Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Judges 20:29
And Israel set liers in wait round about Gibeah.
29. From the narrative A, which describes, not the two battles and Jehovah’s direct interference ( Jdg 20:23 ; Jdg 20:28 ; Jdg 20:35), but the stratagem by which the Israelites captured the city; cf. Jos 8:4-8 JE. This v. continues Jdg 20:19.
liers in wait ] Plural, while Jdg 20:33 ; Jdg 20:36-38 use the sing. collect., the ambush. The plural may refer to the various parties posted round about the city.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
The stratagem described is exactly that by which Joshua took Ai (marginal reference).
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 29. Israel set liers in wait] Though God had promised them success, they knew they could expect it only in the use of the proper means. They used all prudent precaution, and employed all their military skill.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Though they were assured of the success by a particular and absolute promise, yet they do not neglect the use of means; as well knowing that the certainty of Gods purposes or promises doth not excuse, but rather require mans diligent use of all fit means for the accomplishment of them.
Round about Gibeah, i.e. on several sides of it, as may be gathered from the following verses.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
29-48. And Israel set liers-in-waitround about GibeahA plan was formed of taking that city bystratagem, similar to that employed in the capture of Ai [Jos8:9].
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And Israel set liers in wait round about Gibeah. For though they were assured of success and victory, yet they thought proper to make use of means: and though their numbers were very great, they had recourse to art and stratagem, and set an ambush in divers places, much in like manner as Israel did for the men of Ai; the two cases being pretty much similar; this ambush was set in the night, as Josephus says s,
s Ut supra, (Antiqu. l. 5. c. 2.) sect. 11.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
The Victory on the Third Day’s Engagement. – Jdg 20:29. The account of this commences with the most important point, so far as their success was concerned: Israel set liers in wait (troops in ambush) round about Gibeah.
Jdg 20:30 They then advanced as on the former occasions.
Jdg 20:31-32 The Benjaminites came out again to meet the people (of Israel), and were drawn away from the town (the perfect without is subordinate to the preceding verb, and defines more precisely the advance itself, whilst the mode in which they were drawn away from the town is not described more fully till Jdg 20:32, Jdg 20:33), and began to smite the beaten of the people (who pretended to fly) as formerly upon the roads (where two roads part), of which one led up to Bethel and the other to Gibeah, into the field (Gibeah is the town at which the battle took place, that is to say, somewhere in the neighbourhood, so that a road might easily run from the field of battle towards the town into the field), “ about (sc., putting to death) thirty men of Israel.” This statement introduces the more precise definition of the .
Jdg 20:32 Then the Benjaminites supposed that Israel was beaten by them as before; but the Israelites said: We will flee, and draw it (the tribe of Benjamin) away from the town to the roads (the high-roads mentioned in Jdg 20:31). On the Dagesh dirimens in , see Ewald, 92, c.
Jdg 20:33 Carrying out this plan, “all the men of Israel rose up from their places,” i.e., left the place they had occupied, drew back, “and set themselves in battle array” in Baal-thamar, i.e., palm-place, which still existed, according to the Onom., in the time of Eusebius, as a small place in the neighbourhood of Gibeah, bearing the name of Bethamar. While this was going on, the ambush of Israel broke forth from its position “from the plains of Geba.” The . . , from to strip, denotes a naked region destitute of wood. is the masculine form for , and a more precise definition of . This rendering, which is the one given in the Targum, certainly appears the simplest explanation of a word that has been rendered in very different ways, and which the lxx left untranslated as a proper name, . The objection raised to this, viz., that a naked level country was not a place for an ambush, has no force, as there is no necessity to understand the words as signifying that the treeless country formed the actual hiding-place of the ambush; but the simple meaning is, that when the men broke from their hiding-place, they came from the treeless land towards the town. The rendering given by Rashi, Trem., and others, “on account of the tripping of Gibeah,” is much less suitable, since, apart from the difficulty of taking in different senses so close together, we should at least expect to find (the city) instead of .
Jdg 20:34 Through the advance of the ambush there came 10,000 picked men of all Israel “from opposite to Gibeah” (who now attacked in the rear the Benjaminites who were pursuing the flying army of Israel); “ and the contest became severe, since they (the Benjaminites) did not know that the calamity was coming upon them. ”
Jdg 20:35 And Jehovah smote Benjamin before Israel (according to His promise in Jdg 20:28), so that the Israelites destroyed of Benjamin on that day twenty and five thousand and an hundred men (i.e., twenty-five thousand and upwards).
This was the result of the battle, which the historian gives at once, before entering more minutely into the actual account of the battle itself. He does this in Jdg 20:36-46 in a series of explanations, of which one is attached to the other, for the most part in the form of circumstantial clauses, so that it is not till Jdg 20:46 that he again comes to the result already announced in Jdg 20:35.
(Note: The opinions expressed by De Wette, etc. that Jdg 20:35 is spurious, and by Bertheau, that Jdg 20:36-46 contain a different account of the battle, simply prove that they have overlooked this peculiarity in the Hebrew mode of writing history, viz., that the generally result of any occurrence is given as early as possible, and then the details follow afterwards; whilst these critics have not succeeded in adducing even apparent differences in support of their opinions.)
Jdg 20:36-38 The Benjaminites, for instance, saw (this is the proper rendering of with vav consec., which merely indicates the order of thought, not that of time) that they were beaten, and the man of Israel vacated the field before Benjamin ( , to give place by falling back and flying), because they relied upon the ambush which they had placed against Gibeah. The Benjaminites did not perceive this till the ambush fell upon their rear. But the ambush itself, as is added in Jdg 20:37 by way of further explanation, hastened and fell (fell as quickly as possible) into Gibeah, and went thither and smote the whole town with the edge of the sword. To this there is added the further explanation in Jdg 20:38: “ And the arrangement of the Israelites with the ambush was this: multiply, to cause smoke-rising to ascend (i.e., cause a great cloud of smoke to ascend) out of the city.” The only objection that can be raised to this view of , as the imperative Hiphil of , is the suffix -attached to , since this is unsuitable to a direct address. This suffix can only be explained by supposing that there is an admixture of two constructions, the direct appeal, and the indirect explanation, that they were to cause to ascend. If this be not admitted, however, we can only follow Studer, and erase the suffix as an error of the pen occasioned by the following word ; for the other course suggested by Bertheau, namely that should be struck out as a gloss, is precluded by the circumstance that there is no possible way of explaining the interpolation of so apparently unsuitable a word into the text. It certainly stood in the text used by the lxx, though they have most foolishly confounded with , and rendered it .
Jdg 20:39-41 “ And the men of Israel turned in the battle: ” that is to say, as is afterwards more fully explained in Jdg 20:39, Jdg 20:40, in the form of a long new circumstantial clause, whilst Benjamin had begun to smite, etc. (repeated from Jdg 20:31, Jdg 20:32), and the cloud ( = , Jdg 20:38) had begun to ascend out of the city as a pillar of smoke, and Benjamin turned back, and behold the whole city ascended towards heaven (in smoke), Israel turned (fighting) and Benjamin was terrified, for it saw that misfortune had come upon it (see Jdg 20:34). In Jdg 20:41, the thread of the narrative, which was interrupted by the long circumstantial clause, is again resumed by the repetition of “ and the men of Israel turned. ”
Jdg 20:42-43 The Benjaminites “ now turned (flying) before the Israelites to the way of the desert, ” i.e., no doubt the desert which rises from Jericho to the mountains of Bethel (Jos 16:1). They fled therefore towards the north-east; but the battle had overtaken (reached or seized) them, and those out of the towns (had perished). The difficult expression , of which very different, and for the most part arbitrary, explanations have been given, can only be in apposition to the suffix attached to the verb: “Benjamin, and in fact those who had come to the help of Gibeah out of the towns of Benjamin” (see Jdg 20:14, Jdg 20:15), i.e., all the Benjaminites. The following words, , are a circumstantial clause explanatory of the previous clause, : “ since they (the men of Israel) destroyed him (Benjamin) in the midst of it. ” The singular suffix does not refer to Benjamin, as this would yield no sense at all, but to the preceding words, “the way of the desert” (see Jdg 20:45). – In Jdg 20:43 the account is continued by three perfects attached to one another without a copula: “ they enclosed (hedged round) Benjamin, pursued him; at the place of rest they trod him down to before Gibeah eastwards. ” is not used adverbially in the sense of “quietly,” which would not give any fitting meaning, but is an accus. loci, and signifies place of rest, as in Num 10:33. The notice “to before Gibeah” refers to all three verbs.
Jdg 20:44 In this battle there fell of Benjamin 18,000 men, all brave men. The before is not a preposition, “ with ” (as the lxx, Cod. Al., and Bertheau render it), but a sign of the accusative. It serves to show that the thought which follows is governed by the principal clause, “ so far as all these were concerned, they were brave men.”
Jdg 20:45 The remainder fled to the desert, to the rock (of the place) Rimmon, which is described in the Onom. ( s. v. Remmon) as a vicus fifteen Roman miles to the north of Jerusalem. It has been preserved in the village of Rummn, which stands upon and around the summit of a conical limestone mountain, and is visible in all directions ( Rob. Pal. ii. p. 113). “ And they (the Israelites) smote as a gleaning upon the roads 5000 men.” , to have a gleaning of the battle, i.e., to smite or slay, as it were, as a gleaning of the principal battle (vid., Jer 6:9). Mesilloth are the high-roads mentioned in Jdg 20:31. “ And pursued them to Gideom, and smote of them 2000 more.” The situation of Gideom, which is only met with here, is not precisely known; but it must have been somewhere between Gibeah and Rimmon, as the rock Rimmon, according to Jdg 20:47, afforded a safe place of refuge to the fugitives.
Jdg 20:46-47 On the total number of the slain, see the remarks on Jdg 20:15. – In Jdg 20:47 the statement already made in Jdg 20:45 with regard to the flight is resumed; and it is still further related, that 500 men reached the rock Rimmon, and dwelt there four months, i.e., till the occurrence described in Jdg 21:13.
Jdg 20:48 The Israelites turned (from any further pursuit of the fugitive warriors of Benjamin) to the children of Benjamin, i.e., to such of the people of the tribe of Benjamin as were unarmed and defenceless, and smote them with the edge of the sword, “ from the town (or towns) onwards, men to cattle (i.e., men, women, children, and cattle), to every one who was found; ” i.e., they cut down men and cattle without quarter, from the towns onwards even to those who were found elsewhere. (to all that was found) corresponds to (from the city), and (men to beast) serves as a more precise definition of the (city): everything that was in the city, man and beast. is pointed wrongfully for , men, the reading in several MSS and most of the early editions (see Deu 2:34; Deu 3:6). They also set fire to all the towns that were met with, i.e., all without exception. Thus they did the same to the Benjaminites as to the Canaanites who were put under the ban, carrying out the ban with the strictest severity.
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
Benjamites Decimated, vs. 29-48
With the Lord’s assurance of victory the men of Israel went up the third time against Benjamin with a great deal of confidence. To insure the victory they employed a tactic which Joshua had used at Ai (Jos 8:3-8), and set liers in wait. While the bulk of the Israelite army pretended to flee as in the first battles, the men should remain hidden. Then when the city of Gibeah was left unprotected the ambush was to rise and put fire to it.
As planned the Benjamites thought they were winning again when they killed a few of the Israelites and they began to flee down the highways toward Shiloh and into the fields. But the Israelites quickly set their forces in array at Baal-tamer, a place on the road to Ephraim, some think the same place where Deborah lived (Jdg 4:5). Ten thousand of Israel’s best men turned to contest the further advance of the Benjamites, and the battle increased fiercely until the Benjamites suddenly realized that their city was ablaze. It would seem that a sudden panic arose among the Benjamites and a certain foreboding that they were lost, (Heb 10:26-27). They tried to turn and flee, but the Israelites had them cornered, fenced in on every side. Many of them turned eastward toward the desert in an attempt to escape. But they failed, and 18,000 of their brave and valorous men fell in the attempt. The remnant then turned toward the wilderness in an attempt to escape to the rock of Rimmon, a sharp cliff and pass in the mountains going up to Bethel from Gibeah, about fifteen miles north of Jerusalem. The fiercely vengeful Israelites slew five thousand more in this stage of the battle. Another two thousand were killed as they fled to Gidom, farther along the road, so that a round number of 25,000 total fell of Benjamin that day.
Only six hundred of the Benjamite warriors made good their, escape to the rock of Rimmon. There they hid themselves for four months. But the Israelites were still not satisfied with their extinction of the tribe. They turned back on the Benjamite cities, put them to the torch and slew all the men remaining and their animals. It is not said that they slew the women and children, but the fact that later no women could be found to be wives for the survivors at the rock of Rimmon indicates they may have been. It was a most sorry state of affairs.
This chapter contains a lot of negative lessons: 1) when there is gross sin on both sides in controversy neither side is in the right; 2) the will of the Lord should be the first consideration of those who claim to be His children; 3) it very often takes tragedy and sore reverses to align the Lord’s people with Him; 4) when back in the Lord’s will, one should not then turn again to his own way; 5) a few successes may be because of the Lord’s longsuffering and not because of one’s righteousness.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
(29) Set liers in wait.This exceedingly simple and primitive stratagem had also been successful against Ai (Jos. 8:4) and against Shechem (Jdg. 9:43). Here, as in Jdg. 20:22-23, the narrative follows a loose-order, the general fact being sometimes stated by anticipation, and the details subsequently filled in.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
29. Liers in wait Armed warriors in ambush. They probably went out under cover of the night, and concealed themselves in the meadows around Gibeah. Jdg 20:33.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘ And Israel set liers in wait round about Gibeah.’
There was now a change of tactics. Their previous tactics had not worked, probably because of the slingers. Now they decided that they must draw the children of Benjamin out of the city allowing the liers in wait to come in from behind and capture the city. These may well have been put in place at night. The tactics followed those of Joshua at Ai (Joshua 8). They had probably been reminded of them on recognising that their behaviour had been similar to Israel’s then, with the same arrogance, a similar need to deal with sin, and now the promise of final victory.
But the use of ‘Israel’ and not ‘the children of Israel’ as the subject of an active verb is rare in Judges (see Introduction). Thus it may indicate that the writer did not approve of the tactics so that they were not seen as covenant behaviour. Possibly he considered that it lacked faith in the promise of Yahweh.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
The Benjamites Defeated and Almost Exterminated
v. 29. And Israel set liers-in-wait round about Gibeah; v. 30. And the children of Israel went up against the children of Benjamin on the third day, v. 31. And the children of Benjamin, v. 32. And the children of Benjamin said, They are smitten down before us, as at the first. But the children of Israel, v. 33. And all the men of Israel rose up out of their place, v. 34. And there came against Gibeah ten thousand chosen men out of all Israel, v. 35. And the Lord smote Benjamin before Israel, v. 36. So the children of Benjamin saw that they were smitten, v. 37. And the liers-in-wait hasted and rushed upon Gibeah, v. 38. Now there was an appointed sign, v. 39. And when the men of Israel retired in the battle, Benjamin began to smite and kill of the men of Israel about thirty persons, v. 31. for they said, Surely they are smitten down before us as in the first battle.
v. 40. But when the flame began to arise up out of the city with a pillar of smoke, v. 41. And when the men of Israel turned again, v. 42. Therefore they turned their backs before the men of Israel unto the way of the wilderness, v. 43. Thus they inclosed the Benjamites round about, v. 44. And there fell of Benjamin, v. 45. And they turned, v. 46. So that all which fell that day of Benjamin were twenty and five thousand men that drew the sword; all these were men of valor. v. 35. In addition, there were evidently a thousand men who had fallen in the first battles, making the total of the slain Benjamites twenty-six thousand and one hundred.
v. 47. But six hundred men turned and tied to the wilderness unto the rock Rimmon, v. 48. And the men of Israel,
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
The men of Israel recommence hostilities. By feigned flight they draw the Benjamites away from Gibeah, which thereupon falls into their hands and is destroyed, together with nearly the whole tribe.
Jdg 20:29-48.
29And Israel set liers in wait round about Gibeah. 30And the children [sons] of Israel went up against the children [sons] of Benjamin on the third day, and put themselves in array against Gibeah, as at other times. 31And the children [sons] of Benjamin went out against the people, and were [thus] drawn away from the city; and they began to smite of the people, and kill,6 as at other times, in the highways, of which one goeth up to the house of God [Beth-el], and the other to Gibeah in the field, about thirty men of Israel. 32And the children [sons] of Benjamin said, They are smitten down [omit: down] before us, as at the first. But the children [sons] of Israel said, Let us flee, and draw them from the city unto the highways. 33And all the men of Israel rose up out of their place, and put themselves in array at Baal-tamar: and the liers in wait of Israel came forth [also] out of their places34[place], even out of the meadows [naked fields]7 of Gibeah. And there [they] came against8 Gibeah ten thousand chosen men out of all Israel, and the battle 35[there] was sore: but they [i. e. the Benjamites] knew not that evil was near them. And the Lord [Jehovah] smote Benjamin before Israel: and the children [sons] of Israel destroyed of the Benjamites that day twenty and five thousand and an hundred men: all these drew the sword.
36So [Now] the children [sons] of Benjamin saw that they [the sons of Israel] were smitten:9 for the men of Israel gave place to the Benjamites, because they trusted unto the liers in wait which they had set beside [against] Gibeah. 37And the liers in wait hasted, and rushed upon Gibeah; and the liers in wait drew themselves along,10 and smote all the city with the edge of the sword. 38Now there was [omit: there was] an [the] appointed sign between the men of Israel and the liers in wait [was], that they should make a great flame [cloudlit. elevation, rising] with [of] 39smoke rise up11 out of the city. But when [omit: when] the men of Israel retired in the battle, [and] Benjamin began to smite and kill of the men of Israel about thirty persons: for they said, Surely they are smitten down [omit: down] 40before us, as in the first battle. And when the flame [cloudcf. Jdg 20:38] began to arise up out of the city with [omit: with] a pillar of smoke, the Benjamites looked behind them, and behold, the flame [whole] of the city ascended up [in flames, or smoke] 41to heaven. And when [omit: when] the men of Israel turned again, [and] the men of Benjamin were amazed [confounded]: for they saw that evil was come upon them. 42Therefore they turned their backs before the men of Israel unto the way of the wilderness; but the battle overtook [or, pursued after] them; and them 43which came out of the cities they destroyed in the midst of them.12 Thus [omit: Thus] they [They] inclosed the Benjamites round about, and chased them, and trode them down with ease [at their place of rest,] over against [as far as before] Gibeah toward the sun-rising [on the east.]13 44And there fell of Benjamin eighteen thousand men; all these were men of valour. 45And they turned and fled toward the wilderness unto the rock of Rimmon: and they gleaned of them in the highways five thousand men; and pursued hard after them unto Gidom, and slew two thousand men [more] of them. 46So that all which fell that day of Benjamin were twenty and five thousand men that drew the sword; all these were men of valour. 47But six hundred men turned and fled to the wilderness unto the rock Rimmon, and abode in the rock Rimmon four months. 48And the men of Israel turned again upon [returned unto] the children [sons] of Benjamin, and smote them with the edge of the sword, as well the men of every city,14 as the beast [cattle], and all that came to hand [was found]: also they set on fire all the cities that they came to that were found].
TEXTUAL AND GRAMMATICAL
[1 Jdg 20:31. : and they began to smite of the people, slain; i. e, they smote so that the smitten became slain. is the accusative of closer definition. Dr. Cassel takes it as nomi-native: They began to smite, (so that,) as at the former times, slain of the people were [i.e., lay] on the highways, of which one, etc. Similarly in ver 39.Tr.]
[2 Jdg 20:33.. Dr. Cassel: Blsse, nakedness; cf. his remarks below. The Peshito read , a cave; the LXX. in Cod. Alex., and the Vulgate, , from the west. Frst (in his Lexicon) defines as forest, and derives it from a conjectural root III., to sprout thickly, to which he also assigns the participle in Psa 37:35. Keil seeks to remove the difficulty of connecting the ambuscade with an open, treeless plain, by remarking that the words of the text do not require us to suppose that the forestless region was the place of hiding, but may be so understood as to affirm that the ambuscade, having broken up from its hiding-place, advanced against the city from the forestless region. But he has failed to notice that the participle speaks precisely of the breaking forth, and leaves the idea of advancing on the city entirely unexpressed.Tr.]
[3 Jdg 20:34. : from before Gibeah. Dr. Cassel, like the E. V., has against. Bertheau says: The ambuscade, consisting of ten thousand chosen men, came from straight before Gibeah; whither they came, is not stated, but from the connection it appears that they attacked the Benjamites, who were fighting at some distance from the city, in the rear. Keil adopts the same explanation. But it is manifest from Jdg 20:37-38, and especially Jdg 20:40-41, that Bertheau and Keil are wrong, and the E. V. and our author right.Tr.]
[4 Jdg 20:36. . With this verse, a new and more detailed account of the conflict begins. So Bertheau, Keil, and Bunsen, as well as our author. To indicate this to the eye, we have introduced a new paragraph division into the text. Bertheau and Bunsen agree with our author that the subject of is the sons of Israel. According to Keil, the sons of Benjamin saw that they were smitten, and that the men of Israel only gave way before them because they depended on the ambuscade which they had laid against Gibeah. They became aware of this when the ambuscade fell on their rear. But this is inconsistent with Jdg 20:37, and certainly with Jdg 20:40. Jdg 20:36 is a restatement of Jdg 20:32, introductory to the detailed account that now follows.Tr.]
[5 Jdg 20:37.. Dr. Cassel translates: and the ambuscade overpowered and smote the whole city; and adds in a foot-note: In the sense of Job 24:22 : . But there the word probably means to hold fast, to preserve, cf. Delitzsch in locum. It seems better to take it here in the sense to march, advance, cf. Jdg 4:6.Tr.]
[6 Jdg 20:38. . The first of these words being taken as the apocopated hiphil imperative, a mixture of the direct with the indirect address arises from the suffix of the third person in the second word. Dr. Cassel avoids this by declaring to be an apocopated infinitive (see below); but it is better to admit the existence of a grammatical inaccuracy.Tr.]
[7 Jdg 20:42. . Dr. Cassel translates: and they of the cities (through which Benjamin came) destroyed them in the midst of them. Compare the exegetical remarks. Keil: The words can only be an appositional explanation of the suffix in , in the sense: Benjamin, namely, they who out of the cities of Benjamin had came to the aid of Gibeah (cf. Jdg 20:14 f), i.e., all Benjamites The following is a circumstantial clause illustrative of the preceding : in that they (the men of Israel) destroyed him (Benjamin) in the midst of it. The singular suffix in , refers not to Benjaminfor that yields no tolerable sensebut to the preceding : in the midst of the way to the desert.
[8 Jdg 20:43.This verse continues the description begun in Jdg 20:42, by means of an animated constructio asyndeta. , they surrounded Benjamin (by throwing out bodies of men on his flanks); , pursued after him; , fell upon and trode him down at his resting-place (that is, when, exhausted, he halted to take breath, accusative of place); and this pursuit and slaughter continued until the pursuers, who started from some distance north of Gibeah (Jdg 20:31), had come south as far as before Gibeah on its eastern side. There the remnant of the pursued found means to turn northward again, Jdg 20:45; and were again pursued as far as Gidom (a place evidently somewhere between east of Gibeah and Rimmon). Compare our authors remarks below, which, however, indicate a slightly different conception on some points.Tr.]
[9 Jdg 20:48. . Dr. Cassel renders: everything of the city, to the cattle and whatever else was found; and adds the following note: Many MSS., and the more recent expositors, point , men, and yet it cannot be said that with , this forms an altogether suitable antithesis, inasmuch as it still fails to express the idea that everything was put under the ban of destruction. The pointing finds support in Jos 8:24; Jos 10:20, where similar instructions are spoken of.Tr.]
EXEGETICAL AND DOCTRINAL
Jdg 20:29 ff. From the determined purpose of the ten tribes to prosecute the war, Benjamin should have taken occasion to yield. Since Israel continued firm, notwithstanding severe losses, it might have concluded that it was impossible to resist permanently. It might also have observed that another spirit animated this second war, and that Israel had become thoroughly in earnest to complete the work it had taken in hand. Another interval of time had manifestly passed by. After the dissolution of the first army, Israel had to levy a new one (illustrative examples of this may be found in the North American Union war). Accordingly, the first engagements are spoken of together, as the former or the first war (Jdg 20:32; Jdg 20:39). The tribes of Israel now first conclude to use strategic arts. This circumstance incidentally affords data which enable us to obtain a somewhat clearer idea of the theatre of the war. Gibeah lay high; the attack of the Israelites came from the direction of Bethel, i.e., from the Northwest. Two highways are mentioned, along which the sons of Benjamin advanced to meet the assailantsone leading to Bethel, the other to Gibeah-in-the-Field (a Lower, or Field-Gibeah in contrast with the Higher, or Mountain-Gibeah). The Israelites allure the Benjamites, rendered unwary by former successes, farther and farther away from the heights and the city. It is expressly said that Benjamin went out to meet them (, Jdg 20:31). They offer scarcely any resistance, but retreat, constantly followed by Benjamin, who already sees the triumphs of the first two battle days reenacted (Jdg 20:32). Not until they have reached Baal Tamar,15 doubtless at a suitable distance from Gibeah, do they halt, and wait for the prearranged signal from other divisions who lay in ambush, and who were to attack the city as soon as the Benjamites should leave it. The place from which the city is thus suddenly attacked, is called (Jdg 20:33). The Masora has pointed , evidently deriving the word from , to be naked, and intending to express by it, as Raschi also explains, the nakedness of Gibeah, i.e., its accessible part. The Targum renders it by ; the same term by which it constantly renders , so that possibly it may have read .16 It might then be understood of the point where the hill slopes down to the plain, and thus becomes more accessible. The simplest way would be to point so as to read , a cave, as the Septuagint also seems to do: (instead of ). North of the present Jeba, with which our Gibeah is held to be identical, runs the Wady es-Suweint. It comes from Beitn and el-Breh, to the Northwest, and, after passing Jeba, runs between high precipices, in one of which is a large cavern called Jihah (Rob. i. 441).
Jdg 20:34-35. And they came against Gibeah, ten thousand men. We now first learn the numerical strength of the ambuscade, the placing of which was stated in Jdg 20:29. It is scarcely necessary to point out that we have here another fact going to show the improbability of a besieging army of 400,000, who could have surrounded the whole of Gibeah on all sides. Verses 34 and 35, while telling about the ambuscade, take occasion briefly to indicate the result of the whole war, according to what, as Keil justly observes, is a characteristic practice of Hebrew historiography. This is followed, Jdg 20:36 ff., by the more detailed account derived from ancient notes. Nor is there any discrepancy between Jdg 20:35, which states that there fell 25,100 men of Benjamin, and Jdg 20:46, which gives the number at 25,000. The latter is only the sum total of the three round numbers of Jdg 20:44-45, namely, 18,000 + 5,000 + 2,000; and the great fidelity of the report shows itself in the fact that since the hundred over 25,000 is not divided between the round sums, it is also not included in the sum total, although according to Jdg 20:35 its inclusion was only a matter of course. The artifice employed by the Israelites against the Benjamites, was in a different way also used against Shechem by Abimelech. Similar stratagems, practiced by Scipio, Hannibal, and others, are collected by Frontinus (Stratagematicon, lib. iii. cap. 10). Scipio besieged a city in Sardinia, feigned to take to flight before the besieged, and when they thoughtlessly followed him, per eos, quos in proximo occultaverat, oppidum invasit.
Jdg 20:36. For the sons of Benjamin had thought that they were smitten. The they of this sentence refers to the Israelites, as appears from the succeeding words. The verse is a recapitulation of verse 32, and is therefore to be rendered by the pluperfect: they had seen or thought. They actually had seen, that the sons of Israel allowed themselves to be smitten.
Jdg 20:38. And the appointed sign between the men of Israel and the liers in wait was, that they should cause a great cloud of smoke to rise up out of the city. The form ( ) is explained by the phrase , Psa 51:4, where the keri has . For not the imperative only, but precisely the infinitive, which forms it (both ), is also apocopated into , and takes in consequence the adverbial signification, strongly, very, fully. The word is quite essential to the full understanding of the sentence. The men of the ambuscade are to cause a great pillar of smoke, like that of a burning city, to ascend, such as could not fail to be visible at a distance, and could not be mistaken. Bertheau must have overlooked this, when he proposed to remove the word out of the text.17
Jdg 20:42 ff.. And the inhabitants of the cities destroyed them in the midst of them. The men of Benjamin fled; and in flight passed through the cities that lay in their course. Thereupon the inhabitants of these cities also arise, and slay the fugitives in their midst. The same thing occurs in all wars, when disorganized, fugitive troops must pass through the enemys land.18 Other explanations, such as have been given from time immemorial, do not appear to harmonize with the connection and the language. The clause cannot refer to those who burned the city; for how could they be called ? Equally incomprehensible is the reason for using this expression, and the connected with it, if Bertheaus explanation, which Keil has mostly followed, be adopted; for the pursuit and inclosure are first delineated in Jdg 20:43. The explanation of Le Clerc appears to me to come nearest the sense: Cum confugerunt Benjaminitad urbes aliorum Israelitarum, ab iis occidebantur. Only, this must not be understood of a systematic application for refuge on the part of the Benjamites; but of the natural phenomenon that against a pursued and smitten foe everything rises up. The narrator evidently points in this way to the embittered feelings against Benjamin which everywhere prevailed. In proportion to Benjamins former overbearing haughtiness, is his present experience of misery. Not only is the hostile army continually at his heels, but he meets with enemies everywhere. Only the wilderness, which he endeavors to reach by fleeing in an eastern and northeastern direction toward the Jordan, promises safety. But before he arrives there, divisions of his men are cut off and surrounded (, Jdg 20:43). The pursuit is unceasing (this is the sense of , they chase his rest, hence probably the hiphil), he scarcely thinks to be able to take breath for a moment, before they are behind him again: in this way he is driven until he finds himself within the limits of the wilderness east of Gibeah. Finally, still pursued as far as an unknown place called Gidom, a remnant of his shattered hosts finds an asylum in the rock Rimmon, northeast of Gibeah and below Ophra, for the modern Rummn, lying high, on a rocky Tell, on the north side of the great Wady el-Asas, is held to be the rock Rimmon of our narrative (Rob. iii. 290; ii. 440).
Six hundred men of the whole tribe saved themselves on that rock. All the rest fell slain by the hands of brethren. They owed their safety to the eagerness of their pursuers to turn back, and destroy everything belonging to Benjamin, cities, houses, and herds. The cities are put under the ban and burned, like Jericho and other cities of the enemy. The Israelites are even more severe in their treatment of Benjamin, than the Pythia was toward the hostile Crissa, which was to be warred on by day and by night and be made desolate, and whose inhabitants were to become slaves. But grief and regret did not fail to come.
Footnotes:
[6][Jdg 20:31. : and they began to smite of the people, slain; i. e, they smote so that the smitten became slain. is the accusative of closer definition. Dr. Cassel takes it as nomi-native: They began to smite, (so that,) as at the former times, slain of the people were [i.e., lay] on the highways, of which one, etc. Similarly in ver 39.Tr.]
[7][Jdg 20:33.. Dr. Cassel: Blsse, nakedness; cf. his remarks below. The Peshito read , a cave; the LXX. in Cod. Alex., and the Vulgate, , from the west. Frst (in his Lexicon) defines as forest, and derives it from a conjectural root III., to sprout thickly, to which he also assigns the participle in Psa 37:35. Keil seeks to remove the difficulty of connecting the ambuscade with an open, treeless plain, by remarking that the words of the text do not require us to suppose that the forestless region was the place of hiding, but may be so understood as to affirm that the ambuscade, having broken up from its hiding-place, advanced against the city from the forestless region. But he has failed to notice that the participle speaks precisely of the breaking forth, and leaves the idea of advancing on the city entirely unexpressed.Tr.]
[8][Jdg 20:34. : from before Gibeah. Dr. Cassel, like the E. V., has against. Bertheau says: The ambuscade, consisting of ten thousand chosen men, came from straight before Gibeah; whither they came, is not stated, but from the connection it appears that they attacked the Benjamites, who were fighting at some distance from the city, in the rear. Keil adopts the same explanation. But it is manifest from Jdg 20:37-38, and especially Jdg 20:40-41, that Bertheau and Keil are wrong, and the E. V. and our author right.Tr.]
[9][Jdg 20:36. . With this verse, a new and more detailed account of the conflict begins. So Bertheau, Keil, and Bunsen, as well as our author. To indicate this to the eye, we have introduced a new paragraph division into the text. Bertheau and Bunsen agree with our author that the subject of is the sons of Israel. According to Keil, the sons of Benjamin saw that they were smitten, and that the men of Israel only gave way before them because they depended on the ambuscade which they had laid against Gibeah. They became aware of this when the ambuscade fell on their rear. But this is inconsistent with Jdg 20:37, and certainly with Jdg 20:40. Jdg 20:36 is a restatement of Jdg 20:32, introductory to the detailed account that now follows.Tr.]
[10][Jdg 20:37.. Dr. Cassel translates: and the ambuscade overpowered and smote the whole city; and adds in a foot-note: In the sense of Job 24:22 : . But there the word probably means to hold fast, to preserve, cf. Delitzsch in locum. It seems better to take it here in the sense to march, advance, cf. Jdg 4:6.Tr.]
[11][Jdg 20:38. . The first of these words being taken as the apocopated hiphil imperative, a mixture of the direct with the indirect address arises from the suffix of the third person in the second word. Dr. Cassel avoids this by declaring to be an apocopated infinitive (see below); but it is better to admit the existence of a grammatical inaccuracy.Tr.]
[12][Jdg 20:42. . Dr. Cassel translates: and they of the cities (through which Benjamin came) destroyed them in the midst of them. Compare the exegetical remarks. Keil: The words can only be an appositional explanation of the suffix in , in the sense: Benjamin, namely, they who out of the cities of Benjamin had came to the aid of Gibeah (cf. Jdg 20:14 f), i.e., all Benjamites The following is a circumstantial clause illustrative of the preceding : in that they (the men of Israel) destroyed him (Benjamin) in the midst of it. The singular suffix in , refers not to Benjaminfor that yields no tolerable sensebut to the preceding : in the midst of the way to the desert.
[13][Jdg 20:43.This verse continues the description begun in Jdg 20:42, by means of an animated constructio asyndeta. , they surrounded Benjamin (by throwing out bodies of men on his flanks); , pursued after him; , fell upon and trode him down at his resting-place (that is, when, exhausted, he halted to take breath, accusative of place); and this pursuit and slaughter continued until the pursuers, who started from some distance north of Gibeah (Jdg 20:31), had come south as far as before Gibeah on its eastern side. There the remnant of the pursued found means to turn northward again, Jdg 20:45; and were again pursued as far as Gidom (a place evidently somewhere between east of Gibeah and Rimmon). Compare our authors remarks below, which, however, indicate a slightly different conception on some points.Tr.]
[14][Jdg 20:48. . Dr. Cassel renders: everything of the city, to the cattle and whatever else was found; and adds the following note: Many MSS., and the more recent expositors, point , men, and yet it cannot be said that with , this forms an altogether suitable antithesis, inasmuch as it still fails to express the idea that everything was put under the ban of destruction. The pointing finds support in Jos 8:24; Jos 10:20, where similar instructions are spoken of.Tr.]
[15]Movers (phnizier, i. 661) proposes to explain this name of a place by means of the Phnician Tamyrus, Zeus Demarus. Raschi, on the other hand, connected it with the district of Jericho.
[16]This is supported by the Syriac-Hexaplar version of Paul of Tella, which has , which gives us a gendering of (Rrdam, p. 179).
[17]On the very ancient false reading , found in some Hebrew MSS. and in the LXX., cf. Keil. Paul of Tella has given a similar rendering in his Syriac version (Rrdam, p. 180).
[18][But on this occasion the fugitives do not pass through the enemys land. From first to last, whether fighting or fleeing, Benjamin moves on his own soil within his own boundaries; and this fact makes our authors explanation of the last clause of Jdg 20:42 impossible. Cf. note 7 under Textual and Grammatical.Tr.]
Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange
Jdg 20:29 And Israel set liers in wait round about Gibeah.
Ver. 29. And Israel set liers in wait. ] See the like strategem used at Ai. Jos 8:4-5
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
coasts = borders.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Israel: Though God had promised them success, they knew they could expect it only by the use of proper means. Hence they used all prudent precaution, and employed all their military skill.
liers: Jdg 20:34, Jos 8:4, 2Sa 5:23
Reciprocal: Jos 8:2 – lay thee 1Ki 22:5 – Inquire Neh 4:11 – They shall not
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Jdg 20:29-30. Israel set liers in wait Though they were assured of the success, by a particular promise, yet they did not neglect the use of means; as well knowing that the certainty of Gods promises doth not excuse, but rather require, mans diligent use of all fit means for the accomplishment of them. The children of Israel That is, a considerable part of them, who were ordered to make the first attack, and then to counterfeit flight, to draw the Benjamites forth from their strong hold. See Jdg 20:32.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
The Israelites’ final victory 20:29-48
Jdg 20:29-36 a give an overview of the battle, and Jdg 20:36-48 provide a more detailed explanation. Israel’s strategy was similar to what God had specified against Ai (Jos 8:1-29) and what Abimelech used against Shechem (Jdg 9:33-44).
The location of Baal-tamar is unknown (Jdg 20:33), but Marreh-geba was evidently Geba, which stood a few miles northeast of Gibeah. Rimmon (pomegranate, Jdg 20:45) was farther to the north and east of Bethel. The site of Gidom is still unknown. The writer carefully recorded that it was the Lord who struck Benjamin (Jdg 20:35).
"The word for ’whole’ (kalil, Jdg 20:40) is often used of ’whole burnt offerings’ (Deu 33:10) and is in fact used of burning a town whose people have become involved in idolatry (Deu 13:16). The entire town [of Gibeah] literally became a burnt offering!" [Note: Ibid., p. 500.]
The Israelites did to the Benjamites as they had done to the Canaanites who were under the ban (Jdg 20:48). This was excessively severe treatment contrary to God’s will (Exo 21:24; Lev 19:18).
This chapter illustrates the far-reaching consequences of a single sexual sin (Jdg 19:1). It also reveals the inverted values of people who did not acknowledge God as their king. Unwarranted protection of a neighbor replaced love for God in the warring factions of the nation. Excessive loyalty to brothers replaced loyalty to God. Vengeance and overkill replaced adherence to God’s gracious will. Furthermore we see here that God’s guidance may involve discipline for the independent as well as punishment for the rebellious. However, we should not conclude that one person’s problems always have their roots in his or her personal sins (cf. Job; Joh 9:2-3).