TEXT [Commentary]

B.   The Fractured Vision (19:1–21:25)

1.   The Levite and his concubine (19:1-30)

1 Now in those days Israel had no king. There was a man from the tribe of Levi living in a remote area of the hill country of Ephraim. One day he brought home a woman from Bethlehem in Judah to be his concubine. 2 But she became angry with him[*] and returned to her father’s home in Bethlehem.

After about four months, 3 her husband set out for Bethlehem to speak personally to her and persuade her to come back. He took with him a servant and a pair of donkeys. When he arrived at[*] her father’s house, her father saw him and welcomed him. 4 Her father urged him to stay awhile, so he stayed three days, eating, drinking, and sleeping there.

5 On the fourth day the man was up early, ready to leave, but the woman’s father said to his son-in-law, “Have something to eat before you go.” 6 So the two men sat down together and had something to eat and drink. Then the woman’s father said, “Please stay another night and enjoy yourself.” 7 The man got up to leave, but his father-in-law kept urging him to stay, so he finally gave in and stayed the night.

8 On the morning of the fifth day he was up early again, ready to leave, and again the woman’s father said, “Have something to eat; then you can leave later this afternoon.” So they had another day of feasting. 9 Later, as the man and his concubine and servant were preparing to leave, his father-in-law said, “Look, it’s almost evening. Stay the night and enjoy yourself. Tomorrow you can get up early and be on your way.”

10 But this time the man was determined to leave. So he took his two saddled donkeys and his concubine and headed in the direction of Jebus (that is, Jerusalem). 11 It was late in the day when they neared Jebus, and the man’s servant said to him, “Let’s stop at this Jebusite town and spend the night there.”

12 “No,” his master said, “we can’t stay in this foreign town where there are no Israelites. Instead, we will go on to Gibeah. 13 Come on, let’s try to get as far as Gibeah or Ramah, and we’ll spend the night in one of those towns.” 14 So they went on. The sun was setting as they came to Gibeah, a town in the land of Benjamin, 15 so they stopped there to spend the night. They rested in the town square, but no one took them in for the night.

16 That evening an old man came home from his work in the fields. He was from the hill country of Ephraim, but he was living in Gibeah, where the people were from the tribe of Benjamin. 17 When he saw the travelers sitting in the town square, he asked them where they were from and where they were going.

18 “We have been in Bethlehem in Judah,” the man replied. “We are on our way to a remote area in the hill country of Ephraim, which is my home. I traveled to Bethlehem, and now I’m returning home.[*] But no one has taken us in for the night, 19 even though we have everything we need. We have straw and feed for our donkeys and plenty of bread and wine for ourselves.”

20 “You are welcome to stay with me,” the old man said. “I will give you anything you might need. But whatever you do, don’t spend the night in the square.” 21 So he took them home with him and fed the donkeys. After they washed their feet, they ate and drank together.

22 While they were enjoying themselves, a crowd of troublemakers from the town surrounded the house. They began beating at the door and shouting to the old man, “Bring out the man who is staying with you so we can have sex with him.”

23 The old man stepped outside to talk to them. “No, my brothers, don’t do such an evil thing. For this man is a guest in my house, and such a thing would be shameful. 24 Here, take my virgin daughter and this man’s concubine. I will bring them out to you, and you can abuse them and do whatever you like. But don’t do such a shameful thing to this man.”

25 But they wouldn’t listen to him. So the Levite took hold of his concubine and pushed her out the door. The men of the town abused her all night, taking turns raping her until morning. Finally, at dawn they let her go. 26 At daybreak the woman returned to the house where her husband was staying. She collapsed at the door of the house and lay there until it was light.

27 When her husband opened the door to leave, there lay his concubine with her hands on the threshold. 28 He said, “Get up! Let’s go!” But there was no answer.[*] So he put her body on his donkey and took her home.

29 When he got home, he took a knife and cut his concubine’s body into twelve pieces. Then he sent one piece to each tribe throughout all the territory of Israel.

30 Everyone who saw it said, “Such a horrible crime has not been committed in all the time since Israel left Egypt. Think about it! What are we going to do? Who’s going to speak up?”

NOTES

19:1 Now in those days Israel had no king. In most English translations, the particular way the Hebrew text introduces the fourfold “no king in Israel” comment is obscured. In 17:6, 18:1a, and 21:25 the comment appears with no introductory conjunction, somewhat unusual for Hebrew prose. The disjunction created seems to be parenthetical and terminal—concluding an episode. With 19:1 the conventional narrative introduction formula appears: wayehi bayyamim hahem [TH3117, ZH3427], traditionally rendered, “and it came to pass in those days.” The effect is to coordinate the story in 19:1–21:25 with that of 17:1–18:31 as a coherent narrative. In 19:1, the writer says umelek [TH4428, ZH4889] ’en beyisra’el (a king there was not in Israel). Strangely, some commentators want to claim a dual reference for “king,” both human and divine. But the claim that Israel had no divine king is patently false, the people’s sin and rebellion notwithstanding. The point of the entire book is that divine rule ideally flows through appropriate, just, and effective human structures and agents, as depicted in Israel’s constitutional document, Deuteronomy, where the roles of prophet, priest, king, and judge all distribute and implement the mediation between Yahweh and Israel that had originally centered on Moses and later, Joshua.

There was a man. The story proper opens with wayehi ’ish [TH376, ZH408] (there was a man), exactly as in 17:1, and it is similar to 17:7 wayehi na‘ar [TH5288, ZH5853] (there was a young man). The overall effect seems to be one of a steady building of narrative force as these characters step on stage: Micah, his Levite, and now another Levite at the center of the final story. Strangely, all the principals in this story, not just the woman, remain nameless. In some way, perhaps each character stands for an entire class. Or worse, leaving the characters unnamed accentuates their ultimate dehumanization (Block 1999:517-518).

from the tribe of Levi. Arresting similarities connect this Levite with the one in 17:7. Both are sojourning outside their home region, likely as clients or dependents of a local family. Both were sojourning in “mount Ephraim” (har-’epraim [TH669A, ZH713]). Both had ties with Bethlehem of Judah: The young Levite had lived there; the Levite of ch 19 took a concubine from there.

living. The term gar [TH1481, ZH1591], traditionally translated “sojourning,” often implies not simply living outside one’s home region, but dependent, client status in the region, attached to a local household. The point is vital because later in the story, the Levite’s host will also be someone who is “sojourning” in the region where he lives.

in a remote area of the hill country of Ephraim. This is the region that was home to the old man (19:16) who will host the Levite and his concubine, with tragic results, later in the story. The term “remote area” translates the yarkete [TH3411, ZH3752], and is likely topographical: The main flow of traffic in Israel ran north–south on the watershed ridge road. Various smaller routes branched off from the main highway, running down the flanks of the central hill country west toward the Shephelah and coast or east toward the Jordan valley. The term thus denotes the “flanks” or branch routes running off the main road through the hill country of Ephraim, rather than places remote in terms of distance from Judah (Burney 1920:459).

concubine. Heb., pilegesh [TH6370, ZH7108]; see note on 8:31. Although a concubine typically served as a secondary wife, the narrator speaks of no other wife for the Levite. The absence of a cognate for pilegesh in other Semitic languages and its similarity to the Greek pallakē suggests the word is of Indo-European origin, with the Philistines being its most likely potential mediators. Only 11 men in the OT are named as having concubines—seven after the conquest, including five from Judah or Benjamin, tribes with the closest contact with the Philistines. The other two are Gideon, who lived near Beth-shan, a site with a documented Philistine presence, and the Ephraimite Levite of ch 19, who took his concubine from Bethlehem of Judah (NIDOTTE 3.618-619). The references prior to the conquest (involving Nahor, Abraham, Jacob, and Eliphaz) might reflect the word choice of the later narrator rather than the terms in vogue during the ancestral era.

Scholars debate the status of the concubine. Only the concubines of the preconquest narratives bear the title “wife” as well as “concubine.” Subsequent narratives do not combine the two terms. The woman of this story is termed “concubine” 11 times and “woman” (’ishah [TH802, ZH851]) 3 times, with 20:4 alone possibly meaning “wife.” The woman of this story is called a “slave woman” or “handmaid” (19:19 KJV) as is Gideon’s concubine (9:18), but both of these are rhetorically unclear. The first could be deferential, the second pejorative. Thus, the position of the concubine seems higher than a mere slave, but lower than a full wife. Thus, children of concubines could have inheritance rights and, upon the death of their husbands, they were termed “widows.” However, concubines themselves could be inherited. Possibly a concubine was a wife for whom no bride-wealth was given, or who brought no dowry to the marriage. The absence of one of these would constitute an imbalanced obligation between the two families joined in the marriage, possibly illuminating the extended feasting described in the present story, which complicates matters even more by revealing a complex mixture of emotions inhabiting the relationships among the Levite, the concubine, and her father.

19:2 she became angry with him. Or, “she was unfaithful to him” (NLT mg). Translators traditionally render the verb wattizneh [TH2181, ZH2388] as “she played the harlot,” deriving the verb from zanah, the root normally associated with fornication or prostitution (NIDOTTE 1.1122-1124; TDOT 4.99-104). But no sign of actual infidelity appears in the story, and the couple appear cordial enough when the Levite arrives to fetch her. Also, the Hebrew has a preposition with this verb that occurs with it nowhere else. In addition, Deut 22:13-30 requires that a woman who is sexually unfaithful be stoned at the very door of her father’s house. The LXX translation of ōrgisthē autō [TG3710, ZG3974] (she became angry at him) likewise implies no sexual infidelity. Some suggest the verb derives from a second root meaning “to be angry” (cf. zanah [TH2181A, ZH2389]; “loathed”) cognate to Akkadian zenû (be angry), which is used to denote alienation in the whole range of relationships including marriage (NIDOTTE 1.1125; CAD 21.85-86). The Hebrew root zanakh (TDOT 4.105-106) might already represent a cognate, however, so that an additional suggested zanah parallel to Akkadian zenû, dropping the final guttural consonant, would involve not a proper cognate, but a direct loan from Akkadian, including pronunciation, into Hebrew. Such is by no means impossible and is the course taken by the NLT. A woman taking the initiative to leave her husband is rare in the OT and the ancient Near East in general, but the Code of Hammurabi (1792–1750 BC) does note the possibility, with the noteworthy acceptance of the idea that the husband could well be at fault:

§142 If a woman repudiates her husband, and declares, “You will not have marital relations with me” — her circumstances shall be investigated by the authorities of her city quarter, and if she is circumspect and without fault, but her husband is wayward and disparages her greatly, that woman will not be subject to any penalty; she shall take her dowry and she shall depart for her father’s house.

§143 If she is not circumspect but is wayward, squanders her household possessions, and disparages her husband, they shall cast that woman into the water (COS 2.131.142-143; emphasis added).

returned to her father’s home. The NLT somewhat obscures the sense here. She returned to her entire extended family and their inherited property. More than just “going home to daddy,” this was a reaffiliation with her ancestral family tie, just as Naomi directed her Moabite daughters-in-law to “go back to [their] mothers’ homes” (Ruth 1:8). Israelite marriage entailed the woman affiliating with the “father’s house” of her husband, so the woman here reversed her marital commitment.

four months. This seems a rather long time for the Levite to have waited to retrieve his concubine. Still, some times of year in a subsistence farming economy made it almost impossible for a head of household to take a long journey. Coincidentally, the Benjaminite survivors of the punitive slaughter hid in the rocks of Rimmon for four months (20:47). Schneider, who interprets the woman’s behavior sexually, suggests the four months allowed the Levite to know whether she was pregnant, assuming the news could travel easily from Bethlehem to the western slopes of the Ephraimite hills (2000:252-253).

19:3 to speak personally to her and persuade her. Lit., “to speak to her heart.” The idiom “speak to the heart” (ledabber ‘al leb/lebab [TH1696/3820, ZH1819/4213]) appears six other times in the OT (Gen 34:3; 50:21; Ruth 2:13; 2 Chr 30:22; Isa 40:2; Hos 2:16). The term typically denotes either speaking tenderly, encouragingly, or in a wooing, even seductive manner. So the Levite sought to woo back his alienated concubine. That the Levite sought to win back his concubine suggests perhaps he was at fault in her departure (Boling 1975:274). His desire to regain her affection initially engenders the reader’s sympathy.

He took with him a servant and a pair of donkeys. Should the Levite be successful in retrieving the concubine, apparently either she or the servant would be walking home.

he arrived at her father’s house. Per the NLT mg, “he arrived” emends a fem. Hiphil verb, “she brought him,” to a masc. Qal verb, following LXX Alexandrinus. The term “house of her father” is not merely the building, but the compound. Whether the man simply arrived or was brought in by the woman, the father might well have been any number of places and apparently did not notice the guests at the threshold.

her father saw him and welcomed him. The Hebrew is stronger: “[her father] rejoiced to meet him.”

19:4 Her father. The Hebrew identifies the father doubly, “his father-in-law, the father of the young woman.” Perhaps the ambiguity of the concubine status somewhere in between full marriage and mere servitude generated the twofold identification. Terms based on the verb khatan [TH2859, ZH3161] indicate the familial ties among males created by marriage. Terms for father-in-law, brother-in-law, and son-in-law all derive from this term. In addition, the word seems to connote an obligation of protection and care extended to the new male family member by the males of the other family (NIDOTTE 2.325-328). Thus, the father’s actions both reflect a concern to extend protection and care to the Levite while also unwittingly exposing him and his concubine to lethal danger. This term resonates with references to sons-in-law in Gen 19:12, 14, along with several other close parallels. Interestingly, the only other father-in-law referred to in Judges is that of Moses (cf. 1:16; 4:11 mg), while the only other son-in-law is Samson (15:6, cf. KJV).

urged him to stay awhile, so he stayed three days, eating, drinking. Rather than a mere three days of gorging themselves, common meals forged a bond among the partakers to which moral obligations attached (King and Stager 2001:62). Every day that the Levite partook of his father-in-law’s bounty, his obligation to the man increased. In a society based on balancing reciprocal obligation, especially given the landless status of the Levites and the sojourner status of the husband here, the father-in-law was steadily obligating the Levite to himself and his household. The host-guest relation, however jocular, sometimes carries an undercurrent of rivalry (Matthews 2004:182). The Levite, anxious to retain his relative independence, and possibly to honor his prior obligation as a ger [TH1616, ZH1731] (i.e., a sojourner, dependent, client), needed to extricate himself and his concubine as soon as possible, without giving offense or shaming the woman by showing disrespect to her father. And yet the reader suspects something dark on the horizon. Readers belonging to the community for whom this is traditional literature and who are not coming to this story for the first time, know that the Levite’s departure from the protection of his father-in-law’s household will have catastrophic consequences. Perhaps the author connects safety and security with Bethlehem of Judah as part of his general approach of portraying Judah, and places with Davidic associations, positively.

19:5 son-in-law. The persistent use of “son-in-law” in the story shows that concubinage was more a form of marriage than of servitude, since it formed a new familial tie.

19:6 Please stay. The verb ho’el [TH2974, ZH3283], which only occurs 19 times in the OT, in 1:27, 35 expresses the successful determination or undertaking of the occupants of the land to remain in place against the Israelite attempts to expel them. It does not occur again until 17:11 where, like here, it expresses the Levite’s willingness to stay with Micah. More than just a polite request, the father-in-law specifically asked for a decision to make a longer visit, appealing to the comfort and enjoyment they experienced.

19:7 his father-in-law kept urging him. The text again resorts to a somewhat rare term, patsar [TH6484, ZH7210], which appears only seven times in the OT. It always conveys strong urging against someone’s evident intentions, including even physical coercion (Gen 19:3, 9; 33:11; 1 Sam 15:23; 2 Kgs 2:17; 5:16). This verb is the first of several explicit connections with the story of Lot in Sodom in Gen 19. In Gen 19:3 Lot “strongly urges” the disguised angels to stay in his home instead of in the open square. Then in Gen 19:9, in a scene similar to what transpires later in Gibeah, the term denotes the attempt of the Sodomites to force their way into Lot’s house.

he finally gave in and stayed the night. The NLT adds to the Hebrew, which says “and he spent another night.”

19:8 you can leave later. Lit., “and linger (until this afternoon).” Again, the Hebrew uses a low-frequency term shared with Gen 19, the Hithpael form of mahah [TH4102, ZH4538] (“to delay, linger”; 3:26; Gen 19:16; 43:10; Exod 12:39; 2 Sam 15:28; Ps 119:60; Isa 29:9; Hab 2:3). Genesis 19:16 notes that Lot “hesitated” in departing from Sodom. Given the many links between ch 19 and Gen 19, the negative connotation of Lot’s delay bodes ill for the father-in-law’s suggestion. Boling’s suggestion, “they argued back and forth,” is as unlikely as it is clever (1975:275).

this afternoon. The Hebrew phrase is rare and unusual, netoth hayyom, meaning “the stretching out of the day.” The verb natah [TH5186, ZH5742] is used only here with a time word, so its sense must be divined from context. The idea seems to be “to stay until most of the day has passed,” i.e., until almost evening, as it appears in 19:9.

19:9 his father-in-law. As in 19:4, the text double-identifies the man as “his father-in-law (khoten [TH2859A, ZH3162]), the father of the young woman.” Elsewhere the author typically calls him “father of the young woman” (’abi hanna‘arah [TH5291, ZH5855]; 19:3, 5, 6, 8) or, once, just “father-in-law” (19:7).

almost evening. The NLT combines several clauses here. The Hebrew again uses uncommon terms for the time of day: “the day is weakening (fading? cf. rapah [TH7503, ZH8332]) to become evening” and even “the day has just encamped” (hinneh khanoth hayyom [TH2583, ZH2837]), perhaps an allusion to nomadic life referring to the time to stop traveling and make camp (Cundall 1968:194). The father-in-law hoped his delaying tactic got him another day to obligate the Levite.

be on your way. The Hebrew goes on to say “to your tent.” This might be a quaint way of referring to the Levite’s home, though Boling (1975:275) suggests it actually does refer to the very humble status and property of the Levite.

19:10 But this time the man was determined to leave. The Levite, having stayed for five days and looking potentially toward a sixth day, must depart. His journey will require an overnight stay on the road. Had he remained another day, he might be facing a Sabbath day as well, delaying his departure even more, and increasing his obligation to his father-in-law. The feasting, in fact, has concealed a battle of wills centering on whose household will command the young woman’s presence, foreshadowing the conflict that will follow.

he . . . headed in the direction of Jebus (that is, Jerusalem). From Bethlehem the Levite traveled about six miles, about a two hours’ walk, north on the road that follows the watershed ridge, sometimes called the National Highway or Patriarchal Highway. Few Bible readers realize that Jerusalem was not always a site sacred to the Hebrews. Until David’s time, Jerusalem remained in the possession of the Jebusites. Judges 1:8 reports that the Judeans did set the city on fire, but goes on to note that the Benjaminites failed to hold Jerusalem so it remained in Jebusite hands (1:21). The remains of the Late Bronze Age fortifications are visible today on the eastern slope of the south end of the Kidron valley. Jebus was not the pre-Israelite name of the city (contra Boling 1975:275), which was called Jerusalem, in various linguistic equivalents, in the Egyptian execration texts of the nineteenth century BC and the Amarna letters of the fourteenth century BC (Soggin 1981:286). Possibly “Jebus” was an inner-Israelite pejorative term for the city.

19:11 It was late in the day. The author continues to employ graphic, but rare terms for the passing of time. Here, “the day (was) very much gone down” or “just about to go down.” The use of this verb, yarad [TH3381, ZH3718], “to go down,” with the noun “day” is otherwise unattested. The author’s constant stress on the fading of the day and his use of unusual terms indicates the urgency of the Levite’s departure, turning the reader’s attention to the fading of the day, like the last grains of sand running through an hourglass.

Jebus. The city lay slightly east of the watershed ridge route, beyond the Hinnom valley and the later city’s western hill (now erroneously called Mount Zion) and central valley.

this Jebusite town. Though the NLT is literally correct, ‘ir hayyebusi hazzo’th [TH2983, ZH3294] more properly implies “right here in the city of Jebus.” That no other city is in view is clear from 19:10. The text makes a definite point of portraying the Levite as having declined to lodge in Jebus (Jerusalem).

19:12 we can’t stay in this foreign town. The Levite’s assumption that a non-Israelite town would be unwelcoming throws the events to follow into sharp relief.

Instead, we will go on to Gibeah. Four places in the OT are named “Gibeah,” which means “hill.” This story emphatically identifies the place as Gibeah belonging to Benjamin. The Levite’s plan assumes Gibeah lay between Jerusalem and Ramah. Albright, following some earlier scholars, proposed the two-acre site of Tell el-Ful (meaning “Hill of Beans”), three miles north of Jerusalem for Gibeah. His 1922–1923 excavations and those of Lapp in 1964 exposed an Iron Age I settlement beginning c. 1200 BC and abandoned c. 1100 BC, possibly providing a date for the story in chs 19–21 (cf. 20:36-48). Saul reinforced fortifications at Gibeah. Lapp’s later excavation uncovered no further evidence of the destruction, though he did note a period of abandonment 1150–1025 BC (Albright 1924:7-8). Scholars have challenged Albright’s identification, but unsuccessfully (ABD 2.1007-1009; Schniedewind 2006). Jordan’s King Hussein began building a palace atop of Tell el-Ful, but construction was cut short by the Six Day War of 1967. The skeletal remains of the unfinished palace stand today where Saul’s citadel stood 3,000 years ago.

19:13 Ramah. Ramah lay directly on the watershed ridge highway about 2.5 miles north of Gibeah, assuming Tell el-Ful is Gibeah.

we’ll spend the night in one of those towns. The Hebrew might suggest a different sense than the NLT conveys. Lit., “Come on, let us approach one of the places, and spend the night in Gibeah or Ramah.” The phrase “one of the places” might suggest sacred sites (HALOT maqôm; NIDOTTE 3:899-903; TDOT 8:532-544). In 19:18 the Levite will note that though he was traveling to a “house of Yahweh,” still no offer of hospitality came (see note on 19:18). Perhaps “places” (meqomoth [TH4725, ZH5226]) refers to sacred places, where the Levite expected to find an open door to a person of priestly vocation.

19:14 The sun was setting as they came to Gibeah. One last time, the author notes the fading of the day, emphasizing the constraint of time on the characters. The sun has indeed set, in more ways than one. The story has numerous parallels in content and even in wording to the story of the two angels visiting Lot in Sodom in Gen 19:1-29 and Saul’s rage over the siege of Gibeah in 1 Sam 11:5-11. The most compact summary of the parallels remains that of Burney (1920:444-445; cf. also Block 1999:519-521; 532-534). The Sodom narrative provides a prior context for seeing the Judges story in the context of irredeemable depravity, and the Judges story in turn casts a shadow over the story of Saul, who was from the tribe of Benjamin, and specifically from Gibeah.

19:15 town square. Heb., rekhob [TH7339, ZH8148], which means simply “open space.” The typical Iron Age I (1200–1000 BC) town site was a ring or rings of houses and buildings facing inward, with their rear walls joined or very close to form a perimeter. This outer ring is the origin of the typical Israelite “casemate” wall. The area within the innermost ring of houses was the “square,” which is obviously not precise.

no one took them in for the night. The town square would be a perfectly legitimate place for strangers to camp, but in a tribal culture, an offer of hospitality would be expected. That none was forthcoming suggests something very wrong about this town.

19:16 an old man . . . living in Gibeah, where the people were from the tribe of Benjamin. The old man, an odd counterpart to the father-in-law, is like the Levite, a ger [TH1481, ZH1591], a client or dependent. His work might well have been on the farm of the family with which he was sojourning. The author emphasizes, yet again, that the people there are Benjaminites, so that the only hospitality offered to outsiders comes from another outsider. More poignantly, Lev 19:33-34 demands that the Israelites extend hospitality to the sojourner, but here a sojourner, a vulnerable person, extended protection to the visitors.

19:17 travelers. Heb., ha’oreakh [TH732A, ZH782], which is sg., modifying only “the man,” suggesting perhaps the old man really only took cognizance of the Levite. This term appears in 2 Sam 12:4 to denote the visitor for whose entertainment the rich man in Nathan’s parable stole a poor man’s only sheep (another example of “hospitality” providing a pretext for evil).

he asked them where they were from and where they were going. For a potential host to interrogate travelers before offering them lodging might be a serious breach of the ethos of hospitality (Matthews 2004:184).

19:18 and now I’m returning home. The Hebrew has “I am going to the house of the LORD”; cf. NLT mg, which curiously renders this “Tabernacle of the LORD,” and see note on 18:31. The Levite might have seen his destination as Shiloh or Bethel, both sanctuaries located generally in the hill country of Ephraim. On the other hand, the first person possessive suffix on the Hebrew term “my house” could have been mistaken for an abbreviation for “Yahweh” and been expanded by a scribe (Moore 1895:416). The NLT, following the LXX and the conclusions of a vast majority of commentators, reflects such a view.

19:19 we have everything we need. We have straw and feed for our donkeys and plenty of bread and wine for ourselves. By stressing their ability to provide for their own needs, the Levite accentuates the essentially inhospitable character of the occupants of Gibeah. His claim of sufficiency, made to a potential host, also violates the protocol governing the interaction of potential guests and hosts, introducing an element of rivalry (Matthews 2004:184). The NLT omits the Levite’s reference to his servant and to his woman, which employs a term for a female slave, ’amah [TH519, ZH563]. The reference might simply be polite, but given her identity as “concubine,” it might be demeaning. It at least introduces ambiguity into her status.

19:20 whatever you do, don’t spend the night in the square. As in Gen 19:2-3, visitors perfectly able to pass the night in the town square were urged strongly to take shelter with a hospitable resident who was not a native of the community. Matthews claims that, in fact, the offer of hospitality by a sojourner was improper (2004:185).

19:21 he took them home with him and fed the donkeys. After they washed their feet, they ate and drank together. As in Gen 19:3, a meal was prepared for the visitors. Their host provided for all their needs, caring for the animals, for their refreshment after the journey, and the meal.

19:22 While they were enjoying themselves. The idiom employed is the same as appeared in the Levite’s days of feasting with his father-in-law. The worst of the experience seemed to be over, but, in fact, the nightmare was about to begin.

a crowd of troublemakers from the town surrounded the house. The NLT obscures the implication of the Hebrew, which uses an appositional construction, “the men of the city, the men of the sons of beliyya‘al.” The most obvious etymology of beliyya‘al, “without worth” (beli [TH1097, ZH1172] + ya‘al [TH3276, ZH3603]) fails to get at the seriousness of the condemnation involved. This term, like nebalah [TH5039, ZH5576] in 19:23, names only the most serious offenses. Scholars from Burney (1920:467-468) through Cross and Freedman (1953:22, n. 6) have suggested the second term derives from the verb “to go up,” referring to “the place from which none go up,” (i.e., the netherworld, or realm of the dead). That the term beliyya‘al [TH1100, ZH1175] appears parallel to she’ol [TH7585, ZH8619] (2 Sam 22:5-6 = Ps 18:4-5) and also in reference to a plague from which one cannot arise (Ps 41:8) supports the suggestion (NIDOTTE 1.661-662). The “sons of beliyya‘al” are those so irredeemably wicked that they are kin to the realm of death and decay. The line seems also to suggest that this was no fringe or marginal group, but indeed, “the men of the city.”

They began beating at the door. This rare word might imply the men were slamming their bodies against the door to break it down (Cundall 1968:196). The door of the house formed the legal and spiritual boundary between the homeowner and the world (Matthews 2004:188).

Bring out the man who is staying with you. The story essentially parallels Gen 19:4-5. In both cases the inhabitants of the town surround the house.

we can have sex with him. The term yada‘ [TH3045, ZH3359], normally translated “know,” carries a sexual nuance limited to physical intercourse. Its sexual usage appears only as the prelude to conception, descriptions of physical virginity (cf. 11:39; 21:12; Gen 19:8), and descriptions of rape (19:25; Gen 19:5). In its sexual contexts, yada‘ never carries a connotation of relational intimacy.

19:23 don’t do such an evil thing. The same verb for “do evil” appears in Gen 19:7.

For this man is a guest in my house. See Gen 19:8b for the parallel.

such a thing would be shameful. The outrage against traditional values of hospitality hardly requires mention. The term translated “shameful” is nebalah [TH5039, ZH5576], frequently mistranslated as “folly.” In the tribal-familial ethos of ancient Israelite society, this term denoted flagrant, wanton defiance of the most fundamental obligations and values of the community (NIDOTTE s.v. nabal [TH5036, ZH5572]). The term is lacking from the story in Gen 19.

19:24 take my virgin daughter and this man’s concubine. The host’s offer of his virgin daughter for unlimited sexual abuse substantially parallels Gen 19:7-8. His offer of his guest’s concubine, however, comes as a surprise since it patently violates the safety of his guests. Moreover, a concubine, even as a lower-ranking wife, was still legally linked to her husband, precluding any offer such as the host here makes. Perhaps the Levite’s earlier reference to her as a female slave (19:19) indicated enough distance to permit the offer. Still, however sacred the laws of hospitality, we must remember this was still Israel. OT religious traditions added to the normal obligations of hospitality by reminding Israel that kindness to strangers should also arise from their own story of redemption from Egypt. Thus in Israel the host also bore a deep and religious obligation to protect those who came under his care (e.g., Exod 22:21; 23:9; Lev 19:33-34; Deut 10:18-19). His willingness to sacrifice his own daughter and his guest’s concubine signals the loss of a distinctively Israelite moral perspective in which a very important value, hospitality, trumps other, more absolute values, the value of the lives of others under his care. What stands out is the willingness of the men in the story to sacrifice the women dependent upon them, in the name of their code of hospitality, which graphically illustrates the depraved state to which the nation had fallen.

you can abuse them. The use of the term “abuse” (cf. Gen 19) indicates that the host knew what the men of the city had in mind—there would be no boundaries—and the fate to which he proposed consigning the women.

whatever you like. Lit., “the thing that is good (hattob [TH2896, ZH3202]) in your eyes.” This expression comes quite close to the author’s general condemnation of the Israelites, who do “what is right (hayyashar [TH3477A, ZH3838]) in their own eyes.”

don’t do such a shameful thing to this man. See note on 19:23.

19:25 they wouldn’t listen to him. Cf. Gen 19:9, where the Sodomites responded to a corresponding offer by mocking the client, or dependent status of the householder. The Judges narrative does not include a similar rejoinder, perhaps because of what unfolds next. In the parallel story of Gen 19, this is the point where the two disguised angels act, pulling Lot inside to safety and then striking the Sodomites blind. The distraught concubine of ch 19 experienced no such miraculous deliverance.

the Levite took hold of his concubine. The Hebrew does not include “Levite,” simply saying, “the man took hold of his concubine.” The nearest previous use of the term “the man” (19:23) refers to the host. Nothing is said of the host’s daughter. Perhaps the narrator implies that the concubine, though a guest, still stood lower socially than the host’s daughter.

abused her all night, taking turns raping her until morning. The Hebrew uses two verbs. The first is yada‘ [TH3045, ZH3359] “they knew” (sexually; see note on 19:22). The second is wayyith‘allelu [TH5953, ZH6618], from a root that seems to suggest doing anything repeatedly. In agricultural contexts, it means “to glean” (i.e., go over the crops yet again, picking up anything left). It also refers to violent or severe treatment. In the Hithpael stem, as here, it refers to repeated actions of harm, mockery, or trickery, ranging from Yahweh’s repeated mockery of Egypt in the plagues (Exod 10:2) to the wounded Saul’s fear that the Philistines would make sport of him before allowing him to die (1 Sam 31:4). Together, both verbs depict a savage, mocking, riotous, repeated, sexual, and emotional violation of this utterly defenseless woman.

Finally, at dawn they let her go. “They let her go” (Piel of shalakh [TH7971, ZH8938]) can express commissioning, dismissal, rejection, or even divorce. Ironically, though the author greatly extended his description of the final hours of the day, he passed over the entire night in a few lines and then lingered over the dawning of the next day in several phrases, continuing into 19:26 (cf. Block 1999:539-540). The setting sun had counted down the hours toward this horror; now the dawn breaks on the tortured, and possibly dying, woman.

19:26 her husband. Lit., “her master” (’adoneha [TH113, ZH123]). This is the first time the Levite is referred to with this term.

19:27 When her husband opened the door to leave. The callousness of the Levite now appears; he seems oblivious to the events of the preceding night and prepared for a routine departure. He did not open the door to seek his concubine or learn her fate, but simply to resume his journey.

there lay his concubine with her hands on the threshold. The scene starkly portrays the woman’s utter ruination. The woman’s grasping the threshold, assumed to have already happened in this scene, is the last action attributed to her in the story.

19:28 He said, “Get up! Let’s go!” But there was no answer. The narrator does not inform the reader that the woman was dead, only that the Levite received no answer to his command. The LXX adds here, hoti ēn nekra [TG3498, ZG3738], “for she was dead” (see NLT mg). How the clause would have dropped from the Hebrew is hard to explain, but its addition by a translator uncomfortable with the narrator’s techniques for sustaining tension is easily enough understood. Ominously, in recounting the doings of this night in 20:5, the Levite’s words in Hebrew are noncommital, literally, “and she died,” not “and they killed her” (Block 1999:541; Schneider 2000:264-265).

So he put her body on his donkey and took her home. The NLT supplies “her body,” but the Hebrew simply says “he took her on the donkey” without specifying whether she had died, or was simply so devastated and injured that she was unable to respond.

19:29 he took a knife and cut his concubine’s body into twelve pieces. The NLT does not translate, before “cut,” the verb “grasped” (wayyakhazeq [TH2388, ZH2616]), which echoes the previous expression of someone “grasping” this woman (19:25), stressing her coercion. The terminology used bespeaks the butchering of an animal (1 Sam 11:7; 1 Kgs 18:23, 33) or even the dissection of sacrificial animals to be burned on the altar (Exod 29:17; Lev 1:6, 12; 8:20). Lit., the text says “he sliced her up into/according to her bones, twelve slices.” The narrator’s capacity to relate utterly incomprehensible actions so matter-of-factly reaches a crescendo here, exceeded only by the Levite’s capacity actually to do this.

he sent one piece to each tribe. Now the story also has parallels with another account, that of the kingship of Saul, who expressed his rage at the siege laid by the Ammonites against Jabesh-gilead by cutting up a pair of oxen into 12 pieces and sending the pieces to the tribes of Israel as a call to arms (1 Sam 11:7). The Levite’s treatment of her body violated every known biblical standard for how the dead are to be treated, desecrating her body as well as defiling him. That the woman received no burial, and hence, no remembrance, culminates the string of indignities that began with her namelessness in the narrative. Commentators typically cite an ancient letter from Mari in which a commander, unable to raise sufficient troops to serve his master, boasts that he might execute a prisoner, dismember him, and process through the countryside to inspire fear and obedience (cf. Block 1999:546 for translation of the text).

19:30 Such a horrible crime. The term “horrible crime” does not appear in the text, which reads, “It has not happened, it has not been seen—the like of this.” The intention of the grammatically abrupt, even incoherent statement, is rendered suitably by the NLT.

in all the time since Israel left Egypt. The sense that the book of Judges builds to a climax of sinfulness and depravity is confirmed by the very words of the Israelites themselves, who in fact, see it as the worst event since the Exodus. Given the sins and judgments of the wilderness era, in which an entire generation of Israelites died in the desert, this is a very strong condemnation of the sin committed at Gibeah. Likewise, Hosea looked to the “days of Gibeah” as a signal marker of Israel’s depravity (Hos 9:9; 10:9). At this point, LXX Alexandrinus has a long addition, in which the Levite commissions the grim couriers with a summons to call a nationwide inquiry. But that addition seems to be an attempt to smooth out a somewhat difficult text.

Think about it! Block (1999:548) insightfully notes the Hebrew is better rendered, “think about her.”

What are we going to do? Who’s going to speak up? Tribal societies are long on deliberation. With no centralized government, no standing army or police, and no single ruler, a process of debate and discussion among elders at successive levels of seniority unfolds.

COMMENTARY [Text]

The story in chapters 19–21 brings the book to a dramatic climax, exposing the full extent of Israel’s self-destructive anarchy—despite the fact that tribal mechanisms and traditions still seem to produce results. The story draws together many threads from throughout the book and is linked closely to chapters 17–18. As 17:1–18:31 extended the theme, begun in 1:1–2:5, of a failed conquest, to a catastrophic and religiously perverse climax, so 19:1–21:25 develops the concept of Israel as a unified covenant community, initiated in 2:6–3:6. The author of the book drives home with devastating force that Israel not only betrayed Yahweh by doing evil in his eyes, it also manifests the capacity to utterly dismember itself as no final standard of right prevails. Moreover, even though Yahweh still rules, the lack of a human representative to make that rule concrete (as a human, historical institution in the form of a king) means that his rule remains elusive and Israel remains at grave risk of self-destruction.

As Younger (2002:347) has shown, this final episode of the book has a concentric structure. The rape of the concubine in 19:1-30 corresponds to the concluding marital abductions of the maidens of Shiloh (21:15-25). The destruction of Gibeah (20:1-48) likewise matches the attack on Jabesh-gilead (21:6-14). In the center falls the consternation of the Israelites concerning the consequences of their implementation of tribal retribution and justice, centering on their oath not to allow their daughters to marry Benjaminites (21:1-5). Running through this A-B-C-B’-A’ structure is also a relentless causal sequence linking every action to what preceded (cf. Block 1999:515-516). Moreover, a series of problems arise, whose solutions in turn produce greater problems. Thus, the marital dispute is resolved in the home of the father-in-law, but the implementation of the newly restored marriage requires the journey home, which provokes the problem of lodging. When that problem seems well-solved by the hospitality of the man at Gibeah, the degenerate mob appears. The resultant outrage triggers a united war of vengeance against the Benjaminites, and when the nation is victorious they face the problem of having decimated a tribe, for which they must now find wives. That problem, in turn, is solved by yet another slaughter, which nets too few women to fulfill the needs of the Benjaminite survivors, leading to the almost inconceivable expedient of permitting the Benjaminite men to abduct women from a religious festival at Shiloh—in effect, a kind of socially sanctioned rape. The text possibly echoes the rape law in Deuteronomy 22:28-29, which declares a man who sexually assaults a virgin must pay her father 50 shekels and may never divorce her.

Judges 19: The Spark. Several red herrings plague the interpretation of this story. First, though the author clearly works with the dimensions of hospitality to shape the story, this narrative is not about hospitality. Second, many interpreters find here an exposé of the evils of patriarchy. Again, the writer certainly does marshal the themes of the vulnerability of women, but one hardly could say the author is antipatriarchal. Third, interpreters find here a condemnation of homosexuality and sexual immorality in general. Certainly the author assumes the reader recoils from such behavior, but again, the ancient reader hardly needed to be persuaded that violent gang rape, whether homosexual or heterosexual, was wrong. Even depraved Israel knew that (cf. 19:29-30). Lastly, historians rightly find in this story and the chapters to follow many hints and clues about the social structure of earliest Israel. The author of the text employs these dimensions not as the end, but as the means for making a larger point, one not necessarily congenial to the audience. For 18 chapters the historian has relentlessly exposed the flaws and failures of the premonarchic order of ancient Israel. Starting with the failed conquest after Joshua’s death, the steady increase in Israel’s evildoing, the relentless deepening of the political crises into which Israel fell, and the evident deterioration of the “office” of the judge, the writer has masterfully demolished any romantic idealism about Israel’s first years in the Promised Land. Any of his readers who would claim that Israel stood in no need of a transformation from tribal society to monarchy faced an irrefutable demonstration of the old order’s impotence and evil. Rather than justify the monarchy, the author leaves the reader having to justify the premonarchic order! Could any potential problems with kingship be any worse than what happens here?

In chapter 19, the author stresses that the Israel of the premonarchic era was a community in which the smallest conflict, such as a petty marital dispute, could mushroom into heinous crimes beyond imagination, like nothing seen since the departure from Egypt (19:30). Given the scenes one witnesses in the books of Leviticus and Numbers, in which the ground swallows sinners, fire blazes out from the Tabernacle to incinerate corrupt leaders, and a whole generation dies in their sin in the wilderness, that claim bears reflection. The author takes us through a story in which we keep wanting someone to step in and stop the evils that multiply like rats. Why did nobody offer legitimate hospitality in Gibeah? Why were the citizens of Gibeah, to a man, “sons of Belial” and yet no action had been taken to restrain their evil—even prior to our story? Where was the clan, with its ethos of protection? Where was the judge? And what of the Levite? The Old Testament charges the Levites with being the custodians and guardians of Yahweh’s covenant (cf. Exod 32:25-29; Num 1:53; Deut 33:8-11; Mal 2:1-9). How is it that a Levite displays not a shred of spiritual interest or leadership? Given the deviant shrine presided over by the Levite of chapters 17–18, perhaps this utterly “secular” Levite reflects the next step-down. Moreover, how does a Levite go from wanting to “speak to the heart” of his concubine to showing such callous disregard for her safety? How can he desecrate her body, destroy her memory, and defile himself and those who receive his “message”? The story seems like a massive train wreck happening in slow motion. Indeed, the writer cares about hospitality, about the evils of selfish men with virtually absolute power over women, and, yes, the writer cares about sexual ethics. But more important is the writer’s claim that, in fact, the Israel of this era was like a house full of gas, awaiting a single spark to explode. Whether that explosion occurs in the realm of hospitality, sexuality, or gender dominance is secondary to the fact that Israel has become a bomb awaiting detonation, a “perfect storm” needing only a beginning. All of this happened, declares our writer, because “in those days, there was no king in Israel.”

The prophet Hosea alluded to the scene in chapter 19 in order to stress the decadence that was overwhelming the northern kingdom in his day (Hos 9:9; 10:9). Similarly, nearly all commentators notice that chapter 19 laces the story of premonarchic Israel’s moral and social volatility with allusions to the northern kingdom. The concubine who is violated comes from Bethlehem of Judah (the home of David), but the callous Levite hails from Ephraim. The tribe of Benjamin and the city of Gibeah both carry strong connections with Saul. Of course, the Levite’s summons to his countrymen gruesomely anticipates Saul’s call to arms by which he rises to prominence as Israel’s first, but rejected king. By also loading the story with unmistakable resonances with the account of Sodom’s destruction (Gen 19), the author leaves no possibility of missing his point. At every level of social organization, this was a sick society.

The most haunting feature of this story, however, remains the silence of God. God has asserted his presence throughout the book of Judges, even amidst the sins of Israel and the foibles of its leaders. Whether granting victory, pouring out his Spirit, or speaking explosive words of anger and rebuke, God has been present in Israel. This story, however, unfolds in a spiritual vacuum. Block, rightly noting how the “Israel” of chapter 19 seems the opposite of the real Israel, refers to Israel as “Canaanized” (1999:542-545).

However, matters appear even worse. No god appears in this chapter at all, neither the true God nor even false gods. The name Yahweh does not appear in the story (the reference in 19:18 is universally taken as a scribal error), nor does the word “god” (’elohim [TH430, ZH466]) in any form. No element of transcendence, of deity, of grace or redemption, relieves the terror of the story. Even the hospitality of the father-in-law has a sinister undercurrent (see notes on 19:4-10). Surely at least the poor woman deserved to hear from God. Was the Levite so spiritually blind that he neither appealed to God, nor cried out in protest? Was the host devoid of any capability of invoking divine standards of right as he protested to the mob? The best he can do is appeal to societal mores, and that impotently. The Bible often does portray human evil and its monstrous consequences seamlessly, pointing out the painful fact that God does not magically intervene and stop humans from the crimes they perpetrate. We wish that God would undertake for victims like the woman, who technically might not be innocent, having abandoned her husband, but who in no conceivable manner deserved her heinous fate. Reading this story, we ask God why he does not protect such persons from these atrocious acts. The answer, perhaps, is painful: God has provided for protection against such barbarism. He has ordained and commanded civil, just, human communities led by persons with integrity and character, submitted to the moral law of God. The covenant community’s charge always was to maintain faithfulness to Yahweh with justice and integrity to rule among the people. Thus this story, with its heinous crime and its stark reality of divine absence (or, at least, silence), testifies to the fact that God does not normally intervene magically or miraculously when people, even his people, do horrible things to each other. For good or ill, however risky and troubling it may seem, God has entrusted the maintenance of justice and the protection of the helpless to human communities and their leaders. Thus, the comment in 19:1 (repeating 17:6; 18:1; and foreshadowing 21:25) that there indeed was “no king in Israel” becomes all the more poignant, and tacitly defines the role the author envisions the king to take: not merely to save the Israelites from enemies, as the judges did, but to save the Israelites from their own worst enemy—themselves.