The singular request is distributive: the narrator envisages the Ephraimite fugitives approaching the seized crossings one man at a time, each seeking permission to pass. פְּלִיטֵי אֶפְרַיִם (pəlîṭê ʾEprayim), “the survivors of Ephraim,” is a plural construct phrase identifying the group, whereas אֶעֱבֹרָה (ʾeʿĕbōrâ) is a first common singular Qal imperfect, with the final -â giving the request a volitional sense, “Let me cross over.” The following singular forms reinforce this individualized encounter: the Gileadites speak “to him” (לוֹ), ask, “Are you an Ephraimite?” and each questioned man replies, “No.” This syntax also portrays the violence as deliberate rather than indiscriminate confusion at a battlefield. After the Ephraimites have been defeated in the conflict described in v. 4, those who escaped seek to cross the Jordan, presumably toward Ephraim’s territory west of the river. Gilead’s possession of the fords enables its men to inspect each fugitive separately. The plural imperfect יֹאמְרוּ (yōʾmerû), “they would say,” following וְהָיָה כִּי (wəhāyâ kî), presents a repeated circumstance: whenever an Ephraimite survivor came to the crossing and requested passage, the same interrogation followed. The verse thus establishes the procedural setting for the pronunciation test in v. 6, rather than describing a single representative exchange.

Samson’s “going up” (wayyaʿal, Qal wayyiqtol of ʿalah) describes his return from Timnah to his parents’ home in the hill country, and it deliberately reverses the descent of v. 1. Timnah lay in or near the Sorek Valley, below the elevation of Zorah, Samson’s home territory (cf. 13:2, 25). The paired verbs therefore reflect the actual terrain: Samson went down from the Israelite uplands to Timnah and then went up again to report what he had seen. The verb has no necessary cultic or theological sense here; it is the ordinary idiom for ascent in the Judean foothills. Yet the alternation also structures the episode. Samson’s descent into a Philistine setting in v. 1 is followed by his return to his Israelite parents, before he descends again to Timnah in v. 7. This movement marks the tension that his proposed marriage creates: he belongs to an Israelite household charged with covenantal distinctions, but his desire has been fixed upon a Philistine woman. The narrator does not yet explain the divine purpose behind this movement until v. 4, where the Lord’s intention to seek an occasion against the Philistines is disclosed. Thus v. 2 should not be read as portraying Samson’s ascent as a spiritual return or repentance; it is a geographically natural return home that advances the narrative toward the conflict embedded in his marriage request.

The verb וַיַּרְא (wayyarʾ), Qal wayyiqtol of רָאָה (rāʾâ, “to see”), here denotes perception or recognition rather than Gideon’s first physical sight of the visitor. Gideon had already conversed with him, prepared an offering for him, and watched him touch the offering with his staff (6:11, 17-21). The clause “Gideon saw that he was the angel of the LORD” therefore means that Gideon grasped the visitor’s true identity when the fire consumed the offering and the messenger vanished from his sight (6:21). Hebrew regularly employs rāʾâ with a following כִּי (kî), “that,” for coming to know or realizing a fact. This recognition also completes Gideon’s earlier request for a sign: “show me a sign that it is you who speak with me” (6:17). The supernatural consumption of the offering furnishes the requested confirmation, while the messenger’s disappearance removes any remaining ambiguity about an ordinary human visitor. The narrative thus presents Gideon’s alarm in v. 22 as the immediate consequence of belated recognition. His response does not arise from a new visual encounter, but from understanding the significance of what he has just witnessed.

The father’s designation of the Levite as “his son-in-law” (ḥōtĕnô, from ḥātān) indicates that the concubine relationship was regarded as a genuine familial union, even though the woman’s status remained that of a concubine (pîlegeš). The expression is immediately clarified by the apposition, “the father of the young woman,” identifying the speaker as her father and the Levite as his affinal relative. The term ḥātān can denote a bridegroom or son-in-law, and here the latter sense is required by the speaker’s perspective. The narrative therefore does not treat the Levite as a mere visitor who has taken his daughter informally, but as a man joined to her in a relationship that created recognizable obligations between the two households. At the same time, the wording preserves the woman’s subordinate social designation. She is “the young woman” (hannăʿărâ), a term that can denote a marriageable or adult young woman and need not imply childhood. Her identity is still defined in the narrative by pîlegeš, however, a designation ordinarily marking a woman attached to a man in a secondary marital status and lacking the standing of a principal wife. The juxtaposition is significant in the larger account: her father extends the courtesies and claims the kinship language appropriate to a son-in-law, while the story continues to expose the precarious condition of the woman whose relationship is socially recognized yet structurally unequal. The terms neither erase the distinction between wife and concubine nor reduce the union to an illicit liaison.

The designation "Samson, son-in-law of the Timnite" indicates that Samson’s marital relation to the Timnite household remained publicly recognizable, even though the woman’s father had transferred her to Samson’s companion. The noun חָתָן (ḥātān), "son-in-law," stands in construct with הַתִּמְנִי (hattimnî), "the Timnite," a gentilicial expression functioning substantivally for the woman’s father. The narrator and the Philistines therefore continue to identify Samson by the alliance created through the marriage arrangement of Judges 14, rather than treating the father’s action as having erased that relationship. This designation does not, however, constitute a legal judgment that the father’s reassignment of his daughter was invalid under Philistine custom. Judges 15:1 records Samson’s own continuing claim, "I will go in to my wife," while 15:2 records the father’s claim that Samson had come to hate her and that she had consequently been given to another. Verse 6 reports the explanation that reached the Philistines: Samson acted because the Timnite "took his wife and gave her to his companion." The wording preserves Samson’s grievance and the public reality of his original marriage, while also exposing the instability of the alliance between an Israelite deliverer and a Philistine household. The Philistines’ retaliation falls upon the very household through which Samson had sought marital accommodation, intensifying the narrative’s movement from domestic breach to national conflict.

The reference to Abiezer establishes Gideon’s first military following as his own clan and portrays that clan as rallying under his newly authorized leadership. The clause וַיִּזָּעֵק אֲבִיעֶזֶר אַחֲרָיו (wayyizzāʿēq ʾĂbîʿezer ʾaḥărāyw) employs the Niphal wayyiqtol of זעק (zāʿaq), a form that here carries a passive or reflexive sense: Abiezer was summoned, or was called together, after Gideon. The phrase אַחֲרָיו, “after him,” means in his wake or under his leadership, rather than merely later in time. Gideon’s blowing of the shophar is therefore a public mustering signal, and the clan responds by aligning itself with him. This sequence is significant in light of Gideon’s earlier self-description: his clan was the weakest in Manasseh, and he was the least in his father’s house (6:15). Abiezer had already witnessed Gideon’s destruction of Baal’s altar and had been preserved from the demand for his death through Joash’s intervention (6:25-32). Its gathering after Gideon thus marks a reversal within the narrative. The man who had acted secretly at night now openly calls his clan to battle, yet the text grounds this change in the Spirit of the LORD rather than in a sudden natural confidence or inherited status. Abiezer is not the whole tribe of Manasseh, but Gideon’s paternal clan within it, as 6:11 and 8:32 indicate. Verse 35 consequently extends the summons beyond this initial local base to Manasseh, Asher, Zebulun, and Naphtali. The order reflects the narrative’s movement from Gideon’s household and clan to a broader coalition against Midian. Gideon leads, but his authority arises from the LORD’s endowment and is confirmed by the response of those nearest to him.

The phrase “ten thousand men” specifies the enemy force struck at Bezek, rather than Judah’s own army. The clause literally reads, “they struck them at Bezek, ten thousand men” (wayyakkûm be-Bezeq ʿăśeret ʾălāpîm ʾîš). The pronominal suffix on wayyakkûm, the Hiphil wayyiqtol of nākâ, already identifies the Canaanites and Perizzites as those struck. The following numeral phrase stands in apposition to that object and supplies its extent: Judah struck “them,” amounting to ten thousand men. This construction is used similarly elsewhere in Judges. Judges 3:29 reports that Israel “struck Moab at that time about ten thousand men,” where the number plainly denotes Moabite casualties; Judges 20:35 likewise records the destruction of “twenty-five thousand one hundred men” of Benjamin. The phrase therefore summarizes the scale of Judah’s victory over the coalition named in the preceding clause. It need not imply a modern census precision. Large rounded military figures in the historical narratives commonly communicate the magnitude of a defeat while remaining attached to a real military engagement. The number also serves the theological statement governing the verse. Judah’s military action is real, yet the decisive explanation precedes it: “the LORD gave the Canaanite and the Perizzite into their hand.” The ten thousand are thus the defeated enemies whom Judah struck because Yahweh had delivered them, in accordance with the divine command and promise given in Judges 1:2.

לְכָה (lĕkâ) is the Qal imperative masculine singular of הלך (hālak), “to go,” with a final paragogic ה. In this setting it is best rendered simply, “Come,” as an urgent summons for Jephthah to leave his present place and return to Gilead. The added ה can occur with imperatives and related verbal forms, often lending emphasis, animation, or a somewhat heightened tone to the command, though its precise semantic force is not consistently distinguishable in every occurrence. It does not by itself establish either unusual politeness or a technical military command. The grammar supports the elders’ attempt to recruit the man whom Gilead had formerly expelled (11:1-3). Their imperative is followed by וְהָיִיתָ (wĕhāyîtā), a waw plus perfect functioning in sequence after the imperative: “Come, and become for us a commander.” The intensified summons therefore accords with the political and military crisis created by Ammon. The paragogic ending contributes to the directness of the appeal, while the substance of their offer is supplied by the following designation לְקָצִין (lĕqāṣîn), “as a commander,” rather than by the ending itself.

The clause employs poetic theophany language: it portrays the created order as yielding before the manifested presence of the LORD, rather than supplying a detached geological report about Sinai. The verb נָזְלוּ (nazelu), Qal perfect third common plural of נזל (nzl), ordinarily denotes flowing, dripping, or running. With “mountains” as its subject, the expression evokes their dissolution or liquefaction under the divine presence. English versions that render the verb “quaked” convey the associated effect but soften the stronger image of mountains flowing away. The immediate context establishes the imagery’s character. Judges 5:4 speaks of the earth shaking and the heavens and clouds dripping water as the LORD advances from Seir and Edom. Verse 5 heightens this storm-theophany by depicting even the mountains as unable to stand firm before him. The repeated phrase מִפְּנֵי יְהוָה (mippene YHWH), “from before the LORD” or “because of the presence of the LORD,” identifies his appearing as the cause. The language corresponds to Israel’s Sinai traditions, where the mountain trembles at the LORD’s descent (Exod 19:16-18), and to later poetic descriptions of mountains melting before God (Ps 97:5; Mic 1:3-4). Deborah’s song therefore recalls the exodus-era revelation to interpret the victory over Sisera. The LORD who once made Sinai shake is the God of Israel who has again entered Israel’s history as divine warrior. The verse does not require that the mountains literally became fluid, though it presupposes the reality and terror of God’s historical self-manifestation. Its imagery declares that no element of creation, including the great mountain associated with the covenant’s inauguration, remains unmoved before Israel’s covenant LORD.

Gideon’s appeal to the LORD’s prior word shows that the requested sign concerns confirmation of an already given promise, rather than the discovery of a new divine plan. The clause כַּאֲשֶׁר דִּבַּרְתָּ (kaʾăšer dibbarta), “as you have spoken,” uses the Piel perfect of דָּבַר (dābar, “to speak”) with God as its direct addressee. Gideon identifies the anticipated deliverance as the very deliverance God had announced: “Go in this your strength and save Israel” (6:14), and “I will be with you, and you shall strike Midian as one man” (6:16). The wording “you will save” (תּוֹשִׁיעַ, tôšîaʿ, Hiphil imperfect, second masculine singular) preserves the LORD as the effective Savior, while “by my hand” identifies Gideon as the appointed human instrument. The request therefore arises after a substantial sequence of divine assurances. Gideon has received the angelic commission, the sign at the rock (6:17-21), the divine word of peace after fearing death (6:22-23), and the Spirit’s empowerment for summoning Israel (6:34-35). His statement, “then I will know” (וְיָדַעְתִּי, wĕyādaʿtî), does not imply that the original promise was ambiguous; it expresses his continuing need for assurance that the promised salvation will indeed occur through him. The narrative thus portrays genuine divine condescension toward a fearful and hesitant deliverer, while retaining the priority and sufficiency of God’s spoken promise. This final appeal also distinguishes Gideon’s sign from a self-authorizing attempt to manipulate God. He frames the proposed event under the promise already received, and the subsequent account records the LORD’s patience in granting both signs (6:38-40). Yet the context gives no indication that Gideon’s demand establishes a normative means for discerning God’s will. The decisive word has already been spoken, and the fleece functions within the narrative as a merciful confirmation of that particular commission.

The verse reports the priest's pronouncement without thereby validating it as a genuine word from the LORD. The Danite spies had asked him in v. 5 to inquire of God (שְׁאַל־נָא בֵאלֹהִים), but v. 6 contains no description of consultation, sacrifice, lots, or divine response. Instead, the priest immediately gives the conventional departure blessing, לְכוּ לְשָׁלוֹם (leku leshalom, "go in peace"), followed by an assurance framed in the LORD's name. The narrator records what the priest said, not what the LORD said directly. Its setting makes this restraint significant. This priest serves Micah's privately established sanctuary, equipped with an ephod, household gods, and a graven image (17:4-5), an arrangement later exposed as contrary to Israel's appointed worship. The priest's use of the divine name therefore gives religious authority to an enterprise that is itself entangled with the period's governing disorder, when each man did what was right in his own eyes (17:6). His speech has the form of an oracle, but the narrative gives no warrant for treating him as a lawful mediator of Yahweh's will. The phrase נֹכַח יְהוָה דַּרְכְּכֶם (nōkaḥ YHWH darkekem) places the spies' way "before" or "in the sight of" the LORD. It expresses Yahweh's awareness of their journey and, in the priest's mouth, functions as reassurance. Yet divine awareness does not itself establish divine endorsement. Subsequent events confirm the irony: the Danites succeed militarily, but they seize Micah's cultic objects and establish an enduring idolatrous shrine at Dan (18:27-31). The narrative thus distinguishes providential occurrence from the authorization claimed by an illegitimate priesthood.

The perfect הִתְקַבְּצוּ (hitqabbĕṣû, Hithpael perfect, third common plural, from qābaṣ, “to gather”) presents the assembly of the Tower of Shechem's leading men as an accomplished fact when the information came to Abimelech. English versions appropriately often render it “had gathered,” since the gathering is antecedent to the reporting expressed by the preceding wayyiqtol, וַיֻּגַּד (wayyuggad, Hophal sequential imperfect), “and it was reported.” Abimelech is informed after the men have taken refuge together, not summoned by this report to assemble in a location still being formed. The Hebrew perfect does not, however, function as a rigid pluperfect tense in itself. Its primary force is perfective: it views the gathering as complete. The temporal relation arises from the narrative sequence and from the logic of the report: Abimelech receives news concerning a completed concentration of his remaining opponents. This accords with v. 46, where the men connected with the Tower of Shechem enter the stronghold of the house of El-berith after hearing of Abimelech's approach. Verse 47 therefore supplies Abimelech with the intelligence that enables the attack described in vv. 48-49; their gathering has made them vulnerable as a single enclosed body.

Jephthah identifies the land at issue as Amorite territory because Israel received it from Sihon, the Amorite king, rather than by invading Ammon. The expression “all the land of the Amorite” (kol-’erets ha-’emori) denotes the whole territory ruled and occupied by the Amorites in this Transjordanian setting, not the entire geographical range of Amorite populations elsewhere. The following participle, yosheb, “dwelling,” is masculine singular, as is the gentilic ha-’emori, but both are collective in force: “the Amorite as the inhabitant of that land.” The demonstrative “that land” restricts the statement to the territory under dispute. This designation supplies a central premise in Jephthah’s reply to Ammon. Numbers 21:21-31 recounts Israel’s defeat of Sihon and possession of his land, while Deuteronomy 2:19 explicitly records the divine prohibition against taking Ammon’s territory. Sihon had himself extended Amorite rule over portions of Transjordan, including land earlier taken from Moab (Num 21:26); nevertheless, Jephthah’s argument is concerned with the relevant legal-historical fact that Israel encountered and defeated Sihon’s Amorite kingdom. Thus the verse does not attempt a complete account of every earlier territorial change in the region. It asserts that the land Israel occupied was acquired from the Amorite ruler then possessing it, and therefore Ammon’s claim that Israel had taken its land directly is rejected in the following argument.

The pairing of burnt offerings and peace offerings portrays Israel’s corporate approach to the LORD as involving both expiation and restored fellowship after the catastrophe of the Benjamite war. The עֹלוֹת (ʿolot, “burnt offerings”) were offerings wholly presented to God upon the altar, apart from the priestly portion, and Leviticus 1:4 associates the burnt offering with atonement. The שְׁלָמִים (shelamim, “peace offerings” or “well-being offerings”) expressed peace with God and ordinarily culminated in a sacrificial meal shared by worshipers and priests (Lev 3; 7:11-21). Their conjunction therefore indicates more than generalized grief: Israel seeks the LORD in a rite suited both to cleansing the community and to reestablishing covenantal communion. The narrative context gives this sacrifice a penitential character. On the preceding day the assembly had wept before the LORD and asked why a tribe should be removed from Israel (21:2-3). The next morning they rise early, build an altar, and “cause” the offerings to ascend, the Hiphil verb וַיַּעֲלוּ (wayyaʿălû) reflecting the ascent of the sacrifice in smoke toward God. Yet the text does not represent these offerings as mechanically reversing the consequences of the war or as authorizing the expedients that follow. They are Israel’s liturgical acknowledgment that the loss of Benjamin is a crisis before the covenant God, a crisis requiring sacrificial atonement and peace even while the assembly remains responsible to act within the limits imposed by its own oath and by the LORD’s prior judgment.

The verb “he loved” (wayyeʾehab, Qal wayyiqtol of ʾāhab) does not establish that Delilah was Samson’s wife. Although ʾāhab can describe the affection of a husband for his wife, it is not a technical term for contracting marriage. The narrator calls Delilah simply “a woman” (ʾiššâ), a noun that may mean either “woman” or “wife” according to context, but supplies none of the customary marital indicators: no request for her as a wife, no parental negotiation, no bride-price, and no wedding celebration. By contrast, the Timnite episode explicitly identifies the woman as Samson’s intended wife and narrates the marriage arrangements (Judg. 14:1-10). The wording therefore distinguishes Delilah from the prostitute of Gaza in 16:1 without presenting the relationship as lawful marriage. Samson’s attachment is described as love, apparently a more enduring and emotionally binding desire than the brief encounter at Gaza, yet the subsequent narrative depicts Delilah as accessible to the Philistine rulers and acting for their reward (16:5). Her conduct, and Samson’s unguarded intimacy with her, make clear that this love does not signal a covenantal union. The sequence intensifies the account of Samson’s moral disorder: having previously sought a Philistine wife contrary to his parents’ counsel and then visited a prostitute in Gaza, he becomes attached to a woman through whom the Philistines will bring about his capture.

The phrase laʿăśôt darkô, literally “to make his way,” describes the Levite as a traveler proceeding on his journey, rather than as a technical expression for seeking employment at Micah’s shrine. The infinitive construct ʿăśôt, governed by lamed, can express purpose or attendant circumstance: he came as he was making his way. Derek, “way,” with the third masculine singular suffix, refers concretely to the route or course of travel that belonged to him. The preceding clause has already supplied the Levite’s stated aim: he left Bethlehem of Judah “to sojourn wherever he might find [a place].” The imperfect yimṣāʾ (“he might find”) leaves his destination open and portrays him as searching for residence and support. His arrival at Micah’s house is therefore presented as an incidental stage in that unsettled journey. Verse 9 confirms this reading when the Levite tells Micah that he is traveling from Bethlehem of Judah to reside wherever he can find an opportunity. Accordingly, the clause does not imply that the Levite set out intending to become Micah’s personal priest. That arrangement arises only after Micah questions him and offers wages, clothing, and food (vv. 9-10). The narrative thereby stresses the contingency of a Levite, detached from his proper place of service, encountering a household already committed to illicit cultic practice. His “way” leads him into Micah’s house, but the subsequent priestly appointment is the product of Micah’s initiative and the Levite’s willingness.

The wording makes Gibeah, conceived as a city-community, the immediate object of Israel’s proposed judicial action. The phrase לַגִּבְעָה (laggiv'ah, “to/against Gibeah”) is followed by עליה ('aleha, “against it”), whose feminine singular suffix agrees with the city name. Such grammatical personification is customary for a town and does not imply that Gibeah is being addressed as an individual woman. Israel’s resolution is directed toward the settlement that harbored the crime and whose inhabitants had resisted the demand for justice. Yet the verse should not be taken to declare that every inhabitant of Gibeah was originally guilty in the same sense as the “worthless men” of Judges 19:22. The formal demand later sent to Benjamin distinguishes the perpetrators from the larger population: Benjamin is commanded to surrender “the worthless men who are in Gibeah” so that evil may be purged from Israel (20:13). Gibeah becomes the corporate target because the community’s protection of its offenders makes the town implicated in their outrage; Benjamin’s refusal to deliver them broadens the conflict from Gibeah to the tribe that defends it. Thus the singular city-name identifies the place and civic body against which the expedition is arranged, while the surrounding narrative preserves the prior distinction between the principal offenders and those whose refusal to administer justice shares in their guilt.

The offer promises Delilah 1,100 units of silver from each Philistine ruler, not 1,100 as a single collective payment. The plural speakers declare, “we will give” (nitten, Qal imperfect, first common plural), yet the amount is introduced by the singular אישׁ (ʾîš, “man”), functioning distributively: “a man, 1,100 silver,” that is, each individual ruler will contribute that amount. The English rendering “each of us” accurately conveys the force of the construction. The noun כֶּסֶף (kesep) denotes silver, which commonly served as weighed payment; the Hebrew text does not specify a unit such as “shekels,” although that is often supplied in translation because it was the customary monetary weight. The sum is deliberately extravagant. Elsewhere Judges speaks of the five Philistine lords, corresponding to the principal Philistine cities (Judg. 3:3; 16:5), so the customary inference would yield a total of 5,500 units of silver, though the number five is not stated within this verse itself. The payment therefore presents Samson’s capture as a coordinated undertaking of Philistine political leadership and portrays Delilah’s cooperation as purchased with an exceptionally large reward.

Jotham’s expression depicts Gideon as deliberately exposing his life to mortal danger for Israel’s deliverance; it does not state that Gideon expected or sought death. The phrase wayyaslek et-napsho minneged, literally, “he cast his life before [him],” uses the Hiphil of shalak (“throw, cast”) with נפש (nephesh), here denoting Gideon’s life or very self. The verb presents a voluntary act: Gideon placed his own life at hazard in confronting Midian rather than preserving himself from the danger. The preposition minneged is difficult if rendered woodenly, since neged commonly denotes what is “in front of” or “opposite” someone. In this context it conveys exposure before the threatening foe, hence the traditional sense “risked his life” or “put his life in jeopardy.” Comparable idioms portray a warrior as placing his life in danger, such as Jephthah’s declaration that he put his life in his hand against the Ammonites (Judg. 12:3), and Jonathan’s statement that David put his life in his hand in killing the Philistine (1 Sam. 19:5). Jotham therefore recalls Gideon’s military courage in the Midianite crisis recorded in Judges 6-8. The wording heightens the moral contrast in Jotham’s indictment. Gideon endangered his own life in order to rescue Israel from Midian’s power, whereas the men of Shechem have supported Abimelech’s violent seizure of rule and the murder of Gideon’s sons. Jotham’s appeal concerns Gideon’s self-exposing service for the people, not a claim that Gideon died for them or possessed foreknowledge of his death.

The final clause restricts the stated number to Benjaminite men identified as combatants; it does not claim that the 25,100 were the whole population of Benjamin killed in the campaign. The expression כָּל־אֵלֶּה שֹׁלֵף חָרֶב (kol-ʾelleh sholeph ḥereb), “all these, drawing the sword,” appends a military characterization to the numbered men. שֹׁלֵף is a Qal active participle of שָׁלַף (shalaph), “draw out,” and, though morphologically singular, functions collectively with the demonstrative “these.” The same description occurs in v. 46, where the twenty-five thousand are likewise designated “men drawing the sword.” The verse therefore records the defeat of Benjamin’s armed force in the decisive battle, while the following narrative distinguishes this battlefield slaughter from the later destruction of Benjaminite settlements. Judges 20:37 reports the capture and sword-stroke against Gibeah, and 20:48 recounts Israel’s burning of cities and the killing of what was found in them, including persons and livestock. The narrator’s grim account thus does not allow the military total in v. 35 to be treated as a comprehensive census of all victims. Its immediate concern is the annihilation of Benjamin’s effective fighting force, accomplished when the LORD “struck” Benjamin before Israel, even though Israel carried out the slaughter through its military action.