Now the men of Israel had sworn in Mizpah, saying, There shall not any of us give his daughter unto Benjamin as wife.
All Commentaries on Judges 21:1 Go To Judges 21
George Leo Haydock
AD 1849
Sworn, (juraverunt.) The mention of Maspha, seems to determine that this oath was taken before the battle; though it would otherwise appear, that the Israelites engaged themselves to extirpate the tribe in the heat of their fury, and after they destroyed the women of Benjamin. If they could lawfully slay their brethren indiscriminately, as connected in the same wicked cause, (Haydock) they might surely refuse their daughters to any of those (Menochius) who might chance to make their escape. (Haydock)
But they ought first to have consulted the Lord, as this was a matter of as great consequence as to know who was first to go to battle. They seem to have discovered the rashness of their proceedings, and to have repented when it was too late; and they ridiculously attempt to elude the obligation of the oath, which lay heavy on their consciences. (Salien)
They think it sufficient to adhere to the letter, while they neglect the spirit of their oath. (Haydock)
The ancients had a scrupulous regard for oaths, and did not allow themselves the liberty of interpreting them away, Genesis xxiv. 5., Josue ix. 15., and 1 Kings xiv. 24. (Calmet)
But here the Israelites wish to keep and to evade the oath at the same time. (Haydock)
Serarius, declare that their oath was lawful, as they did not consider the inconveniences which would attend its execution. As soon as they perceived them, the obligation ceased; though, if their erroneous conscience dictated the contrary to them, they were obliged to follow it, (Tirinus) if they could not receive a more certain information. (Haydock)
To stat and others maintain that the oath was null, as being illegal, and consequently of no force. Grotius (Jur. ii. 2, 21,) lays it down as the right of nature, for people to marry with their neighbours, (Calmet) though any individual may refuse such connexions; (Haydock) and St. Augustine (de C. ii. 17.) allows, that the Romans had "a right, perhaps, to seize the Sabine women, in a war declared on account of the unjust refusal. "We can excuse the Benjamites for taking the women of Silo, by force, on no other plea, (Calmet) unless the consent of the parents and of the virgins intervened. (Haydock) (Ver. 22.)
If, therefore, the Israelites could not lawfully deny their daughters in marriage to the Benjamites, their oath was unjust, and nowise obligatory. (Calmet)
They had not right to punish the innocent with the guilty, as they had received no order from God; (Salien) and therefore they ought not to have slain the unoffending females of Benjamin, or of Jabes, ver. 11. It is not necessary for us to defend the rash oaths or conduct of the Israelites in exterminating their fellow creatures, who were innocent; nor in the rape
