In those days, when there was no king in Israel, there was a certain Levite living on the farther side of the hill country of Ephraim, who took for himself a concubine out of Bethlehem Judah.
Parallel Translations
-
In those days, when there was no king in Israel, there was a certain Levite living on the farther side of the hill country of Ephraim, who took for himself a concubine out of Bethlehem Judah.
-
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.
-
And it came to pass in those days, when there was no king in Israel, that there was a certain Levite sojourning on the farther side of the hill-country of Ephraim, who took to him a concubine out of Beth-lehem in Judah.
Cross-references (22)
Passages linked to Judges 19:1 in the Treasury of Scripture Knowledge, ordered by reader-vote popularity; verse text shown in World English Bible.
- Judges 18:1 In those days there was no king in Israel. In those days the tribe of the Danites sought an inheritance to dwell in; for to that day, their inheritance had not fallen to them among the tribes of Israel.
- Judges 17:8 The man departed out of the city, out of Bethlehem Judah, to live where he could find a place, and he came to the hill country of Ephraim, to the house of Micah, as he traveled.
- Judges 21:25 In those days there was no king in Israel. Everyone did that which was right in his own eyes.
- Matthew 2:6 ‘You Bethlehem, land of Judah, are in no way least among the princes of Judah: for out of you shall come a governor, who shall shepherd my people, Israel.’ ”
- Joshua 24:30 They buried him in the border of his inheritance in Timnathserah, which is in the hill country of Ephraim, on the north of the mountain of Gaash.
- Joshua 24:33 Eleazar the son of Aaron died. They buried him in the hill of Phinehas his son, which was given him in the hill country of Ephraim.
- Judges 17:6 In those days there was no king in Israel. Everyone did that which was right in his own eyes.
- Malachi 2:15 Did he not make you one, although he had the residue of the Spirit? Why one? He sought godly offspring. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let no one deal treacherously against the wife of his youth.
- Genesis 22:24 His concubine, whose name was Reumah, also bore Tebah, Gaham, Tahash, and Maacah.
- Genesis 25:6 but Abraham gave gifts to the sons of Abraham’s concubines. While he still lived, he sent them away from Isaac his son, eastward, to the east country.
- Genesis 35:19 Rachel died, and was buried on the way to Ephrath (also called Bethlehem).
- Judges 17:1 There was a man of the hill country of Ephraim, whose name was Micah.
- 2 Samuel 3:7 Now Saul had a concubine, whose name was Rizpah, the daughter of Aiah; and Ishbosheth said to Abner, “Why have you gone in to my father’s concubine?”
- 2 Samuel 5:13 David took more concubines and wives for himself out of Jerusalem, after he had come from Hebron; and more sons and daughters were born to David.
- 2 Samuel 16:22 So they spread a tent for Absalom on the top of the house, and Absalom went in to his father’s concubines in the sight of all Israel.
- 2 Samuel 19:5 Joab came into the house to the king, and said, “Today you have shamed the faces of all your servants, who today have saved your life, and the lives of your sons and of your daughters, and the lives of your wives, and the lives of your concubines;
- 2 Samuel 20:3 David came to his house at Jerusalem; and the king took the ten women his concubines, whom he had left to keep the house, and put them in custody, and provided them with sustenance, but didn’t go in to them. So they were shut up to the day of their death, living in widowhood.
- 1 Kings 11:3 He had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines. His wives turned his heart away.
- 2 Chronicles 11:21 Rehoboam loved Maacah the daughter of Absalom above all his wives and his concubines; for he took eighteen wives and sixty concubines, and became the father of twenty-eight sons and sixty daughters.
- Esther 2:14 In the evening she went, and on the next day she returned into the second women’s house, to the custody of Shaashgaz, the king’s eunuch, who kept the concubines. She came in to the king no more, unless the king delighted in her, and she was called by name.
- Song of Solomon 6:8-9 There are sixty queens, eighty concubines, and virgins without number. My dove, my perfect one, is unique. She is her mother’s only daughter. She is the favorite one of her who bore her. The daughters saw her, and called her blessed. The queens and the concubines saw her, and they praised her.
- Daniel 5:3 Then they brought the golden vessels that were taken out of the temple of God’s house which was at Jerusalem; and the king and his lords, his wives and his concubines, drank from them.
Cross-references from openbible.info (CC BY 4.0)
Explain this verse (22 sources)
Historical commentary, presented as a primary source — not an endorsement.
Private notes
Saved on this device only — never synced or sent anywhere.
John Trapp 1656 · Public Domain Jdg 19:1 And it came to pass in those…
Jdg 19:1 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 Bethlehemjudah.
Ver. 1. And it came to pass in those days.] Not long after Joshua’s death, and before Othniel was judge. See Jdg 17:6.
Read full note →
Who took to him a concubine.] Heb., A wife, a concubine; {a} not a harlot concubine, such as are the priests’ lemans {One who is loved unlawfully; an unlawful lover or mistress} among the Papists. The Helvetians had an old use and custom in their towns and villages, that when they received any new priest into their churches, they used to prewarn him to take his harlot concubine, lest he should attempt any misuse of their wives and daughters. If comparison should be made, said Cardinal Campeius, much greater offence it is for a priest to have a wife, than to have and keep at home many harlots; for they that keep harlots, said he, as it is naught that they do, so do they acknowledge their sin; the other persuade themselves to do well, and so continue without repentance or conscience of their fact. {b} A fit reason for a carnal cardinal.
{a} ημιγαμος: Vero-coniux.
{b} Act. and Mon., 790, 791.
John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Matthew Poole 1685 · Public Domain In those days; of which See Poole "Jdg 17:1".
In those days; of which See Poole "Jdg 17:1".
On the side, Heb. in the sides, i.e. in one of the sides, as Jdg 19:18.
Read full note →
A concubine, Heb. a wife a concubine, i.e. such a concubine as was also his wife, as appears from Jdg 19:3-5,7,9,26,27; Jdg 20:4. See of these Gen 22:24; 25:1.
Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Matthew Henry 1710 · Public Domain The domestic affairs of this Levite would not have…
The domestic affairs of this Levite would not have been related thus largely but to make way for the following story of the injuries done him, in which the whole nation interested themselves. Bishop Hall's first remark upon this story is, That there is no complain of a public ordered state but there is a Levite at one end of it, either as an agent or as a patient. In Micah's idolatry a Levite was active; in the wickedness of Gibeah a Levite was passive; no tribe shall sooner feel the want of government than that of Levi; and, in all the book of Judges, no mention is made of any of that tribe, but of these two. This Levite was of Mount Ephraim, Jdg 19:1. He married a wife of Bethlehem-Judah. She is called his concubine, because she was not endowed, for perhaps he had nothing to endow her with, being himself a sojourner and not settled; but it does not appear that he had any other wife, and the margin calls her a wife, a concubine, Jdg 19:1. She came from the same city that Micah's Levite came from, as if Bethlehem-Judah owed a double ill turn to Mount Ephraim, for she was as bad for a Levite's wife as the other for a Levite.
I. This Levite's concubine played the whore and eloped from her husband, Jdg 19:2. The Chaldee reads it only that she carried herself insolently to him, or despised him, and, he being displeased at it, she went away from him, and (which was not fair) was received and entertained at her father's house. Had her husband turned her out of doors unjustly, her father ought to have pitied her affliction; but, when she treacherously departed from her husband to embrace the bosom of a stranger, her father ought not to have countenanced her sin. Perhaps she would not have violated her duty to her husband if she had not known too well where she should be kindly received. Children's ruin is often owing very much to parents' indulgence.
Read full note →
II. The Levite went himself to court her return. It was a sign there was no king, no judge, in Israel, else she would have been prosecuted and put to death as an adulteress; but, instead of that, she is addressed in the kindest manner by her injured husband, who takes a long journey on purpose to beseech her to be reconciled, Jdg 19:3. If he had put her away, it would have been a crime in him to return to her again, Jer 3:1. But, she having gone away, it was a virtue in him to forgive the offence, and, though the party wronged, to make the first motion to her to be friends again. It is part of the character of the wisdom from above that it is gentle and easy to be entreated. He spoke friendly to her, or comfortably (for so the Hebrew phrase of speaking to the heart commonly signifies), which intimates that she was in sorrow, penitent fore what she had done amiss, which probably he heard of when he came to fetch her back. Thus God promises concerning adulterous Israel (Hos 2:14), I will bring her into the wilderness, and speak comfortably to her.
III. Her father made him very welcome, and, by his extraordinary kindness to him, endeavoured to atone for the countenance he had given his daughter in withdrawing from him, and to confirm him in his disposition to be reconciled to her. 1. He entertains him kindly, rejoices to see him (Jer 3:3), treats him generously for three days, Jdg 19:4. And the Levite, to show that he was perfectly reconciled, accepted his kindness, and we do not find that he upbraided him or his daughter with what had been amiss, but was as easy and as pleasant as at his first wedding-feast. It becomes all, but especially Levites, to forgive as God does. Every thing among them gave a hopeful prospect of their living comfortably together for the future; but, could they have foreseen what befel them within one day or two, how would all their mirth have been embittered and turned into mourning! When the affairs of our families are in the best posture we ought to rejoice with trembling, because we know not what troubles one day may bring forth. We cannot foresee what evil is near us, but we ought to consider what may be, that we may not be secure, as if tomorrow must needs be as this day and much more abundant, Isa 56:12. 2. He is very earnest for his stay, as a further demonstration of his hearty welcome. The affection he had for him, and the pleasure he took in his company, proceeded, (1.) From a civil regard to him as his son-in-law and an ingrafted branch of his own house. Note, Love and duty are due to those to whom we are related by marriage as well as to those who are bone of our bone: and those that show kindness as this Levite did may expect to receive kindness as he did. And, (2.) From a pious respect to him as a Levite, a servant of God's house; if he was such a Levite as he should be (and nothing appears to the contrary) he is to be commended for courting his stay, finding his conversation profitable, and having opportunity to learn from him the good knowledge of the Lord, hoping also that the Lord will do him good because he has a Levite to be his son-in-law, and will bless him for his sake. [1.] He forces him to stay the fourth day, and this was kind; not knowing when they might be together again, he engages him to stay as long as he possibly could. The Levite, though nobly treated, was very urgent to be gone. A good man's heart is where his business is; for as a bird that wanders from her nest so is the man that wanders form his place. It is a sign a man has either little to do at home, or little heart to do what he has to do, when he can take pleasure in being long abroad where he has nothing to do. It is especially good to see a Levite willing to go home to his few sheep in the wilderness. Yet this Levite was overcome by importunity and kind persuasion to stay longer than he intended, Jdg 19:5-7. We ought to avoid the extreme of an over-easy yielding, to the neglect of our duty on the one hand, and that of moroseness and wilfulness, to the neglect of our friends and their kindness on the other hand. Our Saviour, after his resurrection, was prevailed upon to stay with his friends longer than he at first intimated to be his purpose, Luk 24:28, Luk 24:29. [2.] He forces him to stay till the afternoon of the fifth day, and this, as it proved, was unkind, Jdg 19:8, Jdg 19:9. He would by no means let him go before dinner, promises him he shall have dinner early, designing thereby, as he had done the day before, to detain him another night; but the Levite was intent on the house of the Lord at Shiloh (Jdg 19:18), and, being impatient to get thither, would stay no longer. Had they set out early, they might have reached some better lodging-place than that which they were now constrained to take up with, nay, they might have got to Shiloh. Note, Our friends' designed kindnesses often prove, in the event, real injuries; what is meant for our welfare becomes a trap. Who knows what is good for a man in this life? The Levite was unwise in setting out so late; he might have got home better if he had staid a night longer and taken the day before him.
IV. In his return home he was forced to lodge at Gibeah, a city in the tribe of Benjamin, afterwards called Gibeah of Saul, which lay on his road towards Shiloh and Mount Ephraim. When it drew towards night, and the shadows of the evening were stretched out, they began to think (as it behoves us to do when we observe the day of our life hastening towards a period) where they must lodge. When night came they could not pursue their journey. He that walketh in darkness knoweth not whither he goes. They could not but desire rest, for which the night was intended, as the day for labour. 1. The servant proposed that they should lodge in Jebus, afterwards Jerusalem, but as yet in the possession of Jebusites. "Come," said the servant, "let us lodge in this city of the Jebusites," Jdg 19:11. And, if they had done so, it is probable they would have had much better usage than they met with in Gibeah of Benjamin. Debauched and profligate Israelites are worse and much more dangerous than Canaanites themselves. But the master, as became one of God's tribe, would by no means quarter, no, not one night, in a city of strangers (Jdg 19:12), not because he questioned his safety among them, but he was not willing, if he could possibly avoid it, to have so much intimacy and familiarity with them as a night's lodging came to, nor to be so much beholden to them. By shunning this place he would witness against the wickedness of those that contracted friendship and familiarity with these devoted nations. Let Israelites, Levites especially, associate with Israelites, and not with the sons of the stranger. 2. Having passed by Jebus, which was about five or six miles from Bethlehem (the place whence they came), and not having daylight to bring them to Ramah, they stopped at Gibeah (Jdg 19:13-15); there they sat down in the street, nobody offering them a lodging. In these countries, at that time, there were no inns, or public-houses, in which, as with us, travellers might have entertainment for their money, but they carried entertainment along with them, as this Levite did (Jdg 19:19), and depended upon the courtesy and hospitality of the inhabitants for a lodging. Let us take occasion hence, when we are in journeys, to thank God for this, among other conveniences of travelling, that there are inns to entertain strangers, and in which they may be welcome and well accommodated for their money. Surely there is no country in the world wherein one may stay at home with more satisfaction, or go abroad with more comfort, than in our own nation. This traveller, though a Levite (and to those of that tribe God had particularly commanded his people to be kind upon all occasions), met with very cold entertainment at Gibeah: No man took them into his house. If they had any reason to think he was a Levite perhaps that made those ill-disposed people the more shy of him. There are those who will have this laid to their charge at the great day, I was a stranger and you took me not in.
Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (1708–1710) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Gill 1763 · Public Domain And it came to pass in those days, when…
And it came to pass in those days, when there was no king in Israel,.... The same is observed in Jdg 17:6 and refers to the same times, the times before the judges, between them and the death of Joshua, during which time there was no supreme magistrate or ruler in Israel, which is meant; and this is observed, as before, to account for wickedness being committed with impunity, such as adultery, sodomy, murder, &c. afterwards related:
that there was a certain Levite sojourning on the side of Mount Ephraim; in a city that was on one side of that mountain; it seems not to have been a Levitical city, because he was only a sojourner in it; perhaps he chose to reside there, as being near to the tabernacle of Shiloh, which was in that tribe;
Read full note →
who took to him a concubine out of Bethlehemjudah; the same place from whence the wicked Levite came, spoken of in the preceding chapters, and who was the means of spreading idolatry in Israel; and here a wicked concubine of a Levite comes from the same, and was the cause of great effusion of blood in Israel; which two instances may seem to reflect dishonour and disgrace on Bethlehem, which were wiped off by the birth of some eminent persons in it, as Boaz, Jesse, David, and especially the Messiah. The woman the Levite took from hence is in the Hebrew called, "a wife, a concubine" (h); for a concubine was a secondary wife, taken without espousals and a dowry: some think they were espoused, though there was no dowry, and were reckoned truly wives, though they had not all the honour and privilege as others; and that this woman was accounted the wife of the Levite, appears from his being called her husband frequently; and her father is said to be his father-in-law, and he his son-in-law; nor could she have been chargeable with adultery otherwise.
(h) So Pagninus, Tigurine version, Drusius.
John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Wesley 1765 · Public Domain The adultery of the Levite's concubine, ver. 1, 2.…
The adultery of the Levite's concubine, ver. 1, 2. The reconciliation to her, and entertainment at her father's, ver. 3-9. His journey homeward as far as Gibeah, ver. 10-15. An Ephraimite takes him in, ver. 16-21. The men of Gibeah assault the house, ver. 22-24. They force his concubine to death, ver. 25- 28. He sends notice of it to all the tribes of Israel, ver. 29, 30
A. concubine - Hebrew. a wife, a concubine, that is, such a concubine as was also his wife: called a concubine, only because she was not endowed. Perhaps he had nothing to endow her with, being himself only a sojourner.
John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.
Adam Clarke 1810 · Public Domain A Levite and his concubine disagree; and she leaves…
CHAPTER XIX
A Levite and his concubine disagree; and she leaves him and
Read full note →
goes to her father's house, 1, 2.
He follows to bring her back, and is kindly entertained by her
father five days, 3-8.
He returns; and lodges the first night at Gibeah, in the tribe
of Benjamin, 9-21.
The men of Gibeah attack the house, and insist on abusing the
body of the Levite; who, to save himself, delivers to them his
concubine, whose life falls a victim to their brutality, 22-27.
The Levite divides her dead body into twelve pieces, and sends
one to each of the twelve tribes; they are struck with horror,
and call a council on the subject, 28-30.
NOTES ON CHAP. XIX
Verse 1. There was no king in Israel] All sorts of disorders are attributed to the want of civil government; justice, right, truth, and humanity, had fallen in the streets.
Took to him a concubine] We have already seen that the concubine was a sort of secondary wife; and that such connections were not disreputable, being according to the general custom of those times. The word פילגש pilegesh, concubine, is supposed by Mr. Parkhurst to be compounded of פלג palag, "to divide, or share;" and נגש nagash, "to approach;" because the husband shared or divided his attention and affections between her and the real wife; from whom she differed in nothing material, except in her posterity not inheriting.
Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Joseph Benson 1811 · Public Domain Jdg 19:1. Who took him a concubine — Hebrew,…
Jdg 19:1. Who took him a concubine — Hebrew, a wife, a concubine, that is, such a concubine as was also his wife: called a concubine only because she was not endowed. Perhaps he had nothing to endow her with, being himself only a sojourner. “Women of this sort differed little from the wife, except in some outward ceremonies and stipulations, but agreed with her in all the true essentials of marriage, and gave themselves up to the husband, (for so he is called in the next chapter, Jdg 19:4,) with faith plighted, and with affection.” — Dr. Dodd, who refers to Sterne’s Sermons, vol. 3. Ser. 3., and Selden de Jure, Nat. lib. 5. c. 7.
Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Albert Barnes 1834 · Public Domain A concubine - See the margin. The name does…
A concubine - See the margin. The name does not imply any moral reproach. A concubine was as much the man’s wife as the woman so called, though she had not the same rights. See Jdg 19:3-4.
Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary 1859 · Public Domain Ephraim. Some think at Silo, to which place, he…
Ephraim. Some think at Silo, to which place, he says, he was going, (ver. 18,) though it might be only out of devotion. (Calmet) --- A wife. Hebrew, "a concubine." Septuagint joins both together, "he took a harlot to wife." (Haydock)
George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).
Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures 1864 · Public Domain The Story Of The Infamous Deed Perpetrated At Gibeah,…
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.”
Read full note →
____________________
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
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 father’s 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 father’s house: and when the father of the damsel saw him, he rejoiced to meet him. 4And 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. 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 damsel’s 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 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. 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 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. 9And 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, 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 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 Jdg_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 Jdg_19:8—הִתְמַהְמהוּ. 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_19:12—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 Jdg_19:13—לְךָ is for, לְכָה, the imperative of הָלַך, with He paragogic.—לַנּוּ is the 1st per. plur. perfect, contracted from לַנְנוּ—Tr.
[6 Jdg_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. Deu_1:19; Isa_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
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. 19–21 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 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 (Jdg_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. 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 Gideon’s 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 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 act, but also in disposition and spirit (cf. μοιχεύειν ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳMat_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, Lev_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” (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 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. 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. Nägelsbach, 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 (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.” 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 (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.
Jdg_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 (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-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. 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 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:
[1][Jdg_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]Jdg_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]Jdg_19:8—הִתְמַהְמהוּ. 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_19:12—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]Jdg_19:13—לְךָ is for, לְכָה, the imperative of הָלַך, with He paragogic.—לַנּוּ is the 1st per. plur. perfect, contracted from לַנְנוּ—Tr.
[6][Jdg_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. Deu_1:19; Isa_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.]
[7][The German is: über ihn. The sentence seems to mean that if the woman had actually committed adultery, the fact would have been expressed by תִּזְבֱה alone, but that since, her sin existed only in disposition, the עָלָיו 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] סְעָד. 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 Fûl, a high hill about midway between Jerusalem and er-Râm. This place, fixed upon by Robinson (B. R. i. 577), and after him by Ritter (cf. Gage’s transl. iv. 219), and many others, is undoubtedly the site of the ancient Gibeah (cf. Smith’s 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 Fûl from Jerusalem is about two-thirds that of Bethlehem (while Jeba is much farther, cf. Dr. Cassel’s “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.
Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical), ed. John Peter Lange, English translation edited by Philip Schaff (1864–1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Daniel D. Whedon 1874 · Public Domain THE LEVITE AND HIS CONCUBINE, Jdg_19:1-30.
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.
Read full note →
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.
Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges 1878 · Public Domain Ch. 19. The outrage at Gibeah
Ch. 19. The outrage at Gibeah
1. when there was no king] See on Jdg_17:6.
Read full note →
on the farther side] or recesses, probably meaning the northern parts of E.; cf. the recesses of Lebanon 2Ki_19:23, also Isa_14:13, Jer_6:22 etc. Like his fellow in App. i, this Levite is a sojourner, and he has a connexion with Beth-lehem of Judah. See on Jdg_17:7. No doubt he was serving a local sanctuary in some remote quarter of Ephraim.
a concubine] The relationship was sanctioned by custom, cf. Jdg_8:31, Gen_22:24; Gen_25:6 etc.; it was regarded as a real marriage, as the sequel shews. The Hebr. word (= Gk. παλλακίς, Lat. pellex) appears to be foreign and not of Semitic origin; we may infer that originally it was applied to female slaves captured from foreigners, or not of native race.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers 1878 · Public Domain (1) On the side of mount Ephraim.—Literally, on the…
(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 concubine”—i.e., a wife with inferior rights for herself and her children.
A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Pulpit Commentary 1880 · Public Domain When there was no king. (Jud_1:17:6 18:1 21:25) It…
When there was no king. (Jud_1:17:6 18:1 21:25) It appears from Jud_1:20:27, 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 Jud_1:20:27, 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 ver. 18, and Jud_1:20:26, 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. (Jud_1:17:13) 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)
Vers. 1-30. The downward progress.
Read full note →
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. Ver. 1. Cf. on Jud 18:1-13. M.
The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Biblical Illustrator 1887 · Public Domain Whither goest thou?
Jdg_19:1-30
Whither goest thou?
Read full note →
and whence comest thou?
The past and the future
These two questions were usually proposed of old to the traveller, by the inhabitants of any district through which he might be passing; nor were they unnatural in a state of society wherein the infrequency of journeying must have rendered the appearance of a stranger a matter of curiosity, and where, owing to the want of houses of public entertainment, hospitality was an important and necessary duty. What are we all, in truth, but wayfaring men--journeying towards a city of habitation? We are, like this Levite, sojourners passing through the streets--guests that tarry but a night, and who require only a temporary shelter. Whence come we? and whither are we going?
1. The former of these questions, if generally considered, might be answered by remembering that we have no reason to vaunt of our origin, since that is but of yesterday, and of the earth. Why is dust and ashes proud? If a recollection of our lowly origin might thus subdue the imperious, and liberalise the selfish, a sense of our sinful extraction ought in no less measure to abase the self-dependent. Whence come we? Some among us have come from the suffering of affliction. Have we been purified in that furnace? Has the storm, pelting on the wayfaring man, accelerated his homeward pace? Others have come from experiencing remarkable instances of the Divine mercy. They have come from some of the smooth plots of greensward, the isles of palm-trees in the waste. How have they profited by the blessing? Have they thanklessly attributed their success to good fortune, or boldly to their own arm, instead of acknowledging the hand of the Father of lights? Have they tithed the bounty to poverty and distress?
2. It has been said (though the remark is a quaint conceit) that the heathen deity Janus, from whom the first month in our year derives its name, was described in the ancient mythology as having two faces, the one looking on the past, and the other on the future. But there hardly needs so fanciful an allusion as this to advance our contemplations from the irrevocable past to the solemn future. On that future let us next direct our forethought, turning our attention from our origin to our destination, Whither goest thou? We are travelling in a circle. We are hastening back to the earth, from whence we proceeded. Dust we are, and unto dust we shall return.
3. Place now these two questions together; view the line of life from its commencement to its termination; consider the past with reference to the future, and the future as a continuation of the past. If there be any who have arrived at the present season from a year, or a life, which they can review only with shame and sorrow--who, to the question, Whence comest thou? can only reply, like Satan to Jehovah, We come from going to and fro in the earth, and from wandering up and down in it--let them think of the end of those hitherto squandered days, to which they are ever speeding, and know not how near they are come, that they may, if possible, redeem the time that is past, and improve that which is passing. (J. Grant, M. A.)
Let all thy wants be upon me.
Helping others
1. This old mans practice commends to us a double duty: the one that we should be ready to remove grief from our brethren, and to quiet their troubled minds as we may. For grief and heaviness do much hinder the mind from doing any duty; especially they being deeply seated in the heart, and turbulent passions of themselves, and therefore the easing it of them is a setting of it at liberty.
2. The second duty we learn is more particularly the duty of hospitality; which as far as need required he did unto this Levite. The like kindness is to be showed by us to strangers sad in heart, being known to be brethren, that they be used of us kindly and in all courtesy, but in no wise to grieve them, being already heavy-hearted. (R. Rogers.)
Consider of it, take advice, and speak your minds.--
Deliberation
I. There are some actions so shocking that all men do, upon the first hearing of them, without taking time to consider, without asking the opinion of others, unanimously agree to condemn them. Now, amongst those truths which do thus gain our assent upon the first view I think we may justly reckon those judgments which we form concerning the essential differences of moral good and evil. For our sight is not more quick in discerning the variety of figures and colours, nor more taken with the beauty of some, or displeased with the deformity of others; the nicest ear hath not a more distinct perception of the harmony or discord of sounds; nor doth the most delicate palate more accurately distinguish tastes than our intellectual faculties do apprehend the plain distinction between right and wrong, honest and dishonest, good and evil, and find an agreeableness and satisfaction in the one, a disagreeableness and dissatisfaction in the other. And it is for very wise and good reasons that God hath so formed our faculties that concerning such actions as are extraordinary in either kind, such as are extremely good or extremely wicked, all men should be able to judge thus readily and thus truly. For, in human life, it often happens that an occasion is given us of doing some great good, or a temptation laid before us to commit some great evil, when there is no leisure allowed us of entering into a long deliberation, in which cases it is necessary that we should act according to our present light; and therefore by Providence wisely ordered that we should enjoy such open daylight that there should be no danger of our stumbling. By this method God hath made the same wholesome provision for the security of our souls as He hath done for preserving the health of our bodies. To such meats as might prove noxious to us, and being once taken down, digested, and mingled with the mass of our blood might quickly destroy our lives, we have often so strong an antipathy that we refrain from them merely on account of this natural aversion, without considering the mischievous consequences that might arise from our indulging ourselves in them; and in the like manner, those sins which carry with them the greatest malignity, and which are most perilous to the souls of men, do create in our minds an utter abhorrence.
II. Although such actions do at the first view appear very odious, yet in order to confirm or rectify our first judgments it is proper to consider them farther, and to take in the advice of others, When a thing appears crooked to the eye upon the first view, we cannot but pay so much deference to the testimony of our senses as to presume it such; but because this appearance may sometimes proceed from a defect in the organ, and not from any real crookedness in the object, for our better satisfaction we measure it by a rule, and then pronounce with more certainty concerning it. And the same method we ought to observe in judging of moral actions; if they, at the first sight, appear notoriously wicked, we cannot but entertain a violent suspicion of their being such; but because this appearance may arise from some corruption of our judgment, when there is no obliquity in the actions themselves, the best way to prevent all possibility of error will be to examine them by the only infallible test, the law of God. But this sentence will carry still more weight if we do not depend too much upon our own judgments, but call in the advice of others. Men are so apt to differ in their opinions, and take so great a delight in contradicting each other, that those truths must carry with them a more than ordinary degree of evidence in which all or most men do agree. He who considers what a wide difference there is in the ways of mens thinking and judging, from the difference of their complexions, tempers, education, character, profession, age, religion, and other innumerable specialities by which they are distinguished one from another, and disposed to form very different judgments concerning the same persons or things, will not be surprised to find that several men do seldom concur in the verdict which they pass upon those actions that fall within their observation. Some speculative truths there are in which the interests of men being not at all concerned all may unanimously agree; some rules of life there may be, though these much fewer than the other, which most men may join in the approbation of; some virtues and vices which, considered abstractedly and without regard to persons, they may agree to praise or to condemn, but when they come to judge of actions, not as they are in idea and theory, but as they are in reality and fact, nor as they are in books, but as they are performed by such and such men, here several things will offer themselves to influence and bias their judgments. When, therefore, notwithstanding there are so many and strong obstacles to hinder men from concurring in their opinions, any actions are condemned by a general consent, this unanimity of judgment is, though not a demonstrative proof, yet a very strong presumption, that such actions are notoriously wicked, and in reality such as they do universally appear.
III. When any actions do, both at the first view and also upon farther inquiry, appear very flagitious, we should then, without any reserve, openly and freely speak our minds concerning them. A mark of infamy hath, by the universal consent of all civilised nations, been set upon some actions, tending either to the great disparagement of human nature, or to the great disturbance of civil societies, that a sense of shame and fear of disgrace might be powerful curbs to restrain men from doing such vile things as would be sure to stain their reputations, and to fix an indelible blot of ignominy upon their memories. The greatest mischief that can possibly be done to the souls of men is to discourage them from doing their duty by speaking evil of what God hath commanded, and to encourage them in the commission of sin by speaking well of what God hath condemned, and therefore a woe is justly denounced by the prophet Isaiah against those who call good evil and evil good. But the interests of virtue and piety are also very much endamaged by those who, though they do not go so far as to call evil good, do yet, by a criminal silence, forbear to call it evil; and therefore those priests are accused by God of violating His laws and profaning His holy things who put no difference between the holy and profane, neither show the difference between the clean and the unclean. (Bp. Smalridge.).
The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Expositor's Bible 1887 · Public Domain Judges 19-21
FROM JUSTICE TO WILD REVENGE
Judges 19-21
Read full note →
THESE last chapters describe a general and vehement outburst of moral indignation throughout Israel, recorded for various reasons. A vile thing is done in one of the towns of Benjamin and the fact is published in all the tribes. The doers of it are defended by their clan and fearful punishment is wrought upon them, not without suffering to the entire people. Like the incidents narrated in the chapters immediately preceding, these must have occurred at an early stage in the period of the judges, and they afford another illustration of the peril of imperfect government, the need for a vigorous administration of justice over the land. The crime and the volcanic vengeance belong to a time when there was "no king in Israel" and, despite occasional appeals to the oracle, "every man did that which was right in his own eyes." In this we have one clue to the purpose of the history.
The crime of Gibeah brought under our notice here connects itself with that of Sodom and represents a phase of immorality which, indigenous to Canaan, mixed its putrid current with Hebrew life. There are traces of the same horrible impurity in the Judah of Rehoboam and Asa; and in the story of Josiahs reign we are horrified to read of "houses of Sodomites that were in the house of the Lord, where the women, wove hangings for the Asherah." With such lurid historical light on the subject we can easily understand the revival of this warning lesson from the past of Israel and the fulness of detail with which the incidents are recorded. A crime originally that of the off-scourings of Gibeah became practically the sin of a whole tribe, and the war that ensued sets in a clear light the zeal for domestic purity which was a feature in every religious revival and, at length, in the life of the Hebrew people.
It may be asked how, while polygamy was practised among the Israelites, the sin of Gibeah could rouse such indignation and awaken the signal vengeance of the united tribes. The answer is to be found partly in the singular and dreadful device which the indignant husband used in making the deed known. The ghastly symbols of outrage told the tale in a way that was fitted to stir the blood of the whole country. Everywhere the hideous thing was made vivid and a sense of utmost atrocity was kindled as the dissevered members were borne from town to town. It is easy to see that womanhood must have been stirred to the fieriest indignation, and manhood was bound to follow. What woman could be safe in Gibeah where such things were done? And was Gibeah to go unpunished? If so, every Hebrew city might become the haunt of miscreants. Further there is the fact that the woman so foully murdered, though a concubine, was the concubine of a Levite. The measure of sacredness with which the Levites were invested gave to this crime, frightful enough in any view, the colour of sacrilege. How degenerate were the people of Gibeah when a servant of the altar could be treated with such foul indignity and driven to so extraordinary an appeal for justice? There could be no blessing on the tribes if they allowed the doers or condoners of this thing to go unpunished. Every Levite throughout the land must have taken up the cry. From Bethel and other sanctuaries the call for vengeance would spread and echo till the nation was roused. Thus, in part at least, we can explain the vehemence of feeling which drew together the whole fighting force of the tribes.
The doubt will yet remain whether there could have been so much purity of life or respect for purity as to sustain the public indignation. Some may say, Is there not here a sufficient reason for questioning the veracity of the narrative? First, however, let it be remembered that often where morals are far from reaching the level of pure monogamic life distinctions between right and wrong are sharply drawn. Acquaintance with phases of modern life that are most painful to the mind sensitively pure reveals a fixed code which none may infringe without bringing upon themselves reprobation, perhaps more vehement than in a higher social grade visits the breach of a higher law. It is the fact that concubinage has its unwritten acknowledgment and protecting customs. There is marriage that is only a name; there is concubinage that gives the woman more rights than one who is married. Against the immorality and the gross evils of cohabitation is to be set this unwritten law. And arguing from popular feeling in our great cities we reach the conclusion that in ancient Israel where concubinage prevailed there was a wide and keen feeling as to the rights of concubines and the necessity of upholding them. Many women must have been in this relation, below those who could count themselves legally married, and all the more that the concubine occupied a place inferior to that of the lawful wife would popular opinion take up her cause and demand the punishment of those who did her wrong.
And here we are led to a point which demands clear statement and recognition. It has been too readily supposed that polygamy is always a result of moral decline and indicates a low state of domestic purity. It may, in truth, be a rude step of progress. Has it been sufficiently noted that in those countries in which the name of the mother, not of the father, descended to the children the reason may be found in universal or almost universal unchastity? In Egypt at one time the law gave to women, especially to mothers, peculiar rights; but to praise Egyptian civilisation for this reason and hold up its treatment of women as an example to the nineteenth century is an extraordinary venture. The Israelites, however lax, were doubtless in advance of the society of Thebes. Among the Canaanites the moral degradation of women, whatever freedom may have gone with it, was so terrible that the Hebrew with his two or three wives and concubines but with a morality otherwise severe, must have represented a new and holier social order as well as a new and holier religion. It is therefore not incredible, but appears simply in accordance with the instincts and customs proper to the Hebrew people, that the sin of Gibeah should provoke overwhelming indignation. There is no pretence of purity, no hypocritical anger. The feeling is sound and real. Perhaps in no other matter of a moral kind would there have been such intense and unanimous exasperation. A point of justice or of belief would not have so moved the tribes. The better self of Israel appears, asserting its claim and power. And the miscreants of Gibeah representing the lower self, verily an unclean spirit, are detested and denounced on every hand.
The time was that of fresh feeling, unwarped by those customs which in the guise of civilisation and refinement afterwards corrupted the nation. And we may see the prophetic or hortatory use of the narrative for an after age in which doings as vile as those at Gibeah were sanctioned by the court and protected even by religious leaders. It would be hoped by the sacred historian that this tale of the fierce indignation of the tribes might rouse afresh the same moral feeling. He would fain stir a careless people and their priests by the exhibition of this tumultuous vengeance. Nor can we say that the necessity for the impressive lesson has ceased. In the heart of our large cities vices as vile as those of Gibeah are heard muttering in the nightfall, life as abandoned lurks and festers, creating a social gangrene.
Recognise, then, in these chapters a truth for all time boldly drawn out-the great truth as to moral reform and national purity. Law will not cure moral evils; a statute book the purest and noblest will not save. Those who by the impulse of the Spirit gathered the various traditions of Israels life knew well that on a living conscience in men everything depended, and they at least indicate the further truth which many of ourselves have not grasped, that the early and rude workings of conscience, producing stormy and terrible results, are a necessary stage of development. As there must be energy before there can be noble energy, so there must be moral vigour, it may be rude, violent, ignorant, a stream rushing out of barbarian hills, sweeping with most appalling vehemence, before there can be spiritual life patient, calm, and holy. Law is a product, not a cause; it is not the code we make that will perserve us but the God-given conscience that informs the code and ever goes before it a pillar of fire, at times flashing vivid lightning. Even Christian law cannot save a people if it be merely a series of injunctions. Nothing will do but the mind of Christ in every man and woman continually inspiring and directing life. The reformer who thinks that a statute or regulation will end some sin or evil custom is in sad error. Say the decree he contends for is enacted; but have the consciences of those against whom it is made been quickened? If not, the law merely expresses a popular mood, and the life of the whole community will not be permanently raised in tone.
The church finds here a perpetual mission of influence. Her doctrine is but half her message. From the doctrine as from an eternal fount must go life-giving moral heat in every range, and the Spirit is ever with her to make the world like a fire. Her duty is wide as righteousness, great as mans destiny; it is never ended, for each generation comes in a new hour with new needs. The church, say some, is finishing its work; it is doomed to be one of the broken moulds of life. But the church that is the instructor of conscience and kindles the flame of righteousness has a mission to the ages. We are far yet from that day of the Lord when all the people shall be prophets; and until then how can the world live without the church? It would be a body without a soul.
Conscience the oracle of life, conscience working badly rather than held in chains of mere rule without spontaneity and inspiration, moral energy widespread, personal, and keen, however rude-here is one of the notes of the sacred writer; and another note, no less distinct, is the assertion of moral intolerance. It has not occurred to this prophetic annalist that endurance of evil has any curative power. He is a Hebrew, full of indignation against the vile and false, and he demands a heat of moral force in his people. Foul things are done at the court and even in the temple; there is a depraving indifference to purity, a loose notion (very similar to the idea of our day), that all the sides of life should have free play and that the heathen had much to teach Israel. The whole of the narrative before us is infused with a righteous protest against evil, a holy plea for intolerance of sin. Will men refuse instruction and persist in making themselves one with bestiality and outrage? Then judgment must deal with them on the ground they have chosen to occupy, and until they repent the conscience of the race must repudiate them together with their sin. Along with a keenly burning conscience there goes this necessity of moral intolerance. Charity is good, but not always in place; and brotherhood itself demands at times strong uncompromising judgment of the evildoer. How else among men of weak wills and wavering hearts can righteousness vindicate and enforce itself as the eternal reality of life? Compassion is strong only when it is linked to unfaltering declarations; mercy is divine only when it turns a front of mail to wickedness and flashes lightning at proud wrong, Any other kind of charity is but a new offence-the sinner pardoning sin.
Now the people of Gibeah were not all vile. The wretches whose crime called for judgment were but the rabble of the town. And we can see that the tribes when they gathered in indignation were made serious by the thought that the righteous might be punished with the wicked. We are told that they went up to the sanctuary and asked counsel of the Lord whether they should attack the convicted city. There was a full muster of the fighting men, their blood at fever heat, yet they would not advance without an oracle. It was an appeal to heavenly justice and demands notice as a striking feature of the whole terrible series of events. For an hour there is silence in the camp till a higher voice shall speak.
But what is the issue? The oracle decrees an immediate attack on Gibeah in the face of all Benjamin, which has shown the temper of heathenism by refusing to give up the criminals. Once and again there is trial of battle which ends in defeat of the allied tribes. The wrong triumphs; the people have to return humbled and weeping to the Sacred Presence and sit fasting and disconsolate before the Lord.
Not without the suffering of the entire community is a great evil to be purged from a land. It is easy to execute a murderer, to imprison a felon. But the spirit of the murderer, of the felon, is widely diffused, and that has to be cast out. In the great moral struggle year after year the better have not only the openly vile but all who are tainted, all who are weak in soul, loose in habit, secretly sympathetic with the vile, arrayed against them. There is a sacrifice of the good before the evil are overcome. In vicarious suffering many must pay the penalty of crimes not their own ere the wide-reaching wickedness can be seen in its demonic power and struck down as the cruel enemy of the people.
When an assault is made on some vile custom the sardonic laugh is heard of those who find their profit and their pleasure in it. They feel their power. They know the wide sympathy with them spread secretly through the land. Once and again the feeble attempt of the good is repelled. With sad hearts, with impoverished means, those who led the crusade retire baffled and weary. Has their method been unintelligent? There very possibly lies the cause of its failure. Or, perhaps, it has been, though nominally inspired by an oracle, all too human, weak through human pride. Not till they gain with new and deeper devotion to the glory of God, with more humility and faith, a clearer view of the battleground and a better ordering of the war shall defeat be changed into victory. And may it not be that the assault on moral evils of our day, in which multitudes are professedly engaged, in which also many have spent substance and life, shall fail till there is a true humiliation of the armies of God before Him, a new consecration to higher and more spiritual ends? Human virtue has ever to be jealous of itself, the reformer may so easily become a Pharisee.
The tide turned and there came another danger, that which waits on ebullitions of popular feeling. A crowd roused to anger is hard to control, and the tribes having once tasted vengeance did not cease till Benjamin was almost exterminated. The slaughter extended not only to the fighting men, but to women and children. The six hundred who fled to the rock fort of Rimmon appear as the only survivors of the clan. Justice overshot its mark and for one evil made another. Those who had most fiercely used the sword viewed the result with horror and amazement, for a tribe was lacking in Israel. Nor was this the end of slaughter. Next for the sake of Benjamin the sword was drawn and the men of Jabesh-gilead were butchered. It has to be noticed that the oracle is not made responsible for this horrible process of evil. The people came of their own accord to the decision which annihilated Jabesh-gilead. But they gave it a pious colour; religion and cruelty went together, sacrifices to Jehovah and this frightful outbreak of demonism. It is one of the dark chapters of human history. For the sake of an oath and an idea death was dealt remorselessly. No voice suggested that the people of Jabesh may have been more cautious than the rest, not less faithful to the law of God. The others were resolved to appear to themselves to have been right in almost annihilating Benjamin; and the town which had not joined in the work of destruction must be punished.
The warning conveyed here is intensely keen. It is that men, made doubtful by the issue of their actions whether they have done wisely, may fly to the resolution to justify themselves and may do so even at the expense of justice; that a nation may pass from the right way to the wrong and then, having sunk to extraordinary baseness and malignity, may turn writhing and self-condemned to add cruelty to cruelty in the attempt to still the upbraidings of conscience. It is that men in the heat of passion which began with resentment against evil may strike at those who have not joined in their errors as well as those who truly deserve reprobation. We stand, nations and individuals, in constant danger of dreadful extremes, a kind of insanity hurrying us on when the blood is heated by strong emotion. Blindly attempting to do right we do evil, and again having done the evil, we blindly strive to remedy it by doing more. In times of moral darkness and chaotic social conditions, when men are guided by a few rude principles, things are done that afterwards appal themselves, and yet may become an example for future outbreaks. During the fury of their Revolution the French people, with some watchwords of the true ring as liberty, fraternity, turned hither and thither, now in terror, now panting after dimly seen justice or hope, and it was always from blood to blood. We understand the juncture in ancient Israel and realise the excitement and the rage of a self-jealous people, when we read the modern tales of surging ferocity in which men appear now hounding the shouting crowd to vengeance, then shuddering on the scaffold.
In private life the story has an application against wild and violent methods of self-vindication. Many a man, hurried on by a just anger against one who has done him wrong, sees to his horror after a sharp blow is struck that he has broken a life and thrown a brother bleeding to the dust. One wrong thing has been done perhaps more in haste than vileness of purpose, and retribution, hasty, ill-considered, leaves the moral question tenfold more confused. When all is reckoned we find it impossible to say where the right is, where the wrong.
Passing to the final expedient adopted by the chiefs of Israel to rectify their error-the rape of the women at Shiloh-we see only to how pitiful a pass moral blundering brings those who fall into it: other moral teaching there is none. We might at first be disposed to say that there was extraordinary want of reverence for religious order and engagements when the men of Benjamin were invited to make a sacred festival the occasion of taking what the other tribes had solemnly vowed not to give. But the festival at Shiloh must have been far more of a merry making than of a sacred assembly. It needs to be recognised that many gatherings even in honour of Jehovah were mainly, like those of Canaanite worship, for hilarity and feasting. There was probably no great incongruity between the occasion and the plot.
But the scenes certainly change in the course of this narrative with extraordinary swiftness. Fierce indignation is followed by pity, weeping for defeat by tears for too complete a victory. Horrible bloodshed wastes the cities and in a month there is dancing in the plain of Shiloh not ten miles from the field of battle. Chaotic indeed are the morality and the history; but it is the disorder of social life in its early stages, with the vehemence and tenderness, the ferocity and laughter of a nations youth. And, all along, the Book of Judges bears the stamp of veracity as a series of records because these very features are to be seen-this tumult, this undisciplined vehemence in feeling and act. Were we told here of decorous solemn progress at slow march, every army going forth with some stereotyped invocation of the Lord of Hosts, every leader a man of conventional piety supported by a blameless priesthood and orderly sacrifices, we should have had no evidence of truth. The traditions preserved here, whoever collected them, are singularly free from that idyllic colour which an imaginative writer would have endeavoured to give.
At the last, accordingly, the book we have been reading stands a real piece of history, proving itself over every kind of suspicion a true record of a people chosen and guided to a destiny greater than any other race of man has known. A people understanding its call and responding with eagerness at every point? Nay. The worm is in the heart of Israel as of every other nation, The carnal attracts, and malignant cries overbear the divine still voice; the air of Canaan breathes in every page, and we need to recollect that we are viewing the turbulent upper waters of the nation and the faith. But the working of God is plain; the divine thoughts we believed Israel to have in trust for the world are truly with it from the first, though darkened by altars of Baal and of Ashtoreth. The Word and Covenant of Jehovah are vital facts of the supernatural which surrounds that poor struggling erring Hebrew flock. Theocracy is a divine fact in a larger sense than has ever been attached to the word. Inspiration too is no dream, for the history is charged with intimations of the spiritual order. The light of the unrealised end flashes on spear and altar, and in the frequent roll of the storm the voice of the Eternal is heard declaring righteousness and truth. No story this to praise a dynasty or magnify a conquering nation or support a priesthood. Nothing so faithful, so true to heaven and to human nature could be done from that motive. We have here an imperishable chapter in the Book of God.
William Robertson Nicoll, ed., The Expositor's Bible (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1887–1910) — public domain. 65 of 66 books (1 Corinthians is not separately keyed, as that volume carries no machine-parseable verse references); section-level commentary keyed to the opening verse. Introductory and overview sections not keyed to a specific passage are excluded.
The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary 1892 · Public Domain
A TRAGIC CHAPTER IN ISRAEL’S HISTORY
(Jdg_19:1-30.)
Read full note →
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 God’s 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).
The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary (gen. ed. Joseph S. Exell; Funk & Wagnalls, c. 1892) — public domain (pre-1929). A full-Bible homiletical/sermon-outline anthology covering 65 of 66 books (2 John is absent from the source module). Text from a community e-Sword module.
F. W. Grant 1903 · Public Domain Subdivision 2. (Jdg 19:1-30; Jdg 20:1-48; Jdg 21:1-25.)
Subdivision 2. (Jdg 19:1-30; Jdg 20:1-48; Jdg 21:1-25.)
Breach between man and man: the Benjamite war.
Read full note →
We now come to the sins against the second table of the law. The breach with God sunders all links at once, and the whole framework of society shows itself as ready to fall to pieces. The story here is a sickening one; and if it is thus given us in detail, there must be corresponding need on our part. It does not follow that it will furnish proportionate material for such notes as these, the lesson being so strictly a moral one, and needing so little an interpreter. But what a world is this, in which such scenes can be! The thing we need is to trace them to their root, and let the shock which they produce make us cling close to those paternal arms, which, circling us all, alone can hold us fast to one another.
We hear once more of Mount Ephraim and of Bethlehem-judah: the figure of a Levite is again prominent, and not with honor; but the place of Laish is now filled by Gibeah, and the tribe connected with it in shame is not Dan but Benjamin. But all Israel is here, in one way or other, involved; and the shadow left upon the people is a dark and terrible one.
1. We have first the account of the awful deed at Gibeah. The Levite and his concubine are evidently intended to convey to us the general laxity. The woman is hardly lighter than the man. The five days of eating and drinking at Bethlehem have their moral significance: then the departure, when too late; the notice of Jerusalem as a Jebusite city, twice apparently recovered out of the hands of the Israelites, and Judeans and Benjamites having been driven out from their partial hold upon it. It is now a city of the stranger; but no more strange than Gibeah of Benjamin, with its ominous lack of common hospitality. The one who receives them at last is an Ephraimite; and touched, perhaps, by the recognition of one from his own locality. His Levite character seems not to be in the traveler’s mind,* -though he is afraid, as well he might be, of the Canaanite city.
{*Except with Keil and Cassel we translate verse 18, "I walk at the house of Jehovah," that is, "my walk in life" is there. But few accept this however, and the expression seems a strange one. On the other hand, the mention of the house of Jehovah at all seems strange also, as he was simply going home. If he speaks of his calling, however, it seems mere wounded dignity.}
There follows the horrible outbreak,which makes him realize that the Israelite city is as bad as any Canaanite one. All through it is a repetition of the Sodomite outrage, but without the angel-guard that insured things there. The old man, their host, repeats Lot’s offer. The Levite, for his own safety’s sake, abandons his concubine to the insane fury of the crowd. The morning finds her dead, with her hands stretched, imploring and in vain, over the violated threshold.
Then comes the call for judgment, -itself brutal, and effective in its brutality. The doubly dishonored body makes its own ghastly appeal, and all Israel is summoned to give its answer.
2. And not in vain is the summons. Israel gather, by their representatives, from Dan to Beersheba, save only the tribe involved, and the Levite at Mizpeh recounts the awful story, -reticent, naturally, however, as to his own part in it. The people respond with prompt determination, and all the men of Israel are gathered against the city, knit together as one man.
But Benjamin refuses the appeal to them, and gathers to the defense of Gibeah with sullen resolution. They are practiced warriors, and seem to build upon it, though but little more than a fifteenth part of the combined forces opposed. Israel has, too, the house of God; and it is not a moment doubtful on which side He will be. How fearful must be, then, the condition of those that can thus fling themselves into the adverse ranks!
The united people, on the other hand, do not neglect to consult the divine oracle. They inquire as to who shall lead on the attack upon Benjamin, and are answered, "Judah shall be first." But to be fit to be used of God to deal with evil involves much more than readiness to be His instrument. They are too ready, as we see in the result. Their wrath is too prompt, too implacable, too unsparing. Theirs is the reckless haste of vengeance, and not the solemn discrimination of divine judgment. They remember not their own sins, bring no sin-offering to God, no tears of penitence. They build on their numbers; no doubt on the justice of their cause, also, but in self-righteousness and without self-suspicion. Thus they go up to smite, and they are smitten heavily, disastrously. Benjamin, the wrong-doer, is wholly victorious.
Then, indeed, they go up and weep before Jehovah, and seem to remember that Benjamin is their "brother," and inquire, shall they go up against him any more? They are answered, simply, "Go up"; and when they go are again smitten almost as heavily as before. Their losses in these two encounters far exceed the whole number of the men of Benjamin, -exceed them by half as many again.
What a lesson as to the hasty and self-righteous judgment of real iniquity! Yet the word from Jehovah was, none the less, "Go up"; and such judgment of it is as imperatively necessary today. But it must be judgment all round, -self-judgment before any other. And now they come up once more before God, and weep, and offer at last burnt-offerings and peace-offerings, fasting that day till even: and they are heard of God, and obtain the assurance that tomorrow Benjamin will be given up into their hand.
Remembering the connection of Bethel with the life of Jacob, and the discipline to which he is made to bow -that it is here the ark of God is at this time, and not at Shiloh, the place of "peace," -must be surely significant. And now we see on the part of Israel a self-distrust they had not before. The stratagem at Ai is repeated, and with a like result; for Benjamin, elated with their previous victories, easily fall into the snare, and are only awakened at last, too late, when they see Gibeah going up in flame to heaven. Destruction falls overwhelmingly upon them: only six hundred men escape to the cliff of Rimmon. The rest -with women and children, everything in their cities the merciless edge of the sword devours. For one awful crime of Gibeah, thousands of innocent lives pay forfeit. But the state, everywhere, we see is frightful. All this time the insult to God in Dan abides unnoticed: a web of heathen cities is suffered to entangle them with the abominations of Baal and Ashtaroth-worship, while indiscriminating judgment extirpates almost one tribe in Israel. The facts need here but the briefest comment.
3. At last, when the sword has done its reckless work, and a few hundred young men, stripped of all that they held dear in life, alone remain, the people wake up to realize the result of their own handiwork; and to inquire, as if of an inscrutable Providence, why this had come to pass. And now they find themselves bound by their own past acts, in which they must seem to have deliberately contemplated the extinction of a tribe, which they had almost accomplished, and of which they are quite ready to throw the blame on God. They had bound themselves, under a curse, not to give a wife to a Benjamite. And now, instead of bringing this in penitential sorrow before God, and seeking to be loosed from their folly, they take the matter once more into their cruel hands.
The inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead had sent no aid to Israel in the war; and this, with another of their desperate oaths, they had adjudged a crime worthy of death. One oath is made the means of evading another; and they send an expedition against the unfortunate city to inflict the ban of utter destruction upon it, reserving only by an exception which they had no right to make, but which condemned their wholesale and pitiless slaughter -four hundred young maidens for wives to Benjamin.
But this is not enough, and they must have another expedient. Scrupulous oath-keepers as they are, who must not give their daughters, they consider it all right that the Benjamites should steal them; and actually suggest a festival to Jehovah as a good opportunity for them to do this! Then they will intercede for them with the aggrieved relations: and this is the plan that is finally carried out.
This is Israel, the people of God: infirm and wavering where good is to be accomplished; quick and decisive where patience and forbearance would become them; tolerant of what is only against God; fierce and unsparing in judgment, save only of themselves; scrupulously keeping an insane oath, yet managing to evade it by a jesuitry that deceives no one. Such is the people of God, and such is Christendom today; and such it has been. Let us search our hearts as we read the record, -not given as a record without purpose in it. How solemn is the repetition at the end of what has been the text of these closing chapters: "In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did what was right in his own eyes."
F. W. Grant, The Numerical Bible (4th ed., 1903) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
J. R. Dummelow 1909 · Public Domain The Wickedness of Gibeah
The Wickedness of Gibeah
A Levite and his concubine meet with foul treatment at Gibeah, a town of Benjamin. The indignation of the other tribes is roused against the Benjamites.
Read full note →
This chapter gives the cause of the war between the rest of the tribes and Benjamin, with which the remainder of Judges is concerned. It is difficult to determine the period to which this war should be assigned. In Judges 20 there is no recognised leader or judge in Israel, but all the tribes (quite differently from elsewhere) act together 'as one man' (Jdg_20:1-11); and the numbers given (Jdg_20:2, Jdg_20:15-25) imply a very large population; though an army approaching half a million in number seems unthinkable. On the other hand, it is hard to believe that Benjamin could have suffered such a disaster as this within a generation or two of Saul's accession to the throne. Probably we have an old story, dating from the wild days before Saul (Jdg_19:1; Jdg_20:28), part of which at least (20, Jdg_21:1-14) was retold at a much later period, when the exact details had been lost and were replaced by the writer's conceptions of the past: see on Jdg_20:28.
1. When there was no king] see on Jdg_17:6. A certain Levite] see on Jdg_17:7.
3. He rejoiced] feeling the separation to be a disgrace.
10. Jebus] see Jdg_1:21 : also Jos_15:8; 1Ch_11:4. The journey from Bethlehem would not take more than two hours.
12. See on Jdg_1:7, Jdg_1:8. Did they remember the story of Sodom (Genesis 19)?
13. Gibeah.. Ramah] both N. of Jerusalem.
14. There is hardly any twilight in Palestine.
15. Gibeah thus proves as inhospitable as they feared Jerusalem would be.
16. The field] i.e. the open country surrounding the village.
18. The house of the lord] LXX reads 'my house,' which is preferable.
19. Note the politeness of the phrases 'thy handmaid' and 'thy servants.' The traveller needs nothing except actual house-room. An inn is only the modern substitute for the hospitality on which originally travellers were compelled to rely. This hospitality the stranger from Ephraim (cp. Luk_10:33) insists on providing fully.
22. Sons of Belial] The Hebrew means simply 'worthless men' or 'rascals.' Belial is not a proper name: cp. 1Sa_1:16).
23. The old man dreads being compelled to violate the laws of Eastern hospitality.
29. Cp. 1Sa_11:7.
J. R. Dummelow, A Commentary on the Holy Bible (Macmillan, 1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Arno C. Gaebelein 1922 · Public Domain 2. Israel’s Moral Condition and the War on Benjamin
2. Israel’s Moral Condition and the War on Benjamin
CHAPTER 19 The Levite and His Concubine
Read full note →
1. The Levite and the unfaithful woman (Jdg 19:1-21)
2. The fate of the concubine (Jdg 19:22-30)
The results of departure from God are now revealed in the awful corruption and violence so faithfully recorded in this chapter. The moral condition of Israel has gone down to the same level of the Canaanites; they sank even lower than the nations whom God had doomed to destruction. We do not repeat the horrible details of this deed of lust and violence. Apostasy from God, rejection of the truth is followed by moral corruption. Rom 1:26-32 shows the vileness of the Gentiles, who turned their backs to the light and did not glorify God. 2Ti 3:1-5 contains the description of the moral corruption of the last days of the present age, the conditions of those who claim to be “religious” and yet are apostates. The days of Lot, with their vileness, are to precede the coming of the Son of Man (Luk 17:28-30). Evidences that such moral corruption and violence exist today throughout professing Christendom are only too numerous.
Arno C. Gaebelein, The Annotated Bible (1913–1922) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Paul E. Kretzmann 1924 · Public Domain The Levite And His Concubine
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.
Read full note →
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.
Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
unfoldingWord translationNotes 2017 · CC BY-SA 4.0 In those days
In those days
This phrase introduces the beginning of another event in the story line. (See: Introduction of a New Event)
Read full note →
remote
far from where most people live
was unfaithful to him
This means that she was unfaithful in their relationship and that she began to sleep with other men. This can be stated explicitly if necessary. AT: "began to sleep with other men" (See: Assumed Knowledge and Implicit Information)
translationWords
king
Israel
Levi
Ephraim
concubine
Bethlehem
Judah
faithful
unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.