Original Meaning
CONCLUSION 2 (19:1–21:25) opens and closes with the refrain (partial in the first instance): “In those days Israel had no king; every man did what was right in his own eyes.” Although the Israelites claim to be the people of Yahweh, their beliefs, conduct, and consequent fate contradict this claim. In this passage, God’s people are in their most hypocritical state, driven by selfishness.
The structure of this initial episode of the Conclusion 2, “The Rape of the Concubine,” is composed of nine parts, which are punctuated by three journeys arranged in a chiastic manner.7
A Introduction: “Small Separation” (19:1–2): The Levite is separated from his concubine by her going to her father’s house.
B Journey 1: Departure from home on trip to Bethlehem (19:3–4): Reversal of disjunctions and conjunctions between the Levite and his concubine: wife runs away (v. 2) + reunion (v. 4)—three days; they all eat and drink and spend the night together.
C Stay: Fourth day—male carousing (19:5–7): The presentation of the tarrying on the fourth and fifth days is syntactically different from that of the previous three days. Two of them (Levite and father-in-law) eat and drink; the Levite is encouraged by his father-in-law to “enjoy yourself” (ṭwb lb); Levite spends the night there.
D Stay: Fifth day—male carousing (19:8–10a): Two of them (Levite and father-in-law) eat and drink; the Levite is encouraged by his father-in-law to “enjoy yourself” (ṭwb lb); Levite not willing to spend the night.
E Journey 2: Trip to Gibeah (19:10b–14): Concentric structure of speeches in vv. 11–13 points to v. 12 as the pivotal element (see further below).
D′ Stay: Night at the old man’s house—male carousing (19:15–22a)—miniquest: Unit begins with seeking shelter and ends with having found it; they eat and drink; they enjoy themselves (ṭwb lb). Three speeches: old man, Levite, old man.
C′ Stay: Night at the old man’s house + somewhere in the city—male carousing (19:22b–26)—miniquest: The horde that seeks homosexual gratification with the Levite ends having sexual gratification with the concubine.
B′ Journey 3: Arrival home from trip to Bethlehem via Gibeah (19:27–28): Reversal of disjunctions and conjunctions between the Levite and his concubine: reunion of man and wife (v. 26) but separation by death.
A′ Conclusion—The appeal: “Big Separation” (19:29–30): The Levite is separated from his concubine by his cutting her up and sending her parts to the tribes of Israel.
As in Conclusion 1, a Levite plays a significant role in the narration of this second conclusion. By focusing on Levites in the concluding episodes, the narrator communicates the extent of Israel’s moral decline. The corruption that has infected the people and their deliverers has even spread to those entrusted with the Yahwistic instruction and with upholding Yahweh’s holiness in their lives.
In this case, in the introduction (Part A, vv. 1–2), the Levite lives in a remote area of the hill country of Ephraim. As in the first conclusion, this certainly indicates support problems for the Levitical priests since he is not living in one of the Levitical towns. This Levite “took a concubine [pîlegeš] from Bethlehem in Judah” (again a link with the first conclusion). A concubine was a second-class wife—a woman who performed marriage duties without the same legal rights as a full wife (cf. Gideon’s concubine in 8:31). This may imply that the Levite has another wife, but the text contains no record of that.
His concubine “was unfaithful to him” (NIV, lit., “prostituted against,” znh ʿl). The more likely reading based on the ancient versions is “his concubine was angry or quarreled with him.”8 The text does not explicitly blame either party for this separation. But in light of the Levite’s later conduct, it seems most likely that the blame rests with the Levite. The young woman goes straight for her father’s house in Bethlehem. Thus, the introduction of this story (Part A) presents a “small separation,” namely, a familial squabble in which the Levite is separated from his concubine by her departure to her father’s house. This will contrast to the “big separation” (19:29–30).
In Part B (vv. 3–4), the Levite’s first journey is narrated. After a four-month delay (which the text does not explain), the Levite goes to Bethlehem to win her back. He speaks kindly to her (NIV translates “to persuade her,” 19:3). This may suggest that she has not left without some provocation on his part (his later callousness towards her seems to be a strong indication of this).
His father-in-law gladly welcomes him, probably because the separation of his daughter and her husband is a matter of disgrace for the family, and he gladly welcomes the prospect of the reunion of the two. The father-in-law shows normal hospitality over a three-day period.
In Parts C and D (vv. 5–7, 8–10a), the writer introduces a different pattern of narrating the stay. While a note of male carousing is signaled in the previous part (v. 4), it is especially emphasized in Parts C and D, where the text stresses that the Levite and father-in-law eat and drink, and twice (once in each part) the father-in-law encourages the Levite to “enjoy yourself” (lit., “make good your heart,” ṭwb lb).9 The father-in-law’s hospitality borders on the excessive: Six times he offers hospitality, persuading the Levite to spend five days with him. In fact, the father-in-law’s delays explain why the Levite and his party end up in Gibeah, only halfway home by nightfall at the end of the fifth day.10
This hospitality of the father-in-law, however, serves as one of two foils against the Gibeahite actions in the latter part of the story. The model of hospitality enjoyed by the Levite while in Bethlehem heightens the contrast with the treatment received in Gibeah. Thus, while bordering on the excessive, its redundancy conveys the potentially endless hospitality that the Levite may have enjoyed had he chosen to remain in Bethlehem of Judah as over against that which he gets in Gibeah.11 It will heighten the contrast between the male carousing of the father-in-law and Levite and the hell-raising of the men of Gibeah.
Part E (vv. 10b–14) is the pivotal point of the story. Interestingly, the structure of Part E, which narrates the second journey, contains three speeches arranged in chiastic form.
a Trip from Bethlehem to Jebus (vv. 10b–11a)
b Speech 1: Servant to Levite suggesting they spend the night in Jebus (vv. 11b)
c Speech 2: Levite to servant rejecting Jebus and dictating travel to Gibeah (v. 12)
b′ Speech 3: Levite to servant asserting where they spend the night (v. 13)
a′ Trip from Jebus to Gibeah (v. 14)
Speeches 1 and 3 have the same structure. Both begin with an imperative of hālak (go) plus a cohortative of a verb of movement (sûr [turn aside] and qārab [draw near], respectively) plus a place name; and both close with a form of lîn (spend the night) plus the preposition be (in) plus a spatial term. These two speeches point to the center speech (speech 2). Thus the content of this speech is the axis for the entire narrative. This speech is composed of two antithetical statements: (1) the decision to not “go into” (sûr) this “alien”12 city that does not belong to the Israelites, and (2) the decision to “go on” (lit., traverse, ʿābar) to Gibeah. They do so (cf. ʿābar in v. 14a) and “there they stopped” (lit., turned aside, sûr, v. 15a) in Gibeah.13
Thus the nonevent (staying in Jebus/Jerusalem) furnishes the grounds for the evaluation of the event and action in Gibeah. “What seems right proves to be wrong, and what seems bad might very well have had a fortunate ending.”14 The master is wrong and the servant is right. As a result, the delayed departure from Bethlehem forces the fateful decision of verse 12: “No. We won’t go into an alien city, whose people are not Israelites. We will go on to Gibeah.”15 Only the subsequent events will reveal the full irony of this decision.
The Levite’s aversion to Jebus (i.e., Jerusalem), a non-Israelite enclave to be avoided, is the second foil. It is a significant point in the narrative that the rapists are Israelites. The “foreign” status of Jebus implicitly redounds to the discredit of Benjamin (cf. 1:21). Ironically, by seeking to avoid the potential inhospitality of a foreign city, the Levite and his party suffer that very fate, or even worse, in Gibeah, an Israelite city.
Parts D′ and C′ (vv. 15–22a, 22b–26) describe the Levite’s stay in Gibeah and the outrage that takes place there. Each part contains a miniquest: Part D′ is centered on seeking and finding shelter for the night16; Part C′ describes the men of the city of Gibeah seeking homosexual gratification with the Levite, but ending up with capitalizing their gratifications on the Levite’s concubine. In both parts the theme of carousing is evident: In D′, “they were enjoying themselves [ṭwb lb],” and C′, the horde does “good [ṭwb] in their eyes” (NIV “whatever you wish”) with the concubine (vv. 24a2 + 25b).
At sunset the little group reaches Gibeah. The narrator goes to great lengths to demarcate the atrocity itself by the signposts of sunset and daybreak: Night falls upon arrival at Gibeah, and the ordeal begins (19:14); daybreak marks the end of both the outrage and the victim (19:26).17 Entering the city the group sits in the city square waiting for someone to show hospitality and take them home with them for the night. No one offers. This crude impertinence of the citizens of Gibeah is an ominous harbinger of the far worse abuse of the travelers that follows. The last clause of verse 15 would have been shocking anywhere in the ancient Near East, but it is especially shocking in Israel. The social disintegration has infected the very heart of the community of God’s people. Thus the people of Gibeah abuse in general the Levite and his party passively (by refusing basic hospitality) before the rapists abuse them actively (19:15, 22).
Finally, an old man from Ephraim, a temporary resident in Gibeah and not a Benjamite, comes by and questions the party. In his response, the Levite presents himself as a weary traveler returning home (the NIV reads: “the house of the LORD”18 in verse 18) after a visit to Bethlehem. He does not mention the reason for the visit since this might raise questions about the good character of himself and/or his concubine. Rather, he emphasizes that they do not need anything except a place to sleep. The deferential “me, your maidservant and the young man with us” is calculated to win the host’s favor while conveying minimal information.19
The old man welcomes them to spend the night at his house, “only don’t spend the night in the square” (19:20). The latter clause—and for that matter the entire scene at Gibeah—is reminiscent of the story of Lot in Sodom in Genesis 19:1–11. As Lasine points out, “Judges 19 uses Genesis 19 to show how hospitality is turned upside down when one’s guests are not angels, and one lives in an age governed by human selfishness.”20 At his house, the old man at first appears to be the model host. He fodders the Levite’s donkeys, provides the people with water to wash their feet, and gives them food and drink (19:21).
Then, suddenly (hinnēh), everything is overturned. While they are enjoying themselves, some wicked men (lit., “sons of Belial”)21 of the city surround the house and demand the host to bring out the Levite so that they can rape him. Unexpectedly, the irony of the decision to travel on to Gibeah becomes apparent. Having eschewed the hospitality of foreigners and entrusted himself to Israelites, the Levite “finds himself in a virtual Sodom”!22 The old man’s response in 19:23–24 is Lot-like:
No, my friends, don’t be so vile. Since this man is my guest, don’t do this disgraceful [foolish thing]. Look, here is my virgin daughter, and his concubine. I will bring them out to you now, and you can use [rape/humiliate/abuse]23 them and do to them whatever you wish [lit. “what is good in your eyes”24]. But to this man, don’t do such a disgraceful [foolish] thing.
This is, as Webb calls it, “a comedy of correctness; the old man is a conscientious host to the last.”25 Thus the old man, who appears initially to be the model host, ends up being the one who comes up with the idea of throwing the concubine (and his own daughter) to the horde at the door. That he should volunteer his own daughter is one thing; that he should volunteer the Levite’s concubine is another; but that he volunteer either is unimaginable. But then, he is only doing what is right in his own eyes!
“Good” and “bad” are confused in the old man’s speech. He begins well with a double prohibitive: “Don’t be so vile [rāʿâ] don’t do this disgraceful thing”; or more strongly “Do not commit such a wicked bad thing . . . do not perpetrate this foolish outrage!” But when the second half of the speech comes to good (ṭôb, NIV “whatever you wish”), he is already confused morally and says something unbelievable in the face of the imminent crime (lit.): “Have your pleasure of them; do to them what is good [ṭôb] in your eyes.”
Perhaps the old man thinks that proper hospitality only applies to male guests (e.g., he does not offer the Levite’s young servant). But this certainly is a mistaken way of viewing matters. Or perhaps he is simply doing the best he can: Two women instead of one man; at least he will save his principal guest. Thus, hospitality and honor become more important than doing what is right in Yahweh’s eyes. The man condemns the horde for thinking of doing this disgraceful (lit., “foolish”) act upon the Levite and yet, ironically, ends up doing a foolish thing in making such an offer.
Amazingly, there is no protest from the Levite! Ironically, just as the Levite is unwilling to accept the argument of his father-in-law to spend the night (v. 10a), so the horde is unwilling to accept the argument of the old man (v. 25). When they refuse to listen to the old man, it is the Levite who seizes his concubine and hands her over to the horde. Obviously this selfish act in the extreme saves him from the horde but reveals the depths of depravity in his heart. Rapidly and graphically, the narrator declares they rape (ydʿ ) her, abuse (ʿll) her, and discard (šlḥ) her (v. 25). At daybreak, the forsaken concubine collapses at the door of the old man’s house, apparently too weak to knock or even cry out.
Concerning the Old Testament law of rape in an urban area, if a woman screams, she is deemed innocent. While the text does not state that she screamed, it does stress her innocence, which leads to the conclusion that she must have screamed. If this was the case, then the citizens of Gibeah are guilty of not rescuing her from these “sons of Belial.” It is a troubling thought, but the image of this young woman being raped and abused—crying out for help, screaming in pain—fall on deaf ears. No one takes any action to save her.
Part B′ (19:27–28), which narrates Journey 3, opens with the Levite (described as the concubine’s master26), almost simultaneously to the concubine’s collapse at the door, “getting up” (qûm) inside the house. As Webb points out, the expression is chilling in what it implies by its sheer ordinariness.27 Having tossed his concubine to the pack of men and being assured that he himself was no longer personally threatened, the Levite went to bed! He now rises without any apparent remorse for what he has done or concern for his concubine. In fact, he appears to give no thought to her at all until he practically trips over her as he goes out the door. The narrator’s statement “with her hands on the threshold” heightens this pathetic tragedy, causing the reader to bleed with compassion for the exploited and abused woman.
This statement, in turn, heightens the next one. Her master, the Levite, commands her with almost unbelievable callousness to “get up” (qûm) because he is ready to go. How can he be so cold-hearted? There is no answer. Rather matter-of-factly, he picks her up, puts her on his donkey, and completes the journey home. Ironically, the Levite, having been reconciled to his concubine, should have returned in peace to his home in Ephraim. In fact, both the Levite and his concubine return home to Ephraim, but with the gruesome twist that she is dead (or at least appears to be). This is hardly a desirable resolution to the problem introduced at the beginning of the narrative (19:1–2). The reader is left wondering if, when, and how justice will be executed on these “sons of Belial” in Gibeah.
The answer comes quickly and appallingly in Part A′ (vv. 29–30). Immediately after his return home, the Levite—with the same self-centered callousness that had delivered his concubine into the hands of the horde at the door28—takes a knife and cuts her up, limb by limb, into twelve parts and sends these into every tribe in Israel (cf. 1 Sam. 11:7).29 In the beginning of the story, there was a “small separation,” in that the Levite was separated from his concubine by her going to her father’s house. But at the end of the story, there is a “big separation,” for the Levite is separated from his concubine by cutting her up and sending her parts to the tribes of Israel.
The intention of the dismemberment, on the surface, seems to have been to awaken Israel from its moral lethargy and stimulate justice. But what are the real motives of this nameless Levite? The act of dismemberment is a graphic means of calling everyone to arms. It is highly ironic that the one who issues such a call for justice is himself so selfishly insensitive and self-involved in the crime itself. But the outrageous dismemberment achieves its intended outrageous response.
The most agonizing question that confronts the reader is: Was the woman dead when the Levite found her on the doorstep? Two of the ancient versions answer the question. The LXX and the Vulgate offer “but she was dead” as the answer to the Levite’s commands to his concubine when he comes out the door in the morning. Yet in the Hebrew text it is not clear in verses 29–30 whether the Levite simply dismembers a corpse or whether he himself murders his concubine in a fit of rage (see further comments on 20:1–48).
Bridging Contexts
IF THINGS WERE bad in Conclusion 1, they get much worse here. A quick listing of the characters reveals a Levite of questionable character/callous husband, a victimized concubine, an excessively hospitable father-in-law, an inhospitable city, a questionable host, rapists/abusers, and a dismembered corpse. Isn’t this the stuff of a modern movie plot?
Two misinterpretations. There are two misinterpretations and misapplications that have become popular in the recent scholarly literature on this passage. (1) The first is tied to an overemphasis on hospitality as the major problem within the passage. There is little debate that the inhospitality of the people of Gibeah toward the Levite, his concubine, and his servant is wrong. It is certainly a part of the overall portrayal of significant degeneration within Israelite culture that the passage paints.
Yet the ultimate “wrong” in the passage is the outrage that transpires that night in Gibeah. The rapists/abusers come that night and demand the host to give them his guest, the Levite, so that they can “have sex with” (lit., “know,” ydʿ ) him. A few commentators have attempted to interpret ydʿ in this passage (as well as in Gen. 19:5) as meaning something other than sexual knowledge.30 They overstress the inhospitality problem so that the horde’s attempt at homosexual rape is reinterpreted as purely a matter connected to the inhospitality issue. Behind this is an effort to argue that the Scriptures do not condemn homosexuality as sin.
This interpretation is untenable in light of Judges 19:24–25, where the host offers the Gibeahites the concubine and his daughter as alternatives (with rather obvious sexual overtones), and the men reject this offer and attempt to press home their desire for the man. Furthermore, the verb ydʿ has the clear nuance of rape, where the narrator describes the sexual actions taken against this helpless woman by the horde in terms of a heterosexual gang rape. The type of homosexual union that is clearly presented in the context of Judges 19 is that of homosexual gang rape.31 After the Levite “seized” his concubine and handed her over to these men—which in itself is quite a sin (see comments below)—the sins of Judges 19 that can be charged to the wicked men are heterosexual gang rape, apparent physical abuse and beating, and in the end, murder (although the hand of the Levite in this must also be acknowledged).
Thus, it is important not to judge the sin of Gibeah as simply homosexual rape, since while this was the intent of these wicked individuals, it did not in fact occur. But this in no way removes the initial homosexual intent and its condemnation in the narrative, nor does this remove the clear condemnation in the rest of Scripture concerning homosexual union.32
(2) The second misinterpretation and misapplication of this passage is found among some contemporary feminist approaches,33 which tend to see in this account evidences for the fundamental injustice of patriarchy or, more specifically androcentric ideology. Thus P. Trible claims that this chapter “depicts the horrors of male power, brutality, and triumphalism; of female helplessness, abuse, and annihilation. To hear this story is to inhabit a world of unrelenting terror that refuses to let us pass by on the other side.”34
A good representative of the feminist approach to this passage is found in the recent work of C. Exum.35 Exum gives the unnamed woman, the Levite’s concubine, the name Bat-shever, signifying her dismemberment by her husband and the role feminist interpretation plays in breaking open the text’s androcentric ideology and exposing the buried and encoded messages it gives to women. She argues that the issue in Judges 19 is “male ownership of women’s bodies, control over women’s sexuality.”36 The aim of the passage is to circumscribe and control women’s behavior.37 Opting for the Hebrew textual reading in 19:2 that “his concubine played the harlot against him” (NIV “was unfaithful to him”) instead of the more likely reading (based on the ancient versions) that “his concubine was angry or quarreled with him”38 (see comments above), Exum argues that this phrase is androcentric ideological code for the woman asserting her physical/sexual autonomy, which to the narrator is tantamount to an act of harlotry. Exum puts it this way:
A woman who asserts her sexual autonomy by leaving her husband—and whether or not she remains with him is a sexual issue—is guilty of sexual misconduct. This is the ideology that determines the way gender relations are understood and evaluated in this story. In the end, the woman is raped by a mob and dismembered by her own husband. As narrative punishment for her sexual “misconduct,” her sexual “freedom,” she is sexually abused, after which her sexuality is symbolically mutilated.39
Thus, the dismemberment is a coded message to women about sexual behavior. By leaving her husband the woman makes a gesture of sexual autonomy so threatening to patriarchal ideology that it requires her to be punished sexually in the most extreme form. “Decoded, the message the story of Bat-shever gives to women is that any claim to sexual autonomy (presented as unfaithfulness or misconduct) has horrendous consequences.”40 Furthermore, Exum argues this is connected by the writer to the issue of woman’s responsibility:
By insinuating that women, by the way they behave, are responsible for male sexual aggression, the narrator relies on a fundamental patriarchal strategy for exercising social control over women. Using women’s fear of male violence as a means of regulating female behavior is one of patriarchy’s most powerful weapons.41
Thus, the message of Judges 19 is a cautionary one to women: “If you do anything that even remotely suggests improper sexual behavior, you invite male aggression.”42
It seems to me that Exum has missed the point of the passage. Besides the methodological problem of building an entire interpretation around a variant reading, is the purpose of this passage (esp. in the larger context of the double conclusion) “to control women’s behavior”? Is the issue in Judges 19 “male ownership of women’s bodies, control over women’s sexuality”? It seems to me that this is difficult to sustain from the text. Is the cutting up of the woman’s body a hidden patriarchal code for exercising control over women through threat and terror, or is it the depraved perversion of this murderous, hedonistic Levite? The latter seems to be what the text is communicating. Even if one accepts the variant reading and Exum’s interpretation of 19:2, it does not necessarily follow that the woman is blamed in the text for what transpires. In fact, the text blames the men: the men of Gibeah, the Levite, and the host. The woman is the victim of evil men. Good, godly men treat women differently—even in a patriarchal world!
Exum has read into the text what she wants to say from a modern agenda.43 No doubt Exum would reply that I am declaring her understanding of the passage a misinterpretation on the basis of the long history of androcentric criteria for determining legitimate and illegitimate interpretations.44 In this, I am only reinforcing the male-dominated interpretation of the Bible and the oppression of women. But this is really only a smokescreen that permits any reading that subverts the text and that divorces a person from any responsibility to the integrity of the text. The text simply does not say what Exum says it says.45
Degeneration in Israelite society. It is tempting to interpret this passage only or primarily as a commentary on the abusive violation of male power and honor.46 But Block rightly notes that there is much more in the story than this:
From it one might conclude simplistically that in a patriarchal system it is generally preferable for men to rape women rather than to rape men. Specifically, the rape of women is acceptable if male honor is thereby served. But this is to misconstrue the broader goal of the book: to chronicle the increasing Canaanization of Israelite society.47
What about this questionable host who proposes the alternative to the rape of the Levite? He is promising at first with his authentic hospitality, but when the rapists/abusers show up, he fizzles out. It becomes clear that he is dominated by the principle of expedience, not by God’s ethical system. While he rightly recognizes the wrong of the rapists/abusers, his mores are culturally dictated: The concubine is not as important as his male guest; therefore, he will opt to protect him. Rather than run the risk of personal disaster, he will regrettably offer a lesser substitute (at least according to the societal dictates in Benjamin at this time, which are far away from God’s standards in the first place). Fokkelman’s words are important in this regard:
Many commentators write high-toned words in connection with Gen 19:8 (Lot’s daughters as a sexual sell-off) and Judg 19:24, in the sense that hospitality was such a valued asset in Israel, that people would even give up their women if necessary. To me, this seems to be not only a terrible cliché, but worse: it might well be incorrect. On the one hand the two chapters are exceptional (no lawgiver can foresee such situations) and on the other hand they show something that happens all over the world: under the pressures of terror and crime, good manners and morals crumble like a house of cards. We find a variant of the cliché in Trible, Texts of Terror, 75: Genesis 19 and Judges 19 “show that rules of hospitality in Israel protect only males.” I do not believe this.48
Thus, the host is doing what is right in his own eyes, what is expedient, what may be culturally conditioned (esp. in the debased period of the judges). This is the very point of the narrative: God’s Word demands much higher standards of morality, but Israel has degenerated into the mire of deep depravity where lewd and base behavior dominate, and no one is doing what is right in Yahweh’s eyes.
The concubine is the victim. She is a pawn of a callous husband, the rapists/abusers, and once again the callous husband. Unfortunately, as with so many victims, she remains nameless. The narrator paints her in colors that cause us to associate with her and to have compassion and pity on her. As a victim she deserves nothing less. We can easily say that in the narrator’s world she fares better than in her real world.
The Levite is, in some ways, more to be despised than the wicked rapists/abusers. He is dominated by self-interest, having absolutely no concern for the welfare of others, especially his concubine (this becomes more evident in ch. 20). The morning scene in the aftermath of the night’s wantonness is absolutely chilling. He is so nonchalant, matter-of-fact in his callousness that we are stunned. How can he be so indifferent? Is he really that self-absorbed? Apparently he is.
Contemporary Significance
DECLINING MORALS. The inhospitality of the people of Gibeah is clearly wrong. Unfortunately, inhospitality is not simply a problem in ancient Israel during the period of the judges. We live today in a growing hostile world. Forty to fifty years ago people hitchhiked with little fear, but today, because of the tremendous crimes that have occurred to hitchhikers or to those picking up hitchhikers, the practice has generally disappeared (and understandably so). Even in the church inhospitality can exist. Because of time pressures on families in the modern urban, mobile society, the interconnectedness of many churches has declined. It is not uncommon to hear people remark that they have been attending such-and-such church for a number of months and have not received an invitation to visit someone’s home.
Homosexuality. While one might think that the homosexual issue is a Christian versus unbeliever issue, this is not the case. A recent article in the Chicago Tribune documented the struggle within many mainline denominations over the homosexual issue.49 While evangelical and black Protestant churches along with Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches do not debate homosexual behavior, a number of mainline Protestant denominations are having a vigorous debate on this issue within their leaderships. All who support homosexual marriages and ordination of homosexual individuals argue that the Scriptures do not condemn homosexuality as sin and interpret Judges 19 as centering on the inhospitality problem. During the first half of 2000, three major mainline churches with 14.4 million members have had these showdowns.50
• In May 2000, the United Methodist Church’s General Conference voted by a two to one ratio to retain a ban on blessing ceremonies for homosexual couples, almost guaranteeing future disobedience and church trials. Delegates opposed openly gay and lesbian clergy by a similar margin.
• In late June 2000, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) General Assembly gave narrow approval (51.6 percent) to a Methodist-style ban on same-sex ceremonies. To become law, the measure must now be ratified by 87 of the church’s 173 regional units.
• In mid-July 2000, the Episcopal Church’s General Convention overwhelmingly endorsed a new policy acknowledging there are Episcopal couples, “acting in good conscience,” in lifelong committed relationships outside marriage who should receive “prayerful support, encouragement and pastoral care.” The wording covers both gay and lesbian couples, and unwed heterosexual couples, prompting new warnings from conservatives within the denomination that toleration of homosexual behavior will unglue Christian sexual morality as a whole.
Some mainline denominations have approved homosexual relationships. The United Church has long promoted toleration of same-sex couples and in 1983 declared that sexual orientation should not be a barrier to ordination. Apparently some mainline churches are more influenced by their culture than by Scripture.
Living in self-interest. There are many victims like the concubine in our world today. They are the hapless, ill-fated casualties of a world that either ignores God or outright rejects him. These victims most often are the “lesser important” people in our society; or better, what our society, in one way or another, deems the less important people: women, children, minorities—that is, people with no power to defend themselves. They deserve our compassion. They need Jesus Christ’s love.
During the Nuremberg trials, a natural question arose as to how men who seemed so normal in their other human relationships could be so different, so demonic, in their attitudes and actions towards the Jews. How could these men be so kind to women and children on the one hand and then murder so many women and children on the other? While this is a complex question without a simple answer, one factor that came out in the trials was the ability of these men to compartmentalize their emotions and hence at certain times function with the absence of any empathy and compassion. By removing all possibility of compassion, these men were able, from a purely emotional standpoint, to perpetrate incredible evil, and yet go home at night to their families. As Christians, when we lack the compassion of Christ for people, no matter who they are, we run the risk of compartmentalizing our emotions and of going down this same path.
Unfortunately, many of us are infected with the self-interest cancer. Just like the host in Judges 19, most of us can provide reasonable hospitality, but we are programmed by our societal principles to function along the axis of expedience. When confronted with a moral dilemma, too often we function on what is expedient, on what we have been culturally conditioned to do. Thus, we don’t even see these victims, even though they are all around us. At the work place, school, supermarket, and church, they are there. But until we remove the self-interest cancer that diminishes our vision, we won’t see them. We won’t help them. But God’s Word demands much higher standards of ethics and morality.
How many today make ethical decisions on the basis of the societal, cultural strictures rather than God’s Word? Or even worse, how many make ethical decisions purely on the basis of how they feel, what they think is best for the enhancement of their interest? No wonder there are so many victims when every person is doing what is right in his or her own eyes. Moral relativism prevails. And the more it prevails, the worse the atrocities that people perpetrate on people. Our technological culture does not make human beings better; instead, it provides new ways for them to explore and enact their perversions and evil designs. Neo-pagan America leads the way.
Judges 20:1–48
1Then all the Israelites from Dan to Beersheba and from the land of Gilead came out as one man and assembled before the LORD in Mizpah. 2The leaders of all the people of the tribes of Israel took their places in the assembly of the people of God, four hundred thousand soldiers armed with swords. 3(The Benjamites heard that the Israelites had gone up to Mizpah.) Then the Israelites said, “Tell us how this awful thing happened.”
4So the Levite, the husband of the murdered woman, said, “I and my concubine came to Gibeah in Benjamin to spend the night. 5During the night the men of Gibeah came after me and surrounded the house, intending to kill me. They raped my concubine, and she died. 6I took my concubine, cut her into pieces and sent one piece to each region of Israel’s inheritance, because they committed this lewd and disgraceful act in Israel. 7Now, all you Israelites, speak up and give your verdict.”
8All the people rose as one man, saying, “None of us will go home. No, not one of us will return to his house. 9But now this is what we’ll do to Gibeah: We’ll go up against it as the lot directs. 10We’ll take ten men out of every hundred from all the tribes of Israel, and a hundred from a thousand, and a thousand from ten thousand, to get provisions for the army. Then, when the army arrives at Gibeah in Benjamin, it can give them what they deserve for all this vileness done in Israel.” 11So all the men of Israel got together and united as one man against the city.
12The tribes of Israel sent men throughout the tribe of Benjamin, saying, “What about this awful crime that was committed among you? 13Now surrender those wicked men of Gibeah so that we may put them to death and purge the evil from Israel.”
But the Benjamites would not listen to their fellow Israelites. 14From their towns they came together at Gibeah to fight against the Israelites. 15At once the Benjamites mobilized twenty-six thousand swordsmen from their towns, in addition to seven hundred chosen men from those living in Gibeah. 16Among all these soldiers there were seven hundred chosen men who were left-handed, each of whom could sling a stone at a hair and not miss.
17Israel, apart from Benjamin, mustered four hundred thousand swordsmen, all of them fighting men.
18The Israelites went up to Bethel and inquired of God. They said, “Who of us shall go first to fight against the Benjamites?”
The LORD replied, “Judah shall go first.”
19The next morning the Israelites got up and pitched camp near Gibeah. 20The men of Israel went out to fight the Benjamites and took up battle positions against them at Gibeah. 21The Benjamites came out of Gibeah and cut down twenty-two thousand Israelites on the battlefield that day. 22But the men of Israel encouraged one another and again took up their positions where they had stationed themselves the first day. 23The Israelites went up and wept before the LORD until evening, and they inquired of the LORD. They said, “Shall we go up again to battle against the Benjamites, our brothers?”
The LORD answered, “Go up against them.”
24Then the Israelites drew near to Benjamin the second day. 25This time, when the Benjamites came out from Gibeah to oppose them, they cut down another eighteen thousand Israelites, all of them armed with swords.
26Then the Israelites, all the people, went up to Bethel, and there they sat weeping before the LORD. They fasted that day until evening and presented burnt offerings and fellowship offerings to the LORD. 27And the Israelites inquired of the LORD. (In those days the ark of the covenant of God was there, 28with Phinehas son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron, ministering before it.) They asked, “Shall we go up again to battle with Benjamin our brother, or not?”
The LORD responded, “Go, for tomorrow I will give them into your hands.”
29Then Israel set an ambush around Gibeah. 30They went up against the Benjamites on the third day and took up positions against Gibeah as they had done before. 31The Benjamites came out to meet them and were drawn away from the city. They began to inflict casualties on the Israelites as before, so that about thirty men fell in the open field and on the roads—the one leading to Bethel and the other to Gibeah.
32While the Benjamites were saying, “We are defeating them as before,” the Israelites were saying, “Let’s retreat and draw them away from the city to the roads.”
33All the men of Israel moved from their places and took up positions at Baal Tamar, and the Israelite ambush charged out of its place on the west of Gibeah. 34Then ten thousand of Israel’s finest men made a frontal attack on Gibeah. The fighting was so heavy that the Benjamites did not realize how near disaster was. 35The LORD defeated Benjamin before Israel, and on that day the Israelites struck down 25,100 Benjamites, all armed with swords. 36Then the Benjamites saw that they were beaten.
Now the men of Israel had given way before Benjamin, because they relied on the ambush they had set near Gibeah. 37The men who had been in ambush made a sudden dash into Gibeah, spread out and put the whole city to the sword. 38The men of Israel had arranged with the ambush that they should send up a great cloud of smoke from the city, 39and then the men of Israel would turn in the battle.
The Benjamites had begun to inflict casualties on the men of Israel (about thirty), and they said, “We are defeating them as in the first battle.” 40But when the column of smoke began to rise from the city, the Benjamites turned and saw the smoke of the whole city going up into the sky. 41Then the men of Israel turned on them, and the men of Benjamin were terrified, because they realized that disaster had come upon them. 42So they fled before the Israelites in the direction of the desert, but they could not escape the battle. And the men of Israel who came out of the towns cut them down there. 43They surrounded the Benjamites, chased them and easily overran them in the vicinity of Gibeah on the east. 44Eighteen thousand Benjamites fell, all of them valiant fighters. 45As they turned and fled toward the desert to the rock of Rimmon, the Israelites cut down five thousand men along the roads. They kept pressing after the Benjamites as far as Gidom and struck down two thousand more.
46On that day twenty-five thousand Benjamite swordsmen fell, all of them valiant fighters. 47But six hundred men turned and fled into the desert to the rock of Rimmon, where they stayed four months. 48The men of Israel went back to Benjamin and put all the towns to the sword, including the animals and everything else they found. All the towns they came across they set on fire.