A verse by verse commentary on Judges 19 dealing with the account of a Levite and his concubine. she was raped and died, and he cut her to pieces and sent then to all areas of Israel.

1. JUDGES 19 COMME TARY
EDITED BY GLE PEASE
A Levite and His Concubine
1 In those days Israel had no king.
ow a Levite who lived in a remote area in the hill
country of Ephraim took a concubine from
Bethlehem in Judah.
Having no king meant that everyone did what was right in their own eyes, and this
meant a lot of bad news like what this chapter is all about. This Levite was not
being bad by taking a concubine, for it was acceptable behavior in Israel and there
in no moral reproach implied, says Barnes. The concubine was just as much his
wife as his legal wife who got his inheritance. There is no mention of the man's
wife and so she may have died and did not have to endure this sordid story.
A concubine was a lawful wife who was guaranteed only food, clothing, and
marital privileges (Ex 21:7-11; Dt 21:10-14). Any children she bore would be
considered legitimate; but because of her second-class status, they wouldn't
necessarily share in the family inheritance (Ge25:1-6). If a man's wife was barren,
he sometimes took a concubine so he could establish a family. Though the law
controlled concubinage the Lord did not approve or encourage it. Several of the
patriarchs had children with concubines including Abraham with Hagar (Ge16);
Jacob with Bilhah and Zilpah (Ge 30:4-13) Several other OT men had concubines,
including Gideon, Saul, David, and Solomon. It should be noted however that
although a concubine was, in a sense, a legal mistress,
A century and a half earlier, around 1628, the young English cleric Robert
Gomersall (1602-c.1646) had shared this aversion to the prospect of civil war in his
‘poetical meditations’ upon Judges 19 and 20 (‘The Levite’s Revenge: Containing
Poetical Meditations upon the 19. and 20. Chapters of Judges’, Poems, 1633).
They had no King: as well the fools as wise

2. Did all what did seem right in their own Eyes.
And Sodom’s crime seemed right to some: to see
When every man will his own monarch be,
When all subjection is ta’en quite away,
And the same man does govern and obey . . . .
The account of the aftermath of the rape of the concubine (or wife of secondary
rank) is edged with irony. Conjuring up the appropriately voiced eloquence which
the messenger sent to Judah delivers his missive, Gomersall narrates:
But he that unto princely Judah went,
Carrying the head of the dismembered corse,
With such a voice which sorrow had mad hoarse,
(Lest he should rave too highly) thus begins!
‘Is there an heaven? and can there be such sins?
Stands the earth still? methinks I hardly stand,
Feeling the sea’s inconstancy on land.
After this act, why flows the water more? . . . .’
Whereupon, after many further passionate words, the people of Judah themselves
fall into a passion:
He tells them all, what I before have wept;
ow Judah storms, and as a River kept
From its own course by wears and mills, if once
It force a passage, hurries o’er the stones,
Sweeps all along with it, and so alone
Without storms makes an inundation:
Such was the people’s fury. They’re so hot

3. That they will punish what we credit not,
And be as speedy as severe: . . . .
There follows, however, a counterpoint to the strains of war. There are some
elders, it would appear, who urge caution against a rush to judgment:
. . . but some
Who loathed the bloody accents of the drum –
Who thought no mischiefs of that foulness are,
But that they gain excuse, compared with war,
And war with brethren – these, I say, of age
The chief amongst them, do oppose their rage,
Exhort them to a temper. ‘Stay’, says one,
‘And be advised before you be undone.
Whence is this fury? why d’ye make such haste
To do that act which you’ll repent as fast?’
The speaker continues by posing the crucial issue of proportionate response by
conjuring up the realities of war – rape, destruction, neglect, insecurity, and
death:
Are any glad to fight? or can ought be
Mother of war beside necessity?
Be not mistaken! Brethren, take good heed,
It is not physic frequently to bleed.
He that for petty griefs incision makes
Cannot be cured so often as he aches.
Are then your sisters, daughters, wives too chaste?
Or are you sorry that as yet no waste

4. Deforms your richer grounds? or does it stir
An anger in you, that the soldier
Mows not your fields? Poor men, do you lament
That still you are as safe as innocent?
We yet have cities proudly situate,
We yet have people: be it not in Fate
That your esteem of both should be so cheap
To wish those carcasses and these on heap.
The voice of restraint continues by confronting – and countering – its critics:
Do I excuse them then to please the time,
And only make an ‘error’ of a crime?
Am I sin’s advocate? Far be ’t from me
To think so ill of war as sodomy!
For ‘sodomy’ I term it: Justice calls
That ‘fact’ which never into action falls
If it hath passed the license of the will:
And their intent reached to that height of ill –
But whose intent? O pardon me, there be
Benjamites spotless of that Infamy.
Shall these be joined in punishment? a sin
You’d war against? O do not then begin
To act a greater, as if you would see
Whether injustice equaled luxury!
The poem ends with a recognition of its whimsy, that words rather than swords

5. might stop the cycle of revenge. With civil war in England but a few short years
away, these lines have, in hindsight, a kind of sad prescience:
But are not we true Benjamites in this,
And aggravate what e’er we do amiss
By a new act, as if the second deed
Excused the former, if it did exceed?
Did we not thus, an end were come to war;
Did we not thus, no more should private jar
Molest our peace. Kings might put up their swords,
And every quarrel might conclude in words:
One conference would root out all debate
And they might then most love, who now most hate,
The most sworn foes: for show me, where is he
Would seek revenge without an injury?
BAR ES, "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.
CLARKE, "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.

6. GILL, "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;
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.
HE RY, "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.
JAMISO , "Jdg_19:1-15. A Levite going to Bethlehem to fetch his wife.
it came to pass in those days — The painfully interesting episode that follows,
together with the intestine commotion the report of it produced throughout the country,
belongs to the same early period of anarchy and prevailing disorder.
a certain Levite ... took to him a concubine — The priests under the Mosaic law
enjoyed the privilege of marrying as well as other classes of the people. It was no
disreputable connection this Levite had formed; for a nuptial engagement with a
concubine wife (though, as wanting in some outward ceremonies, it was reckoned a

7. secondary or inferior relationship) possessed the true essence of marriage; it was not
only lawful, but sanctioned by the example of many good men.
K&D, "Infamous Crime of the Inhabitants of Gibeah. - Jdg_19:1-14. At the time when
there was no king in Israel, a Levite, who sojourned (i.e., lived outside a Levitical town)
in the more remote parts of the mountains of Ephraim, took to himself a concubine out
of Bethlehem in Judah, who proved unfaithful to him, and then returned to her father's
house. ‫ם‬ִ‫י‬ ַ‫ר‬ ְ‫פ‬ ֶ‫ר־א‬ ַ‫ה‬ ‫י‬ ֵ‫ת‬ ְⅴ ְ‫ר‬ַ‫,י‬ the hinder or outermost parts of the mountains of Ephraim, are
the northern extremity of these mountains; according to Jdg_19:18, probably the
neighbourhood of Shiloh. ‫יו‬ ָ‫ל‬ ָ‫ע‬ ‫ה‬ֶ‫נ‬ְ‫ז‬ ִ , “she played the harlot out beyond him,” i.e., was
unfaithful to her husband, and then went away from him,” back to her father's house.
COFFMA , "Verse 1
EXAMPLE 2
THE EAR EXTERMI ATIO OF THE TRIBE OF BE JAMI (Judges 19-21)
THE ATROCIOUS MURDER OF A LEVITE'S CO CUBI E
In these chapters, the near-total collapse of moral integrity in Israel occurred.
Richard Halverson, as quoted by Campbell, stated that:
"Here we have the sewer of Scripture ... the most disgusting story in the Bible,
unredeemed by an admirable character or a noble act. To read these chapters is to
be repelled by them; and one cannot help feeling rather dirty. It is almost as bad as
reading today's newspaper!"[1]
The sordid record begins with the brutal murder of a helpless bride whose husband
sacrificed her to cruel Sodomite sons of the Devil without lifting a little finger to
protect her.
"The events recorded here occurred during the lifetime of Phinehas and while the
Ark of the Covenant was at Shiloh ... Phinehas evidently outlived Joshua; and the
events narrated here occurred during the interval between the deaths of Joshua and
of Phinehas."[2] This appears to be true, based upon Judges 2:27-28. Josephus'
narrative of his version of these events coincides with this conclusion.
A LEVITE'S MARRIAGE I TROUBLE
"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 Bethlehem-judah. And his concubine played the
harlot against him, and went away from him to her father's house in Bethlehem-
judah, and was there the space of four months. And her husband arose, and went
after her, to speak kindly unto her, and to bring her again, having his servant with

8. 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."
"And his concubine played the harlot against him" (Judges 19:2). This is a disputed
passage, several able scholars claiming that it should be rendered, "she became
angry with him," as in the RSV. However, Dalglish rejected this change, affirming
that, "There is no need to adopt it, and that the concubine played the harlot against
her husband."[3]
If the ASV is correct, then this Levite violated the law of God (Leviticus 20:10) in
taking back an adulteress as his wife. Although, we cannot dogmatically reject the
RSV, the moral climate in which this narrative is set strongly favors retaining the
ASV here, as Dalglish suggested.
"He went after her, to speak kindly to her, to bring her again" (Judges 19:3).
Whatever the reason for the concubine's leaving, the Levite decided to go to her
residence and persuade her to return. This favors the rendition in the RSV, because
it seems that the Levite himself was to blame for the break-up, as indicated by these
words.
Josephus' account of this episode is evidently untrustworthy in some particulars,
but as regards the trouble with this marriage, he might have been correct.
They quarreled with one another perpetually, and at last the woman was so
disgusted at these quarrels that she left her husband and went to her parents.[4]
That the Levite, if he was faithful to God's law, attempted to restore the marriage
certainly indicates that he must have been the guilty party in the break-up.
ELLICOTT, "Judges 19:1-4. A Levite of Mount Ephraim goes to Bethlehem to
bring back his unfaithful concubine, and is hospitably received by her father. 5-9.
The afternoon of the fifth day after his arrival he sets out to return. Judges 19:10-
15. Unwilling to stop at the heathen town of Jebus, he proceeds to Gibeah, where at
first no man gives him shelter. Judges 19:16-21. An old Ephraimìte offers him
hospitality. Judges 19:22-28. Infamous conduct of the inhabitants of Gibeah,
resulting in the woman’s death. Judges 19:29-30. The Levite, by sending her
dismembered body to the tribes, rouses them to vengeance.
In this chapter we see the unutterable depth of profligacy and shamelessness into
which some of the Israelites had sunk. At the same time, we see that the moral sense
of the nation was still sufficiently keen to be aroused by the glare of unnatural
illumination thus flung upon their consciences. This narrative, like the former,
belongs to the period between the death of Joshua and the rise of the greater Judges
(Theodoret, Quœst. 27; Jos. Antt. v. 2, § 8).
Verse 1
(1) On the side of mount Ephraim.—Literally, on the two thighs (yarcethaim).

9. (Comp. Psalms 128:3; Isaiah 37:24.) As to the residence of the Levite at Mount
Ephraim, see ote on Judges 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.
EXPOSITOR'S DICTIO ARY, "Judges 19:1
On the night before he fled from Geneva, Rousseau relates how finding himself
unusually wakeful, "I continued my reading beyond my usual hour, and read the
whole passage ending at the story of the Levite of Ephraim—in the book of Judges ,
if I mistake not, for since then I have never seen it. This story made a great
impression on me, and in a kind of dream my imagination still ran upon it."
Suddenly wakened by the news that his Émile was proscribed, he drove off, and
composed, during his journey, a version of this barbaric tale.
TRAPP, "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.] ot long after Joshua’s death, and before
Othniel was judge. See 17:6.
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.
PETT, "Introduction
The Levite and His Concubine and the Decimation of the Tribe of Benjamin (Judges
19-21).
Judges 19. The Levite and His Concubine.
This chapter gives an account of the sad story of a Levite and his concubine, and of
the evil consequences following it. It describes how she played the whore, and went

10. away from him to her father's house, to which he followed her. There he was
hospitably entertained by her father for several days, and then set out on his
journey back to his own country. And passing by Jebus or Jerusalem, he came to
Gibeah, and could get no lodging, but at length was taken in by an old man, an
Ephraimite.
But the house where he was enjoying hospitality was beset by some evil men in
Gibeah, with the same intent with which the men of Sodom beset the house of Lot
(Genesis 19:1-11). And after some argument between the old man and them, the
concubine was brought out to them and abused by them until she died. On this the
Levite her husband cut her into twelve pieces, and sent the pieces into all the
borders of Israel, as a shocking message to Israel of what had been done in their
midst.
Why should such a story have been included in the sacred record? The first reason
was because it demonstrated how far the people of Israel had fallen from what they
once were. How they had been contaminated by the inhabitants of the land, with
their sexually perverted ways, in which they had come to dwell. They no longer
obeyed the commandments in the covenant, especially ‘you shall not commit
adultery’ and ‘you shall not kill’. Secondly it demonstrated that the leadership of
Israel were failing, and that their attitudes of heart were wrong. Every man did
what was right in his own eyes (Judges 17:6; Judges 21:25). The tribes were not as
tightly bound in the covenant as they should have been, although this incident
greatly contributed to the cementing of that unity. Thirdly it demonstrated that
when the right occasion came along they could act together as Yahweh had
intended. And fourthly it stressed the sanctity of Levites. We note that the man’s
name is never mentioned. That is because in a sense he represented all Levites. They
were holy and not to be treated lightly.
Verse 1
Judges 19. The Levite and His Concubine.
This chapter gives an account of the sad story of a Levite and his concubine, and of
the evil consequences following it. It describes how she played the whore, and went
away from him to her father's house, to which he followed her. There he was
hospitably entertained by her father for several days, and then set out on his
journey back to his own country. And passing by Jebus or Jerusalem, he came to
Gibeah, and could get no lodging, but at length was taken in by an old man, an
Ephraimite.
But the house where he was enjoying hospitality was beset by some evil men in
Gibeah, with the same intent with which the men of Sodom beset the house of Lot
(Genesis 19:1-11). And after some argument between the old man and them, the
concubine was brought out to them and abused by them until she died. On this the
Levite her husband cut her into twelve pieces, and sent the pieces into all the
borders of Israel, as a shocking message to Israel of what had been done in their
midst.

11. Why should such a story have been included in the sacred record? The first reason
was because it demonstrated how far the people of Israel had fallen from what they
once were. How they had been contaminated by the inhabitants of the land, with
their sexually perverted ways, in which they had come to dwell. They no longer
obeyed the commandments in the covenant, especially ‘you shall not commit
adultery’ and ‘you shall not kill’. Secondly it demonstrated that the leadership of
Israel were failing, and that their attitudes of heart were wrong. Every man did
what was right in his own eyes (Judges 17:6; Judges 21:25). The tribes were not as
tightly bound in the covenant as they should have been, although this incident
greatly contributed to the cementing of that unity. Thirdly it demonstrated that
when the right occasion came along they could act together as Yahweh had
intended. And fourthly it stressed the sanctity of Levites. We note that the man’s
name is never mentioned. That is because in a sense he represented all Levites. They
were holy and not to be treated lightly.
Judges 19:1 a
‘And it came to pass in those days, when there was no king in Israel.’
The idea is that there was no central authority to ensure the administration of
justice, and the Kingship of Yahweh was being ignored. Thus there is reference to
the fact that they no longer saw God as their king, and by failing to do so had
reached this parlous position. It would appear that no strong central figures had
replaced Joshua. So they looked to no one, and expected judgment from no one.
The system arranged by God had failed because of the slackness of the people of
Israel and their failure to fully augment it. People were free to behave as they
wished, in general only observing their local customs, and only accountable for their
behaviour locally. This meant that someone from outside often had relatively little
protection. So sins such as adultery, sodomy, murder, and so on were committed
with impunity against them.
There was a central sanctuary which acted as a unifying force for the tribes, and
there were those at the central sanctuary who could theoretically be appealed to, but
they clearly had little influence in practise. They were dependent on the support of
the tribes. And the tribal unity was spasmodic, and often casual, as the book of
Judges has demonstrated. This was not the central living force that God had
intended.
Judges 19:1 b
‘That there was a certain Levite sojourning on the farther side of the hill country of
Ephraim.’
He lived in a city that was on the side of those mountains of Ephraim furthest from
Bethlehem-judah. As all Levites were, he was a ‘sojourner’, one who lived there but
was not looked on as of permanent residence, because his portion was in Yahweh.
Thus he should be treated differently under the law (Deuteronomy 12:19;

12. Deuteronomy 14:27). There were also special laws protecting sojourners, and they
applied to Levites as well, but they were often set aside in local situations when there
was no central authority to exact them. Perhaps he chose to reside there as being
near to the tabernacle of Shiloh, which was in that tribal area.
The Levites were spread throughout the tribes of Israel. Originally their
responsibility had been the maintenance and protection of the Tabernacle, a
responsibility they no doubt still fulfilled, and they were entitled to be maintained
by tithes from the people ( umbers 18:21). The gathering and policing of tithes was
itself a huge operation and the Levites no doubt worked with the priests in this, and
had their part in ensuring that religious and sacrificial requirements generally were
fulfilled. Certain cities had been set apart for them to live in ( umbers 35; Joshua
21), but they were not necessarily required to live there, and if tithes were not
forthcoming they would need to find methods of survival. They enjoyed special
protection under the law (Deuteronomy 12:19; Deuteronomy 14:27-29). So this man
should have enjoyed double protection both as a Levite and a sojourner.
The Levites were also special in another way. As a result of the deliverance of the
firstborn in Egypt the firstborn were seen as Yahweh’s. But the Levites took on this
responsibility instead of the firstborn so that the firstborn were no longer bound.
Thus they were owed a debt of gratitude by all Israelites for they stood in the place
of their firstborn sons ( umbers 8:10; umbers 8:16-19), and they were holy to
Yahweh.
“A concubine.” A secondary wife, usually a slave, taken without the payment of a
dowry. She did not enjoy the full privileges of a full wife, but was clearly seen here
as a genuine wife under the law. The man is called her husband and her father is
called his ‘father-in-law’. She may well have been his only wife. But she was of a
different class. Or it may be that she was a Canaanite. This would explain her
‘whoredom’, which to her would simply be the fulfilling of the requirements of her
religion.
“Out of Bethlehem-judah.” This was the same area as that from which the wicked
Levite came, spoken of in the preceding chapters (Judges 17:8), who was the means
of spreading ‘idolatry’ in Israel, which tended to go along with sexual misbehaviour
in prostitution and homosexual activity. It is apparent that the people had come to
look to the Levites in religious matters, for, as mentioned above, it was partly for
this that they were spread among the tribes. And Levites were therefore often
required, and willing, to act beyond their position. The behaviour of that particular
Levite, acting as a priest, had led to the lowering of morals in the area and there
may be the hint that Bethlehem-judah was tainted with idolatry. Certainly this
woman was eventually to be the cause of a great shedding of blood in Israel, and
almost of the destruction of the tribe of Benjamin.
These two instances may be seen as reflecting dishonour and disgrace on Bethlehem-
judah. Yet from here would come such men as Boaz, Jesse, David, and eventually
the Messiah Himself. The woman the Levite took is called in the Hebrew "a woman,

13. a concubine".
BE SO , "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, 19:4,) with faith plighted, and with affection.” — Dr. Dodd, who refers to
Sterne’s Sermons, vol. 3. Ser. 3., and Selden de Jure, at. lib. 5. c. 7.
COKE, "Judges 19:1. Took to him a concubine— Women of this sort differed little
from the wife, except in some outward ceremonies and stipulations, but agreed with
her in all the true essences of marriage, and gave themselves up to the husband, (for
so he is called in the next chapter, Judges 19:4.) with faith plighted, with sentiment,
and with affection. See Selden de Jur. at. et Gent. l. v. c. 7.
CO STABLE, "The background of the incident19:1-15
We meet another Levite in Judges 19:1 who was paying no attention to God"s
directions concerning where the Levites should live (cf. Judges 17:7). Since
monogamy was God"s standard for marriage the Levite should not have married a
concubine ( Genesis 2:24). This was doubly wrong in the case of a Levite because the
Levites were to remain as holy as possible in view of their special ministry in Israel.
It appears that the Levite and his concubine had a disagreement that resulted in the
woman leaving him and returning to her father"s home ( Judges 19:2).
"The reason for her return given in many ancient versions, "because she was angry
with him" (followed by RSV), is more plausible than that supplied in the AV and
RV that she played the whore against him. The penalty against the adulteress was
death ( Leviticus 20:10), but a heated argument would allow the Levite to seek a
reconciliation when the passions of temper had subsided." [ ote: Cundall and
Morris, p193.]
Arthur Cundall"s preference, expressed in the quotation above, rested on the
Septuagint translators" rendering of Judges 19:2 that is the equivalent of "his
concubine was angry with him." However the Hebrew text has "his concubine was
unfaithful to him," and this is the preferable reading. As we have noted, the
Israelites paid less attention to the Law in the period of the judges than they did
while Joshua was alive. It is probable that the concubine had been unfaithful and
the Israelites simply did not execute the penalty for that offense that the Law
prescribed. The fact that the Levite waited four months to get his wife back suggests
that he was not eager to do so.
The writer referred to the Levite as the concubine"s husband because that is what
she was in God"s sight ( Judges 19:3). The Levite"s tender words were insincere, as
his later dealings with her prove. Apparently he wanted her back for selfish reasons.

14. The two donkeys the Levite brought with him to Bethlehem were for his wife and
him to ride back home. The concubine"s father was probably glad to see the Levite
because it was disgraceful for a woman to leave her husband in that culture. The
Levite wanted to patch up the relationship, and that would have pleased his father-
in-law.
The writer"s mention of the hospitality of the Levite"s father-in-law ( Judges 19:4-
9) points out the contrast with the Gibeahites" lack of hospitality later in the story (
Judges 19:15; Judges 19:22-26). Hospitality was a sacred duty in the ancient ear
East when there were few public facilities for travelers (cf. Judges 4:17-23; Genesis
18:5; Genesis 24:55). Perhaps it is significant that this man who practiced
hospitality (lit. love of strangers) lived in Bethlehem, David"s hometown. Saul came
from Gibeah where the residents hated strangers, as the story will show. The fact
that Israel"s first king came from this city has led some scholars to conclude that by
including this incident the writer may have intended to discredit Saul. [ ote: See
Jeremiah Unterman, "The Literary Influence of "The Binding of Isaac" ( Genesis
22) on "The Outrage at Gibeah" ( Judges 19)," Hebrew Annual Review4
(1980):161-66.]
Jebus (Jerusalem) was and is about six miles north of Bethlehem ( Judges 19:10).
The Levite and his concubine would have reached it in about two hours. Gibeah (
Judges 19:12) was three miles farther north and Ramah ( Judges 19:13) two miles
beyond Gibeah. Jebus was then, and until David finally captured it ( 2 Samuel 5:6-
9), a stronghold of the Jebusites who were one of the native Canaanite tribes. The
Levite expected to find hate in Jebus and love in Gibeah. He would have been wiser
to stop for the night in Jebus since he found no hospitality in Gibeah but hatred. All
the "motels" there were full, or at least not open to the Levite and his party. Of all
people, the Israelites were to give special consideration to their Levites (
Deuteronomy 16:14; Deuteronomy 26:12).
"The last clause in Judges 19:15 would have been shocking anywhere in the ancient
ear East. But it is especially shocking in Israel. The social disintegration has
infected the very heart of the community. People refuse to open their doors to
strangers passing through. It makes no difference that these travelers are their own
countrymen." [ ote: Block, Judges . . ., p530.]
EXPOSITOR'S BIBLE COMME TARY, "FROM JUSTICE TO WILD
REVE GE
19:1-30; 20:1-48; 21:1-25
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

15. 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 Josiah’s 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.

16. 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. or 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.

17. 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 Israel’s 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. othing
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 man’s 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

18. 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.
ow 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.
ot 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. ot 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

19. 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. or was this the end of slaughter. ext 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.
o 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

20. 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 nation’s 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? ay. 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. o story this to praise a dynasty or magnify a

21. conquering nation or support a priesthood. othing 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.
PULPIT, "19:1
When there was no king ( 17:6; 18:1; 21:25). It appears from 20:27, 20:28 that the
events narrated in these three last chapters of the Book of Judges happened in the
lifetime of Phinehas, and while the ark was at Shiloh (see 20:27, note). Phinehas
evidently outlived Joshua (Joshua 24:29, Joshua 24:33), though there is no evidence
to show how long. The events in these chapters must have occurred in the interval
between the death of Joshua and the death of Phinehas. A certain Levite, etc. It is a
curious coincidence that both the Levite whose sad story is here told, and the Levite
the son of Gershom of whom we read in the preceding chapters, were sojourners in
the hill country of Ephraim, and also closely connected with Bethlehem-judah.
Perhaps the legitimate inference (see verse 18, and 20:26, 20:27) is that in both cases
the Levites were drawn to Ephraim by the ark being at Shiloh, and also that there
was a colony of Levites at Bethlehem-judah. Whether there was any connection
between the presence of Levites at Bethlehem and the annual sacrifice at Bethlehem
which existed in David's time, and which argues the existence of a high place there,
can only be a matter of conjecture (see 1 Samuel 9:13, and 1 Samuel 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 ( 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 1 Samuel 24:4; 1 Kings 6:16; Psalms 48:3; Psalms
128:3; Isaiah 37:24; Ezekiel 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 Genesis 25:6).
PULPIT, "The downward progress.
It is certainly not without a purpose that we have in Holy Scripture from time to
time exhibitions of sin in its most repulsive and revolting forms. The general rule
which tells us that "it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of
them in secret" is, as it were, violated on these occasions, because it is more
important that the depravity of which human nature is capable at its worst should
be revealed, than that the blush of shame should be prevented by its concealment.
Sin, in some of its forms, is so disguised, and toned down, and softened, that the
natural mind of man does not shrink from it with abhorrence, or perceive its deadly
nature, or its fatal consequences. But it is essential that sin should be known to be
what it is, and especially that it should be made clear by what gradual descents a
man may glide from one stage of wickedness to another, fill, under favouring
circumstances, he reaches a depth of vileness which at one time would have seemed

22. 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. ot
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

23. 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.
BI 1-30, "Whither goest thou? 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

24. 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 man’s 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

25. 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 men’s 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

26. 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.).
2 But she was unfaithful to him. She left him and
went back to her parents’ home in Bethlehem,
Judah. After she had been there four months,
Here we have a story that is as modern as any story in the Bible. A wife leaves her
husband and goes back to daddy's house. We are not sure if her unfaithfulness
was a matter of adultery or just the fact of forsaking him. Her husband loved her
enough to go after her and so many doubt that it means that she had sex with
other men. Others assume the worse and call her a whore. Whatever the case, this
husband wanted her back. She had just gotten fed up with him for some reason
and so he let her cool off and then went to win her back. I like the comments of
Clarke on this verse. " either the Vulgate, Septuagint, Targum, nor Josephus,
understand this word as implying any act of conjugal infidelity on the woman’s
part. They merely state that the parties disagreed, and the woman returned to her
father’s house. Indeed all the circumstances of the case vindicate this view of the
subject. If she had been a whore, or adulteress, it is not very likely that her
husband would have gone after her to speak friendly, literally, to speak to her
heart, and entreat her to return."
all Israelites were considered to be espoused to Jehovah, and to chase after
another religion was considered an act of whoredom. In that it is not directly
stated, however in these times whenever a woman left her husband, then men
would say that the woman was a whore.
Other versions concur with Josephus, in representing the reason for the flight from
her husband’s house to be, that she was disgusted with him, through frequent brawls.
Legge goes too far and says, "The story goes that his wife was unfaithful to him,
the Bible says she practised prostitution -

27. n Rousseau's version the young girl left the Levite out of boredom, "perhaps because
he left nothing for her to desire" (2:1210).
o evidence indicates he was Levite the louse,
But his concubine was an unfaithful spouse,
Who hightailed it back to her father's house.
Hubby then did with loneliness burn;
He refused to continue his love to spurn,
So he went to get his wife to return.
His father-in-law who has no name
Was so delighted that he came
And never laid on him any blame.
In fact he loved him in an unusual way
And persuaded him day after day
To eat and drink and stay and stay.
BAR ES, "Played the whore against him - Perhaps only meaning that she ran
away from him, and left him, for she returned to her father’s house.
CLARKE, "Played the whore - Neither the Vulgate, Septuagint, Targum, nor
Josephus, understand this word as implying any act of conjugal infidelity on the
woman’s part. They merely state that the parties disagreed, and the woman returned to
her father’s house. Indeed all the circumstances of the case vindicate this view of the
subject. If she had been a whore, or adulteress, it is not very likely that her husband
would have gone after her to speak friendly, literally, to speak to her heart, and entreat
her to return. The Vulgate simply states, quae reliquit eum, that she left him; the
Septuagint, ωργισθη αυτሩ, that she was angry with him; the Targum ‫עלוהי‬ ‫ובסרת‬ ubserath
alohi, that she despised him; Josephus, αλλοτοιως ειχε, that she was alienated, or
separated herself, from him. Houbigant translates the clause: quae cum ab eo alienata
esset, vel irata in eum esset, eum reliquit; “who when she was alienated from him, or
angry with him, left him;” and he defends this version in his note. I think the true
meaning to be among the above interpretations. They had contentions; she ceased to
love him, her affections were alienated from him; and she left his house, and went home
to her father.
GILL, "And his concubine played the whore against him,.... Was unfaithful to
him and his bed, and broke the covenant and agreement between them; or "with him"
(i), while she was with him in the house; or "before him" (k), of which he had knowledge
and proof; though some think this is not to be understood of whoredom or adultery, but
of her ill usage of him, and departure from him. The Targum is, she despised him; so
Kimchi and Ben Gersom interpret it of her declining and turning aside from him, and

28. returning to her father's house, as follows: and indeed, had she been guilty of such a
crime, one would think he would never have sought after her to reconcile her, and take
her again, since she not only deserved to be put away, but to be put to death according to
the law of God:
and went away from him to her father's house to Bethlehemjudah; where she
was received, as she knew she should, having a parent perhaps too indulgent, and which
was an encouragement to her to leave her husband:
and was there some whole months or a year and four whole months, according to
Ben Gersom; so Kimchi and Ben Melech observe the copulative "and" is wanting, which
is expressed in 1Sa_27:7 and "yamim, days", is so the times used for a year, Jdg_14:8.
HE RY, "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.
JAMISO , "his concubine ... went away from him unto her father’s house
— The cause of the separation assigned in our version rendered it unlawful for her
husband to take her back (Deu_24:4); and according to the uniform style of sentiment
and practice in the East, she would have been put to death, had she gone to her father’s
family. Other versions concur with Josephus, in representing the reason for the flight
from her husband’s house to be, that she was disgusted with him, through frequent
brawls.
TRAPP, "Verse 2
19:2 And his concubine played the whore against him, and went away from him
unto her father’s house to Bethlehemjudah, and was there four whole months.
Ver. 2. And his concubine played the whore against.] Which she could not have
done had she not been a kind of secondary wife, according to the corrupt custom of
those times. Josephus saith (a) that she was a fair woman, and not affecting her
husband as she ought, but lingering after other lovers, great strife grew between
them, whereupon she went away to her parents within four months after marriage.
Varium et mutable semper femina.
And went away from him.] An odious woman she was, which is one of those four
things that disquiet the earth. [Proverbs 30:20]
Unto her father’s house.] Who, as a fond father, received her, whenas he should
rather have rated or punished her, and sent her home again.

29. PETT, "Verse 2
Judges 19:2 a
‘And his concubine played the harlot against him.’
That is, she was unfaithful to him (compare Deuteronomy Genesis 38:24; Genesis
22:21; Hosea 2:5 etc). This may well have been connected with her religious ideas
and she may have offered herself as a cult prostitute to Baal. But whatever it was
she broke the covenant and agreement between them by unfaithfulness.
Some see it as simply referring to her desertion of him, as the versions suggest,
translating, ‘because she was angry with him’. But this is unlikely, as the story may
be seen as, among other things, a hint that her end was related to her beginning, and
‘play the harlot’ was a regular phrase for infidelity. Indeed to ‘play the harlot’ was
a regular prophetic picture of those whose following after Baal and after idolatry
brought them into extreme sexual misbehaviour (Hosea 4:15; Jeremiah 3:1;
Jeremiah 3:8; Ezekiel 16:41; Ezekiel 23:44). The emendation probably arose
because the translators could not believe that if she were an adulteress she had been
allowed to live.
That the Levite did not demand that she face the penalty of the law may
demonstrate that there had been a slackening of obedience to the law and to the
covenant, although it may be that he loved her deeply and was willing, somewhat
reluctantly, to forgive her. It would have been up to him to charge her. That she was
very desirable comes out later in that the would be sodomites forgot their plans
when they saw her.
But the Levite did not forget what she had done, and his behaviour in later letting
the men have their way with her, and then assuming that she would cope with it,
suggests something of this background.
Judges 19:2 b
‘And went away from him to her father's house to Bethlehem-judah, and was there
the space of four months.’
The Levites’s wife left him and returned to her parental home. There she was
clearly received, in spite of the fact that she had broken a contractual relationship.
Strictly some attempt should have been made to restore her to her husband, but
they may have feared that she might be put to death for what she had done, and if
she was a cult prostitute they may have felt her Levite husband would not want her
back.
“And was there the space of four months.” Time enough for some action to have
been taken if she were to be sent back.
BE SO , "Verse 2-3
19:2-3. Played the whore against him — Against her faith given to him. Went away

30. — Either for fear of punishment, or because her heart was alienated from him;
wherein not only she sinned, but her father, by connivance at her sin, and neglect of
just endeavours for her reconciliation to her husband. Her husband went to speak
friendly unto her — To offer her pardon and reconciliation.
COKE, "Judges 19:2. And his concubine played the whore against him— The
Chaldee renders this, she despised him, &c. the LXX, she separated herself from
him, with which Josephus agrees. It is probable, that this is the true reading; for one
can hardly imagine, that otherwise her husband would have made such haste to
follow, and obtain a reconciliation with her.
3 her husband went to her to persuade her to
return. He had with him his servant and two
donkeys. She took him into her parents’ home,
and when her father saw him, he gladly welcomed
him.
This father was glad to have this man come and seek to restore his relationship
with his daughter. He seems to have had plenty of food and so he did not want to
get rid of his daughter because he was poor and could not feed another mouth. He
just sincerely liked this man she had married and wanted to get to know him
better. He had the gift of hospitality and lavished his guest with the best of all he
had.
see Jer. 3:1 God goes after a whore to win her back.
Thus God promises concerning adulterous Israel (Hos_2:14), I will bring her into the
wilderness, and speak comfortably to her.
CLARKE, "He rejoiced to meet him - He hoped to be able completely to reconcile
his daughter and her husband.
GILL, "And her husband arose,.... From the place where he lived:
and went after her; to Bethlehemjudah, where her father lived:

31. to speak comfortably to her "or to her heart" (l); having heard perhaps that she
repented of her sin, or if it was only upon a quarrel between them, his anger might cool
and subside, and therefore sought for a reconciliation; and which was the more
commendable in him, as he did not put her away, but she departed from him: and
to bring her again; to his own city, and to his own house and bed, as before:
having his servant with him, and a couple of asses; one of them for her to ride
upon, and the other to carry provisions on:
and she brought him into her father's house; it seems she met with him before he
came thither, in the fields, or in the street; and by this it appears that she was glad to see
him, and received him in a loving manner, and introduced him into her father's house,
so that things looked well, and promised success:
and when the father of the damsel saw him, he rejoiced to meet him; having a
good opinion of him, and perhaps understood, even by his daughter's story, that she was
most in fault, and therefore was well pleased to see him come after her; though he ought
before this time to have sent her home, or sought for a reconciliation of her to her
husband.
HE RY, "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.
JAMISO , "And her husband arose, and went after her, to speak friendly
unto her — Hebrew, “speak to her heart,” in a kindly and affectionate manner, so as to
rekindle her affection. Accompanied by a servant, he arrived at the house of his father-
in-law, who rejoiced to meet him, in the hope that a complete reconciliation would be
brought about between his daughter and her husband. The Levite, yielding to the
hospitable importunities of his father-in-law, prolonged his stay for days.
K&D, "Some time afterwards, namely at the end of four months (‫ים‬ ִ‫שׁ‬ ָ‫ד‬ ֳ‫ה‬ ‫ה‬ ָ‫ע‬ ָ ְ‫ר‬ፍ is in
apposition to ‫ים‬ ִ‫מ‬ָ‫,י‬ and defines more precisely the ‫ים‬ ִ‫מ‬ָ‫,י‬ or days), her husband went after
her, “to speak to her to the heart,” i.e., to talk to her in a friendly manner (see Gen_
34:3), and to reconcile her to himself again, so that she might return; taking with him
his attendant and a couple of asses, for himself and his wife to ride upon. The suffix

32. attached to ‫ּו‬‫ב‬‫י‬ ִ‫שׁ‬ ֲ‫ה‬ ַ‫ל‬ refers to ‫ה‬ ָ ִ‫,ל‬ “to bring back her heart,” to turn her to himself again.
The Keri ָ‫יב‬ ִ‫שׁ‬ ֲ‫ה‬ is a needless conjecture. “And she brought him into her father's house,
and her father received his son-in-law with joy, and constrained him (‫ּו‬ ‫ק־‬ֶ‫ז‬ ֲ‫ה‬ַ‫,י‬ lit. held
him fast) to remain there three days.” It is evident from this that the Levite had
succeeded in reconciling his wife.
TRAPP, "19:3 And her husband arose, and went after her, to speak friendly unto
her, [and] to bring her again, having his servant with him, and a couple of asses:
and she brought him into her father’s house: and when the father of the damsel saw
him, he rejoiced to meet him.
Ver. 3. And her husband arose, and went after her.] Either out of pity to her, or
want of her company. She should have sought to him first, as being the peccant
party; but she could not bring her heart to it.
“ Fastus inest pulchris, &c. ”
Having his servant with him.] This Levite had one servant. Balaam the false prophet
rode with two. [ umbers 22:22] Oh, let not Christ’s true ministers be slaves to
others, servants to themselves.
He rejoiced to meet him.] The father and daughter made no means for
reconciliation; but when remission came home to them, none could entertain it more
thankfully. The nature of many men is forward to accept, and negligent to sue for;
they can spend secret wishes upon that which shall cost them no endeavour.
PETT, "Judges 19:3 a
‘And her husband arose, and went after her to speak to her heart, to bring her
again, having his servant with him, and a couple of asses.’
Her husband went after her, and thus it was not the husband who was directly
responsible for her leaving. He wanted her back. Perhaps he was finding living on
his own a little tedious, and wanted someone to look after the household. He
certainly took his time over following her, but this may have been because he did not
know where she had gone and was waiting to hear from her father. Perhaps it was
such a message that sent him on his errand.
“To speak to her heart” This suggests that he loved her and wanted to convince her
that he was willing to forgive her, so that she would return and be his wife. But the
phrase strictly may only mean that he wanted to remind her that she was contracted
to him.
“To bring her again.” To restore her to his own house and bed, as before.

33. “Having his servant with him, and a couple of asses.” One of the asses would be for
her (or him) to ride on, and the other to carry provisions. He was clearly not a poor
man. But it seems he was not fulfilling his Levitical responsibilities, or alternatively
that the tithes were not being supplied as they should have been, leaving him and
other Levites to have to find a living some other way.
Judges 19:3 b
‘And she brought him into her father's house, and when the father of the damsel
saw him, he rejoiced to meet him.’
She received him. It may be that she met him at the door, or that they providentially
met while he was approaching the house. But at least she did not turn him away,
although that may be because she knew her contractual obligations and was aware
her father would wish to see him.
“And when the father of the damsel saw him, he rejoiced to meet him.” Whatever
his inward feelings he put on a show of rejoicing. Perhaps he was pleased, hoping it
would save his daughter from disgrace. He must have recognised that his daughter
was at fault, and perhaps he hoped that the Levite would rescue his daughter from
the consequences of her wild behaviour
COKE, "Verse 3
Judges 19:3. And her husband arose, and went after her, to speak friendly unto
her— In the original, to speak her heart, to refer to their former endearments, and
to ask how she could be so unkind to him, and so very unkind to herself. Even the
upbraidings of the quiet and relenting are sweet: not like the strivings of the fierce
and inexorable, who bite and devour all that have thwarted them in their way; but
they are calm, and courteous, like the spirit which watches over their character.
How could such a temper woo the damsel, and not bring her back? Or how could
the father of the damsel, beholding such a scene, have a heart open to any
impressions but those mentioned in the latter clause; that when he saw him, he
rejoiced to meet him; urged his stay, from day to day, with that soft invitation,
comfort thine heart,—and tarry all night, and let thine heart be merry. If mercy and
truth thus meet together in settling this account, love would surely be of the party:
great, great is its power in cementing what has been broken, and wiping out wrongs
even from the memory itself: and so it was; for the Levite arose up, and with him his
concubine, and his servant, and they departed.
REFLECTIO S.—The events of the following chapters are proofs how great a
misery it is to any people to be without good government. We may observe here, (1.)
That where there is real remorse in the offender, the injured should nor be
implacable. (2.) Though parents should be very jealous how they receive those into
their houses who have deserted their husbands, yet it is highly dangerous, by
severity, to render those desperate, who, by milder methods, may be reclaimed. (3.)
Generous hospitality to our friends and relations is very becoming, and a proof of
our regard to them. (4.) Though we may yield somewhat to the importunity of

34. friends, yet every man has calls at home, and Levites especially, which will not
admit of long absence. (5.) Let kind friends beware of selfishness in their
solicitations, lest their intended kindness do us real injury.
PULPIT, "To bring her again. So the Keri. But the Cethib has to bring him, i.e. it,
again, viz; her heart. But the phrase to speak to her heart is such a common one for
to speak friendly or kindly to any one that it is not likely that it should here be used
otherwise, so that the pronoun should refer to heart. If the masculine is here the
right reading, it may be an archaism making the suffix of the common gender like
the plural suffix in 19:24, which is masculine, though applied to women, and like the
masculine pronoun itself, which is so used throughout the Pentateuch and elsewhere
(see also 21:12; Exodus 1:21). A couple of asses. One for himself and one for her. He
rejoiced. o doubt, in part at least, because the expense of his daughter's
maintenance would be transferred from himself to his daughter's husband.
4 His father-in-law, the woman’s father, prevailed
on him to stay; so he remained with him three
days, eating and drinking, and sleeping there.
GILL, "And his father in law, the damsel's father, retained him,.... Prevailed
upon him to stay some time with him:
and he abode with him three days; it seems as if he agreed to stay with him so long,
and that time he stayed contentedly:
so they did eat and drink, and lodged there; the Levite and his servant were very
handsomely entertained, and had everything provided for them convenient for meat,
drink, and lodging.
HE RY 4-10, " 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

35. 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.
COFFMA , "Verse 4
THE LEVITE WELCOMED BY HIS CO CUBI E'S PARE TS
"And his father-in-law, the damsel's father, retained him; and he abode with him
three days: so they did eat and drink; and lodged there. And it came to pass on the
fourth day, that they arose up early in the morning and he rose up to depart: and
the damsel's father said unto his son-in-law, Strengthen thy heart with a morsel of
bread, and afterward ye shall go your way. So they sat down, and did eat and drink;