Deeper Commentary
Jdg 19:1 In those days, when there was no king in Israel-
This implies that the book of Judges as we have it was edited, under
Divine inspiration, some time after Israel began to have kings. Perhaps
during the exile, when again they had no king; and therefore the book
becomes a warning to the exiles about likely apostacy. The lament may be
that there was no authority, no teacher, no modelling of Godly living;
because every man did what was right in his own eyes, rather than doing what
was right in the eyes of Yahweh. For so often we read of Israel being
condemned for doing what was wrong in His eyes. This
is clear enough
evidence that 'just follow your heart' is poor advice. For what is right in
our own eyes results in the Godless confusion of what we find now at the
time of the Judges. However it could be argued that having no human king was
a good thing; for God didn't want them to have one. And therefore a
situation where everyone judges things by their own judgment is in fact
good; the problem was that the people didn't base their view upon God's
word, His "eyes" or perspective, but solely upon their own unenlightened
opinions.
There was a Levite living on the farther side of the hill country
of Ephraim, who took a concubine out of Bethlehem Judah-
This Levite is presented as very similar to that of Jud. 17,18.
I suggest the following connections are too specific for this to be
unintentional. Both are introduced with the comment that there was then no
king in Israel. This Levite is a "wayfaring man", a traveller always on
the move, who was living temporarily ["sojourning"] in mount Ephraim, and
his concubine was from Bethlehem. The Levite of Jud. 17 is also presented
as a traveller, a man of the road looking for a better deal. He too lived
temporarily in mount Ephraim, at Micah's home. He too had lived in
Bethlehem, which is where the Levite's concubine came from in Jud. 19.
It's quite possible that the young Levite of Jud. 17 has now grown up, and
his sons had become priests at Dan
Jdg 19:2 His concubine was unfaithful to him, and went away from him to
her father’s house to Bethlehem Judah, and was there for four months-
Again the impression is reinforced that neither this Levite nor his
woman on the side were very spiritual people. He was effectively
unfaithful to his wife, and she was unfaithful to him. The fact she left
him and returned to her family may have been because she feared he would
physically abuse her- which he eventually does by cutting up her body into
parts, showing himself no better than the men who raped her to death. And
suggesting she indeed had reason to fear his abuse. Her unfaithfulness to
him could have been punished by death. And yet the huge fuss made about
her death therefore seems inappropriate to the fact that in God's book,
she deserved death anyway.
"Unfaithful" is LXX "she scorned him". The record paints the Levite as someone the reader is also intended to scorn. The Hebrew can also be read as "she rejected him". It could be argued that the account sets up sympathy for the woman, although she has been unfaithful. People are unfaithful for a reason, and the reason is explained at length- the Levite was a sociopath and effective murderer, probably an alcoholic, a pig of a man despite his religiosity. Possibly the four months wait was to determine whether or not she was pregnant. It's possible that the trauma the woman went through was all the worse because she was pregnant. What appears to be the case on the surface is going to be revealed to be the very opposite- and that is a theme of Judges 13-21, that surface level spirituality conceals very raw flesh.
In the whole miserable story in Jud. 19-21, I personally have sympathy for none of the characters. They present as sinful and fully culpable for the consequences of their sins. But I do have sympathy for the concubine, and I suspect that's the intention of how the inspired narrative is written. She goes to her father for protection, but he hands her back to her husband. Her father presents as totally obsessed with socializing with the Levite rather than caring for his daughter. She is taken with the Levite probably against her will; for she has run away from him. She is presented as having no say in anything. She is grabbed [Heb.] by her husband and thrown out to a gang of rapists. She is used by them and then returns to her husband for protection. He doesn't even open the door. He is 'making merry' with the old man, the host; or possibly keeping a religious feast using bread and wine. She collapses on the doorstep. Her husband tells her to get up. But she is either dead or unconscious. She is taken by her husband and then cut into pieces to make a point. She is unloved, used and abused. And the men who were supposed to care for her actually abused her and failed her. But our first encounter with her is when we learn she has committed adultery and returned to her father. Adultery is of course wrong. But how many times has an adulterer been judged harshly and their partner praised as virtuous. When we know that the sins of the apparently innocent partner were very great, far greater than the adultery they provoked their partner to. And so it is here, I suggest. And so we go on through life, finding patience and comfort in these scriptures as we see basic human life repeat; there's nothing new under the sun. A misjudged woman 3000 years ago resonates with misjudged people in our age.
Jdg 19:3 Her husband went after her to persuade her to return. He had his
servant with him and a couple of donkeys, and she brought him into her
father’s house. When her father saw him, he was pleased to meet him-
"To persuade her" is Heb. 'to speak to her heart'. The phrase is always used of sincere love or grace, given to one who didn't deserve it: God to unfaithful Israel (Is. 40:2; Hos. 2:14), Joseph to his brothers (Gen. 50:21), Boaz to Ruth (Ruth 2:13). Perhaps this is being described from his perspective; it was how the Levite wished to present himself as acting. Quite possibly he took this approach because he recognized that it was his behaviour which had driven her to her actions. We will soon read that he doesn't love her at all; and anyway, he spends his time drinking and feasting with her father rather than speaking to her. We are set up to see the Levite as insincere. I noted on :2 that the Levite hardly loved his concubine. And yet it seems that on another level he did. This is typical of the theme of mixed motives in Judges. We note too that girl's father seemed to like her married lover. We get the impression that this was a case of male drinking partners getting on well with each other, and not interested in the fact she had been unfaithful; they just wanted to get the family relationship back together. She may well have been pregnant by the Levite- hence his interest in having her back; he visits her after four months to see if she's pregnant, finds she is, and so he wants her back. For he couldn't have really loved her to cut up her body as he later does. The "couple" of donkeys were literally two donkeys (:2). As he was wealthy enough to have a concubine, a servant and donkeys, we wonder why he didn't bring a third donkey- for the concubine to ride on. The conclusion is surely that he didn't care for her; and his desire to get her back may well have been because she was pregnant with his child.
We note the similarities with the previous Levite just described in Jud. 17,18. He appears on the surface to do the right thing when he is hollow inside. So here, this Levite appears to do the right thing by ensuring he safely returns home his wife who had cheated on him. But his heart is very far from that. His apparent spirituality and love is just a disguise; the way he seizes her and pushes her out to her rapists, the way he talks to her limp body on the doorstep, the way he cuts her up and never laments her... shows he had only hatred and not love for her. The joyful father in law and apparent happy fellowship between the Levite and his father in law... all belies his real feelings. The father of the concubine likewise presents as uncaring for his daughter. He may simply have been happy the marriage was going to be restored so he didn't have to return the bride price.
Jdg 19:4 His father-in-law, the girl’s father, persuaded him to stay, and
he stayed with him three days, eating and drinking and sleeping there-
Eating and drinking are associated with illicit sexual behaviour, so
we wonder whether the "sleeping" was also in this area. Hence in :6 "enjoy
yourself" comes after eating and drinking. We can assume that the drinking
involved drinking alcohol to excess, and we note that the Levite mentions
that he is carrying plenty of wine with him in :19. It all builds up the
impression that this Levite is not a very spiritual person; and neither is
his concubine nor her family.
"Persuaded" is literally to grasp or to force in some way. It is the same word used of how the Levite grasps / takes / forces the man's daughter and throws her out to the mercy of her rapists (:25) and how he grasps / takes her body and cuts it up. The same word is used of how Amnon seized / grasped Tamar to rape her (2 Sam. 13). The English translations blur these connections. The word definitely has the idea of forcing; Saul takes / grabs Samuel's robe until it tears (1 Sam. 15:27). We wonder if the father of the woman, possibly under the influence of alcohol, somehow forced the Levite, possibly in homosexual rape. For he forces the Levite to 'sleep the night'. The Levite's response to the man's daughter, his concubine, is therefore an understandable psychological response- although obviously so wrong. He would have gone his way so angry with the man, and with his daughter, his concubine. In this case, we can understand why someone commits a gross sin, we can discern the anger issues behind it, we can detect how he has transferred his anger onto the victim [in this case anger with the father was transferred to his daughter]... but perceiving the processes going on doesn't make the sin any less culpable. Be it theft, love of wealth, sexual perversion, unlove in any form...
However, we note the strong desire of the girl's father to entertain the Levite and restore the marriage. Quite possibly he was like Micah in the previous story- he thought that having a Levite in the family was sure to bring blessing. Again we see a case of form without content.
Jdg 19:5 On the fourth day they arose early in the morning, and he got ready
to depart-
LXX "he stood up to depart" could imply he had been drunk before
that.
And the girl’s father said to his son-in-law, Strengthen yourself
with something to eat and then go on your way-
The man clearly likes the Levite and wants him to stay with him at
all costs, recalling the apostate Micah of Jud. 17 by all means wanting
the unspiritual Levite to stay with him.
Jdg 19:6 So they sat down, ate and drank together, and then the girl’s
father said to the man, Please stay another night and enjoy yourself-
"Enjoy yourself" clearly suggests these men were drinking to excess
and possibly misbehaving sexually; see on :4. AV "let thine heart be
merry", the phrase used of the apostate Levite in Jud. 18:20
whom we have suggested may have been the same Levite: "The
priest’s heart was glad".
Jdg 19:7 When the man got up to go, his father-in-law urged him to stay,
so he stayed there again-
We get the impression that the Levite just couldn't resist the
temptation to drink.
Jdg 19:8 On the fifth day he got up early to leave, and the girl’s father
said, Please refresh yourself and stay until the afternoon; and they ate
together-
They ate but didn't drink together as planned. The girl's father
managed to delay him until afternoon, when the logical time to start the
journey was in the morning (:9). But the Levite can't make an early start
because he is always so drunk the night before, and can't get up early.
That is the clear implication. We get the impression of weak will and
carnality in this man. The record focuses upon the two men; the girl, who
may well have been pregnant which was why he wanted her back so as to
claim the child, didn't feature in their behaviour. The Levite is
presented as not caring for her- building up to the impression that what
he will do with her body and the fuss he will make is all hypocritical.
Jdg 19:9 When the man, his concubine and his servant got up to leave, his
father-in-law, the girl’s father, said to him, Look now, it’s nearly
evening; please stay all night. Stay here and enjoy yourself, and tomorrow
set off early and go home-
Afternoon was an unwise time to start the journey, as they would need
to find somewhere to stay at night; and travel was dangerous and lonely
after dark. The truth is, this Levite is so alcoholic that he was always
drunk at night, and so early morning starts weren't what he was capable
of.
Jdg 19:10 But the man wouldn’t stay that night; he got up and departed,
and went towards Jebus (that is Jerusalem) with his two saddled donkeys
and his concubine-
We are left to wonder as discussed on :3 why a man wealthy enough to
have a servant, a concubine and donkeys didn't bring a third donkey for
the (pregnant?) concubine to ride. We get the impression from "his two
donkeys and his concubine" that the concubine had to walk whilst he and
his male servant rode the donkeys. Continually the impression is built up
that he didn't really care for the girl at all, and the outcry he was to
make was hypocritical.
Jdg 19:11 When they were near Jebus, the light was almost gone, and the
servant said to his master, Please come and let us go into this city of the
Jebusites, and stay the night there-
The servant was clearly fearful of travelling at night, knowing the
dangers from wild animals and robbers. He had no particular fear of the
Jebusites, showing that Israel was reconciled with the local inhabitants-
because they worshipped the same gods.
Jdg 19:12 His master said to him, We won’t go into the city of a foreigner
whose people are not Israelites; we will go on to Gibeah-
Again we see the theme of mixed hearts in Judges. The Levite is
presented as very unspiritual; but he refuses association with non
Israelites. He will not even sleep a night in a Gentile inn- although
there was no Mosaic prohibition of coming into the home of a Gentile. We
recall at the time of Peter that New Testament Judaism had made entering
the home of a Gentile an unlawful thing. And it was the same hypocrisy
behind this Levite here. The unspiritual Levite with his donkey is the
image used by the Lord in His parable of the good Samaritan, and it also
features an inn which the Levite refused to use to assist the injured man.
The Lord therefore presents this Levite in a bad light.
We note the Levite left Bethlehem, David's home town, and encountered disaster at Gibeah, Saul's home town. Perhaps the idea is that departing from the house of David will lead to disaster.
Jdg 19:13 He said to his servant, Come and let us get to one of these
places; we will spend the night in Gibeah or in Ramah-
These were about two or three hours journey further on from Jerusalem
where they were.
Jdg 19:14 So they went on and towards evening they were near Gibeah, which
belongs to Benjamin-
This was to be the "Gibeah of Saul". We note Saul was from such an
unspiritual place with such an awful spiritual history. But for all that
bad background, the Spirit of God would have turned him right around- had
he wished it. For bad background is no obstacle to the transforming work
of the Spirit. Gibeah was intended to be one of the
Levitical cities and possibly one of the extra cities of refuge
(Josh. 21:17 AV "Geba" is Gibeah). Josh. 24:33 ESV confirms this:
"Eleazar the son of Aaron died, and they buried him at Gibeah, the town of
Phinehas his son, which had been given him in the hill country of
Ephraim". The Levite went there expecting support, but didn't find it. He
experienced what his wife did from her father. Yet "the Levite" is listed
along with the widow, alien and orphan for whom all Israel had a special
duty of care (Dt. 12:12,18,19; 14:27-29; 16:11-14; 26:11-13). We see the
dysfunction and failure of religion. And how we experience in essence what
we do to others, not as karma, but so that we might ourselves learn and
repent. In this sense, God was even trying with that miserable Levite, to
lead him to repentance. The men that should have provided him with support
actually want to rape him. They act just like the men of Sodom. We are
left to conclude that the Levite would have been better off staying with
the Gentiles in Jebus than with the Israelites of a priestly city.
Jdg 19:15 They stopped there to spend the night in Gibeah. They went in
and sat down in the street, because no-one took them into his house for
the night-
Again (see on :12), the Lord may have this incident in mind when He
says that He will condemn those at the judgment who in this life did not
take in strangers (Mt. 25:43). We are intended to reflect that he would
have been better treated had he arrived in Jebus that night than he was
amongst the Israelites in Gibeah. The fact nobody showed hospitality was a
reflection of the unspirituality of Gibeah. "The street" is better 'the
square'.
Jdg 19:16 In the evening there came an old man from his work in the field.
He was from the hill country of Ephraim and he lived in Gibeah, but the
men of the place were Benjamites-
He was therefore from the same area where the Levite was living (:1).
This was surely Divine providence. Perhaps the men of Gibeah were so
xenophobic that they also hated even this old man who was from another
tribe. And the old man, being a stranger himself, was moved
to show kindness to strangers. The more we perceive our own condition, the
more natural it will be to reach out to others in that same condition. If
we are convicted of our sin and God's grace towards us, we will more
naturally and easily reach out with God's grace to other sinners.
Jdg 19:17 When he saw the traveller in the street the old man said, Where
are you going? Where have you come from?-
These words are a direct quote of the Angel's words to Hagar, when
she is fleeing from Sarah and has nowhere to go, and faces death and
danger alone in the desert (Gen. 16:8). Clearly the old man was faithful
to Yahweh and immediately thought in terms of Biblical and spiritual
precedent, and wished to act as the Angel had acted to Hagar when He
'found' her. We should be the same, always thinking in terms of Biblical
precedent. But it is also the old man who offers the mob
his daughter and the Levite's concubine; so concerned is he to follow the
culture of hospitality and preserve his own pride of face.
Jdg 19:18 He said to him, We are on our way from Bethlehem Judah to the
far side of the hill country of Ephraim. I am from there and I have been
in Bethlehem Judah. I am going to the house of Yahweh, and no-one has
taken me into his house-
This was a lie; the man was returning home, and not going to Bethel
or to the sanctuary of Yahweh. We note the term "house of Yahweh" again
indicates the records here were edited [under Divine inspiration] during
the exile, or at least after the temple had been built. The
Levite may
mean that he was a Levite who served in God's house, and therefore Israel
ought to have taken him into their houses; but they were so apostate and
even against Yahweh's sanctuary and the Levites that they did not. He may
also be implying that it was because he served in Yahweh's house that
these apostates wouldn't have him in their houses. Which may have been
true, but was very hypocritical for a man who has been drunk the last five
days. Maybe indeed the Benjamites despised the sanctuary of Yahweh, and
the Levites; and this was the real reason why Yahweh allowed their
destruction at the hands of the brethren.
Jdg 19:19 Yet we have both straw and fodder for our donkeys and bread and
wine also for me and for the maidservant and for the young man who is with
us. We don’t need anything-
The fact the Levite mentions he has plenty of wine with him suggests
he may well have been an alcoholic; for we recall him drinking wine to
excess with his woman's father for some days before this journey. It all
builds up the impression that this Levite with his donkey is not a very
spiritual person, and the Lord's parable of the good Samaritan may well
have this Levite in view- presenting him as an unspiritual man.
Even worse, the bread and wine and ample provision could suggest
that the Levite suggests that they enjoy spiritual fellowship and keep
some kind of religious feast, presumably to Yahweh. They were interrupted
in doing so by the mob, pushed their women out of the door to be gang
raped... whilst they got on with their religion. Again we see how form had
eclipsed content.
Jdg 19:20 The old man said, Peace to you! But I will provide for you;
don’t stay all night in the street-
The story is clearly a repeat of the actions of Lot toward the Angels
he met on the streets of Sodom. Again we are asked to see that situations
repeat within the lives of God's servants. And we are to perceive this,
being always comforted that we are not alone; the biographies we have in
the Bible are to comfort us that we are not travelling unchartered
territory, no experience is not completely unique to us. We
begin thinking that the old man is going to be a kindly Godly figure. But
again we are disappointed- for he offers his own daughter to the mob, and
does nothing to help the abused concubine who collapses with her hands on
his doorstep, begging for shelter in his house- and doesn't find it from
her. Like the concubine's father, the old man is eager to provide
hospitality to the Levite, but couldn't care for his concubine.
Jdg 19:21 So he brought him into his house and gave the donkeys fodder,
and they washed their feet and ate and drank-
The old man comes over as spiritually minded (:17) and although an
old man, like a true seed of Abraham, still entertaining strangers. But
as discussed on :20, this was all just a surface appearance. Constantly in
these accounts we find that first impressions aren't true.
Jdg 19:22 As they were enjoying themselves-
The same phrase is used about how the Levite got drunk repeatedly
with his father in law. The Levite basically tells the old man that he has
wine with him and they can have a nice time together with it, if he stays
at his place (:19).
The wicked men of the city surrounded the house, beating on the
door; they said to the owner of the house, the old man, Bring out the man
who came into your house, that we may have sex with him!-
This is a repeat of the situation in Sodom, and "that righteous man"
Lot is paralleled in the old man- weak, but spiritual and with God in his
heart. The Hebrew stresses: "Some of the wicked men of the
city". Not all the men of the city, nor all of the wicked men, just some
of them. One lesson from the story is that the a whole community should
not be punished for the sins of a minority. As a result of this
surrounding of one house, Gibeah was to be surrounded and totally
destroyed (Jud. 20:29).
The desire to rape the Levite was not merely a matter of sexual lust. If a man raped a man, the victim was seen as feminized, and the rapist had thereby shown his power over the victim. The desire to rape was therefore also related to xenophobia and hatred of the Levite. And yet Gibeah was supposed to be a priestly city, where the Levite should get a warm, supportive welcome. Just as his wife's father's home ought to have been a safe space for her.
Jdg 19:23 The owner of the house went out to them and said to them, No my
brothers, please don’t act so wickedly; since this man is my guest don’t
do this disgraceful thing-
The culture of protecting guests was very strong, and the care of the
man was partly from pride, and partly from genuine concern to protect a
Levite. Again, as always in Judges 17-21, a case of mixed motives.
The man says that to rape his visitor would be "wicked" and a
"disgraceful thing". But he apparently thought that the mob raping his
daughter and the visitor's wife would not be anything like so "wicked".
Even though the term for "disgraceful thing" is used in God's word about
rape and sexual immorality (Gen. 34:7; Dt. 22:20,21). Possibly he thought
that the example of Lot ["that righteous man"] justified him. Lot offered
two women to the mob, his two daughters. Maybe that's why the old man
offers not only his daughter but another woman, the Levite's concubine.
This would continue the theme of merely following Biblical precedent in a
cardboard, lifeless way, whilst ignoring the Bible's deeper moral
teaching- in this case, that rape of a woman and sexual immorality is a
"disgraceful thing".
Jdg 19:24 Look, here is my virgin daughter and his concubine. I will bring
them out now and you can use them and do with them what seems good unto
you, but don’t do any such disgusting thing to this man-
The old man perceived, surely, the similarities with Lot in Sodom.
For we saw on :17 how he knew the book of Genesis very well, and had
already quoted from Genesis 17. And the events of Lot in Sodom were only a
little later, in Gen. 19. So it may be that he made this desperate offer
thinking that he was justified in it by Lot. He failed to perceive that
the Biblical characters are not at all spotlessly righteous, and it is for
us to perceive that and learn from their mistakes- rather than taking a
simplistic approach which considers them all as pale faced, perfect
saints. The wrath of Israel was upon Benjamin and Gibeah for what was
done. But they were overlooking the fact that this man of Ephraim, with
the full consent of the Levite, had in fact offered the Levite's concubine
to these men. They had even invited them to do "whatever seems good unto
you". And the men did so. And yet Israel's wrath ignores all this and
focuses instead upon those they wish to focus their wrath upon. There is
very much injustice and lack of consideration of all factors in their
judgment of the situation. And one of the lessons from the errors all
around in this narrative is that we are not to judge- simply because we
cannot judge. We are incapable of factoring in everything.
The similarities with Gen. 19 are clear:
- Travellers arrive in the city in the evening.
- A man who is himself an alien notices them in the street / square
- The travellers plan to spend the night in the open
- At the insistence of the host, the travellers agree to spend the night
in his house.
- The host washes the guests’ feet (implied in Gen. 19:2,3)
- Host and guests share in a fellowship meal.
- Base men of the city surround the house.
- They demand that the host "bring out" [both times] his male guests
["them that have come to you" used both times] to them that they might
commit homosexual gang rape.
- The host protests this display of wickedness.
- When the protests prove futile, the hosts hand over a substitute female,
a "virgin" involved both times, inviting the mob to "do to them what is
good in your eyes", but not to the guest[s]. Both Lot and
the old host "went out to them". Both times, the offer doesn't satisfy the
mob.
- Both men use hospitality culture as an excuse to do the wrong thing.
The clear similarities and points of contrast with the scene in Gen. 19 invite us to see an inversion of things. The visitors were not Angels, here they are a Levite and his wife. The old man offers his guest's wife and not just his daughter to gratify them (:24). Indeed in :24 he uses the word for "rape", which Lot doesn't do. On one hand, he seeks to show himself a wonderful host. But offering your guest's wife to rapists rather undermines that image. His apparent extreme hospitality culture is undercut by his failure to be even basically hospitable. And he is only externally, mechanically following the similarities with Lot. Lot was threatened personally, with the door shut behind him, talking to the mob. The old man isn't personally in such danger as Lot was.
The Hebrew is literally "do to them what is good in your eyes". This continues the theme of Judges, that without a king, Israel did what was good in their own eyes. And that "good" was shown here to be gang rape. Clearly and powerfully the point is made: If man is left to do whatever he finds good in his eyes, then this is where it leads. There has to be some moral restraint and submission beneath good moral leadership.
We note it was the old man who offered the Levite's concubine to the mob. Our first impression of a kindly, hospitable old man is again questioned. Presumably the Levite had presented his concubine to the old man as a woman he didn't love, who had been unfaithful to him and was worthless to him. And the Levite makes no attempt to persuade the host to solely offer his own virgin daughter to the mob. Again and again we see how surface level impressions are shown as a thin veneer. And we are thereby constantly bidden to self examination.
Jdg 19:25 But the men wouldn’t listen to him, so the man took his
concubine and brought her out to them and they raped her and abused her
all night until the morning, and when the day began to dawn they let her
go-
This fact was not given its full weight. It was the Levite who had
given his concubine to them. Instead of giving his life for his wife, he
gave her to humiliation and death in order to save his own skin. Again we
see that the Levite didn't love the woman. And if he had, he would not
have cut her body up. Perhaps he justified himself by thinking of
how Abraham and Isaac had [wrongly] given up their wives to save their own
skin. Again, Biblical precedent was used wrongly. The men of Gibeah
"wouldn't listen" and the same term is used of the whole tribe of Benjamin
in Jud. 20:13. "Took" is literally "seized". The Levite forced her to go
out to them, possibly to her death. And yet he and all Israel were to
demand that Benjamin "hand over" the men of Gibeah as if they had been her
murderers (see on Jud. 20:13). See on :29. "Abused" is the word used in
Jud. 20:45 of how the men of Benjamin were "abused" [NEV "killed", AV
"gleaned"] to the end by the men of Israel. It seems so out of proportion-
terrible as was the abuse of the woman, the abusing of almost every last
man of Benjamin was a disproportionate response. But that is the end
result of the mentality of "guilt by association" and letting "an eye for
an eye" not remain at one eye for one eye. Responses never seem to remain
at that; "an eye for an eye" was actually a call for restraint in
response.
Jdg 19:26 Then the woman went back and fell down at the door of the man’s
house where her master was, and lay there until it was light-
"Her master" is a phrase suddenly used here and in :27. Perhaps the
idea is that she belonged to the Levite. He was her master and should have
been caring towards her as his property. He was not. And so the eager
belief of the narrative that this poor man had cruelly lost his beloved
wife... is suspect. It was created like that, and upon that was built in
any case a huge over reaction. The implication is that she was alive when
she got to the house; she was not murdered by the rapists. She died on the
doorstep- because the Levite didn't open the door and pull her in.
Jdg 19:27 Her master got up in the morning and opened the door and went
out to continue on his way, and there was his concubine fallen down at the
door of the house with her hands on the threshold-
The idea may be that she had been trying to open the door, or at
least knock upon it; hence GNB "with her hands reaching for the door". But
the Levite, who surely didn't go to sleep that night, hadn't opened the
door to pull her in and care for her. See on :26. The whole
style of the narrative in :26-28 gives the impression that the Levite
callously acted as if nothing had happened the night before. This is
typical of how conscience less people act when they have committed major
crimes, and again suggests that he in fact murdered her. For the record
later says that she was murdered- but the rapists raped her and she was
still alive when she returned home. The murderer was surely her husband.
It could be argued that the murder isn't recorded but we are intended to
infer that. Or perhaps his refusal to open the door and help his wife was
in fact counted as murder, the classic sin of omission.
Jdg 19:28 He said to her, Get up, and let us be going! but there was no
answer. Then he put her up on the donkey and set off for home-
This clearly reflects his despite of her. It was obvious that she was
either dead, or severely wounded; likely she was covered with blood. But
he gruffly tells her to get up and be going. There is no attempt to
enquire of her welfare or to assist her. It is absolutely clear now that
the Levite doesn't at all love or care for her; indeed it was him who had
given her to the rapists. He was wrong, they were wrong- but Israel were
to make the mistake of so much human 'judgment', and seek to find one
party guilty and the other totally innocent.
Jdg 19:29 When he had come into his house, he took a knife and cut up his
concubine, and divided her, limb by limb, into twelve pieces, and sent
them throughout all the regions of Israel-
Again as noted on :28, we have the final evidence that he didn't love
her. For a man would never do this to a woman he loved. He was clearly
offended that nobody had taken him in, and that he had been threatened
with male rape. And he was seeking to wreak a terrible vengeance against
the city and tribe- because of his own hurt pride. The twelve pieces going
to the twelve tribes would have included Benjamin.
LXX "He took his sword, and laid hold of his concubine"; AV "he took a knife, and laid hold on his concubine". "Laid hold" can be translated 'to seize'. The implication may be that she was still alive; hence he had to seize her. Just as in :25 he seized / took hold of her and forcibly pushed her out of the house towards her rapists. But he sends her body parts around Israel as if this is the anger of love, anger with the rapists and desiring justice against them. But in fact he has no love for his wife; his anger is with her and all this drama is an outcome of that.
We note that there is no confirmation of her death. Some manuscripts add in :28 "for she was dead" but many omit that. One moment he assumes she's alive, telling her to get up. The next we read that he takes her home and inside the house cuts her body up. He later claims that the attackers had raped her until they had killed her (Jud. 20:4-7), but he makes that claim at the same time as saying they had tried to kill him- which also isn't entirely true. And the comment of :25 is that "they let her go" at dawn; they didn't kill her. She managed to get herself to the door of the house, but the Levite was not looking to help her, and she died on the doorstep. Only after he had done drinking, possibly to excess, did he awake in the morning, open the door, and found her on the door step. Any reasonable man would surely have been looking to assist her once she knocked on the door. There is no mention that she was dead. This silence is significant, and invites us to conclude that he took her inside the house and killed her, or possibly took her to his home and there killed her with his "sword" (LXX, NEV "knife"). The record comments in Jud. 20:4 that the Levite was the husband "of the woman who was murdered". The record says she was murdered. But the rapists raped her and let her go; they didn't murder her, as she was alive afterwards. If she was murdered, then this could only have been by the Levite.
There are clear connections and parallels with the situation in 1 Sam. 11 when Israel are oppressed by the Ammonites. Saul's cutting up of an animal and sending parts throughout Israel leads to the deliverance of Jabesh-Gilead by Saul of Gibeah. The Levite's cutting up of his wife and sending the body parts leads to military action against Gibeah and Jabesh-Gilead; but now by Israel against Israel. But Saul saved Jabesh, whereas the results of the Levite's actions nearly destroy it (Jud. 21:10,11). So the mechanical imitation of Saul achieved the very opposite results. We note how Gibeah and Jabesh figure together in both passages. The old host in Judges 19 tells the mob that he will bring out the women, so that the mob can ’do to them what is good in your eyes’ (Jud. 19:24). In 1 Sam. 11, the men of Jabesh-Gilead tell Nahash that "tomorrow we will come out (s.w.) to you and you will do to us all that is good in your eyes" (1 Sam. 11:10). Saul was seized by "the spirit of God" (1 Sam. 11:6). He takes a yoke of oxen (the Levite also had a yoke, Jud. 19:3 Heb.), cuts them into pieces and sends them throughout Israel. With a threat of consequence if Israel don't respond. Israel muster to him, just as Israel do in response to the cutting up of the concubine. Saul splits them into three groups [as Israel were in three groups in their final storming of Gibeah, see Jud. 20] and leads them to victory. It seems to me that the Levite was totally wrong in what he was doing, but typical of other situations in Jud. 14-18, he acts externally like a man [Saul] did upon whom the Spirit of God had come. He gives the impression, therefore, that he is acting according to the Spirit- when he is acting according to the flesh. And so often God's people do the same. Saul dismembered an animal and sent it throughout Israel, leading to Israel's salvation. But the Levite dismembered his wife and sent the parts throughout Israel, resulting in Israel's self destruction. Again we see the theme of surface level imitation of a spiritual event in the past, whereas the reality is totally unspiritual.
Likewise the way he as a priest cuts up her body into parts with his knife suggests he was offering her as a human sacrifice- clearly implying he is doing this to Yahweh. "Limb by limb" could mean "according to the bones" as if he cut up the body without breaking any bones, as if she were a Passover sacrifice. This would have created a huge outflow of blood. His allusion may have been to the way the body was thought to comprise 12 parts; but he ends up prefiguring his dismemberment of all Israel in her 12 tribes. All this fits in with the theme that began with Samson in Jud. 13- of flesh and Spirit hopelessly mixed, doing the things of the flesh under the guise of vague out of context Biblical allusion. "He took a knife..." is the phrase of Gen. 22:6,10, twice used of how Abraham "took the knife to kill his son". Clearly the Levite thinks this justified his action. But again, he is reading or recalling wilfully out of context, merely to justify his own anger against his unfaithful wife. There are a number of incidental connections with the scene of Abraham offering Isaac. None of them alone are significant, but put together they suggest that the inspired author of Judges 19 seems to "riff" on the Gen. 22 text. So Jud. 19:6 describes how the Levite and his father-in-law "ate, the two of them together", as Abraham and Isaac "went, the two of them together" in Gen. 22:6,8. "He lifted his eyes and saw" occurs in both Gen. 22:13 and Jud. 19:17, as does "he arose early in the morning" (Gen. 22:3; Jud. 19:5). Both Abraham and the Levite travel with at least one saddled ass and a servant. Perhaps the impression is that the Levite perceived the similarities, but then out of context thought this would justify him too taking a knife and sacrificing his family member.
The idea of cutting up an animal and sending out the pieces was
similar to cutting a covenant. Saul did the same in order to muster Israel
to battle. But the idea was 'May you also be cut to pieces if you don't
respond'. It was highly manipulative. The Levite was cleverly seeking to
get all Israel to come against Gibeah, and they fell for his plot. The
anger issues of one man were thereby allowed to cause a holocaust, as seen
in Adolf Hitler. His break up with his woman was made the break up of all
the community; as has been seen in church groups to this day. And the
dismembered body spoke of the divided state of Israel, only united "as one
man" in doing evil. We note in passing the double symbolism of a divided
body. The Lord broke the bread, the symbol of His body, as the sign of His
personal, individual giving of His body to each member of His spiritual
body. But the divided body is also a symbol of a hopelessly divided body,
the reality of which has caused so many to stumble from the Faith. But the
Lord is identified even with His body in that. Likewise the cup of wine is
a double symbol, of Divine judgment and also as "the cup of blessing".
Jdg 19:30 All who saw it said, Such a deed has never been done or seen from
the day that the children of Israel came up out of Egypt until this day!
Consider it! Decide what should be done-
The gruesome record of the Levite cutting up his wife’s body and
sending parts of the body throughout all Israel has much to teach us of the
power of the memorial service. It was done so that all who received the
parts of that broken body would “take advice and speak [their] minds" (Jud.
19:30). LXX "Take counsel with yourselves about her, and speak out".
They were to examine themselves in the light of those body pieces, and give
an opinion. It was designed to elicit the declaration of their hearts, and above
all to provoke to concrete action. Splitting up a body and sharing it with
all Israel was clearly a type of the breaking of bread, where in symbol, the
same happens. Consider some background, all of which points forward to the
Lord’s sufferings:
- The person whose body was divided up was from Bethlehem, and of the tribe
of Judah (Jud. 19:1)
- They were ‘slain’ by permission of a priest
- They were dragged to death by a wicked Jewish mob
- They were “brought forth" to the people just as the Lord was to the crowd
(Jud. 19:25)
- “Do what seems good unto you" (Jud. 19:24) is very much Pilate language
- A man sought to dissuade the crowd from their purpose- again, as Pilate.
There should be a like effect upon us as we receive the emblems of the
Lord’s ‘broken body’- the inner thoughts of our hearts are elicited, and we
are provoked to action.
Previous Chapter
