b. The outrage at Gibeah and the punishment of the Benjamites (19:1–21:25)
b. The outrage at Gibeah and the punishment of the Benjamites (19:1–21:25)
19:1–9. The Levite and his concubine. The reference to time in the opening verse is quite indecisive and bears no necessary connection with the preceding chapters; indeed, it has already been observed that the incidents narrated in chapters 19–21 were earlier than those of chapters 17, 18.3 Phinehas, the grandson of Aaron, is mentioned (20:28) and the amphictyonic league is still functioning and able to take combined action, as in the incident described in Joshua 22:9–34. There is no mention of Philistine domination which would have made impossible such concerted action on the part of all the tribes during the latter part of the judges’ period. Bethel appears as the major sanctuary, not Shiloh, as in the Philistine period. The reference from Dan to Beer-sheba (20:1), which became a proverbial expression for the whole land, was probably added by a later narrator or editor and does not demand a date after the establishment of Dan (18:29).
The Levite of the story, like Micah (17:1), had his home in the remote parts of the hill country of Ephraim (RSV). As the main line of communication ran north and south along the centre of the hill-country it is probable that the eastern or western flank of the hill-country is indicated, but the references to place-names, Jerusalem, Gibeah and Ramah, do not point conclusively to either. A further connection existing between the two appendices is shown in the reference to Beth-lehem-judah (cf. 17:7), where the Levite’s concubine returned to her family. The reason for her return given in many ancient versions, ‘because she was angry with him’ (followed by RSV), is more plausible than that supplied in the AV and RV that she played the whore against him. The penalty against the adulteress was death (Lev. 20:10), but a heated argument would allow the Levite to seek a reconciliation when the passions of temper had subsided. The expression to speak kindly to her (3, RV, RSV) is in Hebrew ‘to speak to her heart’, a frequently used and most suggestive idiom. One of the asses would be for her use on the return journey. The attitude of the concubine’s father suggests that nothing serious was involved, and since the disgrace of his daughter’s separation from her husband would fall upon him, his joy at seeing the Levite, and the festivities that followed, is understandable. The leisureliness of the East, particularly in connection with festive occasions (cf. Gn 24:55) showed itself in the hospitality pressed upon the Levite, whose attempt to return on the fourth day was completely thwarted. Similar endeavours, reflecting the social etiquette of the period, were almost successful in retaining the party for another complete day. The language of this hospitable man of Beth-lehem (9) is most picturesque and contains several allusions to the years spent in the semi-nomadic wanderings of the wilderness period. The day draws to its close (RSV) is lit. ‘the encamping of the day’, i.e. the time to pitch camp for the night, and the word translated home is actually ‘tent’. Such expressions survive long after changing circumstances have made them out of date. On this occasion, however, the will of the Levite was asserted and he made his departure somewhere about the middle of the afternoon (see note on verse 14). As events turned out, he would have done better to have asserted himself earlier in the day, or else to have yielded to his host’s importunities to stay yet another night.
19:10–15. From Beth-lehem-judah to Gibeah. It can be imagined that the Levite would make good speed in an endeavour to make up for the late start. Jerusalem (see note on 1:8) lay about 6 miles north of Beth-lehem, a journey which would take under two hours. It was occupied by the Jebusites (hence the alternative name of the city, Jebus), who were probably of Amorite stock, until it was captured by David and his men (2 Sam. 5:6–9). The Levite’s attendant, apprehensive of the approach of night and the peril of attack by wild beasts or armed bands, urged his master to sojourn there, but his suggestion was refused. The basis of this refusal, that it was preferable to seek shelter in a city of Israel rather than among strangers, shows the subsequent conduct of the men of Gibeah in a more reprehensible light. Gibeah, the modern Tell el-Fûl, was about 4 miles north of Jerusalem, i.e. no more than 10 miles from Beth-lehem, and as the sun set when they were there their time of departure cannot have been much earlier than 3 p.m. Ramah, mentioned as an alternative resting-place, was 2 miles further north than Gibeah. The setting of the sun would leave no alternative but to seek accommodation in the nearest city, and this happened to be Gibeah, a city which was founded about the time of the Israelite invasion. This first city was destroyed by fire in the middle part of the twelfth century BC, an event which almost certainly connects with the events of 20:37ff. A break in occupation of almost a century followed this destruction, and the second city became famous as the birthplace and subsequent capital of Saul (1 Sam. 10:26; 11:4; cf. the numerous references in 1 Sam. 13–15). The Levite and his party sat down in the open place of the city, probably just inside the gate, which served as the meeting-place for social, business and judicial purposes, waiting for the expected hospitality which was not forthcoming. This failure to offer hospitality, a sacred duty in the East, was downright boorish on the part of the Benjamites, for the two laden asses gave the assurance that no great liability would be incurred (cf. verse 19). Such a breach of etiquette was an indictment of the men of Gibeah and an ominous warning of what was to come. Once more we must admire the consummate skill of the narrator, whose delicate hints build up the atmosphere and add point to the crime of the inhabitants of this Benjamite city.
19:16–21. The gracious hospitality of a stranger in Gibeah. The inference is that the Levite and his party would have waited in vain but for the arrival of an old man, who was himself a native of Mount Ephraim and a stranger in the city. His question elicited the facts which are already known to the reader, with one puzzling exception, the reference to the journey to the house of the Lord (18, AV, RV). It may be that this was a part of the Levite’s purpose, perhaps to offer a sacrifice of thanksgiving for the reconciliation with his concubine, although this had not been suggested up to this point. Or it may have been a stratagem on his part, since if it were known that his journey was for a religious purpose hospitality might be the more readily forthcoming. A third alternative, based on the LXX, which is accepted by most scholars, is that ‘my house’ (cf. RSV, my home) should be read, the first person singular pronominal suffix indicating possession (the letter yôd) having been wrongly regarded as an abbreviation of Yahweh. The Levite was careful to point out that no obligation need be incurred in offering hospitality to a party of three, with two laden asses, since they were self-sufficient, an innuendo which was graciously and hospitably set aside by the old man, now become their host. His first and greatest concern was that shelter should be extended to them, as was demanded by the canons of eastern etiquette. No item was overlooked: the beasts were attended to, the travel stains of his guests were washed away and there was an ample provision for their physical needs. The fears which attended their journey must have been quite relieved by this hospitality and the storm which followed comes as a greater shock, precisely as the narrator intended.
19:22–28. The bestiality of the men of Gibeah. The festivity inside was abruptly disturbed when the house was surrounded by the men of Gibeah, described as sons of Belial (AV, RV). The word is a compound form (bĕlîya‘al) of obscure derivation, although the general meaning is plain. The usual interpretation links it with the Hebrew yā‘al (meaning ‘to profit’ or ‘help’), so giving the meaning ‘worthlessness’. Alternatively some have connected it with the Babylonian goddess of vegetation, who was possibly also the goddess of the underworld, which makes it synonymous with the Abyss or Sheol, the place of no return. This view is strengthened by a consideration of Psalm 18:4, 5 where Belial (‘ungodly men’, AV; ‘ungodliness’, RV) corresponds to death and Sheol in the parallelism of the verses. A third and less likely view links it with the verb ‘ālâ (‘to come up’), giving a sense of ‘ne’er-do-well’ or, in modern parlance, ‘layabout’. Not only their words but their actions also must have been frightening, for the word beat (22) is a hithpa‘el form having intensive force. G. R. Driver observes, ‘The ruffians were dashing themselves against, hurling themselves on the door in an attempt to break it down and gain an entrance.’4 As no attempt was made subsequently by the rulers of Gibeah to punish the offenders, or to repudiate their vicious actions, it appears that the men of the city generally were involved, and not just a lewd minority. It may be that their motive was, in part, a sense of offended pride that a sojourner in their city should put them to shame by proffering the hospitality which they had withheld. Their request to the old man (22) revealed the extent of their sexual perversion, whilst his answer to them (23, 24) showed his immediate and horrified recoil at such conduct which would shatter all the conventions of hospitality (cf. the treacherous action of Jael, 4:17–21). In one of the Ugaritic texts reference is made to the ideal son ‘who may drive away any who would molest his (i.e. the father’s) night-guest’.5 The word folly (AV, RV) is inadequate to convey the meaning of nĕbālâ which indicates an insensibility to the claims of God or man, and is best rendered ‘impiety’, ‘churlishness’ (cf. Nabal, 1 Sam. 25:25) or ‘wantonness’. There are many parallels between this grisly incident and the one recorded in Genesis 19:1ff.,6 but at Gibeah there were no angels to thwart the evil intentions of the men of the city.
In his concern for the accepted conventions of hospitality the old man was willing to shatter a code which, to the modern reader, appears of infinitely more importance, namely, the care and protection of the weak and helpless. Womanhood was but lightly esteemed in the ancient world; indeed it is largely due to the precepts of the Jewish faith, and particularly the enlightenment which has come through the Christian faith, that women enjoy their present position. The old man was willing to sacrifice his own virgin daughter and the Levite’s concubine to the distorted lusts of the besiegers, rather than allow any harm to befall his principal guest. His suggestion, however, fell on deaf ears, so the Levite himself, with a callous disregard for the one he professed to love, or, perhaps more pertinently, with a greater concern for his own skin, took his concubine by force and thrust her out to the men. The narrator does not dwell on the harrowing details, but if ever a human being endured a night of utter horror it was the Levite’s concubine on that night, which must have seemed as interminable as eternity and as dark as the pit itself. It is not only the action of the men of Gibeah which reveals the abysmally low moral standards of the age; the indifference of the Levite, who prepared to depart in the morning without any apparent concern to ascertain the fate of his concubine, and his curt, unfeeling command when he saw her lying on the threshhold (27, 28), these show that, in spite of his religion, he was devoid of the finer emotions. The sense of outrage does not appear to have influenced him until he realized that she was dead, when he lifted her body on to one of his asses and continued his journey. The whole shocking incident made an indelible impression upon Israel, and was referred to by the prophet Hosea as one of the greatest examples of corruption (Hos. 9:9; 10:9).
19:29, 30. The summons to the nation. The action of the Levite had an almost sacramental significance, perhaps suggesting the unity of those who responded with the sacrificial significance of the life that had been taken. Originally it may have had magical associations, involving the curse of blood on those who failed to respond. The action is paralleled and illuminated by Saul’s method of rallying the nation to his side in support of the men of Jabesh-gilead; only in this case a yoke of oxen were dismembered (1 Sam. 11:1–8). The verb ‘to divide’ is used of ritual dissection (Exod. 29:17; Lev. 1:6, 12; 8:20) and the number of the pieces corresponds to the twelve tribes, which suggests a period before the isolation of Judah and Simeon in the south.
It is assumed that the tribe of Benjamin was included in the summons but they withheld their support, thus automatically identifying themselves with the men of Gibeah; hence the parenthetical reference in 20:3. The messengers who bore these grisly tokens to the various tribes were no doubt commissioned to tell the story of the outrage of the men of Gibeah and verse 30, especially the latter part, comes more naturally from their lips, although their words would be echoed in shocked tones by those addressed. This foul deed was considered to be the outstanding atrocity since the time of the Exodus, the decisive event which was the foundation of the nation.
20:1–7. The Levite reports to the assembly. The summons met an immediate response from the tribes, which points, with other factors, to a very early point in the period of the judges, when the intertribal organization was still functioning normally, before the onset of the periods of foreign domination. The reference from Dan to Beer-sheba does not exclude a date before the capture of Laish by the Danites (18:29); it was probably included by the editor, by which time it had become a proverbial expression for the whole land. At this early period Bethel was the central sanctuary (20:18, 26, 27) but the assembly point of the tribes was Mizpah, which was itself an ancient shrine (1 Sam. 7:5, 6, 16; 10:17). Two main identifications have been made for this city: the first, Tell en-Nasbeh which is about 8 miles north of Jerusalem and a few miles south of Bethel; the second, Nebi Samwil, about 5 miles north-west of Jerusalem. The former has the stronger support. The conjunction of Bethel and Mizpah does not indicate a composite account: Mizpah, being nearer to Gibeah, was chosen as the centre of the confederate army, and the ark may conceivably have been moved there in this emergency, but the main sanctuary at Bethel was within easy reach.
The very large number of the Israelite force, four hundred thousand (2), has caused difficulty, for in the full-scale assault on Jericho only forty thousand were involved and the same figure is given as the fighting force of Israel in the time of Deborah (5:8). The word which is translated thousand (’elep) is also used to refer to clan or family units (as in Judg. 6:15; 1 Sam. 10:19; Mic. 5:2) and possibly to denote the officers over the military divisions.7 It is not a question of gross inflation of the numbers for reasons of prestige, nor of inaccuracy in the figures themselves; it is a question of interpretation, and most scholars would admit that no really satisfactory key to the understanding of the large numbers of the Old Testament has yet been found.8 The Levite’s report to the assembled tribes (4–7) corresponds with the actual event with the single addition that the men of Gibeah purposed his death (5). However, in the light of the fate of his concubine, it was a reasonable inference that the men of the city intended more than their foul suggestion of 19:22.
20:8–11. The resolution of the assembly. The minds of the Israelites were doubtless made up before they assembled together, but, none the less, this formal affirmation of their unity and strength of purpose is striking. The parallelism of tent and house (8) is reminiscent of the wilderness period, and an indication that Israel was not far removed from the stage of transition in its settlement in the land. The absence of the men of Benjamin from the assembly was an obvious indication that they could expect no easy or speedy success and they wisely laid their plans to allow for a protracted campaign, with an adequate supply organization. The expression of unity here is in marked contrast to the disintegration and lack of cooperation which was manifested later in the period of the judges. Folly (10, AV, RV; cf. verse 6, and see note on 19:23) is altogether inadequate to convey the strength of the Hebrew; ‘wantonness’ (cf. RSV, wanton crime) or ‘impiety’ is to be preferred. Martin Noth regards the phrase ‘folly wrought in Israel’ as a technical term signifying a violation of the divine law then in force in the tribal society, which was especially strict in sexual matters, in direct and intentional contrast to Canaanite practices (cf. Gen. 34:7; Deut. 22:21; Josh. 7:15; 2 Sam. 13:12).9
20:12–17. The approach to the tribe of Benjamin. Before the commencement of the punitive expedition the delegates of the amphictyony made a formal request to the tribe of Benjamin that the offenders be delivered up for execution. The expression put away evil from Israel (13) is reminiscent of Deuteronomy 17:12. Unless sin was dealt with thoroughly, evil consequences could be anticipated (cf. Josh. 7; 2 Sam. 21:1–14). The appeal was unheeded; instead, the men of Benjamin mobilized their own forces to fight on behalf of these evil men against their own brethren the children of Israel (13). The precise number of the Benjamites is not clear: verse 15 mentions 26,700; verse 35 records 25,100 casualties; verses 44–47 note 25,000 casualties and 600 survivors. The differences may be accounted for by the unrecorded casualties of the first two days, although the divergency in the numbers given for verse 15 in different recensions of the LXX (Vaticanus reads 23,000; Alexandrinus 25,000) warns against an easy solution of the problem. However, laying aside the difficulty which is found in interpreting the numbers of the Old Testament, the general picture is clear. We have the combined resources of eleven tribes massed against the total available manpower of Benjamin. It has been suggested that seven hundred chosen men (15) has been repeated in verse 16 by dittography, in which case this élite group can be identified with the men of Gibeah, who, like Ehud (see note on 3:15), were left-handed. The prowess of the men of Benjamin is hinted at in the Blessing of Jacob (Gen. 49:27) and attested in the cases of Ehud and Saul, as well as in the more general references in 1 Chronicles 8:40; 12:2. The sling, which was employed with a left-handed motion, must not be confused with a modern schoolboy’s catapult; it was a formidable weapon of war used in the Assyrian, Egyptian and Babylonian armies as well as in Israel. David’s encounter with the Philistine, Goliath, is a telling example of the power and accuracy of this weapon (1 Sam. 17:49). It has been estimated that stones weighing up to one pound could be projected with uncanny accuracy at speeds up to 90 m.p.h.!
20:18–23. The first encounter. The hilly terrain in the vicinity of Gibeah favoured a defensive force rather than an attacking force, especially if the former was in a strong position, as was likely in this case, since the Benjamites were familiar with their own tribal portion. In such a situation superior numbers were of limited value, since they could not be effectively deployed, and a determined group of men armed with slings could inflict heavy casualties on an attacking force. A realization of the danger confronting the vanguard of the army probably lay behind the request which was made to the divine oracle, and the choice of the tribe of Judah for this invidious task rested on the fact that Judah was a tribe renowned for its fighting qualities, whose territory was similar to that of Benjamin. Beth-el (RV, RSV) should be read in place of the house of God (AV), for where the latter is indicated the word Elohim is invariably used, not the shorter El. Beth-el was within 5 miles of Mizpah and while the ark of the covenant may have accompanied the army the oracle possibly remained in the sanctuary. In the battle which ensued the psychological advantage lay with the Benjamites. They would fight desperately because they were fighting for their lives, whereas the opposing force, while convinced of the rightness of their cause, may have had little heart to engage in a civil war. The Benjamites inflicted heavy casualties upon the confederate army, who were forced to withdraw. The logical place of verse 23 is before verse 22, as the context makes clear. Since the Israelites had time to wait on the Lord for further guidance, and still assemble themselves and give battle on the second day, the inference is that their first attack and shattering defeat took place in a relatively short period early in the first day.
20:24–28. The second encounter. Having confirmed their purpose by a second consultation of the oracle, it must have been a devastating experience for the Israelites to suffer a second, humiliating defeat at the hands of the Benjamites. The success of the latter issued in a self-confidence which preceded defeat, but the failure of the former sent them back to the Lord in deep humility. To the tears of the day before (23) were now added the discipline of fasting and the offering of sacrifices (26), all of which suggest the sense of urgency with which they now sought the Lord. It may be that their vastly superior numbers had made their earlier approaches to him somewhat perfunctory, with fatal results. The two classes of sacrifice, burnt offerings and peace offerings, showed both their repentance and their desire for reconciliation which would restore their communion with God (cf. Lev. 1:4; 7:16). Only after these tokens of their evident sincerity was the oracle consulted, and on this third occasion the command to go up was accompanied by an assurance of victory.
Some scholars have suggested that the reference to the pedigree of Phinehas (28) may be a gloss added in error by a scribe who was unaware that there was another officiating priest of the same name at a later date. However, such an excision is not really necessary. We have observed at many points that the evidence consistently points to an early date for these narratives and this view is strengthened by the fact that Beth-el was the central sanctuary at this time. In the post-Mosaic period the central shrine was first of all, and probably for a very limited period, at Shechem (Josh. 8:30–35; 24), then at Shiloh itself for an equally short period (Josh. 18:1; 22:12; see note on Judg. 21:10–12), next at Beth-el and finally at Shiloh again, where a more permanent structure was established (1 Sam. 1:9; 3:15). Judges 21:12 appears conclusive evidence that Shiloh was not the amphictyonic shrine at this time, for the focal point of the tribal association would hardly be described as ‘Shiloh, which is in the land of Canaan’. Phinehas was one of Israel’s truly great and devoted men. As a young man his resolute action had saved the situation at Shittim, an action which won him a unique commendation from the Lord (Num. 25:1–15). He had taken a prominent part in the campaign against Midian (Num. 31:6) and an equally prominent part when the tribes east of Jordan were suspected of disunity and apostasy in the erection of their memorial altar (Josh. 22:9–34). The name itself is, like that of Moses, of Egyptian origin and means ‘the Nubian’ or ‘the child of dark complexion’. Such names would hardly be invented by Israelites of a later age, which verifies the actual existence of these two central characters. The ark of the covenant (27) is not mentioned elsewhere in the book of Judges.
20:29–36. The third encounter. Although they were assured of success, the Israelites were not careless in their method of deployment. On earlier occasions a direct frontal assault had been decisively repulsed; now their strategy was to lure the overconfident Benjamites out of their secure position, destroy the city by a force left in ambush and then trap their enemy, demoralized by the severing of their escape route, in a pincers movement. A similar ruse, adopted with conspicuous success by Joshua at Ai (Josh. 8:3–28), may have provided the inspiration on this occasion. The historian has not set out the facts of the campaign as orderly as the modern reader, conditioned by his concept of history, would desire, but the main facts are clear. The slight, initial success of the Benjamites aroused expectations of a victory as decisive as on the previous days, a state of mind which the Israelite force fostered by its feigned retreat. The movement of the battle along the roads between Beth-el and Gibeah and in the surrounding countryside is clearly indicated, although the mention of two highways, as distinct from one inter-connecting road, may show that Gibeon, north-west of Gibeah, should be read instead of Gibeah (31).
Meanwhile the Israelite force in ambush seized its opportunity to attack the virtually defenceless city of Gibeah. They numbered ten thousand men (34), a fraction of the entire army, for the suspicions of the Benjamites would be aroused if they were confronted with a greatly depleted main force. The location of Baal-tamar (33) is uncertain and the reference to the meadows of Gibeah (AV) is not clear, since open meadows would hardly conceal such a large force. A change of one consonant gives the reading preserved in the LXX, west of Gebah (cf. RSV), which seems preferable. Geba was a few miles north-east of Gibeah. The fury with which the men in ambush made their onslaught is concealed in the AV, came forth (33). The verb means ‘to break forth’ and is used of water gushing forth, or of a child bursting out of the womb. The direction of the attack was probably from the east. (The Hebrew neged corresponds to lipnê, ‘before’, with the sense of ‘eastward of’.) The historian could not resist interrupting his account of the ambush by glancing at the fortunes of the main contestants (34b): the battle was fierce, but the Benjamites were unaware of the events already in motion which were to seal their doom. His thought was then drawn to note the extent of the impending disaster and the fearful casualties inflicted on the Benjamites (35) and then, somewhat illogically, he noted their reaction, at a point before the final slaughter, when they saw that they had been duped.
20:37–44. The defeat of Benjamin. The account now focuses on the part played by the small force of valiant warriors entrusted with the task of destroying Gibeah. Entrance into the city appears to have been easily effected, since the main Benjamite army had been drawn away in the opposite direction, on which side the attention of the remaining defenders would also be centred. The prearranged signal (38, RSV) for the springing of the trap was also the sign that the force in ambush had completed its task, the firing of the city itself. The word for sign (AV, RV) is found in Jeremiah 6:1 with the meaning of fire-beacon, and the same graphic signal is also mentioned in the Lachish ostraca (iv. 10) at the time of the Babylonian devastation of Judah.10 When the smoke of the doomed city was seen by the main Israelite force they turned back (AV retired gives quite the wrong sense) and the Benjamite force, flushed with the thought of their initial success, also observed the sign that caused their self-confidence to evaporate in a moment, to be replaced by abject fear and precipitate flight.
Diagrammatic sketch of the third encounter between the Benjamite and Israelite forces (Judges 20:29–48)
There are certain topographical references which are not clear, but those which are identifiable enable us to make a reasonable reconstruction of the whole campaign from the beginning. The main Israelite force had approached and then withdrawn towards the north-west, i.e. towards Gibeon, drawing the defenders away in this direction. The smaller Israelite force had been in ambush in the vicinity of Geba, north-east of Gibeah, and they attacked the condemned city from the east. The fleeing Benjamites headed in an easterly direction, unto the way of the wilderness (42) away from the main Israelite force which was westward of them. The fact that the Israelites inclosed the Benjamites round about (43, AV, RV) suggests that cities (42) should be singular, as in many Greek manuscripts. In this case the reference is to the Israelites, who, having destroyed Gibeah, now emerged from the burning city to cut off the escape route of the Benjamites. In this pincers movement 18,000 Benjamites perished, but the survivors broke out of the trap and continued their flight. The reference to Gibeah toward the sunrising (i.e. eastwards, 43, AV, RV) is not impossible, but as it is unlikely that the Benjamites would flee directly towards the doomed city, and as their ultimate destination was the rock of Rimmon, which was 6 miles north-north-east of Geba, it is likely that Geba should be read instead of Gibeah. Thus the general line of retreat was in a north-easterly direction.
Two references in this section are quite obscure. In verse 43 with ease over against (AV) is, in Hebrew, ‘(at their) resting-place’ (cf. RV, RSV, mg). It may be that the Benjamites, imagining that they had eluded their pursuers, had made a temporary halt eastward of Geba, only to be caught up by the Israelites. Alternatively, ‘resting-place’ could be read as a proper name, Nohah (cf. RSV), which appears in 1 Chronicles 8:2 as the name of the fourth son of Benjamin, and thus may have been the name of a city. But such a site has not been identified. A further possibility is that it should be translated ‘without respite’, which fits admirably into the context.11 The second problem relates to Gidom (45), which is quite unknown apart from this reference. Possibly it was in the vicinity of the rock of Rimmon, but it has been conjectured that it should be read as Geba, and that this city marked the area where the pursuit was terminated. In the final stages of the pursuit 5,000 Benjamites were cut off in the highways and a further 2,000, accepting the conjectural explanation offered above, perished when the Israelites again surprised the Benjamites at their temporary bivouac east of Geba. The Israelites apparently made no attempt to pursue the surviving 600 Benjamites, who made good their escape to the rock of Rimmon, which is identified with the modern Rummūn, a village on the summit of a conical chalky hill about 4 miles east of Beth-el. Instead, the Israelites turned in judgment upon the other Benjamite cities, which by their intervention on behalf of the men of Gibeah had become associated in its guilt. As all the able-bodied men of Benjamin were doubtless involved in the earlier battles, this would be no difficult task, but rather a slaughter of the helpless, if not, by Israelite standards, the innocent. The justification for this action may be found in Deuteronomy 13:12–18, where the crime specified is that of idolatry, but the evidence of Judges 21 shows that either the Israelites bitterly regretted their revengeful action, or that they performed their punitive duties with little heart.
21:1–9. The grief of the Israelites. When the heat of the battle was over and the memory of the shameful events of the first two days had been set in a healthier perspective by the ultimate victory, the Israelites had occasion to reflect and to repent. Their action had been necessitated by the outrage of the men of Gibeah, and the war was, in a sense, a holy war. But it had brought in its wake a sense of shattered brotherhood and a realization that, in the heat of the crisis, some of their vows had been extreme. It is obvious that, at this stage, a keen sense of unity prevailed, which was not always in evidence in later generations. In particular they regretted their solemn vow not to allow any intermarriage between their daughters and the men of Benjamin, since this meant that a tribe of Israel must inevitably perish. It was a tragedy when a family in Israel was in danger of extinction, hence the device of levirate marriage. But the tragedy was greater when a whole tribe was involved. However, a vow once made, even if it was rash and ill-considered, could not be revoked; so the people mourned before God at his sanctuary in Bethel (cf. 20:18, 26). Their action in building an altar on which to offer sacrifices appears strange, since there was an altar at Bethel where sacrifices had already been offered (20:26). The most likely explanation is that the location of the altar was at Mizpah, which was, as we have noted (20:1), the base-camp of the assembled tribes (cf. the reference to the camp, 8). There is strong evidence that altars were not erected indiscriminately in Israel. They were normally erected in places where a theophany had occurred but they were built at other places in a time of national peril or rejoicing, often before or after a battle (cf. 1 Sam. 7:9; 13:8ff.; 14:35). This occasion, being in the nature of an emergency, merited such an exceptional procedure.
At about this time the remembrance of another great vow suggested a possible way out of their dilemma, for the summons to the tribes to assemble and deal with the situation in Gibeah was of such a solemn nature that any group not responding came under the curse of destruction. A quick survey showed that there were no participants from the city of Jabesh-gilead, 9 miles south-east of Beth-shean and about 2 miles east of the Jordan. The Gileadites were descended from Manasseh, the grandson of Rachel, and thus there was a blood-tie with the descendants of Benjamin, Rachel’s son. In the subsequent history there was a very close link between the tribe of Benjamin and the men of Jabesh-gilead. When the latter were threatened by the Ammonites they turned for succour to Saul the Benjamite (1 Sam. 11:1ff.); and it was the men of Jabesh-gilead who recovered the bodies of Saul and his sons from their ignominious position on the wall of Beth-shan (1 Sam. 31:11–13; cf. 2 Sam. 2:4–7). But this close link may have been the result of this incident, i.e. the extensive intermarriage between the Benjamites and the maidens of Jabesh-gilead, rather than the cause of the non-intervention of the men of Jabesh-gilead against the inhabitants of Gibeah.
21:10–12. Wives for the surviving Benjamites. A considerable force was then despatched to Jabesh-gilead in a plan to fulfil one vow and to circumvent another. The inhabitants of the city were to be destroyed for failing to honour their obligations within the covenant community, but the virgins were to be spared and brought back as wives for the surviving 600 Benjamites. The suggestion that this act of destruction was not carried out, but that the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead delivered over their virgin daughters, finds no support in the text, although subsequent history shows that there were survivors. The action appears cruel in the extreme to the modern reader, but the virtual sacredness of the bond linking the several tribes into the amphictyony must be appreciated, and the sin of Jabesh-gilead seen in its light.
The victorious Israelites, and their terrified prisoners, returned to the camp at Shiloh. The reference to Shiloh has caused great and unnecessary perplexity to commentators, the main reason for this being that Shiloh afterwards became the greatest central sanctuary of the period of the judges. It seems obvious that it was not thus honoured at the time of this incident, for the detailed geographical descriptions of verses 12 and 19 would be most inappropriate if Shiloh was the major sanctuary. Shiloh was, of course, the central sanctuary for what appears to have been a brief period in the lifetime of Joshua (Josh. 18:1) and it was the assembly point for the tribes when action was contemplated against the two and a half tribes eastward of Jordan (Josh. 22:12). But the evidence points to the fact that Shiloh, like Shechem and possibly Gilgal, did not long remain the central sanctuary in this early period, when the ark of the covenant appears to have moved from one place to another.12 The ‘feast of the Lord’ referred to (verses 19ff.) was evidently of a rustic and local character, and hardly to be equated with the cultus at Israel’s chief shrine. A glance at a map shows the simplest and most plausible explanation. There was no need for the main Israelite force to remain at Mizpah or Bethel, since the Benjamite crisis had been conclusively dealt with. The scene of operations had now been transferred to Jabesh-gilead, about 45 miles to the north-east, and it is in this general direction that the Israelites moved, to deal with any emergency which might arise and to effect a more convenient link-up at Shiloh, about 13 miles north-north-east of Mizpah. A supplementary reason which made a move desirable was that the 600 Benjamites were at the rock Rimmon, so that the transfer to Shiloh grouped both Israelite forces to their northward, thus making for greater security. The site of Shiloh was excavated by Danish archaeologists in 1926–9 and 1932 and it has been established that the settlement there was destroyed c. 1050 BC, almost certainly after the events of 1 Samuel 4.
21:13–15. The embassy to the Benjamites. The fact that 400 prospective wives had been procured for them must have convinced the Benjamites of the sincerity of the endeavours of their brethren to effect a reconciliation. There was still a deficiency of 200 maidens, however, and it is clear that the contrite Israelites felt themselves responsible for making up this lack, although their vow made it impossible for them to give their own daughters in marriage. The sparing of the 600, who were as guilty as their fellow-Benjamites who had perished, seems to have been prompted by the consideration that, in any case, sufficient punishment had been meted out, and that the breach must not be made absolute by the complete annihilation of one tribe.
21:16–24. More wives for the Benjamites. The elders of Israel continued their efforts to procure wives for the surviving Benjamites. The reference to an inheritance (17) is not clear, since it is the provision of wives, not a tribal portion (the usual meaning of ‘inheritance’), which is required. Possibly there is compression of thought; the remnant of Benjamin were to be allowed to return in peace to their own territory, but unless wives were provided then the line of Benjamin would cease, and a tribe would be blotted out in Israel. In this predicament their fertile imagination suggested another alternative, possibly prompted by the fact that the camp was now at Shiloh. The words of verse 19 are addressed to the 200 Benjamites without wives, and the precision of the description suggests that Shiloh was a small settlement off the main highway. The geographic allusions make it clear that Shiloh was the modern Seilūn, between 9 and 10 miles north-north-east of Bethel, about 3 miles south of Lebonah (the modern el-Lubbān), and approximately 2 miles east of the main road connecting Bethel and Shechem.
It has been conjectured that the annual feast (19) or pilgrimage (so the meaning of the Heb. ḥāg) was the Passover, and that the dancing commemorated the rejoicing of Miriam and the women of Israel after the crossing of the Red Sea (Exod. 15:20, 21). More plausible, in the light of the mention of vineyards (20), is that it was the Feast of Tabernacles, in the time of the vintage-harvest. Since Shiloh is described as in the land of Canaan (12) it is at least plausible that this particular area, like the area of Shechem (see introductory note on 9:1–57), was a Canaanite enclave within Israel. This particular pilgrimage, therefore, may have been of a local character, having its origins in the pre-Israelite worship of the locality. Such an explanation could ease the problem of accounting for the absence of any representative from Shiloh in the council of the eleven tribes which hatched this scheme to deprive them of two hundred of their maidens! The council anticipated that this Israelite ‘rape of the Sabines’ (Livy, Hist. i. 9) would provoke a very strong complaint to the tribal assembly and they had prepared for this. Their appeal was to the forbearance of the men of Shiloh, a forbearance which would enable them to steer a middle course between two perilous extremes: the 200 Benjamites would not be guilty of seizing the maidens by an act of war; nor would the men of Shiloh give their daughters to the Benjamites, and thus be guilty of violating the vow of 21:1. Whether this appeal to the men of Shiloh was met with willing acquiescence is conjectural. Most probably, like Micah and his neighbours, they were powerless to do anything to undo this fait accompli (18:22–26). The scheme worked out according to plan, the Benjamites were able to set about restoring their shattered cities, and the rest of the Israelites were able to disperse to their tribal portions.
21:25. Finale. The book closes with the reflection of the editor that the absence of the strong hand of a king was largely responsible for the disorders of the land in this earlier age. The editor thereby shows his own background to be one of stability and security, conditions which obtained in the major part of David’s reign and in the earlier part of Solomon’s reign, when, most likely, this portion of Israel’s history was completed. However, the historical perspective of the editor was not to be the final assessment, for the monarchy itself was to deteriorate and proved to be no lasting remedy for the evils of the land. Moreover, it is to a judge, not a king, to whom we must look for the initial improvement, for it was Samuel who led his people out of the period of the judges into the period of the monarchy; out of the turbulence and apostasy of the period of the judges and into the relative stability which confronts us when we consider Saul and his successors. But the reader must take up this story in another book.
Nevertheless they were disobedient, and rebelled against thee, and cast thy law behind their back … and they wrought great provocations.
Nevertheless in thy manifold mercies thou didst not make a full end of them, nor forsake them; for thou art a gracious and merciful God (Neh. 9:26, 31, RV).
Israel in the time of the judges
The twelve tribes and Israel's neighbors