Judges Chapter 19
A. The Levite and his concubine.
1. (Judges 19:1) A Levite takes a concubine.
And it came to pass in those days, when there was no king in Israel, that there was a certain Levite staying in the remote mountains of Ephraim. He took for himself a concubine from Bethlehem in Judah.
a. There was no king in Israel: This phrase sets the backdrop for one of the most shocking narratives in Scripture. It appears repeatedly in Judges (Judges 17:6; 18:1; 19:1; 21:25), serving as a theological commentary on the lawlessness and moral decay of the period. It does not merely indicate the absence of a political monarch; it reflects Israel’s rejection of God’s sovereign rule over them. Without the restraining influence of God’s Word and godly leadership, each person became their own authority, leading to unchecked depravity.
i. This absence of God’s rule created the conditions for what follows—a narrative so disturbing that F.B. Meyer remarked it would be better to ponder the repeated phrase “there was no king in Israel” than to read the details, which reveal the depths of human depravity apart from the grace of God.
ii. The events in this chapter echo the moral chaos of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19), demonstrating that when a people reject God’s authority, they inevitably descend into the same corruption as the most wicked pagan nations.
b. He took for himself a concubine: In ancient Israel, a concubine was a woman in a legally recognized relationship with a man but without the full rights of a wife. She was, in essence, a legal mistress. The practice was common in the ancient Near East, and even among prominent men of Israel, though it was never part of God’s original design for marriage.
i. Notable examples in Scripture include Abraham (Genesis 25:6), Jacob (Genesis 35:22), Caleb (1 Chronicles 2:46), Saul (2 Samuel 3:7), David (2 Samuel 5:13), Solomon (1 Kings 11:3), and Rehoboam (2 Chronicles 11:21). In every case, the presence of concubines is associated with family strife, moral compromise, and spiritual decline—never with God’s blessing.
ii. The New Testament reaffirms God’s original intent from creation: “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate” (Matthew 19:4–6, NKJV). Likewise, the qualifications for church leaders require that a man be “the husband of one wife” (1 Timothy 3:2, NKJV), literally “a one-woman man.”
iii. The Levite’s choice to take a concubine already shows a departure from God’s standard, signaling moral compromise at the outset of the story. What begins with a lesser view of God’s design for marriage will unfold into a narrative that fully exposes the tragic results of doing what is right in one’s own eyes.
2. (Judges 19:2–4) The Levite reconciles with his concubine after she commits adultery.
But his concubine played the harlot against him, and went away from him to her father’s house at Bethlehem in Judah, and was there four whole months. Then her husband arose and went after her, to speak kindly to her and bring her back, having his servant and a couple of donkeys with him. So she brought him into her father’s house; and when the father of the young woman saw him, he was glad to meet him. Now his father-in-law, the young woman’s father, detained him; and he stayed with him three days. So they ate and drank and lodged there.
a. But his concubine played the harlot against him: The Hebrew phrasing can indicate either literal sexual unfaithfulness or simply that she left him in a manner betraying the relationship. However, the plain reading of the NKJV points toward adultery. Whether she left out of offense, rebellion, or lust, her actions were a violation of the covenantal commitment she had to him. Her departure to her father’s house in Bethlehem—far from his home in the hill country of Ephraim—signals a complete break in the relationship.
i. This moral failure on her part parallels the spiritual adultery of Israel during the time of the Judges. Just as she abandoned her rightful husband, Israel continually abandoned the Lord to pursue idols. Both betrayals carry the stench of unfaithfulness.
b. Went away from him... and was there four whole months: This was a lengthy separation. In that time, bitterness, shame, or pride could easily have solidified the break beyond repair. Yet the Levite chose to act toward reconciliation rather than vengeance or permanent rejection.
c. Then her husband arose and went after her, to speak kindly to her and bring her back: This reveals a remarkable decision on his part. In pursuing her, the Levite models, at least in this moment, how an offended spouse should act when betrayed by adultery. He sought to win her heart back, speaking kindly to her instead of condemning her harshly. His goal was restoration, not humiliation.
i. Jesus Christ Himself taught that divorce is never commanded in cases of adultery. In Matthew 19:8–9, He acknowledged that Moses permitted divorce “because of the hardness of your hearts,” but “from the beginning it was not so.” God’s ideal is always forgiveness and reconciliation when possible, even in the most grievous of marital sins.
ii. A betrayed spouse, if at all possible, should work toward healing the marriage, relying on God’s grace to overcome bitterness. This is not to say trust is easily rebuilt, but that the heart of God is toward restoration where repentance exists.
d. Having his servant and a couple of donkeys with him: This detail suggests he came with preparation for a journey, possibly anticipating that he might need to provide for her return over several days of travel. It also reflects the cultural custom of traveling with attendants for safety and assistance.
e. When the father of the young woman saw him, he was glad to meet him: His joy could have stemmed from seeing his daughter and son-in-law reconciled. Alternatively, it could have been relief that his daughter was returning to her husband’s household, which was the proper place for her in that culture.
f. The father-in-law... detained him; and he stayed with him three days: Hospitality in the ancient Near East was considered a sacred duty. By keeping him for three days, the father-in-law was not merely showing courtesy, but also strengthening family ties and perhaps ensuring the reconciliation was firmly reestablished before sending them on their way. They ate, drank, and lodged there, reflecting both festivity and the importance of sealing the renewed relationship with fellowship.
3. (Judges 19:5–10) The father of the concubine extends the visit with a traditionally generous show of hospitality.
Then it came to pass on the fourth day that they arose early in the morning, and he stood to depart; but the young woman’s father said to his son-in-law, “Refresh your heart with a morsel of bread, and afterward go your way.” So they sat down, and the two of them ate and drank together. Then the young woman’s father said to the man, “Please be content to stay all night, and let your heart be merry.” And when the man stood to depart, his father-in-law urged him; so he lodged there again. Then he arose early in the morning on the fifth day to depart, but the young woman’s father said, “Please refresh your heart.” So they delayed until afternoon; and both of them ate. And when the man stood to depart; he and his concubine and his servant; his father-in-law, the young woman’s father, said to him, “Look, the day is now drawing toward evening; please spend the night. See, the day is coming to an end; lodge here, that your heart may be merry. Tomorrow go your way early, so that you may get home.” However, the man was not willing to spend that night; so he rose and departed, and came to opposite Jebus (that is, Jerusalem). With him were the two saddled donkeys; his concubine was also with him.
a. It came to pass on the fourth day: This passage explains the prolonged delay in Bethlehem. The Levite initially intended to leave on the morning of the fourth day, but his father-in-law’s repeated insistence persuaded him to stay longer. This persistence in urging a guest to remain was characteristic of ancient Near Eastern hospitality. Hosts would often extend a visit to honor their guests, to enjoy their company, and to further cement relationships.
i. In a culture without rapid communication or frequent travel, visits were rare and treasured. It was considered almost inhospitable to let a guest depart too soon, especially a family member.
b. Refresh your heart with a morsel of bread: This phrase is more than a literal suggestion to eat; in Hebrew idiom, it carried the idea of regaining strength and reviving one’s spirit through fellowship and food. Shared meals were acts of relational bonding, not merely physical sustenance.
c. Please be content to stay all night, and let your heart be merry: The father-in-law’s urging reflects the deeply ingrained custom of extending hospitality to the point of almost forcing the guest to accept it. It also suggests genuine joy in the renewed union between the Levite and his daughter. However, the repeated delays also set the stage for the tragedy that will follow, as each postponement pushes their departure later in the day.
d. So they delayed until afternoon: In normal circumstances, travel in the ancient world was done early in the day to avoid both heat and darkness. Delaying until the afternoon was unwise for a long journey, especially through unfamiliar or potentially unsafe territory. This decision—partly out of politeness, partly out of cultural expectation—would have severe consequences later.
e. Look, the day is now drawing toward evening: The father-in-law once again attempted to persuade him to stay overnight, noting the lateness of the hour. In the ancient Near East, traveling at night was dangerous due to the lack of lighting, the presence of wild animals, and the possibility of ambush by robbers.
f. However, the man was not willing to spend that night: Whether out of urgency, a desire to return home, or perhaps a concern over overstaying his welcome, the Levite refused. His decision to leave late in the day—despite the dangers—would prove to be a critical turning point in the narrative.
g. Came to opposite Jebus (that is, Jerusalem): At this point in history, Jerusalem was still under Jebusite control. The note in the text clarifies the historical geography for the reader. Traveling with two saddled donkeys and his concubine, along with his servant, the Levite was accompanied by what appeared to be a modest but sufficient traveling party for safety—yet events would show that this was not enough to avoid disaster.
4. (Judges 19:11–15) Returning home, the Levite and the concubine decide to spend the night in Gibeah.
They were near Jebus, and the day was far spent; and the servant said to his master, “Come, please, and let us turn aside into this city of the Jebusites and lodge in it.” But his master said to him, “We will not turn aside here into a city of foreigners, who are not of the children of Israel; we will go on to Gibeah.” So he said to his servant, “Come, let us draw near to one of these places, and spend the night in Gibeah or in Ramah.” And they passed by and went their way; and the sun went down on them near Gibeah, which belongs to Benjamin. They turned aside there to go in to lodge in Gibeah. And when he went in, he sat down in the open square of the city, for no one would take them into his house to spend the night.
a. We will not turn aside here into a city of foreigners: The Levite’s reasoning was rooted in the covenant identity of Israel. Jebus (later Jerusalem) was still under Jebusite control at this time (Joshua 15:63; Judges 1:21), meaning it was inhabited by pagans who did not follow the laws of hospitality commanded by God. The Levite assumed it was far better to lodge in an Israelite town, where covenantal brotherhood and the law’s moral obligations would ensure protection and kindness.
i. This decision shows that the Levite expected more righteous conduct from Israelites than from pagans. However, as the narrative will reveal, the people of Gibeah behaved far worse than the Jebusites likely would have, proving that a mere national or tribal identity does not guarantee godliness.
b. Come, let us draw near… to Gibeah or to Ramah: Both Gibeah and Ramah were towns in the territory of Benjamin, situated close to one another along the north-south ridge route. Gibeah, meaning “hill,” was only a few miles from Jerusalem. Ramah lay slightly farther north. Their close proximity to each other made them reasonable options for night lodging after bypassing Jebus.
c. The sun went down on them near Gibeah: This verse underscores the unwise delay caused by the extended visit in Bethlehem (Judges 19:5–10). Because they departed late, nightfall overtook them before they could reach home, forcing them to seek shelter in an unfamiliar city. In the ancient Near East, traveling after dark was dangerous not only because of wild animals and rough terrain but because lawlessness often increased at night.
d. No one would take them into his house to spend the night: This lack of hospitality in Gibeah is both shocking and shameful. According to God’s law, Israelites were commanded to show kindness and provision to strangers, especially fellow Israelites. As it is written in Leviticus 19:33–34, “And if a stranger dwells with you in your land, you shall not mistreat him. The stranger who dwells among you shall be to you as one born among you, and you shall love him as yourself; for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.” Similarly, Leviticus 25:35 says, “If one of your brethren becomes poor, and falls into poverty among you, then you shall help him, like a stranger or a sojourner, that he may live with you.”
i. This principle carried into the New Testament as well. Jesus said in Matthew 25:35, “For I was hungry and you gave Me food; I was thirsty and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger and you took Me in.” Hebrews 13:2 further instructs, “Do not forget to entertain strangers, for by so doing some have unwittingly entertained angels.”
ii. The absence of hospitality here reveals a deep moral decay within Gibeah. This was not a minor social oversight; it was a sign that the covenant community had abandoned God’s commands and lost the compassion that should have marked them as His people. It sets the stage for the far greater wickedness that will unfold in the following verses.
5. (Judges 19:16–21) Finally, a fellow Ephraimite finds them and extends hospitality.
Just then an old man came in from his work in the field at evening, who also was from the mountains of Ephraim; he was staying in Gibeah, whereas the men of the place were Benjamites. And when he raised his eyes, he saw the traveler in the open square of the city; and the old man said, “Where are you going, and where do you come from?” So he said to him, “We are passing from Bethlehem in Judah toward the remote mountains of Ephraim; I am from there. I went to Bethlehem in Judah; now I am going to the house of the Lord. But there is no one who will take me into his house, although we have both straw and fodder for our donkeys, and bread and wine for myself, for your female servant, and for the young man who is with your servant; there is no lack of anything.” And the old man said, “Peace be with you! However, let all your needs be my responsibility; only do not spend the night in the open square.” So he brought him into his house, and gave fodder to the donkeys. And they washed their feet, and ate and drank.
a. Who also was from the mountains of Ephraim: The fact that the only person to offer hospitality was not a Benjamite, but another man from Ephraim, is significant. The people of Gibeah—the Levite’s fellow Israelites by tribe—had already failed in their covenant duty to receive strangers (Leviticus 19:33–34; Hebrews 13:2). It was only a fellow countryman from the Levite’s own region who showed the decency and godliness to take him in. This highlights how far Gibeah had fallen morally, for hospitality was a deeply ingrained obligation in the culture of the ancient Near East, especially among the covenant people of God.
b. Now I am going to the house of the Lord: At this time in Israel’s history, the central sanctuary was not in Jerusalem but in Shiloh (Judges 18:31; Joshua 18:1). The Levite’s intended destination reminds us that the worship of God was still centralized in the tabernacle at Shiloh, though as the story shows, the moral and spiritual condition of the people had drifted far from the holiness that worship at God’s house was meant to inspire.
c. There is no one who will take me into his house: The Levite points out the disturbing reality that no one in Gibeah had offered him shelter, despite the fact that he was not in need of provisions. He had all the necessary supplies—food for himself and his servants, and fodder for his donkeys. All he required was a safe place to stay. This detail removes any excuse for the inhospitable behavior of Gibeah’s citizens. Their refusal to take him in was not due to scarcity but to moral apathy and indifference.
d. Peace be with you… only do not spend the night in the open square: The old man’s words show both a warm welcome and a note of foreboding. The urgency in his warning implies that he knew it was unsafe to remain in the public square overnight. In Middle Eastern custom, a public square was typically a place for travelers to rest temporarily until hospitality was offered. For the old man to insist that the Levite not remain there suggests he knew the moral corruption of Gibeah firsthand and feared for the Levite’s safety.
e. They washed their feet, and ate and drank: This act of foot washing reflects the hospitality customs of the day (Genesis 18:4; Luke 7:44). It was a gesture of welcome and refreshment for weary travelers, offering both physical comfort and symbolic cleansing after a journey. The meal that followed sealed the hospitality, affirming the old man’s commitment to protect and care for his guests for the night.
B. The crime of Gibeah.
1. (Judges 19:22) Their perverted demand.
As they were enjoying themselves, suddenly certain men of the city, perverted men, surrounded the house and beat on the door. They spoke to the master of the house, the old man, saying, “Bring out the man who came to your house, that we may know him carnally!”
a. Surrounded the house and beat on the door: The Hebrew verb tense for “beat” carries the sense of repeated and escalating strikes, indicating aggression and urgency. This was not a neighborly inquiry but a mob growing more violent by the moment. The host’s home, intended as a sanctuary of hospitality and safety, had now become the focal point of an impending moral outrage. The imagery here shows a breakdown of covenant law, hospitality, and human decency. In ancient Israel, the home was sacred, and to violate its peace was to commit a grave offense (cf. Exodus 22:21; Deuteronomy 23:17–18).
b. Bring out the man who came to your house, that we may know him carnally: This statement is identical in spirit to the demand made by the men of Sodom toward Lot in Genesis 19:5—"And they called to Lot and said to him, ‘Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may know them carnally.’” In both cases, the phrase “know them carnally” is a clear euphemism for homosexual rape, used as an act of dominance, humiliation, and violence rather than mere sexual desire. The narrative is making an unmistakable moral parallel between Israel’s behavior at Gibeah and the infamous wickedness of Sodom and Gomorrah.
c. The theological indictment: The author of Judges intentionally frames this account to demonstrate that Israel, without a godly king and with no reverence for God’s rule, had descended to the same depravity as the Gentile nations God had judged before (cf. Leviticus 18:22–30). This moment is not just about a group of immoral men—it is about a nation whose moral compass is so broken that covenant cities mirror pagan depravity. The covenant community, called to be “a kingdom of priests and a holy nation” (Exodus 19:6), had instead embraced the ways of the nations they were commanded to drive out.
d. The social corruption: In the ancient Near East, homosexuality was often condemned not only for its sexual immorality but for its association with idolatry, temple prostitution, and acts of warlike humiliation. Here, the men of Gibeah target a guest—someone under the special protection of his host—showing that hospitality, once a sacred duty, had been utterly abandoned. This offense was compounded by the fact that Gibeah was not a Canaanite city but a city of Benjamin, one of Israel’s own tribes.
e. Moral application: The downward spiral into such moral lawlessness reflects what happens when a people reject God’s authority. As Romans 1:24–28 warns, God gives those who reject Him over to “vile passions” and a “debased mind.” Gibeah stands as a warning that covenant privilege without obedience leads to judgment.
2. (Judges 19:23–26) The wickedness and perversion of the men of Gibeah.
But the man, the master of the house, went out to them and said to them, “No, my brethren! I beg you, do not act so wickedly! Seeing this man has come into my house, do not commit this outrage. Look, here is my virgin daughter and the man’s concubine; let me bring them out now. Humble them, and do with them as you please; but to this man do not do such a vile thing!” But the men would not heed him. So the man took his concubine and brought her out to them. And they knew her and abused her all night until morning; and when the day began to break, they let her go. Then the woman came as the day was dawning, and fell down at the door of the man’s house where her master was, till it was light.
a. The man took his concubine and brought her out to them: Here the sin compounds. The depravity of the men of Gibeah is beyond question, but the cowardice and moral compromise of both the Levite and the old host are also glaring. True righteousness would have demanded that they risk their own lives before surrendering a defenseless woman to such brutality. This failure reveals the collapse of biblical manhood during the time of the Judges. Both men treated women as expendable property rather than image-bearers of God to be protected and honored (cf. Genesis 1:27; Malachi 2:14–16).
i. Every major figure here—except the concubine herself—is morally bankrupt:
The wicked men of Gibeah, who behaved more like the men of Sodom in Genesis 19:5 than covenant people of God, rejecting both God’s law and the natural order.
The master of the house, willing to sacrifice his own virgin daughter, breaking the sacred duty of a father to protect his child (cf. Deuteronomy 22:25–27).
The Levite, whose role as a religious servant should have modeled God’s righteousness, instead treated his concubine as disposable, prioritizing his own safety over her life.
ii. This reflects Isaiah’s later lament that "the whole head is sick, and the whole heart faints" (Isaiah 1:5). The moral corruption was systemic, reaching from the common man to the religious class.
b. And they knew her and abused her: The Hebrew verbs here are graphic and layered, indicating repeated acts of sexual violence through the entire night. Adam Clarke, unwilling to put the full meaning in English out of modesty, rendered the description in Latin so that only the learned could read it. This language is intended to shock the reader with the depths of depravity to which Israel had fallen.
i. As Wolf observes, “One can easily see why the concubine had left her husband in the first place. She was virtually sacrificed to save his skin as the men sexually abused her all night.” This statement underscores the betrayal she suffered not only at the hands of strangers but also from the man who claimed her as his wife.
ii. Clarke’s description of the men—“Rascals and miscreants of the deepest dye; worse than brutes, being a compound of beast and devil inseparably blended”—captures the total moral perversion that characterized Gibeah.
c. Historical memory of the crime: Centuries later, the prophets still referenced Gibeah as the pinnacle of covenantal corruption:
Hosea 9:9—“They are deeply corrupted, as in the days of Gibeah. He will remember their iniquity; He will punish their sins.”
Hosea 10:9—“O Israel, you have sinned from the days of Gibeah; there they stood. The battle in Gibeah against the children of iniquity did not overtake them.”
Gibeah became a byword for apostasy, a reminder of how low God’s people could fall when “everyone did what was right in his own eyes” (Judges 21:25).
d. Theological application: This passage warns that when God’s moral law is abandoned, societal protections for the vulnerable collapse, and the strong prey upon the weak. The Levite, called to represent God, instead mirrored the selfishness of the age. This is a sobering reminder for God’s people today: covenant identity without covenant obedience is hypocrisy, and hypocrisy leads to national decay.
3. (Judges 19:27–30) The Levite discovers his dead concubine and issues a call for national judgment.
When her master arose in the morning, and opened the doors of the house and went out to go his way, there was his concubine, fallen at the door of the house with her hands on the threshold. And he said to her, “Get up and let us be going.” But there was no answer. So the man lifted her onto the donkey; and the man got up and went to his place. When he entered his house he took a knife, laid hold of his concubine, and divided her into twelve pieces, limb by limb, and sent her throughout all the territory of Israel. And so it was that all who saw it said, “No such deed has been done or seen from the day that the children of Israel came up from the land of Egypt until this day. Consider it, confer, and speak up!”
a. “Get up and let us be going”: These words reveal the Levite’s cold indifference to the suffering and death of his concubine. There is no recorded expression of grief, no effort to comfort her in her last moments, and no prayer to the LORD for justice or mercy. His tone is transactional, treating her as though she were merely a possession to be moved along the road. The callousness here underscores the moral bankruptcy of Israel’s leadership class during the time of the Judges. Those who should have embodied covenant love instead mirrored the self-centeredness of the pagan nations around them (cf. Deuteronomy 10:17–19, Micah 6:8).
i. Her position—collapsed at the threshold with her hands on the doorway—paints a haunting image of desperation. It suggests that she struggled through the night to reach safety but collapsed just short of the protection she sought. This makes the Levite’s indifference even more shocking.
b. “Divided her into twelve pieces, limb by limb, and sent her throughout all the territory of Israel”: The act was gruesome and deliberately shocking. It served as a macabre summons for all twelve tribes to consider the outrage and respond decisively. Such a gesture was unprecedented in Israel’s history, and its grotesque nature ensured that the message could not be ignored.
i. This act parallels ancient Near Eastern practices where mutilated bodies or objects were sent as declarations of war or urgent calls for alliance. A similar example occurs in 1 Samuel 11:7, when Saul cut a yoke of oxen into pieces and sent them throughout Israel to summon warriors. However, in this case, the Levite’s appeal came after his own moral failure—he had the opportunity to stand for righteousness the night before and did not. His outrage was reactive rather than proactive.
ii. While the method stirred the nation to action, it is tragic that such zeal for justice only arose after the fact. Israel’s collective conscience had grown so dull that it took something this extreme to awaken them. The Levite’s decision shows that moral outrage without moral integrity is hollow; the cause was just, but the messenger was compromised.
c. National reaction: The people’s response—“No such deed has been done or seen from the day that the children of Israel came up from the land of Egypt until this day. Consider it, confer, and speak up!”—shows that the atrocity at Gibeah was unprecedented in the nation’s history. The call to “consider” and “speak up” invited deliberation, but the emotion of the moment would soon lead to rash decisions in the chapters ahead.
i. This statement also confirms the prophetic view that Israel was at a moral low point during the time of the Judges, equal to or worse than the pagan nations they had been commanded to dispossess (cf. Leviticus 18:24–28).
d. Theological application: This passage exposes two grave dangers for God’s people:
Moral passivity in the face of evil—The Levite’s outrage came only after personal offense, not from a commitment to God’s holiness.
A desensitized conscience—When a covenant community tolerates sin, it will eventually take something shocking and horrific to awaken it, and even then, the reaction may be driven more by human anger than by godly repentance.
This chapter closes with a dark reminder that when “everyone did what was right in his own eyes” (Judges 21:25), even the custodians of worship could become complicit in evil, and the covenant people could fall into Sodom-like depravity.
