Judges 21 22

Judges 21:22 kjv

And it shall be, when their fathers or their brethren come unto us to complain, that we will say unto them, Be favorable unto them for our sakes: because we reserved not to each man his wife in the war: for ye did not give unto them at this time, that ye should be guilty.

Judges 21:22 nkjv

Then it shall be, when their fathers or their brothers come to us to complain, that we will say to them, 'Be kind to them for our sakes, because we did not take a wife for any of them in the war; for it is not as though you have given the women to them at this time, making yourselves guilty of your oath.' "

Judges 21:22 niv

When their fathers or brothers complain to us, we will say to them, 'Do us the favor of helping them, because we did not get wives for them during the war. You will not be guilty of breaking your oath because you did not give your daughters to them.'?"

Judges 21:22 esv

And when their fathers or their brothers come to complain to us, we will say to them, 'Grant them graciously to us, because we did not take for each man of them his wife in battle, neither did you give them to them, else you would now be guilty.'"

Judges 21:22 nlt

And when their fathers and brothers come to us in protest, we will tell them, 'Please be sympathetic. Let them have your daughters, for we didn't find wives for all of them when we destroyed Jabesh-gilead. And you are not guilty of breaking the vow since you did not actually give your daughters to them in marriage.'"

Judges 21 verses

Judges 21 22 Meaning

This verse details the justification the elders of Israel planned to give to the families whose daughters would be taken by the Benjamites from Shiloh. If parents or brothers came to complain, the elders would appeal for grace towards the surviving Benjamites, explaining that the assembly did not "take" these women in war, nor did the families themselves "give" them. This technicality, the leaders argued, ensured that the parents were not guilty of breaking the tribal oath, which forbade giving their daughters to Benjamin, thus preserving both the Benjamite tribe and the moral standing of the other families.

Judges 21 22 Context

Judges 21:22 is situated in the concluding and arguably most morally chaotic chapter of the Book of Judges. Following the devastating civil war against Benjamin (Chapters 19-20), where nearly the entire tribe was annihilated, the remaining Israelites suddenly lamented their drastic actions, fearing the complete loss of one of Jacob's tribes. They remembered a rash oath sworn at Mizpah: not to give any of their daughters as wives to a Benjamite (Jdg 21:1). With only 600 Benjamite men surviving, and no wives, the tribe faced extinction. Their "solution" involved a two-pronged approach: first, wiping out Jabesh-Gilead for not participating in the war and taking 400 virgins from there for the Benjamites (Jdg 21:8-12); second, realizing this was still not enough, they devised the plan for the remaining 200 Benjamites to abduct women from Shiloh during a religious festival (Jdg 21:19-21). Verse 22 provides the critical legalistic loophole they formulated to appease the aggrieved families, emphasizing that since the women were taken and not given, the letter of their oath would not be broken by anyone, thus avoiding communal guilt in a period marked by "everyone doing what was right in their own eyes" (Jdg 21:25).

Judges 21 22 Word analysis

• And when their fathers or their brothers (וְאִם יָבֹאוּ אֲבוֹתָם אוֹ אֲחֵיהֶם – ve'im yavo'u avotam o aheihem): This anticipates the most likely source of complaint. Fathers held patriarchal authority over their daughters, and brothers were expected to protect family honor and property. The elders recognized that these men would rightfully seek redress.
• come to complain (לָרוּב – laruv): The Hebrew verb implies a formal complaint or a legal contention, not just a casual protest. It suggests the aggrieved parties would present their case to the elders for arbitration, expecting justice. This highlights the seriousness of the anticipated grievance.
• to us, we will tell them, 'Grant them to us, (אֵלֵינוּ וְאָמַרְנוּ לָהֶם חֲנוּנוּ אוֹתָם – eleinu ve'amarnu lahem chanunu otam): "To us" refers to the elders or leaders of the assembly of Israel, who designed this scheme. "Grant them to us" (chanunu otam) literally means "be gracious to them," or "show favor/pity to them." This is an appeal to the families' compassion, framed as a plea on behalf of the beleaguered Benjamites, survivors of near annihilation. It subtly shifts the burden onto the aggrieved families to demonstrate mercy.
• because we did not take them for each of them in battle, (כִּי לֹא לָקַחְנוּ אִישׁ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ בַּמִּלְחָמָה – ki lo lakaḥnu ish et ishto bammilchamah): This is a crucial part of the justification. The "we" here refers to the collective body of Israel's leaders who swore the vow. They are stating they didn't personally, or through their command, engage in an act of "taking" wives by force as spoils of their specific military action in the war against Benjamin (where they primarily destroyed Benjamin, not captured wives for Benjamin). This creates distance between their prior actions and the abduction.
• nor did you yourselves give them to them; (וְגַם אַתֶּם לֹא נְתַתֶּם אוֹתָם – vegam attem lo netaťem otam): This is the heart of the legalistic loophole. The elders explicitly state that the parents did not violate the oath by actively "giving" their daughters. Since the daughters were taken by force (abducted), the act of "giving" was absent. This absolves the individual families from culpability in breaking the overall Israelite vow.
• otherwise, you would now be guilty.' (כִּי עַתָּה אֲשֵׁמִים תִּהְיוּ – ki attah ashemim tihyu): This is a veiled threat or a strong rhetorical point. It means, "If you had given them, then you would share in the guilt of violating the vow." By pointing this out, the elders are implicitly assuring the families of their innocence because the abduction took place, making it easier for the families to accept the situation. Their very grievance serves as proof of their blamelessness concerning the vow.

Words-Group Analysis:

• "And when their fathers or their brothers come to complain to us, we will tell them,": This phrase reveals the strategic, pre-emptive planning of the elders. They fully anticipate the familial backlash and prepare a unified, persuasive, albeit morally ambiguous, response. It shows their awareness of familial rights and social expectations regarding women.
• "'Grant them to us, because we did not take them...nor did you yourselves give them...'": This constructs the core of their legalistic argument. The plea for "grace" for the Benjamites softens the hard reality of abduction, while the precise negation of "taking" (by the leaders/Israel as a whole) and "giving" (by the parents) forms the legal basis for avoiding direct violation of the vow. It’s a classic example of adhering to the letter while violating the spirit.
• "'otherwise, you would now be guilty.'": This closing statement functions as both reassurance and manipulation. It assures the parents that their involuntary loss of their daughters actually spares them from communal guilt related to the vow. However, it also subtly pressures them to accept the situation to maintain their moral standing within the community.

Judges 21 22 Bonus section

This incident, particularly this verse, serves as a dark mirror to later biblical injunctions regarding marriage and consent. The solution for the Benjamite men runs contrary to principles of choice, familial blessing, and the establishment of healthy societal norms around matrimony seen elsewhere in the Pentateuch (e.g., Deut 24) and Prophets. The actions demonstrate a dangerous precedent where religious or communal obligations (like the vow) could be twisted to justify unethical behavior, emphasizing the profound moral decline evident in the latter part of Judges. Furthermore, the episode occurs in Shiloh, a key religious center with the tabernacle. The fact that an abduction, orchestrated by tribal leaders, occurs during a festival there further underscores the profound spiritual degradation of the time. The emphasis on preventing "guilt" highlights a legalistic understanding of righteousness rather than a heart for true justice and faithfulness.

Judges 21 22 Commentary

Judges 21:22 encapsulates the moral compromises and ethical dexterity of Israelite leadership during a period of spiritual and social disarray. Having made a binding but ultimately problematic oath, and then seeing its dire consequences, the elders devised a solution that valued tribal preservation above rigorous adherence to the spirit of their vow or the standard of marital practice. The carefully constructed justification in this verse — distinguishing "taking" from "giving" — highlights their legalistic approach to fulfilling divine obligations. It's a pragmatic workaround that allows the letter of the law to be kept while its underlying intent regarding consensual marriage is ignored. This scenario painfully illustrates the truth of Judges 17:6 and 21:25: "In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in his own eyes," demonstrating the flawed human attempts to manage divine commands without true divine guidance or spiritual insight. The situation reveals a society desperate to rectify a severe error but choosing means that themselves bore the stain of a decaying moral fabric.