וַיֹּֽאמְרוּ֙ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל מִ֠י אֲשֶׁ֨ר לֹא־עָלָ֧ה בַקָּהָ֛ל מִכָּל־שִׁבְטֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל אֶל־יְהוָ֑ה כִּי֩ הַשְּׁבוּעָ֨ה הַגְּדֹולָ֜ה הָיְתָ֗ה לַ֠אֲשֶׁר לֹא־עָלָ֨ה אֶל־יְהוָ֧ה הַמִּצְפָּ֛ה לֵאמֹ֖ר מֹ֥ות יוּמָֽת׃ (Judges 21:5)
Introduction: A Syntax of Oath and Outrage
Judges 21:5 is steeped in crisis. Following the near-destruction of the tribe of Binyamin, the remaining tribes of Yisraʾel seek to enforce a solemn oath made at Mitspah. This verse opens with a rhetorical question and follows with a causal explanation of a previous vow. The syntax reinforces communal urgency, and the interlacing of clauses, interrogative and declarative, creates a pressure-filled structure that mirrors the narrative tension.
Clause Structure: A Mixed Sentence Type
The sentence begins with a direct speech clause:
– וַיֹּֽאמְרוּ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל (“Then the sons of Yisraʾel said”)
It is followed by an embedded interrogative clause that functions rhetorically:
– מִי אֲשֶׁר לֹא־עָלָה בַקָּהָל…
(“Who is there who did not go up in the assembly…?”)
This is further supplemented by a causal explanation introduced by כִּי:
– כִּי הַשְּׁבוּעָה הַגְּדֹולָה הָיְתָה…
(“For the great oath had been made…”)
And it ends with the reported content of the oath:
– לֵאמֹר מֹות יוּמָת (“saying, ‘He shall surely be put to death’”)
The entire verse is paratactic in surface form but syntactically embedded in levels: speech > question > reason > quotation.
Word Order and Emphasis: Fronted Interrogative and Positioning
The interrogative pronoun מִי is fronted, marking the verse as a searching inquiry. It is followed immediately by a relative clause אֲשֶׁר לֹא־עָלָה, giving the question specificity. The phrase בַקָּהָל מִכָּל־שִׁבְטֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל is a prepositional modifier, explaining both the manner and scope of “going up.”
The final phrase of the oath, מֹות יוּמָת, employs a cognate infinitive absolute + imperfect, intensifying the judgment: “he shall surely die.”
Nominal Phrases: Definiteness and Superlative Intensity
– הַשְּׁבוּעָה הַגְּדֹולָה: a definite noun + adjective phrase, “the great oath.” The repetition of the definite article adds force and formality.
– מִכָּל־שִׁבְטֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל: a construct phrase denoting scope, showing this was a pan-Israelite commitment.
Verbal Syntax: Participles, Perfects, and Intensives
– עָלָה: qatal (perfect), functioning as a past action—”did not go up.”
– הָיְתָה: qatal feminine singular, linking to הַשְּׁבוּעָה, describing a state (“was/had been”).
– יוּמָת: passive, 3ms, from root מו”ת, meaning “he shall be put to death.”
– מֹות: infinitive absolute, reinforcing the verb’s meaning.
This verb pairing produces a legal intensification, standard in biblical law idioms.
Agreement: Harmony of Form and Force
– הָיְתָה correctly agrees with הַשְּׁבוּעָה (feminine singular).
– יוּמָת aligns with אֲשֶׁר לֹא־עָלָה, maintaining third-person masculine singular across the clause.
The entire structure holds syntactic concord while building emotional and juridical intensity.
Tense, Aspect, and Mood: Oath and Enforcement
The perfect forms (עָלָה, הָיְתָה) describe past acts and established conditions. Meanwhile, יוּמָת projects inevitable judgment, giving the verse a legal, even prophetic, modality.
Waw-Consecutive and Narrative Flow
The narrative opens with וַיֹּאמְרוּ, the standard wayyiqtol used to advance the storyline. The rest shifts to direct discourse and embedded statements, meaning sequentiality gives way to reflection.
Emphasis and Legal Focus
The focus on מִי אֲשֶׁר לֹא־עָלָה sets a forensic tone—a call to identify violators. The repetition of אֲשֶׁר לֹא־עָלָה in the oath section strengthens the judicial precision, as if citing a legal formula.
Discourse Force: Syntax as Legal Instrument
The verse enacts the public memory of covenantal wrath. The syntax functions as recorded law, unfolding in layers: inquiry, rationale, codified oath. It dramatizes how collective vows structure Israel’s tribal identity and divine accountability.
The Syntactic Power of Covenant Enforcement
Judges 21:5 reveals a judicial syntax: ordered, recursive, formal. With its interrogative opening, relative clauses, causality, and performative oath language, it weaves a syntactic litigation against tribal disunity. The oath doesn’t merely threaten—it syntactically binds, echoing covenantal justice in every clause.
