Bible Commentaries

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 father’s 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

Judges 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 2 And his concubine played the whore against him,¹ and went away from him unto her father’s house to Bethlehem judah, and was there [some time (namely),] four whole [omit: whole] months 3 And 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 father’s house: and when the father of the damsel saw him, he rejoiced to meet him 4 And his father-in-law, the damsel’s 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 [that] they arose early in the morning, that [and] he rose up to depart: and the damsel’s father said unto his Song of Solomon -in-law, Comfort [Strengthen] 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 [and] the damsel’s 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 7 And when the man rose up to depart, his father-in-law urged him: therefore he [turned and] lodged there again 8 And he arose early in the morning on the fifth day to depart: and the damsel’s 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 9 And when the man rose up to depart, Hebrews, and his concubine, and his servant, his father-in-law, the damsel’s 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 12 And 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 13 And 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 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 [the open space] of 16 the 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 17 men 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 19 Yet 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 20 And 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 Judges 19:2 Dr. cassel renders : und es gelüstete seinem nebenweib über 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. עָלָיו is “against him”.—Tr.]

2 Judges 19:3—The keri לַהֲשִׁיבָהּ is evidently the more appropriate reading, as Studer and Bertheau have conceded. [In the kethibh, לַהֲשִׁיבוֹ, the suffix refers to the preceding לֵב: “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 Judges 19:8—הִתְמַהְמהוּ. Older Jewish expositors, as Abarbanel and Meir Obernick, very properly take this, not as imperative, but as 3 d per. perf. It is against the sense to make the father say : “Delay till it become evening.”

4 Judges 19:12—The “hither” of the E.V. seems to be intended as a rendering of הֵנָּה, which, however, belongs to the next clause. הֵנָּה must be taken with אֲשֶׁר in the sense שָׁם . . . . אֲשֶׁר,“where.” “It is true” (says Bertheau), “that הֵנָּה does not elsewhere occur in this construction with אֲשֶׁר 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 הֵנָּה altogether.—Tr

5 Judges 19:13—לְךָ is for, לְכָה, the imperative of הָלַך, with He paragogic.—לַנּוּ is the 1 per. plur. perfect, contracted from לַנְנוּ—Tr.

6 Judges 19:18.—ואֶת־בֵּית יְהוָֹה אֲנִי הֹלֵךְ. The meaning of this clause is obscure. The Sept. renders as if it read בֵּיתִי instead of בֵּית יְחוָֹה: I am going to my house. The Targum, Peshito, Vulgate, and among moderns, Bertheau, De Wette, Bunsen (the two latter in their versions), take אֶת־בֵּית יְהוָֹה as the accusative, and render as the E. V. Others, as Studer, Keil, and our author, take אֶת 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 Levite’s 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.” Keil’s objection that הָלַךְ אֵת does not mean to go to a place, but to pass through it (cf. Deuteronomy 1:19; Isaiah 1:10. etc.), cannot be considered decisive. Since the “through” does not lie in the אֵת, 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 אֵת, either with or without ה local; but as אֵת 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 אֵת, 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

Judges 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 chaps17,18; 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 chaps17,18, and chaps19–21possible. 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 Bethlehem—probably 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 ( Judges 19:18). Since the Levite took a concubine (אִשָּׁה פִּלֶּגֶשׁ), 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 פִּלֶּגֶשׁ is both etymologically and in sense identical with the Greek and Roman πάλλαξ, pellex, παλλακίς; but Benfey’s derivation cannot be received. The sense “concubine,” which the word has, may perhaps be explained from פָּלַג. 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. i434). The sequel shows that the Levite had done better if he had not taken a concubine. A concubine also was the ruin of Gideon’s family ( Judges 8:31).

Judges 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 וַתִּזְנֶח was frequently doubted in former days, but only because the connection of the entire narrative was misapprehended. זָנָה is to play the harlot, not only in Acts, but also in disposition and spirit (cf. μοιχεύειν ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ, Matthew 5:28): hence used also of idolatry. In the added עָלָיו, “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 זָנה, in order to blame the Levite for yet running after such a woman.⁸ For it is written, Leviticus 21:7 : “A זֹנָה, 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” ( Judges 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 יָמִים 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 husband’s 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: וַתִּזְנֶה. 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. Exodus 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. viii318).

Judges 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. xv69): “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. Nägelsbach, Hom. Theol. p256). 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.

Judges 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 Judges 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 (בַּבֹּקֶר); but the evening still finds them in the same place. The host is unwearied in encouragements “to refresh the heart” (וְיִטַב לבָבֶךָ,סְעָד לִבְּךָ);⁹but the “refreshing” continues until “the day declines.” Verses8,9 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 (הִתְמַהְמהוּ) until נְטוֹת הַיּוֹם, 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 lingering—for this idea must be interposed before הַיּו̇ם חֲנוֹת—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.

Judges 19:10 ff.. But the man would not tarry that night. At last—but now unseasonably, for the night is at hand—he 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 ( Judges 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.

Judges 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-Râm), 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 (רְחֹב, platea), whence according to ancient usage the residents took them to their own homes. Ælian relates (Var. Hist. iv1), 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 ( Deuteronomy 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 Hebrews, 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 וְאֶת־בֵּית יְהוָֹה אֲנִי הֹלֵך, 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