Strange Story: Judges 19 The Levite and His Concubine

Judges 19

Admittedly, this is a strange story that is hard to read. It is included in the biblical narrative in order to show us what happens when people begin to divert from God’s prescribed norm. The problems may start small, but they grow bigger and bigger until the consequences are drastic and far-reaching.

The story starts by saying that “It came about in the days when there was no king in Israel that . . .” (v. 1). The statement about no king was intended to show that there was chaos and disorder in the land and the story to follow this statement demonstrates that lack of order (as does the story that precedes this one in Judges 17 & 18). However, God did not want them to have a human king; He wanted to be their king. The lack of order demonstrated that they were not following God’s ways and they did not have human organization either.  

There are several things in this story that hint at, or clearly indicate, that things were not being done according to God’s plan.

Things that Were Abnormal

I will start with a few things that seem abnormal to me, not sinful, but abnormal, similar to the concept of “unclean.”

> Where he “lived” (v. 1). The verb used here usually meant “to sojourn” or travel about from place to place, staying for a while here and for a while there. The word does not make clear how long those stays were. It can also be translated “living” but its basic idea is have an ambulatory existence. Was it normal and proper for this Levite to be sojourning in a “remote area”? This Hebrew term is “on the hip” and can be translated “on the other side” of the mountain. First of all he was not living in one of the cities or towns given to the Levites for them to live in; he was ambulating on the far side of the low mountains of Ephraim. This is different than what is said about Zachariah and Elizabeth in Luke 1:39, because they lived in a town in the hill country (of Judea). They were following the prescribed order for the Levites and, as a priest, Zachariah made himself available for priestly duties. The Levite in this story seems to have been doing his own thing by going elsewhere, possibly going wherever he could find people who needed a spiritual or religious leader – a priest.

The reality is that there were many high places and some Levites offered themselves to serve as priests at these high places. The previous story in Judges 17 and 18, demonstrates this clearly. At the high places the people were sometimes sacrificing to the God of Israel, but not the way He had prescribed; sometimes they were offering sacrifices to other gods, and often they mixed the two. In light of where the story ends up going, the statement about where he was sojourning probably indicates that he was serving as a priest at a high place in some remote area and was not serving at the location of the tabernacle. He was not qualified to be a priest at the tabernacle, but that did not stop him from being a “priest” to anyone who would pay for his services. He was likely leading people astray or facilitating their disobedience and idolatry. This is not stated clearly but it may have been implied.

Some scholars think that, as a Levite, he served his terms of service at the tabernacle in Shiloh, but I don’t think so. There are too many things in this story that point to him being a bad example, not a good example.

> He had a concubine, or a wife that was called a concubine (v. 1). The Hebrew clause used here is interesting because it uses both the common word for “wife” and the word for “concubine.” He “took a wife, a concubine . . .” (A similar construction using both words is found in verse 27). It appears that the text is telling the reader that he took her as his proper wife, but he did not give any bride price for her, thus the word “concubine is used to show this abnormal situation.”

Another possibility is that the first word used to describe her simply means woman, not wife, for it can mean both. If this is true then the sentence would read, “he took a woman, a concubine . . .” However, if the word means “woman” one would expect the text to say “he took a woman as a concubine.” But it does not say that. Rather it follows the normal statement “he took a wife” but then adds the clarification “a concubine.” Therefore, the first reading above seems to be the more natural way to understand that clause.

Apart from verse 27, in the rest of the story, she is called “the girl” or “the concubine” but we must remember that the best way to interpret this clause involves a use of the word concubine which simply means that things were not done normally.

The first impression is that the Levite and the girl’s father were both very poor. However, even very poor people tried to give something as a bride price, Also, the Levite had at least one servant and at least two donkeys, for he took them with him to get the girl back. So he could not have been truly poor. Why then could he not afford a bride price? The Law required that, for a man to take an additional wife or concubine, he had to have the means to support her. The use of a bride price was a way to confirm that there was sufficient financial solvency for the man to meet all the obligations involved in having another wife or concubine. This is another detail of this story that seems strange and feels odd to the reader.

Why would the father agree to giving his daughter away without a bride price? This was not normal, and probably not good.

> The Levite went to get her back and the text says that he went to persuade her, so she did have some say in the matter. However, he only did so after she had been gone for quite some time (v. 2). The Hebrew text says she “was thither days/time, four months.” The word for “days” can also mean “time, or year.” It can be translated “for a span of four months, or for a duration of four months.” Some scholars say it meant four months, and others say it means a year and four months. In the end it does not make a huge difference, the point is that he waited quite a while, he did not go after her right away.

> The “father-in-law” prevailed upon him to stay for three days, then four, then most of the fifth day (vv 4-8). This part seems strange. What was the motivation of the girl’s father? Was he reluctant to send her with him a second time because things had not gone well the first time? Or was the father afraid the Levite would punish his daughter for being unfaithful to him? Harsh punishments were common in such situations. If it was the fear of punishment, the father was trying to get some kind of assurance from the young man that he would not mistreat the young lady. Or he was hoping to give him enough wine to loosen his tongue to the point that the young man would reveal his true intentions. Nothing is said in the text that indicates his motivation, but the way the narrative reads leaves the reader with a funny feeling about the whole thing.

Why did the Levite agree to stay longer, and once again agree to stay longer, then finally refuse to stay and instead started his journey late in the day? The husband most likely wanted to hear the father tell his daughter that she could not come running back to him if things got tough; she needed to make it work with this guy. Obviously, there was tension in the relationship between these two men, but it was being covered over by all this eating and drinking. It appears that even with all the eating and drinking, neither man got what he wanted.

>The girl must have agreed to go with him, but why? One can only speculate, and you can do that just as well as I can.

All of this leaves a bad taste in the reader’s mouth, and it should. At best the first part of the story is telling us that things were not being done properly or wisely by any of the protagonists of this story.

Clear Indications of Sin

The following are the clear indications of sin on the part of everyone involved, not just things that were abnormal.

~ As a Levite he was expected to be good a spiritual leader. This story shows us that he did not fulfill that expectation.

>  She was unfaithful to him (the Hebrew says “she played the harlot against him”) (v. 2) and then abandoned him and went back to her father. Maybe she felt treated like a harlot so she decided to be one for financial gain. Maybe she was upset that her husband had not paid anything at all for her bride price. Whatever the reason, this was a clear indication that things were not going well for either one of them. We could say that both of them had their share of the blame.

According to the Law, if it could be proved that she played the harlot against him, as the text states, she should have been stoned. Yet this did not happen, so she remained alive. This was another way in which they were not following the Law.

It was drastic action to go back to her father. It was likely that she would never remarry and she would be nothing more than a servant girl for the rest of her life.

~ The men of Gibeah proved to be corrupt to the core (vv. 22-25). They circled the home and demanded to have sex with the Levite. This would remind every Jewish reader of the wickedness of Sodom and Gomorrah and also of what happened to Sodom and Gomorrah. This is a clear indication of the depth of depravity to which the men of that city had fallen. The Levite did not want to stay in a pagan city but what he encountered in Gibeah was probably just as bad or worse.

~ The old man had two responsibilities to fulfill (to protect his guests, and to protect his virgin daughter), and rather than doing his best to fulfill both of them, he was willing to abdicate one of them – he offered them his virgin daughter. However, no action was taken to give them his virgin daughter.

The Levite had two responsibilities, to protect his wife/concubine, and to protect his his elderly host. Unlike the old man, the Levite took action. In order to save his own skin, he shoved his concubine out the door for them to do with as they wished (v. 25). Rather than trusting God for safety, or fighting like a man of valor and honor, he put his own safety first and showed no concern for his concubine whom he had gone in search of.

~ The men of the town were bisexual, getting sexual enjoyment in any form they could. They must have also been violent; not only did they gang-rape this young woman, but they did so in such a violent way that she died the next morning – possibly having bled to death.

~ The Levite did not show any concern for his concubine. He came out the door in the morning and said, “Get up, let’s go” (v. 28). God commands us to have compassion and to care for one another’s needs, but this man showed none. This is possibly an indication that he intended on punishing her harshly – which is exactly what her father feared.

~ The text does not tell us at first that she was dead when he put her on the donkey (v. 28), that comes out later. But notice the change in his attitude; all of a sudden, the Levite was incensed by the evil deed that had been committed. None of his own shortcomings seemed to be a problem, but the final result was too much. So he told all the other tribes of Israel how evil the tribe of Benjamin had become. He told them by sending them a body part along with the story. We can safely assume that the body was covered in bruises or abrasions and that is why it made the impact that it did.

Questions

Why did he send his message accompanied by a body part? Was it just to create more impact than a written message could stir up?

Does this story condone neglecting a woman’s safety in order that the man can protect himself?

No, it does not. This story would remind the reader of the story of Lot and the two angels that were sent to get him out of Sodom and Gomorrah before their destruction (Gen 19). In that instance he offered his two virgin daughters to the wicked men who surrounded his house, but the angels smote those evil men with blindness. The story of Lot is an example of what not to do, for his hesitancy to leave the city almost cost him his life. This is not a condoning; it is a warning – don’t be like Sodom and don’t be like Lot.

While there are indeed a number of examples in the Bible of people who did not protect women as they should have, there are also examples of people who valued women and protected them. God ordered the annihilation of the Amalekites because they had attacked the weak who were lagging behind. Job was an example of true manhood because he protected and assisted the poor, the fatherless, the dying, the widows, the blind, the lame, the needy, and the strangers (Job 29:12-16). In fact God’s law includes the exhortation to care for three groups of people in particular, the orphans, the widows, and the foreigners. This injunction is repeated several times. God made allowance in the law for the sparing of women during a battle against an enemy city; such women could be incorporated into the Jewish population as wives, if they became proselytes (see my lesson called What Was Up with Marrying a Captive Woman?). Ruth and Naomi were cared for very well by Boaz. Samuel’s mother, Hannah, was given special consideration.

The tribes responded in righteous indignation. They knew that they could not allow such evil to remain unchecked or it would influence all of them. They didn’t want their own grandsons and grand-daughters to grow up in a society that acted like that. They decided to do exactly what God had told them to do – to purge the evil from among them.

The fact that they lost two battles first (chapter 20) before finally winning (chapter 20) tells us that they themselves were not totally free of guilt. God wanted them to look at their own hearts and lives, to see if they had started down that same path which began, not with outright sin, but with things that were not normal, not totally proper. Notice that they did not have military victory until after they sought the Lord with burnt offerings and fellowship offerings (Jdg 20:26). After the first defeat they wept before the Lord and sought God’s direction, but there is no mention of sacrifices. Each of the three times they asked God if they should go fight against the tribe of Benjamin, God said “yes.” This tells us that God thought the Benjamites deserved to be punished. However, He did not give the rest of the tribes victory until after they had acknowledged their own shortcomings and offered sacrifices.

Why did God allow the concubine to suffer such cruel treatment?

Remember that there were no innocent participants in this story; everyone was guilty to some degree or other. The concubine had “played the harlot” and this may have been God’s way of  allowing her to receive the consequences of her actions. “If you want to play the harlot, you can do so all night long, but it isn’t going to be pleasant.” However, God did not treat other unfaithful wives in this fashion, so if this was direct punishment from God for her actions, it would mean that her misdeeds were numerous and extreme. On the other hand, it may simply have been a consequence of the fact that we live in a sin-filled world. God does not remove the consequences of sin or the pain it causes because, if He did, we would have no reason to seek Him.

Didn’t the husband get off easy?

It would appear that he did, but let’s take a closer look. The story hints at the fact that the husband wanted to mistreat and punish his concubine for cheating on him. He thought that he had the right to mistreat her, but no one else could, and he became incensed when she was mistreated by others. But God did not agree with the Levite’s perspective indicated by the fact that he did not get the chance to mistreat her; others did that. While we do not read of any punishment against the Levite for failing to protect his wife/concubine, we have this story made public and read by generation after generation, a story that does not make him look good. Notice that his name is not even given in the text. That itself was a form of dishonor. We can be sure that God saw and kept accounts of this man’s spiritual failures, and that there was a price he had to pay at some point. We also know that God offers every living being opportunity to repent, but it does not look like this man ever took that opportunity.

The Response of the Other Tribes

The other tribes responded in righteous indignation. They knew that they could not allow such evil to remain unchecked or it would influence all of them. They didn’t want their own grandsons and granddaughters to grow up in a society that acted like that. They decided to do exactly what God had told them to do – to purge the evil from among them.

The fact that they lost two battles first (Jdg 20) before finally winning tells us that they themselves were not totally free of guilt. God wanted them to look at their own hearts and lives, to see if they had started down that same path which began not with outright sin, but with things that were not normal, not totally proper. Notice that they did not have military victory until after they sought the Lord with burnt offerings and fellowship offerings (Jdg 20:26). After the first defeat they wept before the Lord and sought God’s direction, but there is no mention of sacrifices. Each of the three times they asked God if they should go fight against the tribe of Benjamin, God said “yes.” This tells us that God thought they deserved to be punished. However, He did not give them victory until after they had acknowledged their own shortcomings and offered sacrifices.

Did they go over-board with their punishment of the Benjamites?

Yes (see Judges chapter 20).

Later they lamented the fact that one of their tribes had almost been wiped out. They wanted to help but they also wanted to honor the oath they had made. So in the end they got creative and resorted to some trickery to provide the remaining men of Benjamin with wives while not violating the oath they had made (chapter 21).

Why is this in the Bible?

Its spiritual purpose was to show that godlessness had become widespread in the tribe of Benjamin. On a political level it demonstrated that the people had no centralized leader. They were not following God, who wanted to be their “king,” and they had no human king at the time. Neither were they correctly following the system of fathers and grandfathers being good leaders for their families and tribes because this would require them to function under God’s authority. This is why the book of Judges repeats the statement that there was no king during that time and every man did what was right in his own eyes.

What spiritual lessons can be learned from this story?

1. When everyone acts selfishly, everyone loses.

2. We cannot expect God’s help for us if we do not fulfill our responsibility to protect the vulnerable around us.

3. Spiritual problems usually start small and grow bigger. They don’t start out big and obvious. In this story, the Levite started out feeding self in ways that were not obvious. But that eventually put him in a situation where there were no good options. But all he knew was to put self first, so he did that again, at great cost to someone else. That is when his self-centeredness became obvious to everyone else.

4. If you compromise on God’s instructions, you place yourself in situations filled with dangers of many kinds. Then you may be placed in a situation where you will have to make a hard choice, but because you have been practicing compromise, you will be unwilling to take the high road because it may cost you too much; it might even cost your life. Although you have compromised and acted unwisely, you will be appalled by the wickedness of others. You will point it out and show everyone how terrible they are, even though you bear part of the responsibility for what happened. If you point a finger at someone else, at least three fingers are pointing back at you.

5. If someone is not striving to live for God, he will not be willing to take risks in order to protect someone else. This kind of people will pretend to uphold a righteous cause, but only if someone else pays the price, and he thinks he can still say, “I did my best.” However, if someone is indeed striving to live for God, he will be willing to sacrifice himself on behalf of others and trust God for the results. This story includes two men who were not willing to risk it all to fight for the vulnerable around them. But the Bible also tells us of people who trusted God and then stuck their necks out for a cause that was bigger than they were. Think of David, of the three who got thrown into the furnace, of Noah, of Stephen, and many others.