“209. THE OFFENCE—JUDGES 19”

The Offence—Judges 19

In the three last chapters of the book of judges we have another illustration of the disorders that prevailed in the same age, to which the transaction considered yesterday has been referred. That transaction evinces the religious disorder and uncertainty into which that age had fallen. The one now before us equally illustrates the social disorders of the time, while it instructs us that the theocratic institutions had fallen into irregular action even at head-quarters. But besides, and indeed, probably, as its main object, it serves to account for the great diminution of importance which the warlike tribe of Benjamin underwent, and the small figure it makes (except for its dependence on, and connection with, Judah) in the subsequent history of the nation. In both transactions a Levite occupies a conspicuous place. In this case the name of the Levite is not given; but it seems noticeable that his abode was in the same quarter, “on the side of Mount Ephraim,” where Micah, not long before or after, had set up his very questionable establishment, and that the woman who is painfully engaged in the transaction, belonged to the very town of Bethlehem-Judah, from which the other Levite came. That woman was his “concubine”—a name of more odious import now than even at the time it was used by our translators. The original word (pilgash) has no ill-sense in Scripture; and it ought not to be represented by a word which expresses an infamous condition. In the Scripture, it denotes the condition of a secondary wife—such as Hagar, and the two handmaids of Leah and Rachel, to whom several of the twelve tribes traced their origin. The wives of this class differed from those of the first chiefly in being not so well connected, and from an inferior condition of life—often captives—that is, slaves promoted thus to the side of the master. The marriage was contracted with fewer ceremonies and legal obligations than that with a wife of the first class—nor did the husband enter into any contract to endow her, or to make her children his heirs. She was, however, as much entitled to sustentation, raiment, and matrimonial rights as the other wives, and her position was in no respect discreditable. Her children might share the paternal heritage, if the father so appointed; and, in any case, they were entitled to a portion of his goods, according to circumstances. These two ranks of wives were not only allowed by the law of Moses, but a man might take as many of either as he thought good, or considered himself able to maintain. This, however, was practically a sufficient limitation; so that, among the Hebrews, as is still the case in the East, a man is seldom seen to have more than one or two wives, except among the princes and magnates of the land. All the incidental allusions in Scripture to matrimonial life, assume that a man has but one wife; and, in all the post-patriarchal history of the Bible, the only man below the rank of a ruler or prince, who is recorded to have had even two wives, is the father of Samuel, and, in that case, a reason is furnished in the fact that one of the wives was childless.

Well, this Levite of Mount Ephraim had a “concubine-wife;” and she proved unfaithful to him, and went home to her father at Bethlehem. By the law, both classes of wives were equally obliged to be faithful to their husband; but whether, in case of infidelity, the second class was liable to the same capital punishment as the first, is not agreed. But if found guilty, after full proof, the husband was obliged to divorce her forever from him, if not to prosecute her for adultery. It was, therefore, altogether an irregular and unseemly thing—however it may bespeak his affection—that, after four months of separation, he resolved to go in search of her, and bring her back to his home. He accordingly went to Bethlehem “to speak friendly to her”—or, as the original has it, “to speak to her heart”—that is, to conciliate her affection, to rekindle her tenderness, to whisper forgiveness to her, and to implore her to return to the home she had left desolate. He had perhaps heard that she was penitent; for the phrase often denotes the giving of comfort to one who is in sorrow. He was so confident of the result, that beside the ass he rode he took another with him to bring her back. He had also a servant with him to drive the asses from behind. He might, perhaps, have dispensed with this for himself; but a servant is indispensable to drive the ass that a woman rides.

The woman’s father was glad, indeed, to see his son-in-law arrive on such an errand, which promised a much less painful result of this distressing affair than he could have supposed probable. The satisfaction was such that he detained him for three days as a guest; and even on the fourth day, when the Levite fully purposed to set out on his return, he was delayed so late in the day by the kind urgencies of his entertainer, that he was constrained to tarry over another night. The next morning he arose with the firm purpose of not losing another day, but was prevailed upon reluctantly to stay till the afternoon was far advanced, when he was entreated to remain another night; but fixed in his purpose, he set forth, late as it was. All the painful results grew out of this detention, and late out-setting, and may help, if every day did not supply lessons enough, to teach us the danger and weakness of allowing our better judgment to be overcome by even the kind importunities of others.

Owing to the late hour of the departure, the travelers had got no further than Jebus (afterwards Jerusalem), which was but six miles from Bethlehem, when, as there was a woman of the party, it became necessary to seek a place to lodge in for the night. The servant, suggested that they should go into the town; but this place was still in the occupation of the Jebusites, and although, from the relations which by this time had grown between the nations, there was no reason to apprehend any personal danger or molestation, the Levite preferred to push on some miles further to Gibeah or to Ramah, which were in the sole occupation of Benjamin, than to turn aside into the city of a stranger. Gibeah stood upon a low, conical, or rather round eminence, about five miles north by east from Jerusalem. By the time they got near this the sun went down, and the Levite concluded to turn in there. As he had no acquaintance in the place, and there seems to have been no lodging-place or khan to which he could repair, he tarried, as the custom was, in the street, sure that some one would soon invite him to his house. We do not think there is any charge against the men of Gibeah on this account merely, for no one could receive him till it was known that he wanted reception, and this was the proper mode of making his want known. The same practice still exists in the East, under the like circumstances, and it is not long that any one has to wait before entertainment is offered to him. But in this vile place it is expressly stated that “no man invited him to his house,” and he was left waiting in the street until, at last, an old man, who was also of Mount Ephraim and who very possibly recognized the Levite, saw the party as he returned from his work in the fields, and invited them to his humble dwelling.

It is a beautiful circumstance that the exercise of hospitality was not, as we see, confined to the rich and great, but was a gratifying and honorable duty which even the laboring poor did not consider themselves exempt from discharging. That this old man had been laboring in the fields would not, indeed, imply that he was in low circumstances, did not the fact of his not belonging to the place show that they were not his own grounds on which his labor was expended. It is to be noted, however, that the Levite told the old man that he wanted only lodging—he had everything required for the refreshment of the whole party: “There is straw and provender for our asses; and there is bread and wine also for me and for thine handmaid, and for the young man which is with thy servant.” This shows that the Israelites did then, as the Orientals do now, take with them the provisions for themselves and beasts, that they require during a journey, replenishing their stores from time to time, when they come to a town that can supply them. The “straw” was chopped straw, used in the East instead of hay; and the “provender” barley. This is carried in hair-bags, something like the mouth-bags of our horses, but of larger size. We must not also neglect to observe the deferential courtesy of the language which this prosperous Levite uses towards the poor old laboring man. From this and other instances, such as the salutations exchanged between Boaz and his reapers, in the book of Ruth, one cannot but entertain a most favorable opinion of the polite and courteous manners of the Israelites in this remote age, which some regard as barbarous.

The gross neglect of the duties of hospitality must have given the Levite some misgiving as to the character of the place, seeing, how highly these duties are considered in the East, and seeing that his Levitical character gave him a more than common claim to kind and generous entertainment. The result justified his misgivings. A crowd of worthless fellows soon beset the place, with the most offensive intentions against the person of the stranger; and in the morning his wife lay dead upon the threshold, from the usage she had received at their hands.

The Levite said nothing. It was not a time for words; which were all too feeble to express the terrible thoughts that burned within him. He took up the dead body, and placing it on an ass, proceeded to his home. The crime which had been committed, and the state of that miserable place, seemed to him such that only a great and signal act of public judgment could avert from the nation which owned such miscreants, a judgment like that which, in old time, overwhelmed the Cities of the Plain. That judgment he therefore determined to demand, after a fashion which was sanctioned by ancient custom, though startling even to the Israelites, from its infrequency or disuse. He divided the corpse into twelve pieces, and sent one piece to each of the tribes of Israel, the messengers being, no doubt, commissioned to give therewith a circumstantial account of the transaction. Shocking as this resource appears, it seems to have been in accordance with the notions of the time, as a resort, in extreme cases, for calling into united action distinct tribes, in the absence of any general authority for summoning them to action. It is, therefore, not without purpose, stated that at this time there was no king, “ruler, or chief magistracy, in Israel; but every man did what was right in his own eyes.” This then was, at such a time, the most stringent resource the Levite could resort to for calling them to avenge this wickedness in Israel. Judging from some parallel instances, it seems that this proceeding on his part laid them under an anathema, solemnly binding them, under pain of being themselves dealt with in the same manner, to avenge this dreadful and infamous deed. This was usually done with pieces of a bullock, that had been sacrificed or devoted with peculiar solemnities; and that the Levite used the dead body of the victim of this outrage, was calculated to deepen the horror and strengthen the obligation. It may be justly objected that, as a private man, the Levite had no right to lay the whole nation under the anathema—That so might it be done; to them and theirs, unless they avenged the wrong. This right to summon them authoritatively could only belong to a king, a judge, and perhaps the high-priest. We see Saul resorting to it in order to call the people to the relief of Jabesh-Gilead. “He took a yoke of oxen, and hewed them in pieces, saying, Whosoever cometh not forth after Saul and after Samuel, so shall it be done unto his oxen, 1Sa_11:7. A private person could not do this. But he could, and did, send or offer the pieces, and those who accepted them came under the obligation, and regarded themselves as solemnly devoted to carry it out. Burder, in his “Oriental Customs,” cites a somewhat apposite, or at least illustrative custom, from Lucian, who, speaking of the Scythians and Molossians, says, “When any one had received an injury, and had not the means of avenging himself, he sacrificed an ox and cut it in pieces, which be caused to be dressed and publicly exposed. Then he spread out the skin of the victim, and sat upon it with his hands tied behind him. All who chose to take part in avenging the injury that had been done, took up a piece of the ox, and swore to supply and maintain for him—one, five horses—another, ten—others, still more; some, infantry—each according to his strength and ability. They who had only their persons, engaged to march themselves. Now an army composed of such soldiers, far from retreating or disbanding, was invincible, as it was engaged by oath.”

Autor: JOHN KITTO