Judges – Chapter 19

Runaway concubine, vs. 1-9

In the last three chapters of the Book of Judges is the account of one of the most sordid and wicked events to be recorded in all the Bible. It gives an indication of conditions among many of the people of Israel in the days of Judges when Israel had no king. This fact, often mentioned in these last chapters, is not the reason for the immorality and ungodliness of Israel. The fact is they had a King, but not an earthly one; the Lord was to be their King, and they did not acknowledge it.

Another misconception of some should be set straight here. This man, though a Levite, is certainly not the one of chapters 17 and 18. His name is not given, nor that of any other character involved in the episode, except for the high priest (Jdg 20:28).

Why should the Lord lend notoriety to such an affair by recording the names of the persons? This Levite also lived in the tribe of Ephraim, but he had taken a concubine from Bethlehem in the tribe of Judah.

The facts are these. The concubine was a young woman, still a damsel, but she left the Levite and ran away with another man, eventually returning to her father’s house in Bethlehem.

When the Levite learned that his concubine had returned to her father’s house he took his servant and two donkeys to go and bring her back. When the girl’s father met the Levite he liked him, and they spent three days together, wining and dining with one another.

On the fourth day the Levite tried to leave, but was retained by the coaxing of his father in law to remain another day and half spent in the same fashion. He would still have had him stay, if he could, for he was enjoying his company.

When this sorry affair is examined it appears that the girl’s father was an immoral scoundrel himself. His drunken ways may have brought him to such poverty he had been compelled to sell his daughter into concubinage, for that is often how men got concubines.

Likely the Levite was an older man than the girl. wished to marry. The moral condition of the Levite appears low as well in, his carousel with his father-in-law. That he was every bit as bad as the girl’s father will soon appear.

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

THE BOOK OF JUDGES

Judges 1-21.

THE Book of Judges continues the Book of Joshua. There are some Books of the Bible, the proper location of which require careful study, but Judges follows Joshua in chronological order. The Book opens almost identically with the Book of Joshua. In the latter the reading is, Now after the death of Moses the servant of the Lord it came to pass that the Lord spake unto Joshua. In the Book of Judges, Now after the death of Joshua it came to pass, that the Children of Israel asked thd Lord, saying Who shall go up for us against the Canaanites first, to fight against them? And the Lord said, Judah shall go up. God always has His man chosen and His ministry mapped out. We may worry about our successors and wonder whether we shall be worthily followed, but as a matter of fact that is a question beyond us and does not belong to us. It is not given to man to choose prophets, apostles, evangelists, pastors and teachers. That prerogative belongs to the ascended Lord, and He is not derelict in His duty nor indifferent to the interests of Israel. Before one falls, He chooses another. The breach in time that bothers men is not a breach to Him at all. It is only an hour given to the people for the expression of bereavement. It is only a day in which to calm the public mind and call out public sympathy and centralize and cement public interest.

Men may choose their co-laborers as Judah chose Simeon; leaders may pick out their captains as Moses did, and as did Joshua; but God makes the first choice, and when men leave that choice to Him, He never makes a mistake.

Whenever a captain of the hosts of the Lord is unworthily succeeded, misguided men have forgotten God and made the choice on the basis of their own judgment.

People sometimes complain of some indifferent or false preacher, We cant see why God sent us such a pastor. He didnt! You called him yourself. You didnt sufficiently consult God. You didnt keep your ears open to the still, small voice. You didnt wait on bended knees until He said, Behold your leader; follow him!

When God appoints Judah, he also delivers the Canaanites and the Perizzites into his hands. Adoni-bezek, the brutal, will be humbled by him; the capital city will fall before him; the southland will succumb, also the north and the east and the west, and the mountains will capitulate before the Lord of Hosts.

But the Book of Judges doesnt present a series of victories. There is no Book in the Bible that so clearly typifies the successes and reverses, the ups and downs, the victories and defeats of the church, as the history of Israel here illustrates. It naturally divides itself under The Seven Apostasies, The Successive Judges, and The Civil War.

THE SEVEN APOSTASIES

The first chapter is not finished before failure finds expression. Of Judah it was said he could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley because they had chariots of iron (Jdg 1:19). Of the children of Benjamin it was said, They did not drive out the Jebusites that inhabited Jerusalem (Jdg 1:21). Of Manasseh it was said, They did not drive out the inhabitants of Beth-Shean and her towns, nor Taanach and her towns, nor the inhabitants of Dor and her towns, nor the inhabitants of Ibleam and her towns, nor the inhabitants of Megiddo and her towns: but the Canaanites would dwell in that land (Jdg 1:27). Neither did Ephraim drive out the Canaanites that dwelt in Gezer, (Jdg 1:29); neither did Zebulun drive out the inhabitants of Kitron (Jdg 1:30), nor the inhabitants of Mahalol. Neither did Asher (Jdg 1:31) drive out the inhabitants of Acho nor of Zidon; neither did Naphthali drive out the inhabitants of Beth-Shemesh (Jdg 1:33), and this failure to clear the field results in an aggressive attack before the first chapter finishes, and the Amorites force the children of Dan into the mountain (Jdg 1:34).

If one study these seven apostasies that follow one another in rapid succession, he will be impressed by two or three truths. They resulted from the failure to execute the command of the Lord. The command of the Lord to Joshua was that he should expel the people from before him and drive them from out of his sight, and possess their land (Jos 23:5). He was not to leave any among them nor to make mention of any of their gods (Jos 23:7). He was promised that one of his men should chase a thousand. He was even told that if any were left and marriage was made with them that they should know for a certainty that the Lord God would no more drive out any of these nations from before them; that they should be snares and traps and scourges and thorns, until Israel perished from off the good land that God had given them (Jos 23:13). How strangely the conduct of Israel, once in the land, comports with this counsel given them before they entered it; and there is a typology in all of this.

The Christian life has its enemiessocial enemies, domestic enemies, national enemies! Ones companionship will determine ones conduct; ones marriage relation will eventuate religiously or irreligiously. The character of ones nation is more or less influential upon life.

The ordinance of baptism, the initial rite into the church, looks to an absolute separation from the world, and is expressed by the Apostle Paul as a death unto sin, the clear intent being that no evil customs are to be kept, nor companions retained, nor entangling alliances maintained. The word now is as the word then, Come out from among them, and be ye separate (2Co 6:17).

They imperiled their souls by this forbidden social intercourse. It is very difficult to live with a people and not become like them. It is very difficult to dwell side by side with nations and not intermarry. Intermarriage between believers and unbelievers is almost certain to drag down the life of the former to the level of the latter. False worship, like other forms of sin, has its subtle appeal; and human nature being what it is, false gods rise easily to exalted place in corrupted affections.

If there is one thing God tried to do for ancient Israel, and one thing God tries to do for the new Israel, the Church, it was, and is, to get His people to disfellowship the world.

There are men who think God is a Moloch because He so severely punished Israels compromises. They cant forget that when Joshua went over Jordan and Israel lay encamped on the skirts of the mountains of Moab, her people visited a high place near the camp whereon a festival of Midian, idolatrous, licentious in the extreme, was in process, and they went after this putrid paganism and polluted their own souls with the idolatrous orgy. Then it was that Moses, speaking for the Lord, said, Take all the heads of the people, and hang them up before the Lord against the sun, and while that hideous row of dead ones was still before their eyes, the plague fell on the camp and 24,000 of the transgressors perished! But severe as it was, Israel soon forgot, showing that it was not too severe, and raising the question as to whether it was severe enough to impress the truth concerning idolatry and all its infamous effects.

Solomon is commonly reputed to have been the wisest of men, and yet it was his love alliances with the strange women of Moab, Ammon, Zidon and the Hittites, these very people, that brought the Lords anger against him and compelled God to charge him with having turned from the Lord God of Israel and in consequence of which God said, I will surely rend the kingdom from thee, and will give it to thy servant (1Ki 11:11).

Again and again the kingdom has been lost after the same manner. The present peril of the church is at this point, and by its alliance with the world, the kingdom of our Lord is delayed, and Satan, the prince of this world, remains in power, and instead of 24,000 people perishing in judgment, tens of thousands and millions of people perish through this compromise, and swallowed up in sin, rush into hell.

But to follow the text further is to find their restoration to Gods favor rested with genuine repentance. There are recorded in Judges seven apostasies; they largely result from one sin. There are seven judgments, increasing in severity, revealing Gods determined purpose to correct and save; and there are seven recoveries, each of them in turn the result of repentance. God never looks upon a penitent man, a penitent people, a penitent church, a penitent nation, without compassion and without turning from His purposes of judgment. When the publican went up into the temple to pray, his was a leprous soul, but when he smote upon his breast and cried, God be merciful to me a sinner, his was the instant experience of mercy. When at Pentecost, 2500 sincere souls fell at the feet of Peter and the other Apostles, and cried, Men and brethren, what shall we do, the response was, Repent and be baptized every one of you in the Name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and the promise was, Ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

When David, who was a child of God, guilty of murder and adultery combined, poured out his soul as expressed in the Fifty-first Psalm, God heard that prayer, pardoned those iniquities, restored him to the Divine favor, and showered him with proofs of the Divine love.

When Nineveh went down in humility, a city of 600,000 souls, every one of whom from Sardana-palus, the king on the throne, to the humblest peasant within the walls, proving his repentance by sitting in sackcloth and ashes, God turned at once from the evil He had thought to do unto them and He did it not, and Nineveh was saved.

The simple truth is, God has no pleasure in the death of the wicked. He never punishes from preference, but only for our profit; and, even then, like a father, He suffers more deeply than the children upon whom His strokes of judgment fall.

What a contrast to that statement of Scripture, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, is that other sentence, Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of His saints. The reason is not far to seek. In the first case it is death indeed; death fearful, death eternal. In the second case, death is a birth, a release from the flesh that held to a larger, richer, fuller life. In that God takes pleasure.

There is then for the sinner no royal road to the recovery of Gods favor. It is the thorny path of repentance instead. It is through Bochim, the Vale of Tears; but it were just as well that the prodigal, returning home, should not travel by a flowery path. He will be the less tempted to go away again if his back-coming is with agony, and home itself will seem the more sweet when reached if there his weary feet find rest for the first time, and from their bleeding soles the thorns are picked; if there his nakedness is clothed, his hunger is fed and his sense of guilt is kissed away. Oh, the grace of God to wicked men the moment repentance makes possible their forgiveness!

The court in Minneapolis yesterday illustrated this very point. When a young man, who had been wayward indeed, who had turned highway-robber, saw his error, sobbed his way to Christ and voluntarily appeared in court and asked to have sentence passed, newspapers expressed surprise that the heart of the judge should have been so strangely moved, and that the sentence the law absolutely required to be passed upon him, should have been, by the judge, suspended, and the young man returned to his home and wife and babe. But our Judge, even God, is so compassionate that such conduct on His part excites no surprise. It is His custom! Were it not so, every soul of us would stand under sentence of death. The law which is just and holy and good has passed that sentence already, and it is by the grace of God we have our reprieve. Seven apostasies? Yes! Seven judgments? Yes! But seven salvations! Set that down to the honor and glory of our God! It is by grace we are saved!

THE SUCCESSIVE JUDGES

Evidently God has no special regard for some of our modern superstitions, for in this period of conquest He deliberately chooses thirteen judges and sets them over Israel in turn, beginning with Othniel, the son of Kenaz, and nephew of Caleb, and concluding with Samson, the son of Manoah.

They represented varied stations of Israelitish society. A careful review of their personal history brings a fresh illustration of the fact that God is no respector of persons; and it also illustrates the New Testament statement that Not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called. With few exceptions these judges had not been heard of until their appointment rendered necessary some slight personal history. That is the Divine method until this hour. How seldom the children of the great are themselves great. How often, when God needs a ruler in society, He seeks a log cabin and chooses an angular ladAbe Lincoln. The difference between the inspired Scriptures and yesterdays newspaper is in the circumstance that the Scriptures tell the truth about men and leave God to do the gilding and impart the glory, instead of trying to establish the same through some noble family tree. There is a story to the effect that a young artist, working under his master in the production of a memorial window that represented the greatest and best that art ever knew, picked up, at the close of the day, the fragments of glass flung aside, and finally wrought from them a window more glorious still. Whether this is historically correct or not, we know what God has done with the refuse of society again and again. Truly

God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:

That no flesh should glory in His presence * * * * He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord (1Co 1:27-29; 1Co 1:31).

Out of these un-named ones some were made to be immortalGideon, Jephthae, Samson, Deborah.

Gideon, the son of Joash, became such because he dared to trust God. The average Captain of hosts wants men increased that the probabilities of victory may grow proportionately. At the word of the Lord Gideon has his hundreds of thousands and tens of thousands reduced to a handful. What are three hundred men against the multitude that compassed him about? And what are pitchers, with lights in them, against swords and spears and stones; and yet his faith failed not! He believed that, God with him, no man could be against him. When Paul comes to write his Epistle to the Hebrews and devotes a long chapter of forty verses to a list of names made forever notable through faith, Gideon and Barak and Samson and Jephthaethese all appear, and they are put there properly, reason confirming revelation. Barak had faced the hundreds of iron chariots of the enemy, and yet at the word of the Lord, had dared to brave and battle them. Samson, with no better equipment than the jaw-bone of an ass, had slain his heaps. Jephthae, when he had made a vow to the Lord, though it cost him that which was dearer than life, would keep it. Such characters are safe in history. Whatever changes may come over the face of the world, however notable may eventually be names; whatever changes may occur in the conceptions of men as to what makes for immortality, those who believe in God will abide, and childrens children will call their names blessed. Gideon will forever stand for a combination of faith and courage. Barak will forever represent the man who, at the word of the Lord, will go against great odds. Jephthae will forever be an encouragement to men who, having sincerely made vows, will solemnly keep the same; and Samson will forever represent, not his prowess, but the strength of the Lord, which, though it may express itself in the person of a man, knows no limitations so long as that man remains loyal to his vows, and the spirit of the Lord rests upon him.

Before passing from this study, however, permit me to call your attention to the fact that there was made a political exception in the matter of sex. We supposed that the putting of woman into mans place is altogether a modern invention. Not so; it is not only a fact in English language but in human history, that all rules have their exceptions. Gods rule for prophets is men, and yet the daughters of Philip were prophetesses. Gods rule for kings is men, and yet one of the greatest of rulers was Queen Victoria. Gods rule for judges is men, and yet Deborah was long since made an exception. Let it be understood that the exception to the rule is not intended to supplant the rule. The domestic circle is Gods choice for womankind, and her wisdom, tact and energy are not only needed there, but find there their finest employment. And yet there are times when through the indifference of men, or through their deadness to the exigencies of the day, God can do nothing else than raise up a Deborah, speak to a Joan of Arc, put on the throne a Victoria.

I noticed in a paper recently a discussion as to whether women prominent in politics proved good mothers, and one minister at least insisted that they did. We doubt it! The text speaks of Deborah as a mother in Israel, but we find no mention of her children. Our judgment is that had there been born to her a dozen of her own Israel might never have known her leadership. The unmarried woman, or the barren wife, may have time and opportunity for social and political concern; but the mother of children commonly finds her home sphere sufficient for all talents, and an opportunity to reach society, cleanse politics, aid the church, help the world, as large an office as ever came to man. However, let it be understood that all our fixed customs, all our standard opinions, give place when God speaks. If it is His will that a woman judge, then she is best fitted for that office; if He exalts her to lead armies, then victory will perch upon her banners; if He calls her to the place of power on the throne, then ruling wisdom is with her.

In the language of the Apostle Paul, And what shall I say more, for the time would fail me to tell of Gideon and of Samson and of Barak and of Jepkthae. They are all great characters and worthy extended discussion. It would equally fail me to rehearse the confusion, civil and religious, that follows from the seventeenth chapter of this Book to the end, but in chapters nineteen to twenty-one there is recorded an incident that cannot in justice to an outline study, be overlooked, for it results in

THE CIVIL WAR

Tracing that war to its source, we find it was the fruit of the adoption of false religions. We have already seen some of the evil effects of this intermingling with heathen faiths, but we need not expect an end of such effects so long as the compromise obtains. There is no peace in compromise; no peace with your enemies. A compromise is never satisfactory to either side. Heathen men do not want half of their polytheism combined with half of your monotheism. They are not content to give up a portion of their idolatry and take in its place praises to the one and only God. The folly of this thing was shown when a few years since the leaders of the International Sunday School Association attempted to temporarily affiliate Christianity with Buddhism. The native Christians in Japan, in proportion to their sincere belief in the Bible arid in Christ, rejected the suggestion as an insult to their new faith, and the followers of Buddha and the devotees of Shintoism would not be content with Christian conduct unless the Emperor was made an object of worship and Christian knees bowed before him. It must be said, to the shame of certain Sunday School leaders, that they advocated that policy and prostrated themselves in the presence of His Majesty to the utter disgust of their more uncompromising fellows. The consequence was, no Convention of the International Association has been so unsatisfactory and produced such poor spiritual results as Tokios.

Confusion is always the consequence of compromise, and discontent is the fruit of it, and fights and battles and wars are the common issue.

Idolatry is deadly; graven images cannot be harmonized with the true God. The first and second commandments cannot be ignored and the remainder of the Decalog kept. It is God or nothing! It is the Bible or nothing! It is the faith once delivered or infidelity!

The perfidy of Benjamin brought on the battle. We have already seen that men grow like those with whom they intimately associate. This behavior on the part of the Benjamites is just what you would have expected. The best of men still have to battle with the bad streak that belongs to the flesh incident to the fall; and, when by evil associations that streak is strengthened, no man can tell what may eventually occur. Had this conduct been recorded against the heathen, it would not have amazed us at all. We speedily forget that as between men there is no essential difference. Circumstances and Divine aidthese make a difference that is apparent indeed; but it is not so much because one is better than the other, but rather because one has been better situated, less tempted, more often strengthened; or else because he has found God and stands not in himself but in a Saviour.

Pick up your paper tomorrow morning and there will be a record of deeds as dark as could be recorded against the natives of Africa, or those of East India or China, Siberia or the South Sea Islands. The conduct of these men toward the concubine was little worse than that of one of our own citizens in a land of civilization and Christianity, who lately snatched a twelve-year-old girl and kept her for days as his captive, and when at last she eluded him, it was only to wander back to her home, despoiled and demented. Do you wonder that God is no respecter of persons? Do you wonder that the Bible teaches there is no difference? Do you doubt it is all of grace?

The issues of that war proved the presence and power of God. There are men who doubt if God is ever in battle; but history reveals the fact that few battles take place without His presence. The field of conflict is commonly the place of judgment, and justice is seldom or never omitted. We may be amazed to see Israel defeated twice, and over 40,000 of her people fall, when as a matter of fact she went up animated by the purpose of executing vengeance against an awful sin. Some would imagine that God would go with them and not a man would fall, and so He might have done had Israel, including Judah and all loyal tribes, been themselves guiltless. But such was not the truth! They had sins that demanded judgment as surely as Benjamins sin, and God would not show Himself partial to either side, but mete out judgment according to their deserts. That is why 40,000 of the Israelites had to fall. They were facing then their own faithlessness. They were paying the price of their own perfidy. They were getting unto themselves proofs that their fellowship with the heathen and their adoption of heathen customs was not acceptable with God.

Many people could not understand why England and France and Belgium and Canada and Australia and America should have lost so heavily in the late war, 19141918, believing as we did believe that their cause was absolutely just. Why should God have permitted them to so suffer in its defense? Millions upon millions of them dying, enormous wealth destroyed, women widowed, children orphaned, lands sacked, cities burned, cathedrals ruined, sanctuaries desecrated. The world around, there went up a universal cry, Why? And yet the answer is not far to seek. England was not guiltless; France was not guiltless; Belgium was not guiltless.

Poor Belgium! All the world has turned to her with pity and we are still planning aid for the Belgians and to preach to them and their children the Gospel of grace, and this we should do; but God had not forgotten that just a few years ago Belgium was blackening her soul by her conduct in the Belgian Congo. Natives by the score and hundreds were beaten brutally, their hands cut off because they did not carry to the Belgian king as much rubber and ivory as Belgian avarice demanded. American slavery, in its darkest hour, never knew anything akin to the oppression and persecution to which Belgium subjected the blacks in the Congo. Significant, indeed, is the circumstance that when the Germans came into Belgium, many Belgian hands were cut off; hapless and helpless children were found in this mangled state. Frightful as it was, it must have reminded Belgian authorities of their sins in Africa and of the certainty and exactitude of final judgment.

We have an illustration of this truth in the Book of Judges. When Judah went up against the Canaanites and the Lord delivered them into his hands, they slew in Bezek 10,000 men. They found Adoni-Bezek, the king, and fought against him, and caught him and cut off his thumbs and great toes. We cry Horror! and wonder that Gods own people could so behave; but, complete the sentence, and you begin to see justice, And Adoni-bezek said, Threescore and ten kings, having their thumbs and their great toes cut off, gathered their meat under my table. As I have done, so God hath requited me (Jdg 1:7).

Think of England in her infamous opium traffic, forcing it upon natives at the mouths of guns, enriching her own exchecquer at the cost of thousands and tens of thousands of hapless natives of East India and China!

Think of France, with her infidelity, having denied God, desecrated His sabbath, rejected His Son and given themselves over to absinthe and sensuality!

Think of the United States with her infamous liquor traffic, shipping barrels upon barrels to black men and yellow men, and cursing the whole world to fill her own coffers.

Tell me whether judgment was due the nations, and whether they had to see their sin in the lurid light of Belgian and French battlefields; but do not overlook the fact that when the war finally ends, Benjamin, the worst offender, the greater sinner, goes down in the greatest judgment, and one day Benjamins soldiers are almost wiped from the earth! Out of 26,700, 25,000 and more perish. Tell us now whether judgment falls where judgment belongs!

Take the late war. Again and again Germany was triumphant, but when the Allies had suffered sufficiently and had learned to lean not to themselves but upon the Lord; when, like Israel, they turned from hope in self and trusted in God, then God bared His arm in their behalf and Germany went down in defeat, a defeat that made their come-back impossible; a defeat that fastened upon them the tribute of years; a defeat that proved to them that, great as might have been the sins of the allied nations, greater still, in the sight of God, was their own sin; for final judgment is just judgment.

God is not only in history; God has to do with the making of history. If men without a king behave every one as is right in his own eyes, the King of all kings, the Lord of all lords, will do that which will eventually seem right in the eyes of all angels and of all good men. That is GOD!

Fuente: The Bible of the Expositor and the Evangelist by Riley

A TRAGIC CHAPTER IN ISRAELS HISTORY

(Jdg. 19:1-30.)

HOMILETICS

This chapter contains the history of an unmitigated abomination. Perhaps the best comment upon it is to pass it by. But nothing in human life does God pass by. It seems to be needed, that there should be a few specimens recorded of the darkest phases of human depravity, if for no other reason, than to show to what depths in the mire of sin even professed worshippers of the true God may sink, when given up to the lusts of their own hearts. It shows also how far the hand of redeeming grace has to stretch, ere great sinners can be received back into the Divine favour. It is not necessary to do more here, than to take a glance down the page.

What we have got here is a specimen of the low morality, which existed in the only church of God on earth in that age. Not that every place was so bad as Gibeah, but that such a scandal was possible in even one place, so soon after the days of Joshua, for Phinehas, who was for some time contemporary with Joshua, was still acting as priest before the ark (Jdg. 20:28). The case of a Levite is selected, one of the sacred tribe, and therefore presumed to be an exemplary keeper of the law. We hear first of

1. His unlawful wedlock. He took to him a concubine. This tie, whatever it was, still permitted of her partner being called her husband (Jdg. 19:3). But it was essentially a doubtful morality, of the kind described in Mat. 19:8. Such a connection was no longer tolerated, when the Saviour appeared and brought out the spirit of the law (Mat. 19:4-6).

2. The unfaithful conduct of the woman. Jdg. 19:2. A heinous sin against God, and against her husband.

3. Little is made of so great a crime. Jdg. 19:3. The husband, though a Levite, appears to have said nothing by way of condemning such conduct. Had the sin been fully and faithfully dealt with, and suitable penitence been exercised, there might then have been reconciliation with God through the blood of atonement. Till that was done, the way was not clear for a proper arrangement between husband and wife.

4. To cover up sin will not bring prosperity (Jdg. 19:3-4). So they wrap it up (Pro. 28:13). The God with whom we have to deal is a holy God, and evil-doers shall not stand in His sight.

5. The greatest sinner is invited to return in any age. However great Gods abhorrence of sin, it is the uniform testimony of His word that all manner of sin shall be forgiven unto men on due repentance, and the exercise of trust in the Lord Jesus as our Saviour.

6. The great harm that may arise from indolence and indecision. Jdg. 19:5-8.

The fearful tragedy that happened might have been prevented had the parties in the case shaken off their sloth, and gone their way at an early hour. Love of ease is natural, but must be given up at the call of duty. Delays are dangerous.

7. The people of God in this world live in the midst of enemies. Jdg. 19:10-13. Woe is me that I sojourn in Mesech.

8. Human sympathy is dried up in the breasts of those who cast off God (Jdg. 19:15).

How different the case of Job (Job. 31:32). But where God is cast out, there is no room for man. Where there is no fear of God, selfishness and inhumanity reign supreme.

9. The value of one friend where all are cold (Jdg. 19:15; Jdg. 19:20).

Examples: The thief on the cross (Luk. 23:41); Onesiphorus (2Ti. 1:15-17); Timothy (Php. 2:19-21); Epaphroditus (Php. 2:25; Php. 2:27).

10. A Canaanite vice found in an Israelitish city (1Co. 15:33, with Lev. 18:22-25; Lev. 18:27-28). The sins of Sodom were found in Benjamin, showing how ripe they were for ruin.

11. Radical error of religious belief is contemporaneous with grievous lapse into sin. When the Lord of the conscience is denied, the chief restraint on the depravity of the heart is removed, and like the waters of the lake when the barriers are burst it rushes out till it finds its lowest depth.

12. The doom of the impenitent offender (Jdg. 19:25-27).

13. The publication of the horrid crime (Jdg. 19:29).

14. The sensation of horror caused throughout Israel (Jdg. 19:30).

Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell

The Crime at Gibeah and Its Punishment Jdg. 19:1 to Jdg. 21:25

The Levite and His Concubine Jdg. 19:1-30

And it came to pass in those days, when there was no king in Israel, that there was a certain Levite sojourning on the side of mount Ephraim, who took to him a concubine out of Beth-lehem-judah.
2 And his concubine played the whore against him, and went away from him unto her fathers house to Beth-lehem-judah, and was there four whole months.
3 And her husband arose, and went after her, to speak friendly unto her, and to bring her again, having his servant with him, and a couple of asses: and she brought him into her fathers house: and when the father of the damsel saw him, he rejoiced to meet him.
4 And his father-in-law, the damsels father, retained him; and he abode with him three days: so they did eat and drink, and lodged there.
5 And it came to pass on the fourth day, when they arose early in the morning, that he rose up to depart: and the damsels father said unto his son-in-law, Comfort thine heart with a morsel of bread, and afterward go your way.
6 And they sat down, and did eat and drink both of them together: for the damsels father had said unto the man, Be content, I pray thee, and tarry all night, and let thine heart be merry.
7 And when the man rose up to depart, his father-in-law urged him: therefore he lodged there again.
8 And he arose early in the morning on the fifth day to depart: and the damsels father said, Comfort thine heart, I pray thee. And they tarried until afternoon, and they did eat both of them.
9 And when the man rose up to depart, he, and his concubine, and his servant, his father-in-law, the damsels father, said unto him, Behold, now the day draweth toward evening, I pray you tarry all night: behold, the day groweth to an end, lodge here, that thine heart may be merry; and tomorrow get you early on your way, that thou mayest go home.
10 But the man would not tarry that night, but he rose up and departed, and came over against Jebus, which is Jerusalem; and there were with him two asses saddled, his concubine also was with him.
11 And when they were by Jebus, the day was far spent; and the servant said unto his master, Come, I pray thee, and let us turn into this city of the Jebusites, and lodge in it.
12 And his master said unto him, We will not turn aside hither into the city of a stranger, that is not of the children of Israel; we will pass over to Gibeah.
13 And he said unto his servant, Come, and let us draw near to one of these places to lodge all night, in Gibeah, or in Ramah.
14 And they passed on and went their way; and the sun went down upon them when they were by Gibeah, which belongeth to Benjamin.
15 And they turned aside thither, to go in and to lodge in Gibeah: and when he went in, he sat him down in a street of the city: for there was no man that took them into his house to lodging.
16 And, behold, there came an old man from his work out of the field at even, which was also of mount Ephraim; and he sojourned in Gibeah: but the men of the place were Benjamites.
17 And when he had lifted up his eyes, he saw a wayfaring man in the street of the city: and the old man said, Whither goest thou? and whence comest thou?
18 And he said unto him, We are passing from Beth-lehem-judah toward the side of mount Ephraim; from thence am I: and I went to Beth-lehem-judah, but I am now going to the house of the Lord; and there is no man that receiveth me to house.
19 Yet there is both straw and provender for our asses; and there is bread and wine also for me, and for thy handmaid, and for the young man which is with thy servants: there is no want of any thing.
20 And the old man said, Peace be with thee; howsoever let all thy wants lie upon me; only lodge not in the street.
21 So he brought him into his house, and gave provender unto the asses: and they washed their feet, and did eat and drink.
22 Now as they were making their hearts merry, behold, the men of the city, certain sons of Belial, beset the house round about, and beat at the door, and spake to the master of the house, the old man, saying, Bring forth the man that came into thine house, that we may know him.
23 And the man, the master of the house, went out unto them, and said unto them, Nay, my brethren, nay, I pray you, do not so wickedly; seeing that this man is come into mine house, do not this folly.
24 Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man do not so vile a thing.
25 But the men would not hearken to him: so the man took his concubine, and brought her forth unto them; and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go.
26 Then came the woman in the dawning of the day, and fell down at the door of the mans house where her lord was, till it was light.
27 And her lord rose up in the morning, and opened the doors of the house, and went out to go his way: and, behold, the woman his concubine was fallen down at the door of the house, and her hands were upon the threshold.
28 And he said unto her, Up, and let us be going. But none answered. Then the man took her up upon an ass, and the man rose up, and gat him unto his place.
29 And when he was come into his house, he took a knife, and laid hold on his concubine, and divided her, together with her bones, into twelve pieces, and sent her into all the coasts of Israel.
30 And it was so, that all that saw it said, There was no such deed done nor seen from the day that the children of Israel came up out of the land of Egypt unto this day: consider of it, take advice, and speak your minds.

1.

When did the evils recorded in this chapter take place? Jdg. 19:1

The death of the Levites concubine occurred sometime during the period of the judges. It was described as the era when there was no king in Israel. Once again the Bible student needs to be reminded that this event probably did not occur after the death of Samson, Chapters seventeen and eighteen tell the story of the establishment of the idolatrous worship set up by the men from Dan. Chapters nineteen, twenty, and twenty-one tell the story of the death of the Levites concubine and the civil war which followed. Both appendices following the close of the sixteenth chapter of Judges are designed to give insight into the life of the period.

2.

What were the evils of concubinage? Jdg. 19:2

Concubines did not have the ties of family devotion and were easily led into sin. The concubine of the Levite played the harlot against him and eventually returned to her fathers house in Bethlehem. She remained separated from her husband for four months. In the days of Abraham, Hagar was used by Sarah to raise up a son by natural means instead of waiting for Gods promise to be fulfilled through herself. As a result, jealousy came into Abrahams family; and eventually Hagar and Ishmael were forced to flee (Gen. 21:21). God had never intended for a man to have more than one wife. The two were to become one flesh and live together in all the blessings of matrimony.

3.

Why did the woman take her husband to her fathers house? Jdg. 19:3

The Levite spoke kindly to his concubine who had sinned against him and fled from him. He wanted to persuade her to return with him to the land of Ephraim. As a result of his kind approach to her she gladly brought him to her fathers house. Her father was pleased to meet the Levite and entertained him royally.

4.

What indications are given of the easy habits of the time? Jdg. 19:5

They seemed to be in no hurry to end a visit. No pressing duties called them away. The three days which were spent in the house of the concubines father were devoted largely to eating and drinking. Their hearts were merry, and none of them seemed to be particularly distressed over the unfaithfulness of the concubine. There are no national calamities to upset the domestic scene, and the passage presents the picture of a time of great tranquility.

5.

Why did the womans father insist on his staying? Jdg. 19:7-8

The concubines father seems to have been especially happy to have his daughters husband in his house. One gets the impression from reading the narrative that this was the first time the man had met the fellow who took his daughter to be a concubine. Normally a man would arrange for some kind of dowry before he could take another mans daughter to be his wife or concubine. Even if the father of the concubine had already met the Levite, he was glad for him to make this journey from the north country to his home in Bethlehem. After he arrived, he wanted him to stay as long as possible.

6.

What was the distance traveled? Jdg. 19:10

From Shiloh to Bethlehem would be not more than a days journey. It would have been rather easy for the Levite to make the trip from Bethlehem to Jerusalem in less than half of a day. He could have traveled then on his donkey from Jerusalem to the house of the Lord during the rest of the day. Since he did not get an early start, however, he was able to travel only as far as Gibeah before the sun went down.

7.

Why did the Levite refuse to stay in Jerusalem? Jdg. 19:12

The Israelites had failed to drive the Jebusites from the citadel which was later called Jerusalem. Joshua had defeated the southern coalition which was led by Adoni-zedek, the king of Jerusalem. The territory including the site had been assigned to the tribe of Benjamin, but the Benjamites had failed to drive out the Jebusites, As a result, we read that the Jebusites inhabited Jerusalem until the day of the writing of the book of Judges (Jdg. 1:21). It was not until David took the city after his seven-year reign at Hebron and made it his capital that Jerusalem came finally into the possession of the Israelites. Since the inhabitants of the site of Jerusalem were not Israelites, the Levite was afraid to stay among them. He felt that these Canaanite peoples would be antagonistic towards him, but he little dreamed of the trouble he would find in a city belonging to one of the twelve tribes of Israel.

8.

Where was Gibeah) Jdg. 19:13

Gibeah was in the territory of Benjamin, just north of Jerusalem. It was the home of Saul, who became Israels first king. The site of the settlement was on the top of a hill north of Jerusalem. From this vantage point the inhabitants could see all the way to the Jordan valley on the east. They could see the hill country of Ephraim to the north. To the south lay the city of Jerusalem. On the west, the hill country of Judah rose to the horizon.

9.

Where was Ramah? Jdg. 19:13

Ramah was another height on still farther north from Gibeah. The Levite felt that he would be able to make it to Gibeah or Ramah before the sun went down, and for that reason he did not accept his servants proposal that they spend the night in Jebus. Ramah was the home of Samuel (1Sa. 1:1). The word itself means height, and both Gibeah and Ramah were no doubt in sight as the Levite spoke about them.

10.

Why did the man sit down in the street? Jdg. 19:15

The Levite did not find any inn where he could find public lodging. No acquaintance lived in the city. When he sat down in the street, no man had invited him to his house. He was preparing to spend the night in the street. Travelers are often forced to this extreme; and people of ancient times would lie on the ground, spread their large coats over them, and wait for the coming day. The Levite felt safer in the streets of a town than in the open highway where robbers and wild animals would threaten his safety.

11.

Where had the old man been working? Jdg. 19:16

It was customary for people to live in the villages and go to their fields to work during the day. When the sun set, they returned to the villages in order to find protection. As they lived together, they were able to protect one another. In addition, they enjoyed the fellowship as the men sat in the gates of the city and discussed the events of the day. Fellowship sometimes degraded into corruption as it had in Gibeah. These people, too, felt safer inside a citys walls than in the open field.

12.

Where was the house of the Lord? Jdg. 19:18

The Tabernacle was in Shiloh. Joshua had made arrangements for its being set up there before he died (Jos. 19:51). Eleazar the priest and Joshua the son of Nun distributed the land to the children of Israel as they met in Shiloh at the door of the tent of meeting. The Ark and the Tabernacle remained in Shiloh until the days of Eli when the Ark was captured by the Philistines.

13.

Why did the man of Gibeah take the Levite to his house? Jdg. 19:20

The man who came out of the fields to lodge in his house in Gibeah was also of Mount Ephraim. The rest of the people were members of the tribe of Benjamin. For this reason the Levite found a ready reception in the house of the old man, for the Levite, too, was from Ephraim. Furthermore, the hospitable host must have realized the wickedness of the community and feared for the safety of the Levite as he proposed to stay in the street.

14.

Who were the sons of Belial? Jdg. 19:22

This constantly recurring phrase is transliterated in the King James Version. In the American Standard Version it is translated. These men are called certain base fellows, They were wicked, and the imagination of the thoughts of their heart was only wicked continually. Elis two sons, who committed lewd acts with women who served at the Tabernacle, were also called by this name (1Sa. 2:12). In addition, it is said they knew not the Lord. Certainly any man who acts as these men did are men who do not know, at least do not serve, the Lord.

15.

Why did the host try to stop the men? Jdg. 19:23-24

The lord of the house felt that it was a special crime for these men of Gibeah to take a stranger who had found hospitality in his house and treat him shamefully. He did not rebuke them very sharply. At least he did not say that this was a sin against the law which God had given to the people of Israel by Moses. He simply called it folly and based his objection on the fact that the man had been invited to be a guest in his house.

16.

Who brought forth the concubine? Jdg. 19:25

The host had a daughter, a maiden; and he offered her to the base men who had come to get the Levite. He also told them that the Levite had a concubine and he offered to bring these two women out to them in order that they might humble them and do with them what seemed good to them. The men did not hearken to the host, however; and it is apparent that the Levite himself took his concubine and brought her forth unto them. He must have overheard his host trying to save him by offering his own daughter and the concubine. He was willing to make this sacrifice and give his concubine to the men who abused her all night.

17.

Why did the Levite dissect his concubine? Jdg. 19:29

The Levite cut his concubine into twelve pieces and sent a piece to each of the twelve tribes of Israel. He wanted them to have this vivid evidence of the terrible crime which had been committed in Gibeah of Benjamin. Saul, when he was asked to be king of Israel, sent a message with similar vivid evidence as he cut up his oxen and sent them around among the tribes of Israel. This was Sauls way of calling the people of Israel to war (1Sa. 11:7). The Levite must have hoped for the people of Israel to come to Gibeah to punish the wicked men who had killed his concubine.

18.

What message was sent with the pieces? Jdg. 19:30

There is no record of any written message going with the pieces of the concubine which were distributed among the tribes of Israel. It must have been clear to the recipients of this bloody testimony, however, that they were expected to do something about the crime. As a result, the reaction was quick. Those who considered the deed said that nothing like it had ever happened throughout all the time Israel had spent in Canaan. Such a wicked deed could not be allowed to go without punishment.

Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series

(1) On the side of mount Ephraim.Literally, on the two thighs (yarcethaim). (Comp. Psa. 128:3; Isa. 37:24.) As to the residence of the Levite at Mount Ephraim, see Note on Jdg. 17:8. It is probably a fortuitous coincidence that both this Levite and Jonathan have relations with Mount Ephraim and with Bethlehem.

Took to him a concubine.Such connections were not legally forbidden; yet it is probable that in the case of all but princes or eminent men they were looked on with moral disapprobation. She is called a wife or concubinei.e., a wife with inferior rights for herself and her children.

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

THE LEVITE AND HIS CONCUBINE, Jdg 19:1-30.

1. In those days When Phinehas, the grandson of Aaron, was high priest, (Jdg 20:28😉 consequently, not long after the days of Joshua.

Sojourning on mount Ephraim So that he was in the same vicinity where Micah dwelt. Jdg 17:1.

A concubine A wife of second rank, who had no other rights than those of cohabitation and subsistence, and even then the husband could send her away with a small present, as Abraham did Hagar. Gen 21:14. The practice is condemned by New Testament ethics, but by this standard we are not to judge the examples of Nahor, (Gen 22:24,) Abraham, (Gen 25:6,) Jacob, (Gen 30:3; Gen 35:22,) and other of the Old Testament worthies. The Law of Moses made provision for concubinage; but even its regulations touching man and wife were set aside by our Lord, and treated as a politic measure, in view of the hardness of the people’s hearts. Mat 19:8.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

Judges 19 . The Levite and His Concubine.

This chapter gives an account of the sad story of a Levite and his concubine, and of the evil consequences following it. It describes how she played the whore, and went away from him to her father’s house, to which he followed her. There he was hospitably entertained by her father for several days, and then set out on his journey back to his own country. And passing by Jebus or Jerusalem, he came to Gibeah, and could get no lodging, but at length was taken in by an old man, an Ephraimite.

But the house where he was enjoying hospitality was beset by some evil men in Gibeah, with the same intent with which the men of Sodom beset the house of Lot (Gen 19:1-11). And after some argument between the old man and them, the concubine was brought out to them and abused by them until she died. On this the Levite her husband cut her into twelve pieces, and sent the pieces into all the borders of Israel, as a shocking message to Israel of what had been done in their midst.

Why should such a story have been included in the sacred record? The first reason was because it demonstrated how far the people of Israel had fallen from what they once were. How they had been contaminated by the inhabitants of the land, with their sexually perverted ways, in which they had come to dwell. They no longer obeyed the commandments in the covenant, especially ‘you shall not commit adultery’ and ‘you shall not kill’. Secondly it demonstrated that the leadership of Israel were failing, and that their attitudes of heart were wrong. Every man did what was right in his own eyes (Jdg 17:6; Jdg 21:25). The tribes were not as tightly bound in the covenant as they should have been, although this incident greatly contributed to the cementing of that unity. Thirdly it demonstrated that when the right occasion came along they could act together as Yahweh had intended. And fourthly it stressed the sanctity of Levites. We note that the man’s name is never mentioned. That is because in a sense he represented all Levites. They were holy and not to be treated lightly.

Jdg 19:1 a

‘And it came to pass in those days, when there was no king in Israel.’

The idea is that there was no central authority to ensure the administration of justice, and the Kingship of Yahweh was being ignored. Thus there is reference to the fact that they no longer saw God as their king, and by failing to do so had reached this parlous position. It would appear that no strong central figures had replaced Joshua. So they looked to no one, and expected judgment from no one.

The system arranged by God had failed because of the slackness of the people of Israel and their failure to fully augment it. People were free to behave as they wished, in general only observing their local customs, and only accountable for their behaviour locally. This meant that someone from outside often had relatively little protection. So sins such as adultery, sodomy, murder, and so on were committed with impunity against them.

There was a central sanctuary which acted as a unifying force for the tribes, and there were those at the central sanctuary who could theoretically be appealed to, but they clearly had little influence in practise. They were dependent on the support of the tribes. And the tribal unity was spasmodic, and often casual, as the book of Judges has demonstrated. This was not the central living force that God had intended.

Jdg 19:1 b

‘That there was a certain Levite sojourning on the farther side of the hill country of Ephraim.’

He lived in a city that was on the side of those mountains of Ephraim furthest from Bethlehem-judah. As all Levites were, he was a ‘sojourner’, one who lived there but was not looked on as of permanent residence, because his portion was in Yahweh. Thus he should be treated differently under the law (Deu 12:19; Deu 14:27). There were also special laws protecting sojourners, and they applied to Levites as well, but they were often set aside in local situations when there was no central authority to exact them. Perhaps he chose to reside there as being near to the tabernacle of Shiloh, which was in that tribal area.

The Levites were spread throughout the tribes of Israel. Originally their responsibility had been the maintenance and protection of the Tabernacle, a responsibility they no doubt still fulfilled, and they were entitled to be maintained by tithes from the people (Num 18:21). The gathering and policing of tithes was itself a huge operation and the Levites no doubt worked with the priests in this, and had their part in ensuring that religious and sacrificial requirements generally were fulfilled. Certain cities had been set apart for them to live in (Numbers 35; Joshua 21), but they were not necessarily required to live there, and if tithes were not forthcoming they would need to find methods of survival. They enjoyed special protection under the law (Deu 12:19; Deu 14:27-29). So this man should have enjoyed double protection both as a Levite and a sojourner.

The Levites were also special in another way. As a result of the deliverance of the firstborn in Egypt the firstborn were seen as Yahweh’s. But the Levites took on this responsibility instead of the firstborn so that the firstborn were no longer bound. Thus they were owed a debt of gratitude by all Israelites for they stood in the place of their firstborn sons (Num 8:10; Num 8:16-19), and they were holy to Yahweh.

“A concubine.” A secondary wife, usually a slave, taken without the payment of a dowry. She did not enjoy the full privileges of a full wife, but was clearly seen here as a genuine wife under the law. The man is called her husband and her father is called his ‘father-in-law’. She may well have been his only wife. But she was of a different class. Or it may be that she was a Canaanite. This would explain her ‘whoredom’, which to her would simply be the fulfilling of the requirements of her religion.

“Out of Bethlehem-judah.” This was the same area as that from which the wicked Levite came, spoken of in the preceding chapters (Jdg 17:8), who was the means of spreading ‘idolatry’ in Israel, which tended to go along with sexual misbehaviour in prostitution and homosexual activity. It is apparent that the people had come to look to the Levites in religious matters, for, as mentioned above, it was partly for this that they were spread among the tribes. And Levites were therefore often required, and willing, to act beyond their position. The behaviour of that particular Levite, acting as a priest, had led to the lowering of morals in the area and there may be the hint that Bethlehem-judah was tainted with idolatry. Certainly this woman was eventually to be the cause of a great shedding of blood in Israel, and almost of the destruction of the tribe of Benjamin.

These two instances may be seen as reflecting dishonour and disgrace on Bethlehem-judah. Yet from here would come such men as Boaz, Jesse, David, and eventually the Messiah Himself. The woman the Levite took is called in the Hebrew “a woman, a concubine”.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

Jdg 19:14  And they passed on and went their way; and the sun went down upon them when they were by Gibeah, which belongeth to Benjamin.

Jdg 19:14 “Gibeah, which belongeth to Benjamin” – Comments – In the time of Joshua, the tribe of Benjamin was allotted the city of Gibeon (Jos 18:25).

Jos 18:25, “Gibeon, and Ramah, and Beeroth,”

Jdg 19:16  And, behold, there came an old man from his work out of the field at even, which was also of mount Ephraim; and he sojourned in Gibeah: but the men of the place were Benjamites.

Jdg 19:16 “an old man from his work out of the field at even” – Comments – This old man was perhaps one of the few righteous men in the city, and he was a hard worker, working from down till dusk. The sons of Belial were children of darkness who sleep in the day and roved at night.

Jdg 19:18  And he said unto him, We are passing from Bethlehemjudah toward the side of mount Ephraim; from thence am I: and I went to Bethlehemjudah, but I am now going to the house of the LORD; and there is no man that receiveth me to house.

Jdg 19:18 “the house of the LORD” – Comments – The location for the house of Lord is most likely in Shiloh at this time in Israel’s history (Jdg 18:31).

Jdg 18:31, “And they set them up Micah’s graven image, which he made, all the time that the house of God was in Shiloh .”

Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures

The Levite And His Concubine

v. 1. And it came to pass in those days, when there was no king in Israel, when so many things happened which would not have taken place if there had been some one to enforce law and order in Israel, that there was a certain Levite sojourning on the side of Mount Ephraim, living outside of a Levitical city, in the more distant parts of this range, who took to him a concubine out of Bethlehem-judah, a secondary wife in addition to his real wife, this in itself indicating a decay of the priesthood.

v. 2. And his concubine played the whore against him, beyond him, she became unfaithful to the man whom she had willingly followed, and went away from him unto her father’s house to Bethlehem-judah, probably for fear of punishment, Deu 22:22, and was there four whole months, literally, some time, about four months.

v. 3. And her husband arose, he set out from home, and went after her, to speak friendly unto her, to speak to her heart, to show her that he carried no grudge against her, and to bring her again, having his servant with him and a couple of asses, one for the woman to return on; and she, having permitted herself to be assured of his entire friendliness, brought him into her father’s house, for only then would he accept his father-in-law’s hospitality; and when the father of the damsel saw him, he rejoiced to meet him.

v. 4. And his father-in-law, the damsel’s father, retained him, kept him from returning home by the exercise of an uncommon, exaggerated hospitality which may have been prompted to some extent by a feeling of guilt for not having returned the Levite’s concubine sooner; and he abode with him three days; so they did eat and drink and lodged there.

v. 5. And it came to pass on the fourth day, when they arose early in the morning, that he rose up to depart; and the damsel’s father said unto his son-in-law, Comfort thine heart with a morsel of bread, a true Oriental exaggeration of humility, for they were continually feasting, and afterward go your way.

v. 6. And they sat down, and did eat and drink both of them together, the women not being permitted to eat together with the men ; for the damsel’s father had said unto the man, Be content, I pray thee, he asked that favor of him, and tarry all night, and let thine heart be merry.

v. 7. And when the man rose up to depart, with an uneasy feeling that he really ought to be at home, his father-in-law urged him; therefore he lodged there again.

v. 8. And he arose early in the morning on the fifth day to depart; and the damsel’s father, still with the same excess of hospitality, said, Comfort thine heart, I pray thee. And they tarried until afternoon, literally, till the day declined, till past noon, and they did eat, both of them.

v. 9. And when the man rose up to depart, he and his concubine and his servant, his father-in-law, the damsel’s father, said unto him, Behold, now the day draweth toward evening, literally, the day sinks down, I pray you tarry all night; behold, the day groweth to an end, the pitching time of the day was near. Lodge here that thine heart may be merry; and tomorrow get you early on your way that thou mayest go home. The Levite’s experience was that of all weak and vacillating people: first, unnecessary delay and then overstrained hurry.

v. 10. But the man would not tarry that night, but he rose up and departed, and came over against Jebus, which is Jerusalem, for the road from Bethlehem to the north passed by Jerusalem ; and there were with him two asses saddled; his concubine also was with him.

v. 11. And when they were by Jebus, the day was far spent, it was late afternoon; and the servant said unto his master, Come, I pray thee, and let us turn in into this city of the Jebusites, for the city was still in the hands of the heathen at that time, and lodge in it.

v. 12. And his master said unto him, We will not turn aside hither into the city of a stranger, that is not of the children of Israel, for the Benjamites had not yet taken the city, Jdg 1:21, and he feared to be plundered by the Jebusites ; we will pass over to Gibeah, about as far north of Jerusalem as Bethlehem was south.

v. 13. And he said unto his servant, Come and let us draw near to one of these places to lodge all night, in Gibeah or in Ramah, another town nearby.

v. 14. And they passed on and went their way, having still some six or eight miles to travel. And the sun went down upon them when they were by Gibeah, which belongeth to Benjamin.

v. 15. And they turned aside thither, to go in and to lodge in Gibeah; and when he went in, he sat him down in a street of the city, in the open place or square of the city, where they expected some resident of the city to invite them into his house, according to ancient usage ; for there was no man that took them into his house to lodging, no one invited the traveler to the shelter of his roof.

v. 16. And, behold, there came an old man from his work out of the field at even, which was also of Mount Ephraim; and he sojourned in Gibeah, he was not a citizen of the town; but the men of the place were Benjamites.

v. 17. And when he had lifted up his eyes, he saw a wayfaring man in the street of the city, feeling the lack of hospitality in this city of Israel; and the old man, mindful of the love toward the stranger enjoined in the Law, Deu 10:19, said, Whither goest thou? And whence camest thou? This was said, either in true hospitable interest, or in surprise that a man should not have heard of the inhospitable disposition of this town.

v. 18. And he said unto him, We are passing from Bethlehem-judah toward the side of Mount Ephraim; from thence am I; and I went to Bethlehem-judah. But I am now going to the house of the Lord, that is, his walk in life, his occupation was at the house of Jehovah, the Levite thus mentioning his order; and there is no man that receiveth me to house, probably because they knew his occupation and were hostile to everything that reminded them of the true religion and of purity of life.

v. 19. Yet there is both straw and provender for our asses; and there is bread and wine also for me, and for thy handmaid, and for the young man which is with thy servants; there is no want of anything; they were not looking for charity, but only for shelter for the night.

v. 20. And the old man said, Peace be with thee; howsoever, let all thy wants lie upon me, he would care for all the needs of the travelers; only lodge not in the street.

v. 21. So he brought him into his house, and gave provender unto the asses; and they washed their feet, and did eat and drink, enjoying the hospitality of the old man. True hospitality is a virtue which cannot be practiced too often, for thereby some have entertained angels unawares, Heb 13:2.

Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann

EXPOSITION

Jdg 19:1

When there was no king (Jdg 17:6; Jdg 18:1; Jdg 21:25). It appears from Jdg 20:27, Jdg 20:28 that the events narrated in these three last chapters of the Book of Judges happened in the lifetime of Phinehas, and while the ark was at Shiloh (see Jdg 20:27, note). Phinehas evidently outlived Joshua (Jos 24:29, Jos 24:33), though there is no evidence to show how long. The events in these chapters must have occurred in the interval between the death of Joshua and the death of Phinehas. A certain Levite, etc. It is a curious coincidence that both the Levite whose sad story is here told, and the Levite the son of Gershom of whom we read in the preceding chapters, were sojourners in the hill country of Ephraim, and also closely connected with Bethlehem-judah. Perhaps the legitimate inference (see verse 18, and Jdg 20:26, Jdg 20:27) is that in both cases the Levites were drawn to Ephraim by the ark being at Shiloh, and also that there was a colony of Levites at Bethlehem-judah. Whether there was any connection between the presence of Levites at Bethlehem and the annual sacrifice at Bethlehem which existed in David’s time, and which argues the existence of a high place there, can only be a matter of conjecture (see 1Sa 9:13, and 1Sa 20:29). All we can say is that there was the universal prevalence of high-place worship during the time of the judges, and that the services of Levites were sought after in connection with it (Jdg 17:13). On the side. Hebrew, sides. In the masculine form the word means the hip and upper part of the thigh; in the feminine, as here, it is applied only to inanimate objects, as a house, the temple, a cave, the north, a pit, a country, etc; and is used in the dual number (see 1Sa 24:4; 1Ki 6:16; Psa 48:3; Psa 128:3; Isa 37:24; Eze 32:23, etc.). It means the innermost, hindmost, furthermost parts. Its application here to the northern side of Ephraim seems to imply that the writer wrote in the south, probably in Judah. A concubine. An inferior wife, who had not the same right for herself or for her children as the wife had (see Gen 25:6).

Jdg 19:2

Played the whore, etc. Perhaps the phrase only means that she revolted from him and left him. Her returning to her father’s house, and his anxiety to make up the quarrel, both discourage taking the phrase in its worst sense. Four whole months. Literally, days, four months; meaning either a year and four months, as in 1Sa 27:7, where, however, the and is expressed; or days (i.e. many days), viz; four months. For the use of days for a year see Exo 13:10; Jdg 17:10, etc.

Jdg 19:3

To bring her again. So the Keri. But the Cethib has to bring him, i.e. it, again, viz; her heart. But the phrase to speak to her heart is such a common one for to speak friendly or kindly to any one that it is not likely that it should here be used otherwise, so that the pronoun should refer to heart. If the masculine is here the right reading, it may be an archaism making the suffix of the common gender like the plural suffix in Jdg 19:24, which is masculine, though applied to women, and like the masculine pronoun itself, which is so used throughout the Pentateuch and elsewhere (see also Jdg 21:12; Exo 1:21). A couple of asses. One for himself and one for her. He rejoiced. No doubt, in part at least, because the expense of his daughter’s maintenance would be transferred from himself to his daughter’s husband.

Jdg 19:4

Retained him. See the same phrase 2Ki 4:8, where it is rendered she constrained him. The full phrase is in Gen 21:18, hold him in thy hand.

Jdg 19:5

Comfort thine heart, etc. Compare Gen 18:5.

Jdg 19:6

For the damsel’s father had said, etc; or rather, And the damsel‘s father said. He had not at first intended to stay on, but to go on his way after he had eaten and drunk (Jdg 19:5). But when they had prolonged their carousal, the father of the damsel persuaded him to stay on another night.

Jdg 19:7

He lodged there again. Literally, he returned and lodged there. The Septuagint and one Hebrew MS. read, And he tarried and lodged there.

Jdg 19:8

And they tarried. It should rather be rendered in the imperative mood: And tarry ye until the afternoon. So they did eat both of them. The imperative comfort thine heart is in the singular because only the man and the father-in-law are represented throughout as eating and drinking both of them together. The imperative tarry ye is in the plural because it applies to the wife as well as the man.

Jdg 19:9

Draweth toward evening. The Hebrew phrase, which is uncommon, is, The day is slackening to become evening, i.e. the heat and the light of the day are becoming slack and weak, and evening is coming on. The day groweth to an end. Another unusual phrase; literally, Behold the declining of the day, or, as some render it, the encamping of the day, as if the sun after his day’s journey was now pitching his tent for the night. Go home. Literally, to thy tent, as in Jdg 20:8. So the phrase, To your tents, O Israel, means, Go home (see 1Ki 12:16, etc.).

Jdg 19:10

Jebus. See Jdg 1:21, note. Jerusalem is numbered among Joshua’s conquests at Jos 10:23; Jos 12:10. But from this verse it would appear that the Israelite population had withdrawn and left the city to be entirely occupied by the Jebusites, who held it till the time of David (2Sa 5:6). Jerusalem is only about two hours from Bethlehem.

Jdg 19:12

Gibeah (or ha-Gibeah, the hill).. In the tribe of Benjamin (Jos 18:28); Saul’s birthplace. Its modern name is Jeba It would be about two and a half hours’ further journey from Jerusalem.

Jdg 19:13

Ramah (ha-Ramah, the height). Now er-Ram, less than an hour’s journey from Gibeah, both being about equi-distant from Jerusalem.

Jdg 19:15

A street of the city. Rather, the broad space or place near the gate, such as is usual in an Oriental city (cf. Rth 4:1). There was no man that took them into his house. This absence of the common rites of hospitality toward strangers was a sign of the degraded character of the men of Gibeah

, saying, It shall come to pass that all who see it will say, There hath been nothing done and nothing seen like this from the day, etc. But the A.V. makes very good sense, and the Hebrew will bear it. Consider of it, etc. The general sense of the whole nation was to call a national council to decide what to do. The Levite had succeeded in arousing the indignation of the twelve tribes to avenge his terrible wrong.

HOMILETICS

Jdg 19:1-30

The downward progress.

It is certainly not without a purpose that we have in Holy Scripture from time to time exhibitions of sin in its most repulsive and revolting forms. The general rule which tells us that “it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret” is, as it were, violated on these occasions, because it is more important that the depravity of which human nature is capable at its worst should be revealed, than that the blush of shame should be prevented by its concealment. Sin, in some of its forms, is so disguised, and toned down, and softened, that the natural mind of man does not shrink from it with abhorrence, or perceive its deadly nature, or its fatal consequences. But it is essential that sin should be known to be what it is, and especially that it should be made clear by what gradual descents a man may glide from one stage of wickedness to another, fill, under favouring circumstances, he reaches a depth of vileness which at one time would have seemed impossible. The process by which this descent is reached is not difficult to trace. There is in every man a certain moral sense which restrains him from the commission of certain acts, whether of falsehood, dishonesty, cruelty, injustice, sensuality, or any other form of sin. And while that moral sense is maintained in its vigour, such acts may appear to him impossible for him to commit. But this moral sense is weakened, and more or less broken down, by every action done in contradiction to its authority. At each successive stage of descent there is a less shock to the weakened moral sense by the aspect of such or such sins than there was at the preceding stage. The sin appears less odious, and the resisting power is less strong. It is very true that in many instances, even after the moral sense is broken down, the force of public opinion, the sense of a man’s own interests, habit, the authority of the law, and other causes external to a man’s self, operate to keep him within certain bounds, and to restrain him from certain excesses of unrighteousness. But, on the other hand, it may and often does happen that these counteracting causes are not in operation. A man is placed in a society where public opinion countenances vice, where he does not seem to be in danger of any loss in reputation or in fortune by the basest acts of villainy, where the authority of law is in abeyance, and, in a word, where there is no barrier but the fear of God and his own moral sense to restrain him from the lowest depths of wickedness. Then the melancholy transition from light to darkness takes place without let or hindrance. Self-respect, honour, decency, kind feeling towards others, reverence for mankind, justice, shame, burn gradually with a dimmer and a dimmer light within, and finally the last spark of the light of humanity goes out, and leaves nothing but the horror of a great darkness, in which no crime or wickedness shocks, and no struggle of the conscience is kept up. The men of Gibeah had reached this fearful depth. Not suddenly, we may be sure, for nemo repente fiet turpissimus; but by a gradual downward progress. There must have been for them a time when God’s mighty acts by the Red Sea, in the wilderness, in the wars of Canaan, were fresh in their thoughts, or in their, or their parents’, memories. The great name of Joshua, the living example of Phinehas, the traditions of the surviving elders, must have set before them a standard of righteousness, and impressed them with a sense of being the people of God. But they had not acted up to their high calling. Doubtless they had mingled with the heathen and learnt their works. Their hearts had declined from God, from his fear and service. Idolatry had eaten as a canker into their moral principle. Its shameful licentiousness had enticed and overcome them. The Spirit of God was vexed within them. The light of his word was quenched in the darkness of a gross materialism. Utter callousness of conscience came on. They began to sneer at virtue, and to scoff at the fear of God. When the fear of God was gone, the honour due to man and due to themselves would soon go too. And thus it came to pass at the time of this history that the whole community was sunk to the level of the vilest heathenism. Hospitality to strangers, though those strangers were their own flesh and blood, there was none; pity for the homeless and weary, though one of them was a woman, there was none either; respect for neighbours and fellow-townsmen, common decency and humanity, and every feeling which distinguishes a man from a wild beast or a devil, had wholly left their vile breasts, and, people of God as they were by privilege and covenant, they were in their abandonedness wholly the children of the devil. The example thus recorded with unflinching truth is needed for our generation. The Israelites were separated from God by abominable idolatries. The attempt of our age is to separate men from God by a blasphemous denial of his Being. The result is the same, however it may be arrived at Let the fear of God be once extinct in the human breast, and reverence for man and for a man’s own nature will inevitably perish too. Virtue cannot survive godliness. The spirit of man is fed by the Spirit of God. Extinguish the spiritual, and nothing of man remains but the corrupt flesh. And man without spirit is no man at all. It is in the cultivation of spiritual affections, in the constant strengthening of the moral sense, in steady resistance to the first beginnings of sin, and in steadfast cleaving to God, that man’s safety lies. It is in the maintenance of religion that the safety of society consists. Without the fear of God man would soon become a devil, and earth would become a hell.

HOMILIES BY A.F. MUIR

Jdg 19:1

Cf. on Jdg 18:1-13.M.

Jdg 19:4-10

Troublesome hospitality.

There is no more vivid picture of this extravagance. The Levite is delayed beyond all his reckoning, and perhaps through this is exposed to the evils subsequently narrated. There is a latent purpose betrayed by the anxiety of his host, which robs the offer of its simplicity and true hospitality. Like all who simulate a virtue for other than the mere love of it, he oversteps the bounds of modesty and decorum, and becomes an inconvenience instead of a help.

I. TRUE HOSPITALITY SHOULD BE FOR THE SAKE OF THE GUEST, AND NOT THE HOST.

II. EXCESS OF HOSPITALITY MAY ENTAIL INCONVENIENCE AND WRONG UPON OUR GUEST.

III. WHERE HOSPITALITY IS OFFERED FOR SOME EXTRINSIC PURPOSE, IT LOSES ITS TRUE CHARACTER.

IV. CHRIST THE GRAND EXAMPLE OF THE HOST. His moderation; careful calculation as to needs of his guests; fulness of human sympathy; impartation of spiritual grace to the humbler viands.M.

Jdg 19:14-21

Exceptional hospitality. How welcome!

Few of us but have at some time or other been belated in a strange place. We know nobody, and perhaps the people are reserved and suspicious. In such a case one friend, the only one, and, like this man, depending upon daily work for daily bread, becomes of inestimable service. The feeling of homelessness would be deepened in the case of the Levite when he recalled the good cheer from which he had come.

I. THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN STRANGERS THEMSELVES ARE BEST ABLE TO SYMPATHISE WITH STRANGERS. “He sojourned in Gibeah.”

II. THE POOR ARE OFTEN MORE HOSPITABLE THAN THE RICH. Their occupation often introduces them to persons in distress. “What would the poor do if it were not for the poor?” Simplicity of life tends to cultivate true sympathy.

III. THERE IS NO PLACE SO WICKED AND UNLOVING AS TO BE WITHOUT SOME WITNESS TO TRUTH AND GOODNESS. What a hell this Gibeah! Yet in it was one “like unto the Son of man.” What judgments he may have averted from its guilty inhabitants! Exceptional piety like this is no accidental thing; still less can it be the product of surrounding social influences. There are many ways in which we nay serve our fellows, if the love of God be in our hearts. Perhaps the people thought him eccentric; many would despise him as poor and a stranger; but he was the one man who did God’s work at a time when it sorely needed to be done. Shall not such hospitality be remembered in the kingdom? “I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat; I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink; I was a stranger, and ye took me in,” etc. (Mat 25:35, Mat 25:40).M.

Jdg 19:30

Unparalleled crime: the spirit and method in which its problems are to be met

The narrative of the book has been gradually deepening in tragic interest and moral importance; it now reaches its climax. The sentence which the people themselves passed upon this crime is repeated, that public inquiry may be directed to the significance of it, to the causes of its production, and the means for preventing the recurrence of similar enormities. To the author the unity of the nation, publicly represented in the tabernacle at Shiloh and the throne of the new kingdom, as the outward symbols of theocratic government, is the grand specific, and the proof of this may be said to be the dogmatic purpose of his work. Studying the same problem in its modern illustrations, we are carried onward to a deeper and more radical cause, and, consequently, to the need of a more potent and inward influence of restraint and salvation. But do we study sufficiently, from the higher philosophic and religious standpoint, the great crimes that startle us from day to day? Would it not be a “means of grace” by no means to be despised were we to grapple with the spiritual and practical bearings of such occurrences? There could not well be a more judicious course in such events than that advised by the writer. It is terse, natural, philosophic.

I. PERSONAL MEDITATION. “Consider it.“ In all its relations; our own as well as others. Let it show us the measure of public declension in morals and religion. Ask what neglect in the matter of education, social fellowship, or religious teaching and influence will account for it. How far am I as an individual in sympathy with the ideas, customs, and whole cast of public life in my time? How far am I my brother’s keeper? Can anything be done to rouse the public conscience to a keener and more influential activity? How easy or how difficult would a similar clime be to myself? Prayers that I may be kept from such a thing, and may lead others into a better way.

II. CONSULTATION. Not at random, but of persons qualified to advise. The deliberations of the “Prisoners’ Aid Society” would furnish a model for practical discussion. But “statistics” will never solve the problem. It is a question of human depravity, and a general repentance and alarmed attention is needed.

III. JUDGMENT. A careful, mature, well-informed and advised opinion; but, as being the opinion of the nation, it must be carried into effect. Something must be done, as well as thought. How valuable and influential such a judgment! It carries within itself the seeds of reformation and the conditions of recovery.M.

HOMILIES BY W.F. ADENEY

Jdg 19:16-21

Hospitality.

I. THOUGH MEN WHO ARE ABANDONED TO SINFUL PLEASURES MAY DELIGHT IN THE SOCIETY OF BOON COMPANIONS, THEY WILL SHOW THEMSELVES WANTING IN THE GENEROSITY OF TRUE HOSPITALITY. The men of Gibeah would unite in seeming friendliness for riotous wickedness; but they were wanting in the almost universal Eastern kindness to the stranger. The intemperate and vicious may appear to be more generous in their boisterous freedom than persons of more strict habits; but they are too selfish for real generosity. Self-indulgence is essentially selfish; vice is naturally morose.

II. WE SHOULD ENDEAVOUR TO DO RIGHT, THOUGH THIS MAY BE CONTRARY TO THE EXAMPLE OF OUR NEIGHBOURS. The old man was shocked at the inhospitality of the men of Gibeah. He was not a native of the place, and though he may have lived there long, he retained the kinder habits of his native home. When at Rome we are not to do as Rome does if this is clearly wrong. Englishmen abroad may find it difficult to resist the bad social influences of foreign towns; but if they are Christians they will feel that the universal prevalence of a bad custom is no justification for their adoption of it. Yet how difficult it is to see our duty when this is contrary to the habits of the society in which we live, and how much more difficult to be independent and firm in performing it!

III. KINDNESS TO STRANGERS IS A DUTY OBLIGATORY UPON ALL OF US. The graphic picture of the old man returning from his work in the fields at even and taking note of the houseless strangers is the one relieving feature in the terrible story of that night’s doings. Modern and Western habits may modify the form of our hospitality, but they cannot exonerate us from the duty to show similar kindness under similar circumstances. From the mythical gentleman who excused himself for not saving a drowning man because he had not been introduced to him, to the Yorkshire native, who, seeing a strange face in his hamlet, cried, “Let’s heave a brick at him!” how common it is for people to limit their kindness to persons of their acquaintance! The parable of the good Samaritan teaches us that any one who needs our help is our neighbour (Luk 10:29-37).

IV. KINDNESS TO STRANGERS MAY BE REWARDED BY THE DISCOVERY OF UNKNOWN TIES OF FRIENDSHIP. The old man finds that the Levite comes from his own part of the country. Doubtless he was thus able to hear tidings of old acquaintances. The world is not so large as it appears. The stranger is often nearer to us than we suspect. Though true hospitality expects no return (Luk 14:12-14), it may find unlooked-for reward in newly-discovered friendly associations.A.

Jdg 19:22-28

Monstrous wickedness.

Now and again the world is horrified by the news of some frightful atrocity before which ordinary sin looks almost virtuous. How is such wickedness possible?

I. MONSTROUS WICKEDNESS IS A FRUIT OF SELFISHNESS. The men of Gibeah were abandoned to gross self-indulgence till they utterly ignored the rights and sufferings of others. Nothing is so cruelly selfish as the degradation of that most unselfish affection love. When selfish pleasure is the one motive of conduct, men are blinded in conscience more than by any other influence.

II. MONSTROUS WICKEDNESS IS ATTAINED THROUGH SUCCESSIVE DEGREES OF DEPRAVITY. NO man suddenly falls from innocence to gross licentiousness and heartless cruelty. The first step is slight; each following step seems but a small increase of sin, till the bottom of the very pit of iniquity is reached almost unconsciously. If the wicked man could have foreseen the depth of his fall from the first he would not have believed it possible. Men should beware of the first step downward.

III. MONSTROUS WICKEDNESS IS MOST ADVANCED IN THE SOCIETY OF MANY BAD MEN. As fire burns most when drawn together, vice is most inflamed when men are companions in wickedness. Each tempts the rest by his example. Guilt appears to be lessened by being shared. Men excuse their conduct by comparing it with that of their neighbours. Thus the greatest depravity is most often seen in citiesin the concourse of many men. In the excitement of a mob men will commit excesses from which they would shrink in solitary action. Yet responsibility is still individual, and each man must ultimately answer for his own sins.

IV. MONSTROUS WICKEDNESS IS MADE POSSIBLE BY THE VERY GREATNESS OF MAN‘S NATURE. Human nature has a wide range of capacities. Man can rise infinitely above the brute, and he can fall infinitely below the brute. He can rise to the angelic, he can fall to the devilish. His originality of imagination, power of inventiveness, and freedom of will open to him avenues of evil as well as pathways of good which are closed to the more dull life of the animal world. The greater the capacity of the instrument, the more horrible is the discord which results from its getting out of tune. Those men who have the highest genius have the faculty for the worst sin. So tremendous is the capacity of the soul both for good and for evil, that the wise and humble man, fearing to trust it alone to the temptations of life, will learn to “commit it to the keeping of a faithful Creator” (1Pe 4:19).A.

Jdg 19:30

The duty of considering painful subjects.

I. IT IS WRONG FOR THE CHURCH TO IGNORE THE WICKEDNESS OF THE WORLD. The Church is not at liberty to enjoy the flowers and fruits of her “little garden walled around” to the neglect of the waste howling wilderness outside. She has no right to shut her eyes to the world’s sin while she dreams fair dreams of the ultimate perfection of mankind. A good deal of foolish optimism is talked by people who will not take the trouble to inquire into the real state of society. That is a false fastidiousness which refuses to take note of dark subjects because they are revolting and contaminating. True purity will be shocked not simply at the knowledge of evil, but more at the existence of it, and will find expression not merely in shunning the sight of it, but in actively overcoming it. Such action, however, can only be taken after the evil has been recognised. It is, therefore, the work of the Church to consider seriously the fearful evils of profligacy, intemperance, and social corruption generally. The duty of contemplating heavenly things is no excuse for ignoring the evil of the world, which it is our express duty to enlighten and purify by means of the gospel of Christ.

II. MONSTROUS WICKEDNESS SHOULD EXCITE DEEP AND SERIOUS CONSIDERATION. It is easy to be indignant. But the hasty passion of indignation may do more harm than good. It may strike in the wrong place; it may only touch superficial symptoms and leave the root of the evil; and it is likely to die down as quickly as it springs up. Great sins should be visited not with the rage of vindictiveness, but with grave, severe justice. We should “consider and take advice,” reflect, consult, discuss the cause and the remedy. Undisciplined human nature will express horror and seek revenge at the revelation of a great crime. It wants Christian thoughtfulness and a deep, sad conviction of duty to practise self-restraint in the moment of indignation, and to investigate the painful subject with care after the interest of a temporary excitement has flagged.

III. IT IS OUR DUTY TO SPEAK OUT AND TAKE ACTION IN RELATION TO PAINFUL SUBJECTS WHEN ANYTHING CAN BE DONE TO EFFECT AN IMPROVEMENT. Evils are allowed to go unchecked because a false modesty dreads to speak of them. The men and women who overcome this and bravely advocate unpopular questions should be treated with all honour by the Christian Church. If the Christian does nothing to check the vicious practices and corrupt institutions which surround him, he becomes responsible for their continued existence.A.

Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary

CHAP. XIX.

A Levite passes the night in Gibeah of Benjamin: the men of Gibeah abuse his concubine to death: the Levite divides her body into twelve parts, which he sends to the twelve tribes.

Before Christ 1426.

Jdg 19:1. Took to him a concubine Women of this sort differed little from the wife, except in some outward ceremonies and stipulations, but agreed with her in all the true essences of marriage, and gave themselves up to the husband, (for so he is called in the next chapter, Jdg 19:4.) with faith plighted, with sentiment, and with affection. See Selden de Jur. Nat. et Gent. l. v. c. 7.

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

SECOND SECTION

The Story Of The Infamous Deed Perpetrated At Gibeah, And Its Terrible Consequences Another Illustration Of The Evils That Result When every Man Does What Is Good In His Own Eyes.

____________________

A Levite, whose concubine has left him, goes to her fathers house, and persuades her to return. On their journey home, they enter Gibeah to pass the night there, but are inhospitably left in the market-place, until an Ephraimite resident of the city takes them home

Jdg 19:1-21.

1And it came to pass in those days, when there was no king in Israel, that there was a certain Levite sojourning on the side [in the hinder parts] of mount Ephraim, who took to him a concubine out of Beth-lehem-judah. 2And his concubine played the whore against him,1 and went away from him unto her fathers house to Bethlehem judah, and was there [some time (namely),] four whole [omit: whole] months. 3And her husband arose, and went after her, to speak friendly unto her, and to bring her again,2 having his servant with him, and a couple of asses: and she brought him into her fathers house: and when the father of the damsel saw him, he rejoiced to meet him. 4And his father-in-law, the damsels father, retained him; and he abode with him three days: so they did eat and drink, and lodged there. 5And it came to pass on the fourth day, when [that] they arose early in the morning, that [and] he rose up to depart: and the damsels father said unto his son-in-law, Comfort [Strengthen] thine heart with a morsel of bread, and afterward go your way. 6And they sat down, and did eat and drink both of them together: for [and] the damsels father had [omit: had] said unto the man, Be content, I pray thee, and tarry all [pass the] night, and let thine heart be merry. 7And when the man rose up to depart, his father-in-law urged him: therefore he [turned and] lodged there again. 8And he arose early in the morning on the fifth day to depart: and the damsels father said, Comfort [Strengthen] thine heart, I pray thee. And they tarried3 until afternoon [until the day declined], and they did eat both of them. 9And when the man rose up to depart, he, and his concubine, and his servant, his father-in-law, the damsels father, said unto him, Behold now, the day draweth toward evening, I pray you tarry all [pass the] night: [and again:] behold, the day groweth to an end [declines], lodge here, that [and let] thine heart may [omit: may] be merry; and to-morrow [you shall] get you early on your way, that thou mayest go home [and thou shalt go to thy tent]. 10But the man would not tarry that night, but he rose up and departed, and came over against Jebus, which is Jerusalem: and there were with him two asses saddled, his concubine also was 11with him. And when they were by Jebus, the day was far spent; and the servant said unto his master, Come, I pray thee, and let us turn in into this city of the Jebusites, and lodge in it. 12And his master said unto him, We will not turn aside hither4 into the city of a stranger, that is not of the children [sons] of Israel; we will pass over to [as far as] Gibeah. 13And he said unto his servant, Come,5 [forward!] and let us draw near to one of these [the sc. neighboring] places [,] to lodge all [and pass the] night, [omit: ,] in Gibeah, or in Ramah. 14And they passed on and went their way; and the sun went down upon them when they were by Gibeah, which belongeth to Benjamin. 15And they turned aside thither, to go in and to lodge in Gibeah: and when he went in, he sat him down in a street [the open space] of 16the city: for [and] there was no man that took them into his house to lodging. And behold, there came an old man from his work out of the field at even, which was also [and the man was] of mount Ephraim; and he sojourned in Gibeah; but the 17men of the place were Benjamites. And when [omit: when] he had [omit: had] lifted up his eyes, he [and] saw a [the] wayfaring man in the street [open space] of the city: and the old man said, Whither goest thou? and whence comest thou? 18And he said unto him, We are passing from Beth-lehem-judah toward the [hinder] side of mount Ephraim; from thence am I: and I went to Beth-lehem-judah, but I am now going to the house of the Lord [Jehovah];6 and there is no man that receiveth me to house. 19Yet there is [we have] both straw and provender for our asses; and there is [we have] bread and wine also for me, and for thy handmaid, and for the young man which is with thy servants: there is no want of any thing. 20And the old man said, Peace be with thee; howsoever [only], let all thy wants lie upon me; only lodge not in the street [open space]. 21So he brought him into his house, and gave provender unto the asses: and they washed their feet, and did eat and drink.

TEXTUAL AND GRAMMATICAL

[1 Jdg 19:2 Dr. cassel renders : und es gelstete seinem nebenweib ber ihn hinaus; which may possibly be good interpretation, but cannot be admitted as translation. The Sept. and Vulg. do not render the phrase at all, while chaldee softens it down to she despised him . Hence, it has been thought that the present reading of the Hebrew text is wrong; but the fact that the Peshito has it, and that the other ancient versions do not agree in their reading, shows that the diversity arose from a sense of incongruity between what was affirmed of the woman and the efforts of the Levite to recover her. is against him.Tr.]

[2 Jdg 19:3The keri is evidently the more appropriate reading, as Studer and Bertheau have conceded. [In the kethibh, , the suffix refers to the preceding : to cause her heart to return, i.e., to turn again to her husband. Compare keil, who deems the keri a needless correction.Tr

[3 Jdg 19:8. Older Jewish expositors, as Abarbanel and Meir Obernick, very properly take this, not as imperative, but as 3d per. perf. It is against the sense to make the father say : Delay till it become evening.

[4 Jdg 19:12The hither of the E.V. seems to be intended as a rendering of , which, however, belongs to the next clause. must be taken with in the sense . . . . ,where. It is true (says Bertheau), that does not elsewhere occur in this construction with but this is the only suitable way of taking it here, for it cannot be the plur. fem. pronoun, and must therefore mean there. The proper rendering of the verse, then, would be : We will not turn aside into the city of the stranger, where there are none of the sons of Israel. The E. V. leaves it doubtful whether that refers to city or to stranger. Dr. Casel refers it to the latter, and ignores the altogether.Tr

[5 Jdg 19:13 is for, , the imperative of , with He paragogic. is the 1st per. plur. perfect, contracted from Tr.

[6 Jdg 19:18. . The meaning of this clause is obscure. The Sept. renders as if it read instead of : I am going to my house. The Targum, Peshito, Vulgate, and among moderns, Bertheau, De Wette, Bunsen (the two latter in their versions), take as the accusative, and render as the E. V. Others, as Studer, Keil, and our author, take as a preposition, in the sense with, at, or by: I walk by (or, in) the House of Jehovah, i. e., I perform priestly service in connection with the sanctuary. This gives a good sense (cf. the commentary below), but the mode of expressing it seems singular. On the other hand, there is no compulsory evidence in favor of this and against the other rendering. The sanctuary being at Shiloh, there is (so far as the site of this place is known) no conflict between the Levites first statement that he is going to the hinder parts (a necessarily indefinite expression) of the mountains of Ephraim, and his subsequent supplementary statement that he is going to the House of Jehovah. Keils objection that does not mean to go to a place, but to pass through it (cf. Deu 1:19; Isa 1:10. etc.), cannot be considered decisive. Since the through does not lie in the , it proves only that the accusative may indicate either the place to which, or that through which, one goes. It is true, that the place to which one goes, is usually put in the accusative without , either with or without local; but as was constantly used with the definite accusative, and had withal so entirely lost all meaning of its own, it is certainly quite conceivable that it might almost unconsciously slip from the pen in a place where ordinarily common usage did not employ it. And since, as already remarked, the idea of through does not lie in , it may well be asked whether the instances referred to by Keil are not exceptions to common usage quite as much as the present phrase. Upon the whole, we are inclined to adopt the rendering of the E. V.Tr.]

EXEGETICAL AND DOCTRINAL

Jdg 19:1. When there was no king in Israel. The following narrative has, indeed, as was already remarked, no special connection, either chronological or local, with the history related in chaps. 17 and 18; but it none the less affords, in conjunction with that history, occasion for a series of observations which testify, in a highly instructive manner, of the organic idea which pervades the whole Book. We shall attempt to indicate them at the close of the narrative. There was no king in Israel: this alone it was that made the occurrences of both chaps. 17 and 18, and chaps. 1921 possible. In the present history also, a Levite is involved. The decay of the priesthood is here also indicated. From the connection it is sufficiently clear that the conduct of the Levite who, living in the northern part of the mountains of Ephraim, procures himself a concubine out of Bethlehemprobably for no other reason than that, as Josephus rightly conjectures, he was smitten with her beauty,is not approved. From the fact that the residence of the Levite is here spoken of as being in the hinder parts of the mountains, by which the northern parts are to be understood, no reliable inference can be drawn as to the locality of the writer; for the Levite himself uses the same expression (Jdg 19:18). Since the Levite took a concubine ( ), it must be assumed that he already had a wife. Else why did he not make this woman his wife? For other grounds, such as have been conjectured, find no support in the narrative. Precisely here lies the blot upon the character of the priest, which the narrative hints at. The word is both etymologically and in sense identical with the Greek and Roman , pellex, ; but Benfeys derivation cannot be received. The sense concubine, which the word has, may perhaps be explained from . Among the ancient Greeks also the taking of a concubine was not considered exactly blameworthy, but Laertes refrained from touching Eurycleia for fear of the anger of his wife (Odys. i. 434). The sequel shows that the Levite had done better if he had not taken a concubine. A concubine also was the ruin of Gideons family (Jdg 8:31).

Jdg 19:2. And the concubine lusted after others beside himself. The concubine was unchastely disposed. This is only a stronger expression for what the moderns mean when with palliative extenuation they say: She did not love her husband. Her sensuality was not satisfied with the Levite. In this way the narrator explains the ground of her leaving him. The correctness of was frequently doubted in former days, but only because the connection of the entire narrative was misapprehended. is to play the harlot, not only in act, but also in disposition and spirit (cf. Mat 5:28): hence used also of idolatry. In the added , over him,7 it is delicately indicated that she did not so act as to be put away by him, but that she was of such a disposition as to be unwilling to live with him. That she left him without his consent can have had its ground only in her concupiscence, which the narrator intentionally designates by the term , in order to blame the Levite for yet running after such a woman.8 For it is written, Lev 21:7 : A , harlot, and one polluted, they shall not take to wife. Although this passage speaks only of the sons of Aaron, it applies nevertheless to all who, as the Levite says of himself, walk in the house of Jehovah (Jdg 19:18).

And she was there some time (about) four months. She had perhaps gone away under pretext of visiting her parents, and did not come back. The before the more definite statement of time, expresses the Latin circiter. As she had already remained away some four months, it looked as if she would not return to her husbands house at all; wherefore the Levite set out to persuade her to come back. He should not have done this, since she was such as that it was said of her: . Her father, for his part, ought to have sent her back; for the Levite had undoubtedly not failed to pay him a morning-gift (cf. Exo 22:15), the remembrance of which, and the fear that if his daughter did not go back with her husband he might be called upon to return it, had probably no little influence in producing the friendliness with which he received him. Such was also the ancient Homeric custom, as illustrated in the instance of Hephaistos, who having proved the infidelity of his spouse, demands back the gifts with which he had presented her father (Odys. viii. 318).

Jdg 19:3. And her husband arose and went after her. The Levite, however, desires only the woman, not any money. Hence it is said that he went after her in order to speak to her heart. And he shows it by bringing two asses with him,one of them for her use. It never occurs to him to think that her father may perhaps provide her with one. Only after the daughter has again become friendly to him, does he allow her to lead him to her father. The uncommon hospitality which the latter extends to the Levite, has, it must be allowed, a peculiar by-taste to it. No doubt, it is apologetic in its design, and expressive of a wish for reconciliation. This is clearly enough expressed in the acts of eating and drinking together. But the urgency with which after three days he presses the Levite to remain, although the latter is desirous of returning home, is not sanctioned by the delicate laws of ancient hospitality. The incident illustrates the beauty of the words which Menelaus addresses to Telemachus who desires to go home (Odys. xv. 69): I will not detain thee here; for I also am angry with a host who through troublesome friendship offers trouble some enmity, for order is best in everything. Equally bad are both he who hastens the guest who would stay, and he who detains him who would go (cf. Ngelsbach, Hom. Theol. p. 256). The injuriousness of exaggerated hospitality is here also put in instructive contrast with the utter absence of it, which it fell to the lot of the Levite soon to experience.

Jdg 19:4-9. And his father-in-law detained him. The carnal nature of the Levite manifests itself here also. Soon after the reconciliation, he wished to depart again; but he yields, and spends three days in eating and drinking. On the fourth morning, he will go; but his host urges him first to take a morsel of bread. He might nevertheless have set out on his journey; but they ate and drank, and it became evening. He proposed indeed to go, but turned about and remained. On the fifth morning, everything is ready for a start. But refreshments are first taken at the request of the host: they both ate, and thus spent the day until the evening approached. No right-minded Levite manifests himself here. We hear of nothing but eating and drinking. It reflects no honor on a man who walks in the house of God, that he runs after a concubine, and cannot resist a good table.

When, however, at last he sets out, late in the afternoon, his conscience appears to urge him forward, and to make him ashamed of having remained so long. Perhaps he has no time to spare, if with his servant and animals, he is to rest at home on the Sabbath. For if we may suppose that the reconciliation took place on the Sabbath, the first three days of feasting would fall on our Sunday, Monday, and Tuesday: the fourth day of Jdg 19:5 would be Wednesday, and the fifth day our Thursday; and he might think it possible to reach home before the next evening. But in that case no time was to be lost. His experience is that of all weak and vacillating people: first, unnecessary delay, and then overstrained hurry.

The delineation of these scenes, which repeat themselves so frequently in life, is notwithstanding its brevity, full of vivacity and beauty. The guests continually rise at early daybreak (); but the evening still finds them in the same place. The host is unwearied in encouragements to refresh the heart ( , );9but the refreshing continues until the day declines. Verses 8 and 9 especially give a striking picture of irresolution and dilatoriness. They permit us to follow the various stages of the day that were thus dissipated. With breakfast they lingered along () until , say after noon. While they prepare themselves anew to take their departure, time passes, and the host begs them to remain, for the day draweth toward evening; and after a little more lingeringfor this idea must be interposed before he is able to urge, spend the night, for the day declines.

It is unmistakably clear that the father-in-law meant it well with the Levite, when, according to general popular usage, he overwhelmed him with food and drink and pressing invitations; but it is incumbent on Levites especially, not to be too much taken up with such matters. It is better that they make it evident, that in case of necessity they are quite content with a path lechem, a morsel of bread.

Jdg 19:10 ff.. But the man would not tarry that night. At lastbut now unseasonably, for the night is at handhe is firm in his resolution to depart. The sun is already rapidly declining, when he comes past Jerusalem, at that time still called Jebus,10 for the tribe of Benjamin had not yet conquered it (Jdg 1:21). He will not turn in thither, although advised to do so by his servant, because he has two saddled asses and his concubine with him,the repetition of which statement is thus explained,and the city belongs not to Israel. In other words, he fears lest in Jebus the rights of hospitality might be violated, and himself be plundered. He hastens forward, therefore, in order to reach one of the Israelitish cities farther on, Gibeah, perhaps, or Ramah. He succeeds only in reaching the former. Darkness had set in: it was unavoidably necessary to stay there over night. It will soon be seen that it would have been better if he had not suffered himself to be detained in the morning, and that he could not have done worse if he had turned into the heathen city.

Jdg 19:15-21. And no man took them to his house. Gibeah (the present Jeba, Geba),11 lies an hour from Ramah (at present er-Rm), about two and a half hours from Jerusalem,12 and towards four hours from Bethlehem. It belonged to Benjamin. Strangers disposed themselves on the open space or square of the city (, platea), whence according to ancient usage the residents took them to their own homes. lian relates (Var. Hist. iv. 1), that the Lucanians went so far as to make the man who did not show hospitality to the stranger entering the city at sunset, liable to legal punishment. But here in Israel, where love toward the stranger was enjoined by the law (Deu 10:19), and where Job exclaims: The stranger did not lodge in the street (Job 31:32), no one invited the traveller to the shelter of his roof.

This inhospitable disposition was characteristic only of the inhabitants of this city; for a man of Ephraim, who resided in Gibeah, did not share it. When he, an old man, came from the field, and saw that a stranger had already made preparations to pass the night in the open air, he went to him with hospitable intent. That he first asks, Whence art thou? and whither goest thou? is only the result of his astonishment that anybody should purpose to pass the night in Gibeah out of doors. For the city had probably a bad name in the neighboring region, so that, when possible, it was shunned by travellers. Hence the question, Whence comest thou, that thou hast turned in here for the night?

My walk in life is at the house of Jehovah. The narrator has hitherto spoken of the Levite only as the man. The character of a Levite did not show itself in him. But now, in his answer to the aged Ephraimite, the Levite himself makes mention of his order. I come, he says, from Bethlehem, but reside behind the mountains. The purpose for which he went to Bethlehem, he does not communicate; but, on the other hand, he does take occasion to state that he is a Levite (Josephus). He expresses this paraphrastically, by saying that he walks in the house of God, namely, as a servant of God. He chooses this form of expression in order to invite hospitality, and to place the refusal of it in its worst light. A man who is at home in the House of God, no one here receives into his house. But one degeneracy follows in the wake of another. When Levites are so weak as he has shown himself, the virtues of others cannot continue strong. The dignity of which it now occurs to him to speak, he himself should have respected heretofore. The explanation of , as if it meant, and I am going to the house of Jehovah, is not only philologically difficult, but on account of the sense, impossible.13 Whither he goes, he has already said, namely, to the rear part of the mountains; he wishes now to say who he is; that he enjoys the dignity of walking with (i. e., in) the house of Jehovah, as its servant. He is very anxious to obtain shelter, for the prospect of spending the night in an inhospitable city without a roof over him, could not but fill him with apprehensions. The same cause prevented him from continuing his journey. Hence the humble request to the aged householder to take him in. He has everything necessary with him,his entertainer shall be at no expense. He speaks of himself as his servant, and of the woman as thy handmaid. The old man gladly complies with the ancient hospitable usage, according to which animals are fed first, and the wants of men are attended to afterwards.

Footnotes:

[1][Jdg 19:2 Dr. cassel renders : und es gelstete seinem nebenweib ber ihn hinaus; which may possibly be good interpretation, but cannot be admitted as translation. The Sept. and Vulg. do not render the phrase at all, while chaldee softens it down to she despised him . Hence, it has been thought that the present reading of the Hebrew text is wrong; but the fact that the Peshito has it, and that the other ancient versions do not agree in their reading, shows that the diversity arose from a sense of incongruity between what was affirmed of the woman and the efforts of the Levite to recover her. is against him.Tr.]

[2]Jdg 19:3The keri is evidently the more appropriate reading, as Studer and Bertheau have conceded. [In the kethibh, , the suffix refers to the preceding : to cause her heart to return, i.e., to turn again to her husband. Compare keil, who deems the keri a needless correction.Tr

[3]Jdg 19:8. Older Jewish expositors, as Abarbanel and Meir Obernick, very properly take this, not as imperative, but as 3d per. perf. It is against the sense to make the father say : Delay till it become evening.

[4]Jdg 19:12The hither of the E.V. seems to be intended as a rendering of , which, however, belongs to the next clause. must be taken with in the sense . . . . ,where. It is true (says Bertheau), that does not elsewhere occur in this construction with but this is the only suitable way of taking it here, for it cannot be the plur. fem. pronoun, and must therefore mean there. The proper rendering of the verse, then, would be : We will not turn aside into the city of the stranger, where there are none of the sons of Israel. The E. V. leaves it doubtful whether that refers to city or to stranger. Dr. Casel refers it to the latter, and ignores the altogether.Tr

[5]Jdg 19:13 is for, , the imperative of , with He paragogic. is the 1st per. plur. perfect, contracted from Tr.

[6][Jdg 19:18. . The meaning of this clause is obscure. The Sept. renders as if it read instead of : I am going to my house. The Targum, Peshito, Vulgate, and among moderns, Bertheau, De Wette, Bunsen (the two latter in their versions), take as the accusative, and render as the E. V. Others, as Studer, Keil, and our author, take as a preposition, in the sense with, at, or by: I walk by (or, in) the House of Jehovah, i. e., I perform priestly service in connection with the sanctuary. This gives a good sense (cf. the commentary below), but the mode of expressing it seems singular. On the other hand, there is no compulsory evidence in favor of this and against the other rendering. The sanctuary being at Shiloh, there is (so far as the site of this place is known) no conflict between the Levites first statement that he is going to the hinder parts (a necessarily indefinite expression) of the mountains of Ephraim, and his subsequent supplementary statement that he is going to the House of Jehovah. Keils objection that does not mean to go to a place, but to pass through it (cf. Deu 1:19; Isa 1:10. etc.), cannot be considered decisive. Since the through does not lie in the , it proves only that the accusative may indicate either the place to which, or that through which, one goes. It is true, that the place to which one goes, is usually put in the accusative without , either with or without local; but as was constantly used with the definite accusative, and had withal so entirely lost all meaning of its own, it is certainly quite conceivable that it might almost unconsciously slip from the pen in a place where ordinarily common usage did not employ it. And since, as already remarked, the idea of through does not lie in , it may well be asked whether the instances referred to by Keil are not exceptions to common usage quite as much as the present phrase. Upon the whole, we are inclined to adopt the rendering of the E. V.Tr.]

[7][The German is: ber ihn. The sentence seems to mean that if the woman had actually committed adultery, the fact would have been expressed by alone, but that since, her sin existed only in disposition, the was added to indicate this. But how our author conceives this to be indicated by the preposition and suffix, does not appear.Tr.]

[8]Other views, as advanced by Starke and others, according to which this journey of the Levite redounds to his praise, do not appear to have any support in the text.

[9] . In this unusual form an imperative of courteous respect is probably indicated.

[10]It does not by any means follow from this, however, that the city at that time did not yet bear the name Jerusalem. The place was still a Jebusite city; and that fact is here made prominent in order to explain why the Levite would not turn in thither.

[11][This identification of Gibeah with Jeba does not appear to be tenable; for it makes it incomprehensible how the Levite could come to Gibeah before he came to Ramah, as the narrative manifestly implies that he did. Keil also most strangely speaks here of Gibeah as being Jeba, although on Jos 18:28, he identifies it with Tuleil el Fl, a high hill about midway between Jerusalem and er-Rm. This place, fixed upon by Robinson (B. R. i. 577), and after him by Ritter (cf. Gages transl. iv. 219), and many others, is undoubtedly the site of the ancient Gibeah (cf. Smiths Bib. Dict. s. v. Gibeah). The distance of Gibeah from Jerusalem given by Josephus (compare the next note) agrees with this; for the distance of Tuleil el Fl from Jerusalem is about two-thirds that of Bethlehem (while Jeba is much farther, cf. Dr. Cassels two hours and a half). Jeba is the Geba of Scripture (Rob. i. 440; Bib. Dict. s. v Geba).Tr.]

[12]Josephus has stated the distance at twenty stadia, while from Bethlehem to Jerusalem he reckons thirty stadia.

[13]This also removes the supposition that the Levite was from Shiloh. This is not to be assumed, since it is not stated. The above words give no more information concerning the birth-place of the Levite, than is conveyed in the genera statement that he was a Levite.

Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange

CONTENTS

Melancholy views of Israel’s transgression still appear, and are prosecuted in their contents through this Chapter. In the former we have beheld the daring sin of idolatry; here we are presented with the horrid representation of the sin of murder. The concubine of a Levite forms the chief subject of the story: her abuse: her being murdered: and the Levites conduct upon it: these form the principle events here recorded.

Jdg 19:1

The same preface opens this Chapter, no king in Israel. Reader! shall not you and I say Jesus is our king, our judge, our lawgiver, he will save us. Isa 33:22 .

Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

Jdg 19:1

On the night before he fled from Geneva, Rousseau relates how finding himself unusually wakeful, ‘I continued my reading beyond my usual hour, and read the whole passage ending at the story of the Levite of Ephraim in the book of Judges, if I mistake not, for since then I have never seen it. This story made a great impression on me, and in a kind of dream my imagination still ran upon it.’ Suddenly wakened by the news that his mile was proscribed, he drove off, and composed, during his journey, a version of this barbaric tale.

Jdg 19:16

I hear but of one man at his work in all Gibeah; the rest were quaffing and revelling. That one man ends his work with a charitable entertainment; the others end their play in a brutish beastliness and violence.

Bishop Hall.

Reference. XIX. 20. H. J. Wilmot-Buxton, Common Life Religion, p. 232.

Fuente: Expositor’s Dictionary of Text by Robertson

Fuente: The People’s Bible by Joseph Parker