The Levite's Story
Although it is stated that ‘all the tribes’ were represented at the great gathering in Mizpah, it is obvious that one tribe was excepted. Benjamin had not responded to the summons. Intelligence had reached Benjamin of the gathering forces and Judges 20:3 informs us that they were acutely aware of the presence of the standing army now mustered in their territory.
The concept of the nation of Israel gathering together to punish a rebellious tribe or city in their midst is not foreign to the law and in fact the law described certain scenarios in which just such a circumstance might occur.
However, the law was clear that prior to any collective action being taken, a painstaking and thorough investigation was to take place.
Deuteronomy 13
14-15 ‘…then you shall inquire and make search and ask diligently. And behold, if it be true and certain that such an abomination has been done among you, you shall surely put the inhabitants of that city to the sword…’
Armed, in position and of one mind, there was still the matter of thorough investigation and inquiry to go through. The tribes must hear of the matter. They must be given a full report, and so the Levite was summoned to give an account of the events which had occurred in Gibeah.
If the principle in the law that ‘only on the evidence of two witnesses or of three witnesses shall a charge be established’ (Deuteronomy 19:15) was followed, we might imagine that the servant of the Levite and the ‘old man’ who was sojourning in Gibeah were also called upon to give an account of the events in Gibeah on that fateful night. If they were, we are not told and given the degree to which many of those present seem to have already arrived at their conclusion, we can’t be confident that the gathered tribes deemed further witness than that which the Levite gave as necessary. Perhaps they considered the concubine as having already provided her testimony.
After what we have read in Judges 19 of this man, there is no doubt that we would like to see him subjected to a thorough cross examination. It’s highly probable that we can think of a number of ‘searching questions’ we’d like to put to him. For this reason we watch and listen with interest as the first (and it seems ‘only’) ‘searching’, ‘diligent’ and ‘inquiring’ question is addressed to the Levitical butcher.
Judges 20
3 (Now the people of Benjamin heard that the people of Israel had gone up to Mizpah.) And the people of Israel said, “Tell us, how did this evil happen?”
4 And the Levite, the husband of the woman who was murdered, answered and said, “I came to Gibeah that belongs to Benjamin, I and my concubine, to spend the night.
We are almost tempted to say ‘so far so good’, and yet with his phrase ‘Gibeah that belongs to Benjamin’ he seems to be deliberately widening the circle of complicity. He continues:
5 And the leaders of Gibeah rose against me and surrounded the house against me by night. They meant to kill me, and they violated my concubine, and she is dead.
We are not told in Judges 19 that it was the leaders of Gibeah that surrounded the house in which the Levite and his concubine were guests. This is seemingly new information. It may very well be true. However it does seem calculated to increase yet more the culpability of the tribe of Benjamin. The impression created by testifying that it was the ‘leaders of Gibeah’ is vastly different to if he had merely said ‘certain men of Gibeah’.
The Levite then relates that the men of Gibeah had intended to murder him. It may well be that what they had in mind would have resulted in his death and it may be argued that their intentions were akin to murder, and yet one cannot help but feel that the Levite is veiling some significant details in his recounting of the story here. He explains that they ‘meant to kill me’ and then seems to portray the men of Gibeah as having an inexplicable change of plan. They ‘violated’ his concubine instead. The outcome of their siege of the house, the means by which he escaped their ‘murderous designs’ and how the concubine ended up in their hands is conveniently passed over.
Perhaps the pity of the listeners for one who had endured such a traumatic ordeal caused them to spare him having to relive the incidents in detail resulting in him being allowed to gloss over some of the sordid (and inconvenient) details.
We probably feel as if we would be less inclined to spare him.
6 So I took hold of my concubine and cut her in pieces and sent her throughout all the country of the inheritance of Israel, for they have committed abomination and outrage in Israel.
The Levite uses a couple of phrases for specific effect as he arrives at the end of his very brief recounting of the events in Gibeah.
It is to the ‘country of the inheritance of Israel’ that he had sent her. He masks the brutal nature of his own actions by presenting them in the light of the higher cause he was intending to achieve – defense of the sanctity of the holy land – ‘the inheritance of Israel’ and by so doing this appeals to their sense of righteous outrage.
The phrase ‘abomination’ (zimmâ) and ‘outrage’ (nĕbālâ) are words deliberately chosen. They echo passages of the law sure to strike a chord with ‘the people of God’. The word ‘abomination’ features prominently in Leviticus 18-20 where it is translated ‘depravity’ and used of incest and prostitution. The word ‘outrage’ is used of adultery and fornication. Both contexts in the law in which these words are used refer to purging out such behaviour ‘from your midst’. This is the Levite’s message.
He finishes with an appeal for their advice and seeming deference to their good judgment.
7 Behold, you people of Israel, all of you, give your advice and counsel here.”
Thus the Levite concludes his account of his sojourn in Gibeah. It is now over to the gathered ‘people of Israel’ to judge on the basis of what they have heard.
Will they be content with the facts as they have been presented? Has the Levite convinced them? Will their unity hold?
Although it is stated that ‘all the tribes’ were represented at the great gathering in Mizpah, it is obvious that one tribe was excepted. Benjamin had not responded to the summons. Intelligence had reached Benjamin of the gathering forces and Judges 20:3 informs us that they were acutely aware of the presence of the standing army now mustered in their territory.
The concept of the nation of Israel gathering together to punish a rebellious tribe or city in their midst is not foreign to the law and in fact the law described certain scenarios in which just such a circumstance might occur.
However, the law was clear that prior to any collective action being taken, a painstaking and thorough investigation was to take place.
Deuteronomy 13
14-15 ‘…then you shall inquire and make search and ask diligently. And behold, if it be true and certain that such an abomination has been done among you, you shall surely put the inhabitants of that city to the sword…’
Armed, in position and of one mind, there was still the matter of thorough investigation and inquiry to go through. The tribes must hear of the matter. They must be given a full report, and so the Levite was summoned to give an account of the events which had occurred in Gibeah.
If the principle in the law that ‘only on the evidence of two witnesses or of three witnesses shall a charge be established’ (Deuteronomy 19:15) was followed, we might imagine that the servant of the Levite and the ‘old man’ who was sojourning in Gibeah were also called upon to give an account of the events in Gibeah on that fateful night. If they were, we are not told and given the degree to which many of those present seem to have already arrived at their conclusion, we can’t be confident that the gathered tribes deemed further witness than that which the Levite gave as necessary. Perhaps they considered the concubine as having already provided her testimony.
After what we have read in Judges 19 of this man, there is no doubt that we would like to see him subjected to a thorough cross examination. It’s highly probable that we can think of a number of ‘searching questions’ we’d like to put to him. For this reason we watch and listen with interest as the first (and it seems ‘only’) ‘searching’, ‘diligent’ and ‘inquiring’ question is addressed to the Levitical butcher.
Judges 20
3 (Now the people of Benjamin heard that the people of Israel had gone up to Mizpah.) And the people of Israel said, “Tell us, how did this evil happen?”
4 And the Levite, the husband of the woman who was murdered, answered and said, “I came to Gibeah that belongs to Benjamin, I and my concubine, to spend the night.
We are almost tempted to say ‘so far so good’, and yet with his phrase ‘Gibeah that belongs to Benjamin’ he seems to be deliberately widening the circle of complicity. He continues:
5 And the leaders of Gibeah rose against me and surrounded the house against me by night. They meant to kill me, and they violated my concubine, and she is dead.
We are not told in Judges 19 that it was the leaders of Gibeah that surrounded the house in which the Levite and his concubine were guests. This is seemingly new information. It may very well be true. However it does seem calculated to increase yet more the culpability of the tribe of Benjamin. The impression created by testifying that it was the ‘leaders of Gibeah’ is vastly different to if he had merely said ‘certain men of Gibeah’.
The Levite then relates that the men of Gibeah had intended to murder him. It may well be that what they had in mind would have resulted in his death and it may be argued that their intentions were akin to murder, and yet one cannot help but feel that the Levite is veiling some significant details in his recounting of the story here. He explains that they ‘meant to kill me’ and then seems to portray the men of Gibeah as having an inexplicable change of plan. They ‘violated’ his concubine instead. The outcome of their siege of the house, the means by which he escaped their ‘murderous designs’ and how the concubine ended up in their hands is conveniently passed over.
Perhaps the pity of the listeners for one who had endured such a traumatic ordeal caused them to spare him having to relive the incidents in detail resulting in him being allowed to gloss over some of the sordid (and inconvenient) details.
We probably feel as if we would be less inclined to spare him.
6 So I took hold of my concubine and cut her in pieces and sent her throughout all the country of the inheritance of Israel, for they have committed abomination and outrage in Israel.
The Levite uses a couple of phrases for specific effect as he arrives at the end of his very brief recounting of the events in Gibeah.
It is to the ‘country of the inheritance of Israel’ that he had sent her. He masks the brutal nature of his own actions by presenting them in the light of the higher cause he was intending to achieve – defense of the sanctity of the holy land – ‘the inheritance of Israel’ and by so doing this appeals to their sense of righteous outrage.
The phrase ‘abomination’ (zimmâ) and ‘outrage’ (nĕbālâ) are words deliberately chosen. They echo passages of the law sure to strike a chord with ‘the people of God’. The word ‘abomination’ features prominently in Leviticus 18-20 where it is translated ‘depravity’ and used of incest and prostitution. The word ‘outrage’ is used of adultery and fornication. Both contexts in the law in which these words are used refer to purging out such behaviour ‘from your midst’. This is the Levite’s message.
He finishes with an appeal for their advice and seeming deference to their good judgment.
7 Behold, you people of Israel, all of you, give your advice and counsel here.”
Thus the Levite concludes his account of his sojourn in Gibeah. It is now over to the gathered ‘people of Israel’ to judge on the basis of what they have heard.
Will they be content with the facts as they have been presented? Has the Levite convinced them? Will their unity hold?
