Judges 21:22
And it shall be, when their fathers or their brethren come unto us to complain, that we will say unto them, Be favourable 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.
Original Language Analysis
Cross References
Historical Context
The anticipated "complaint" (yarivu, יָרִיבוּ, from riv, רִיב) refers to formal legal protest bringing grievances before assembly or judges (Exodus 23:2-3, Deuteronomy 25:1). The elders prepared legal arguments to defend the indefensible, demonstrating how far the judicial system had deteriorated. In a functioning covenant community, the elders would champion justice for victims, not excuse perpetrators.
The twisted logic about "not giving" wives reveals the bankruptcy of legalistic reasoning divorced from covenant principles. Ancient Near Eastern legal tradition (reflected in biblical casuistic law) emphasized protecting the vulnerable—orphans, widows, foreigners (Exodus 22:21-24, Deuteronomy 24:17-22). Yet here Israel's elders constructed legal arguments to exploit the vulnerable. This pattern appears whenever religious systems prioritize tradition over justice—compare the Pharisees declaring parental support "Corban" to avoid the fifth commandment (Mark 7:9-13) or medieval indulgence sales that claimed to offer grace while exploiting the poor.
Questions for Reflection
- How do we sometimes construct elaborate justifications for actions we know violate God's principles of justice and mercy?
- What does this verse teach about the danger of treating technical compliance with rules as more important than righteousness?
- When have you seen legal or theological arguments used to defend the powerful and silence the victimized?
Related Resources
Explore related topics, people, and study resources to deepen your understanding of this passage.
Analysis & Commentary
And it shall be, when their fathers or their brethren come unto us to complain, that we will say unto them, Be favourable 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. This verse reveals the elders' prepared response to anticipated complaints—a casuistic argument that the kidnapping didn't violate their oath. The phrase be favourable unto them for our sakes (chonenu otam, חָנּוּנוּ אוֹתָם) uses vocabulary of grace and mercy, perversely applied to requesting clemency for kidnappers. The elders appeal to the victims' families to show grace rather than seeking justice.
The tortured logic continues: we reserved not to each man his wife in the war—since they hadn't deliberately preserved Shiloh's women for Benjamin during the civil war, the women weren't technically "given" but "taken," thus avoiding the oath's violation. The phrase ye did not give unto them at this time, that ye should be guilty (ki lo atattem lahem ka'et, כִּי לֹא נְתַתֶּם לָהֶם כָּעֵת) reveals their obsession with technical oath-keeping while orchestrating mass kidnapping. From a Reformed perspective, this epitomizes the legalistic casuistry Jesus condemned—creating elaborate justifications for violating God's law while claiming technical compliance (Mark 7:9-13).
The argument's fundamental flaw is treating oath-keeping as more sacred than justice, mercy, and righteousness. Micah 6:8 states God requires "to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God." Their scheme violated all three—injustice to kidnapped women, mercilessness to traumatized families, and pride in human wisdom replacing humble dependence on God. Jesus taught that Sabbath-keeping doesn't justify neglecting mercy (Matthew 12:7); similarly, oath-keeping doesn't justify kidnapping.