days, which is-northward of-Beth-El, sunrise-ward of-the-highway that-goes-up from-Beth-El to-Shechem, and-southward of-Lebonah.”
Where the English smooths the original
This elaborate description of the site of Shiloh, a place which is so often mentioned elsewhere without any addition, is extremely curious. There can be little doubt that it is due to the marginal gloss of some Masoretic scribeEllicott's attribution to a Masoretic or Ezran scribe is a conjecture about transmission; his substantive point, that the description reads as an explanatory aside for later readers, is shared by Cambridge and Pulpit.
The word rendered feast ( ḥag ) strictly implies a pilgrimage to a sanctuary; the three chief ḥaggim were festivals at which every male Israelite was required to appear before Jehovah ( Exodus 23:14-17 ); cf. also the Mohammedan ḥaj = the pilgrimage to Mecca. What the particular feast here was we are not told; most probably it was a vintage festival to celebrate the ingathering
most likely the former, as the dances of the daughters of Shiloh were apparently an imitation of the dances of the Israelitish women at the Red Sea under the superintendence of Miriam ( Exodus 15:20 ).K&D argues for Passover on the strength of this analogy; Benson, Poole and Gill argue for Tabernacles and Cambridge for a vintage feast. The identification is contested.
There is a great difference of opinion among commentators as to what feast is here meant.
20So they commanded the Benjamites: “Go, hide in the vineyards
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
way·ṣaw ’eṯ- bə·nê ḇin·yā·min lê·mōr lə·ḵū wa·’ă·raḇ·tem bak·kə·rā·mîm
Literal — word-for-word from the original
And-he-commanded the-sons-of-Benjamin, saying: “Go, and-you-shall-lie-in-ambush in-the-vineyards.”
Where the English smooths the original
They commanded. —Rather, they gave notice. This is the keri or marginal reading of the Hebrew; the kethib, or written text, has the verb in the singular, in which case we must take it impersonally, “It was bidden,”Ellicott's further guess that the unnamed speaker is Phinehas is inference from Judges 20:28, not from this verse.
now this being the time of year when the vintage was just over, the vines were full of branches and leaves, under which the men might the better hide themselves; and the grapes being gathered, there were no men in the vineyards, and so might lie in wait safely, and under cover.
The Kethibh ויצו in the singular may be explained on the ground that one of the elders spoke and gave the advice in the name of the others.
21and watch. When you see the daughters of Shiloh come out to perform their dances, each of you is to come out of the vineyards, catch for himself a wife from the daughters of Shiloh, and go to the land of Benjamin.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
ū·rə·’î·ṯem ’im- wə·hin·nêh ḇə·nō·wṯ- šî·lōw yê·ṣə·’ū lā·ḥūl bam·mə·ḥō·lō·wṯ ’îš wî·ṣā·ṯem hak·kə·rā·mîm wa·ḥă·ṭap̄·tem lā·ḵem ’iš·tōw min- mib·bə·nō·wṯ šî·lōw wa·hă·laḵ·tem ’e·reṣ bin·yā·min
Literal — word-for-word from the original
“And-you-shall-watch, and-behold, if the-daughters of-Shiloh come-out to-whirl in-the-dances, then-you-shall-come-out from-the-vineyards and-you-shall-snatch for-yourselves, each-man his-wife, from-the-daughters of-Shiloh, and-you-shall-go to-the-land of-Benjamin.”
Where the English smooths the original
Thus they thought they kept their oath, because they did not give them wives, but only suffered them to take them, and to keep them when they had taken them. But, alas! what better was this than a mere evasion of it, and at the same time an authorizing of fraud, violence, and the marriage of children without the consent of their parents?
The young women being alone indulging their light and buoyant spirits, and apprehensive of no danger, facilitated the execution of the scheme of seizing them, which closely resembles the Sabine rape in Roman history.
Catch ye every man his wife; take them away by force or violence; which they might the better do, because mixed dances were not used by the people of God in their solemnities, but the women danced by themselves, and therefore were more liable to this rape.
A legend of early Rome tells how Romulus demanded wives from the neighbouring cities for the men whom he had collected. When this was refused, he announced a festival of the god Consus at the foot of the hill he occupied. Sabines and Latins crowded to the spot with their wives and daughters, when the Roman youth rushed upon them and carried off the women to their stronghold: Livy i. 9.Barnes, JFB and Ellicott draw the same parallel; Ellicott adds Jerome's citation of Aristomenes seizing Spartan maidens at the Hyacinthia. The analogy is to a pagan founding-legend, and every commentator who cites it means that as indictment.
22When their fathers or brothers come to us to complain, we will tell them, ‘Do us a favor by helping them, since we did not get wives for each of them in the war. Since you did not actually give them your daughters, you have no guilt.’”
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
wə·hā·yāh kî- ’ă·ḇō·w·ṯām ’ōw ’ă·ḥê·hem yā·ḇō·’ū ’ê·lê·nū lå̄·rōḇ wə·’ā·mar·nū ’ă·lê·hem ḥān·nū·nū ’ō·w·ṯām kî lō lā·qaḥ·nū ’iš·tōw ’îš bam·mil·ḥā·māh kî ’at·tem lō kā·‘êṯ nə·ṯat·tem lā·hem te’·šā·mū
Literal — word-for-word from the original
“And-it-shall-be, when their-fathers or their-brothers come to-us to-contend, then-we-will-say to-them: ‘Be-gracious to-us in-them, for we-did-not take each-man his-wife in-the-war; for you — you-did-not give to-them at-this-time, that-you-should-be-guilty.’”
Where the English smooths the original
Such casuistry as this condemns the system of oaths, and illustrates the wisdom of our Lord's precept Matthew 5:33-37 .
Though they attempted to convince man that they had kept their oath, before God it was broken.
Yet they cannot be wholly excused from sin in this matter; for as it was folly to take such an oath as it is expressed, so the manner of freeing themselves from their own snare is fraudulent and injurious to the parents, in disposing of their children without their consent.Poole has just spent a long paragraph constructing every available excuse for the parents and the elders; this is the sentence in which his own casuistry gives way.
To make sense the text may be emended as follows: Be gracious to them, because they received not each his wife in the war; for if ye (emphatic) had given them unto them, ye would surely now be guilty (of violating your oath).An emendation, not the received text. Cambridge admits the manuscript evidence for the competing correction “is not weighty enough,” and K&D argues against emending at all, since the LXX translators clearly had the Masoretic reading before them.
23The Benjamites did as instructed and carried away the number of women they needed from the dancers they caught. They went back to their own inheritance, rebuilt their cities, and settled in them.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
bə·nê ḇin·yā·min way·ya·‘ă·śū- ḵên way·yiś·’ū lə·mis·pā·rām nā·šîm min- ham·mə·ḥō·lə·lō·wṯ ’ă·šer gā·zā·lū way·yê·lə·ḵū way·yā·šū·ḇū ’el- na·ḥă·lā·ṯām way·yiḇ·nū ’eṯ- he·‘ā·rîm way·yê·šə·ḇū bā·hem
Literal — word-for-word from the original
And-the-sons-of-Benjamin did so, and-they-carried-off wives according-to-their-number from-the-whirling-women whom they-plundered; and-they-went and-returned to-their-inheritance, and-they-rebuilt the-cities and-they-dwelt in-them.
Where the English smooths the original
The expression to take wives in the sense of marry is found only in late writings; the reference here, however, is not to marriage, but to capture.
By which we may see, they had no very favourable opinion of polygamy, because they did not allow it in this case, when it might seem most necessary for the reparation of a lost tribe.
And the Jewish writers say, that in later times they were allowed to marry with other tribes as before, since the oath only bound those present at MizpehGill is reporting a later Jewish limiting interpretation of the oath, not a statement of this text.
24And at that time, each of the Israelites returned from there to his own tribe and clan, each to his own inheritance.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
ha·hî bā·‘êṯ ’îš bə·nê- yiś·rā·’êl way·yiṯ·hal·lə·ḵū miš·šām lə·šiḇ·ṭōw ū·lə·miš·paḥ·tōw way·yê·ṣə·’ū ’îš miš·šām lə·na·ḥă·lā·ṯōw
Literal — word-for-word from the original
And-the-sons-of-Israel walked-themselves-off from-there at-that time, each-man to-his-tribe and-to-his-clan; and-they-went-out from-there, each-man to-his-inheritance.
Where the English smooths the original
went their ways , as the form of the verb implies, going in this direction and that, cf. Genesis 13:17 , Joshua 18:4 .
Every man to his inheritance . Compare the breaking up of the national assembly in the days of Joshua ( Joshua 24:28 ; Judges 2:6 ).
the Israelites that had met at Mizpeh, and who had not fallen in the war, returned to their respective countries, to their wives and children, and the business of their callingsGill's closing phrase is unintentionally sharp: they go home to their own wives and children, having just disposed of two hundred other men's daughters.
25In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in his own eyes.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
hā·hêm bay·yā·mîm ’ên me·leḵ bə·yiś·rā·’êl ’îš ya·‘ă·śeh hay·yā·šār bə·‘ê·nāw
Literal — word-for-word from the original
In-those days there-was-no king in-Israel; each-man did the-straight-thing in-his-own-eyes.
Where the English smooths the original
This verse, already occurring in Judges 17:6 ; Judges 18:1 ; Judges 19:1 , is here added once more by way of apology for the lawless crimes, terrible disasters, evaded vows, and unhallowed excesses of retribution, which it has been the painful duty of the sacred historian thus faithfully and impartially to narrate.
the prophetic historian sums up his judgment upon the history in the words, "At that time every man did what was right in his own eyes, because there was no king in Israel," in which the idea is implied, that under the government of a king, who administered right and justice in the kingdom, such things could not possibly have happened.
The preservation of such a story, of which the Israelites must have been ashamed, is a striking evidence of the divine superintendence and direction as regards the Holy Scriptures.
It is a natural inference from hence, that men ought to be extremely thankful for lawful authority: and, if they would preserve their felicity, ought to be zealous to support that authority, as well as to discourage all licentious approaches toward its dissolution.Benson (quoting Dodd) draws a political lesson about submission to authority; ⚙ the verse itself names no remedy, and the book's own answer waits for 1 Samuel.
The verse-by-verse work is done. What follows gathers the whole unit. All three layers below are machine-generated (⚙). Weigh them; they have no authority.
AI synthesis — woven from the public-domain voices above and the original text; generated and fallible.
The chapter opens by telling us something the war narrative withheld. Pulpit sets it out plainly: two solemn oaths were taken at Mizpeh, one that no Israelite would give his daughter to a Benjamite, the other that whoever failed to come up to the assembly should be put to death — and neither was mentioned until now, when both have become traps. Ellicott, reading back from v. 18, insists the first was “not only an oath but a vow under a curse,” and Cambridge says it “could neither be broken nor withdrawn.” Geneva's marginal verdict is the shortest and the hardest: a rash oath, not from judgment, which they later broke in secret anyway.
Then the grief. They sit at Bethel until evening and וַיִּבְכּוּ בְּכִי גָדוֹל — wept a great weeping, the cognate accusative Pulpit renders word for word. JFB names the pathology: the characteristic fickleness of a people who, having cooled from their vengeance, rush to the opposite extreme. Benson asks the question that will not go away — why they mourn the lost tribe and not the women and children they slaughtered to punish it. In v. 3 the complaint is לְהִפָּקֵד, the Nifal of pâqad: one tribe is mustered and found absent. ⚙ Hold that verb. In six verses they will take a muster of their own, find Jabesh-gilead absent, and put it to the sword for the same offence they are here weeping over.
The remedy is תַּחֲרִימוּ (ta·ḥă·rî·mū), the Hifil of châram — the ban. Ellicott names the verb and its horror: “The words are easy to read; it is needless to dwell on the horror of the massacre which they describe.” Barnes, Cambridge, Ellicott and Pulpit all identify the model: Numbers 31, the Midianite war, down to the thousand men from each tribe — and Cambridge catches the arithmetic slipping, since “the writer forgot that Benjamin could not be counted” among the twelve thousand. Cambridge also notes the writer failed to copy from his model the one merciful clause, the explicit order to keep the virgins alive, so that the sparing of four hundred appears in the narrative without warrant. Poole, weighing whether they were even entitled to spare them, concedes that “the natural and necessary duty of preserving a tribe from total ruin” inclined “their opinions, as well as their affections, to the more favourable side.”
The four hundred are marched to Shiloh, and the pronoun that carries them (אוֹתָם, masculine) is remarked on by Ellicott, K&D and Pulpit alike — the women are grammatically men, a hard little accident of the text that matches how they are treated. Then v. 15: the people are moved to pity again, כִּי־עָשָׂה יְהוָה פֶּרֶץ — because YHWH made a breach. Ellicott will not let the theology be cheap: the breach “had been caused by their own headstrong fury and unreasoning passion,” though in the Hebrew conception the result of man's sin is still referred to God as overruling it. He notes that Jerome simply dropped “the Lord” from the Vulgate, which Ellicott calls “not quite honest.”
Two hundred men are still without wives, and here the chapter's moral machinery is laid bare. Ellicott states it exactly: “They want to keep their vow in the letter, while they break it in the spirit.” The elders' plan runs on two verbs. וַאֲרַבְתֶּם (wa·’ă·raḇ·tem, ʼârab, H693) is the word for military ambush — Gill notes the season made it easy, the vintage just over and the vines in full leaf. And וַחֲטַפְתֶּם (wa·ḥă·ṭap̄·tem, châṭaph, H2414) is a verb the Verifier finds in only two verses of the Hebrew Bible: this one, and Psalm 10:9, where the wicked man crouches like a lion to snatch the poor. K&D glosses it without flinching: “to seize hold of, or carry off as prey.”
The elders even draft the legal defence in advance (v. 22): be gracious to us in them . . . for you did not give them, that you should be guilty — the verb תֶּאְשָׁמוּ (’âsham, to be guilty) doing the work of an acquittal. Barnes' comment is the sharpest in the brief: “Such casuistry as this condemns the system of oaths, and illustrates the wisdom of our Lord's precept Matthew 5:33–37.” Geneva agrees from the other side: though they satisfied men that the oath was kept, “before God it was broken.” JFB, Cambridge and Barnes all reach for the rape of the Sabines in Livy i. 9 as the nearest parallel; Ellicott adds Jerome's citation of Aristomenes seizing the Spartan dancers at the Hyacinthia. ⚙ Note what the parallels concede: the nearest analogue to Israel's conduct at the sanctuary of YHWH is a pagan founding-legend.
The book ends with everyone walking home — וַיִּתְהַלְּכוּ, a Hitpael that Cambridge renders “went their ways, as the form of the verb implies, going in this direction and that” — and with the refrain that has punctuated Judges 17:6, 18:1 and 19:1. Ellicott reads its reappearance here as an apology “for the lawless crimes, terrible disasters, evaded vows, and unhallowed excesses of retribution” just narrated. K&D presses further: the prophetic historian is passing judgment, and implies that under a king who administered right and justice “such things could not possibly have happened” — a verdict K&D applies not only to the war against Benjamin but to the destruction of Jabesh. Barnes finds the survival of the story itself to be evidence: “The preservation of such a story, of which the Israelites must have been ashamed,” is a striking mark of divine superintendence over Scripture. Benson, citing Dodd, turns it to the reader: men ought to be thankful for lawful authority.
⚙ And yet the last clause is not about kings but about eyes: הַיָּשָׁר בְּעֵינָיו, the straight thing in his own eyes. Yâshâr means straight — a builder's word. The tragedy of Judges 21 is not that Israel abandoned the standard of straightness; it is that every man kept it, and measured it with his own eye.
⚙ This is the tool's own fallible reading, offered to be tested against the Word. Judges 21 is the only chapter in Scripture where the people of God solve a crisis entirely by their own counsel and never once ask Him what to do. They ask Him why (v. 3). They build an altar and offer ʻōlôth and shelāmîm (v. 4). And from v. 5 to the last verse, there is not one oracle, not one priest consulted, not one word from YHWH — in a book where Israel had inquired at Bethel three times in the previous chapter alone. The silence is the sermon. What rushes in to fill it is the machinery of religion without its God: an oath with a curse attached, a ban modelled on Numbers 31, an altar, a feast of YHWH, and at the end of it a city massacred, four hundred of its girls handed over as brides, and two hundred more snatched from a dance.
The two oaths are the hinge. Israel swore itself into a position where obedience required atrocity and mercy required perjury, and it never occurred to them that a vow sworn in rage might be a sin to make and a sin to keep. Ellicott saw it: “The guilt of breaking a guilty vow is only the original guilt of ever having made it.” ⚙ Their instinct was the reverse — that God is more honoured by a kept promise to do evil than by a broken promise repented of. So they kept the letter three times (Jabesh dies by the letter; the virgins are spared outside the letter; the daughters of Shiloh are taken and not given) and broke the substance every time. The verb châṭaph in v. 21 is the tell: in its only other occurrence in the Hebrew Bible, it is what the wicked does to the poor while God seems to be looking away (Psalm 10:9).
And the final line refuses to let us make this a story about primitive people. Every man did what was right in his own eyes — not what was wrong. They were pursuing righteousness the whole way: purging evil from Israel, honouring oaths, preserving the twelve tribes, grieving for a brother. Judges does not end with Israel abandoning the good; it ends with Israel doing the good by its own light and burying a tribe in the process. The book's last word is therefore a question the book cannot answer: who will give this people eyes that are not their own? The next book opens at Shiloh, with a woman praying for a son, and an answer begins.
Not a verse — a fallible reading offered for testing: they never asked God what to do, and everything they did was religious.
AI-generated connections. Each carries a verification badge with a recorded basis; contested links are flagged.
The elders' instruction in v. 21 uses two hunting words in one breath: וַאֲרַבְתֶּם (ʼârab, H693, “to lurk”) in v. 20 and וַחֲטַפְתֶּם (châṭaph, H2414, “to clutch”) in v. 21. The Verifier finds both shared with Psalm 10:9 — and châṭaph occurs in only two verses of the whole Hebrew Bible, this one and that one. In the Psalm the wicked man “lieth in wait secretly as a lion in his den: he lieth in wait to catch the poor: he doth catch the poor, when he draweth him into his net.” K&D notes the pairing himself, glossing châṭaph “in Judges 21:21 and Psalm 10:9, to seize hold of, or carry off as prey.” ⚙ Israel's elders, at a feast of YHWH, at the sanctuary, prescribe the exact posture and the exact act that the Psalter uses to describe the predator whom God is asked to break. The verbal link is as rare as a verbal link in Hebrew gets, and the moral verdict it carries is not ours but the Psalm's.
Psalm 10:9
basis: Verifier: shared Hebrew lexemes H2414 châṭaph (in only 2 vv in the whole Hebrew Bible — this verse and Psalm 10:9) and H693 ʼârab (in 39 vv); K&D independently pairs the two verses under this lexeme. A rare-lexeme verbal link, not a quotation of one text by the other.
Jabesh-gilead enters Scripture here, put to the sword for absence from a muster, and its four hundred virgins become the mothers of the surviving Benjamites. The Verifier confirms the lexical tie to the whole later Jabesh cycle. Pulpit, Ellicott, Barnes, Cambridge and K&D all trace the sequel: Jabesh besieged by Nahash and rescued by Saul — a Benjamite — in 1 Samuel 11; the men of Jabesh alone taking Saul's body down from the wall of Beth-shan and burying it (1 Samuel 31:11–13), for which David blessed them (2 Samuel 2:5). Ellicott: “We see from these later incidents that Jabesh recovered from the extermination now inflicted on its inhabitants.” ⚙ The blood-tie forged by this atrocity is what makes Saul's rescue and Jabesh's loyalty legible: a Benjamite king raises the siege of the city whose daughters were carried off to keep Benjamin alive. Cambridge records, without endorsing, the contested proposal that later animosity toward Saul shaped the story.
1 Samuel 11:1 · 1 Samuel 31:11 · 2 Samuel 2:5
basis: Verifier: shared Hebrew lexemes H3003 Yâbêsh (in 21 vv) and H1568 Gilʻâd (in 123 vv) across all three refs — a shared proper name and region, i.e. a real narrative link, not a quotation; the redemptive-historical connection is reported by Ellicott, Barnes, Pulpit, Cambridge and K&D.
The command of vv. 10–11 is not improvised: Ellicott states that the words of the cherem “are almost identical with those of the indignant command of Moses after the war with Midian” (Numbers 31:17–18), Barnes notes the twelve thousand men “followed the precedent of Numbers 31:4,” Pulpit adds the thousand from every tribe, and Cambridge calls the episode “based upon Numbers 31:7; Numbers 31:17 f.” The Verifier confirms real shared vocabulary between Judges 21:11 and Numbers 31:17. ⚙ What the commentators observe together is a precedent being copied rather than a command being obeyed: Israel reaches for the form of a divinely ordered ban against a foreign nation and applies it, on its own authority, to an Israelite city that missed a meeting. Cambridge notes the copying was imperfect in the one place mercy lay — the model's order to keep the virgins alive is not reproduced here.
Numbers 31:17 · Leviticus 27:28
basis: Verifier on Judges 21:11 / Numbers 31:17: shared Hebrew lexemes H4904 mishkâb (in 44 vv), H2145 zâkâr (in 80 vv), H802 ʼishshâh (in 686 vv), H3045 yâdaʻ (in 874 vv) — shared formula, tiered structural rather than verbal because the shared lexemes are common and no text cites the other. Leviticus 27:28 is included on the commentators' authority (Ellicott, Barnes) as the legal definition of cherem, not on a Verifier basis.
Judges 21:25 repeats word for word the refrain of Judges 17:6, and its shortened forms at 18:1 and 19:1. Ellicott, Barnes, Cambridge, Gill and Pulpit all cross-reference it; Barnes takes the repetition as “intended to impress upon us the idea that these disorders arose from the want of a sufficient authority to suppress them,” and K&D reads it as the prophetic historian's own judgment, with the account returning “to its commencement in Judges 19:1.” The Verifier confirms the shared vocabulary between 21:25 and 17:6 — yâshâr, ʼayin (there is none), ʻayin (eye), ʼîysh, melek. ⚙ Tiered structural rather than verbal: this is an author repeating his own formula, which is a frame, not a citation.
Judges 17:6 · Judges 18:1 · Judges 19:1
basis: Verifier on Judges 21:25 / Judges 17:6: shared Hebrew lexemes H3477 yâshâr (in 119 vv), H1992 hêm (in 512 vv), H369 ʼayin (in 686 vv), H5869 ʻayin (in 827 vv), H376 ʼîysh (in 1449 vv), H4428 melek (in 1921 vv) — an authorial refrain repeated within one book; the lexemes are common, so structural rather than verbal.
Ellicott compares the Mizpah vow to the conspiracy of Acts 23:14, where forty men bind themselves under a curse (anathema) to kill Paul; Barnes sets Judges 21:1 beside Saul's rash oath in 1 Samuel 14:24 and the broken oath to the Gibeonites in 2 Samuel 21:2, and concludes that “such casuistry as this condemns the system of oaths, and illustrates the wisdom of our Lord's precept Matthew 5:33–37.” ⚙ The link is genuinely a link of pattern — a self-imposed curse that makes sin obligatory — and nothing more. It cannot be tiered verbal: a Greek text and a Hebrew text share no Strong's numbers, and neither Acts nor Matthew cites Judges. Recorded here because the commentators drew it, and flagged because the strength of the connection rests on their judgment rather than on any measurable basis.
1 Samuel 14:24 · Acts 23:14 · Matthew 5:33-37
basis: No Verifier basis: 1 Samuel 14:24 was not among the computed thread candidates, and Acts 23:14 / Matthew 5:33-37 are Greek, so no shared Strong's lexeme is possible across the Testaments. The basis is entirely the named comparison of Ellicott (Acts 23:14) and Barnes (1 Samuel 14:24; 2 Samuel 21:2; Matthew 5:33-37). Thematic only; verify before relying on it.
AI-generated reading; weigh it against the text.
The whole chapter is driven by a number. Ellicott: twelve “had an almost mystic significance, and is always preserved in reckoning up the tribes.” Cambridge speaks of “the sacred number twelve,” and Pulpit lists the canon's insistence on it, from Genesis 49:28 and Exodus 24:4 through Matthew 19:28, James 1:1 and Revelation 7:4 — concluding that “with one tribe missing Israel would be no longer Israel.” The elders' own stated aim in v. 17 is וְלֹא־יִמָּחֶה, that a tribe not be wiped out.
⚙ And it is not. In Revelation 7:8 twelve thousand are sealed of the tribe of Benjamin, the roll intact. The means were shameful — a rash oath, a massacre, an ambush at a feast — and the end was nonetheless kept: the preservation of the twelve through whom the Seed comes. That the covenant purpose survives the covenant people's worst judgment is the same logic the Gospels apply to a genealogy containing Tamar, Rahab, Bathsheba. ⚙ A further note, offered as the tool's own and not as any commentator's: the tribe salvaged here by two hundred stolen brides later gives Israel its first king (Ellicott notes it furnished “the second judge (Ehud) and the first king (Saul)”), and gives the church the apostle who called himself a man “of the tribe of Benjamin” (Romans 11:1; Philippians 3:5). The sealing of Benjamin in Revelation 7 is the far end of a thread that in Judges 21 hangs by a rope.
Judges 21:17 · Revelation 7:8 · Matthew 19:28 · Romans 11:1
Barnes draws the line himself: the casuistry of v. 22 “condemns the system of oaths, and illustrates the wisdom of our Lord's precept Matthew 5:33–37” — let your yes be yes. Geneva's note on the same verse says that whatever they proved to men, “before God it was broken.” Ellicott generalises: the guilt of breaking a guilty vow is only the guilt of having made it.
⚙ Set against this chapter, the epistle to the Hebrews says the one thing Judges 21 makes unbearable to lack. God, willing to show the heirs of promise the unchangeableness of His counsel, “confirmed it by an oath” — and could swear by no greater, so He swore by Himself (Hebrews 6:13–18); and Jesus is made “the surety of a better covenant” by an oath that is never rescinded (Hebrews 7:20–22). Israel's oath at Mizpah bound them to do harm and could not be dissolved except by fraud. God's oath binds Him to do good and cannot be dissolved at all. The contrast is the tool's own arrangement; the Matthew 5 link belongs to Barnes.
Matthew 5:33-37 · Hebrews 6:17 · Hebrews 7:22
⚙ This reading is the tool's own and is offered as novel; no commentator in this brief draws it. Judges ends with men hiding in vineyards at a feast of YHWH and seizing wives — וַחֲטַפְתֶּם, snatching, the predator's verb of Psalm 10:9 — while the elders promise to manage the fathers afterwards. Cambridge notes that the phrase is “not to marriage, but to capture,” and that גָּזָלוּ (gâzal, H1497, to pluck off, to plunder) is the verb v. 23 uses for what the Benjamites did to the dancers. Benson asks what was left of consent: fraud, violence, “and the marriage of children without the consent of their parents.”
⚙ Shiloh is where this happens, and Shiloh is where the story of Israel's monarchy will begin with Hannah's prayer — and where, Psalm 78:60 and Jeremiah 7:12 say, God would in time forsake the tent He had placed among men. The chapter leaves standing an unanswered need: a people whose covenant with its own daughters is theft, and a sanctuary where the worst thing in the book happens at a feast of the LORD. Against that, the apostolic image of marriage is exactly inverted — a husband who does not seize a bride but gives himself up for her, “that he might sanctify and cleanse her” (Ephesians 5:25–27). ⚙ Judges 21 does not predict that; it makes the absence of it audible.
Judges 21:21 · Jeremiah 7:12 · Ephesians 5:25
The biblical text is the Berean Standard Bible (BSB), public domain (CC0). Hebrew/Greek text, transliteration, morphology and Strong’s are transcribed from the Berean interlinear (CC0) + Strong’s lexicons (PD); the literal renderings, divergence notes, word notes and all synthesis are this tool’s own work (⚙) — fallible; verify them.
Named voices, quoted verbatim from public-domain works:
Text and translation. The English base is the Berean Standard Bible (CC0); the interlinear, parses and Strong's numbers are from the Berean interlinear as supplied in the brief. The literal renderings above are built from the Hebrew word order given there, not from the English.
Where the sources genuinely disagree, and we have not resolved it. (1) Bethel or Shiloh in v. 2: Ellicott, Barnes, Cambridge, Pulpit and K&D read בֵּית־אֵל as the place-name Bethel; Gill argues against the Targum, LXX and others that the army went to Shiloh, where the tabernacle stood, and v. 12 does place the camp at Shiloh. We have left both standing. (2) Which feast in v. 19: K&D and Barnes lean to Passover, Benson, Poole and Gill to Tabernacles, Cambridge to a vintage festival, and Pulpit reports Rosenmuller's view of a local Shiloh festival. No commentator in the brief claims certainty and neither do we. (3) The text of v. 17 and v. 22: Cambridge holds that v. 17 in Hebrew “yields no sense, and suggests corruption in the text,” and that v. 22 is “difficult to understand owing to corruptions”; the emendations Cambridge proposes are conjectural and are marked as such wherever cited. Pulpit likewise calls v. 22 obscure, and K&D defends the Masoretic reading against emendation on the ground that the LXX translators had the same text before them.
Source-critical material. Cambridge's notes assume an A/B source division within Judges 20–21 and treat several verses (4, 5, 12, 14b, 16a, 19) as later additions or glosses. That framework is a nineteenth-century critical judgment, not a datum; it is quoted where its textual observations stand on their own and is not adopted as this commentary's position.
A note on one absent voice. The Matthew Henry entry attached to every verse of this unit in the source is his comment on Judges 17:7–13, about Micah and the Levite — not on chapter 21 at all. It has therefore been quoted nowhere in this unit. That is a defect in the supplied source, not a judgment on Henry. Ten of the eleven available authors are cited.
What is machine synthesis. Everything marked ⚙ — the literal renderings, the divergences, the word notes, the sola reading, the badge tiers, and all three Christ readings — is fallible synthesis, offered to be tested. The verbal tier on the Psalm 10:9 thread rests on a measurable fact (châṭaph occurs in two verses of the Hebrew Bible); the theological weight drawn from it does not, and is ours. The Acts 23:14 / Matthew 5 thread is flagged because it has no computable basis at all and stands only on Ellicott's and Barnes' comparisons. Where the commentators' moral judgments are severe — Benson's, Ellicott's, K&D's on the conduct of the congregation — they are theirs, quoted verbatim, and we have not softened them.
✦ = human, public-domain source, quoted and named. ⚙ = machine synthesis, to be verified. Flagged cross-references are left visible on purpose — the verifier working in the open. “Search the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so.” (Acts 17:11)