Walk through of Judges 19

PRAYER & PRAISE REPORTS

JUDGES 19:1-10 [Read out loud]

Judges 19:1–10 ESV

In those days, when there was no king in Israel, a certain Levite was sojourning in the remote parts of the hill country of Ephraim, who took to himself a concubine from Bethlehem in Judah. And his concubine was unfaithful to him, and she went away from him to her father’s house at Bethlehem in Judah, and was there some four months. Then her husband arose and went after her, to speak kindly to her and bring her back. He had with him his servant and a couple of donkeys. And she brought him into her father’s house. And when the girl’s father saw him, he came with joy to meet him. And his father-in-law, the girl’s father, made him stay, and he remained with him three days. So they ate and drank and spent the night there. And on the fourth day they arose early in the morning, and he prepared to go, but the girl’s father said to his son-in-law, “Strengthen your heart with a morsel of bread, and after that you may go.” So the two of them sat and ate and drank together. And the girl’s father said to the man, “Be pleased to spend the night, and let your heart be merry.” And when the man rose up to go, his father-in-law pressed him, till he spent the night there again. And on the fifth day he arose early in the morning to depart. And the girl’s father said, “Strengthen your heart and wait until the day declines.” So they ate, both of them. And when the man and his concubine and his servant rose up to depart, his father-in-law, the girl’s father, said to him, “Behold, now the day has waned toward evening. Please, spend the night. Behold, the day draws to its close. Lodge here and let your heart be merry, and tomorrow you shall arise early in the morning for your journey, and go home.” But the man would not spend the night. He rose up and departed and arrived opposite Jebus (that is, Jerusalem). He had with him a couple of saddled donkeys, and his concubine was with him.

INTRODUCTION: Let’s Give Context

The book of Judges gives an account of the continued conquest of the land of Cannon after the death of Joshua; however the book also highlight this cycle of Israels rebellion, God’s judgement upon them, Israels crying out to be rescued, God raising up a judge to rescue them, Israel turning back to the Lord, there being a time of peace in the land, and Israel eventually going back to rebellion and the cycle would repeat over and over again. This is the basic movement of the book until we get to the last five chapters.

The last five chapters of Judges [17-21] are called the appendixes of the book.

According to the Oxford Brooks University “an appendix** comes at the end (after the reference list) of a report, research project, or dissertation and contains any additional information such as raw data or interview transcripts. The information in the appendices is relevant but is too long or too detailed to include in the main body of your work.”

So chapters 17-21 basically gives us some additional information and details that is relevant to the book. The question is what can we gain from these last five chapters that would help us in our understanding and application of Judges as a whole.

I think we have to start with first answering the question; when did these events occur.

Evidence within these chapters would more than likely point to the earlier years of the conquest.

In Chapters 17 &18 the Levite in the episode of Micah and the tribe of Dan is the grandson of Moses.

Judges 18:30 “And the people of Dan set up the carved image for themselves, and Jonathan the son of Gershom, son of Moses, and his sons were priests to the tribe of the Danites until the day of the captivity of the land.”

In the episode within 19-21, specifically chapter 20 the priest of the time was the Grandson of Aaron

Judges 20:27–28 “And the people of Israel inquired of the Lord (for the ark of the covenant of God was there in those days, and Phinehas the son of Eleazar, son of Aaron, ministered before it in those days)”

What are your thoughts that during these events these are the grandson’s of two of Israels most prominent leaders

“And there rose up a generation that did not know the Lord nor the mighty works he did for Israel” comes to mind

This is telling as we could consider that these two grandson’s of two prominent leaders where of that generation that did not know the Lord or the works that he did

Why is this so important to our study?

It is important because we often read chapters 19-21 as a conclusion to the book; meaning these events are what Israel eventually becomes due to their constant “doing evil in the sight of the Lord” for the first 16 chapters.

But if the case is that these events occured earlier in the conquest then this isn’t about what Israel will eventually become over time due to disobedience; but it describes who Israel is and more than likely have been all along.

And if we take it as such then this indeed shows us the very reality of the verse “For all have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God”.

So, this makes them no different from the very nations they were instructed to drive out. Israel was instructed to drive out 7 Nations yet so easily they became the 8th; perhaps because the desires and ways of the other 7 nations wouldn’t be so foreign to the people of Israel?

One of the things we make the mistake of doing is reading the time period that Israel spent pre-Egyptian slavery and even during Egyptian slavery as if they were innocent until the golden calf.

But there is something even more telling of all this and we get to witness God’s movement too.

Israel, is residing in the land promised to them from God but they are living outside of the Law God gave them to govern the land by.

How can this part apply to us: Living in the promise of God doesn’t mean your going to always be obedient to that word of that promise.

Give me your thoughts on this?

Let me break this down: Israel doesn’t own the title and the deed to the Land; on the contrary God does. The land wasn’t Abraham’s to give as he was a sojourner of the land.

So, God holds the title and the deed. The deed is handed over to Israel based on a promise made to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

The land will always be Israels to live on because of that promose

But the condition by which Israel will remain on the land is bases on their stewardship to the Law of the Lord

In other words… God has done his part… Israel you need to do yours and just be obedient to the word of the Lord.

Insert a different perspective: we often focus heavily on Israels cycle of disobedience but forget that the patience of God is also on display.

The book of Judges shows us God’s patience in keeping his part in the covenant while Israel’s own desires are desperately fighting to break their part of the covenant.

Remember these last five chapters happened earlier in the conquest.. So the appendix is giving us a microscopic look at exactly how Israel put the Lord to the test over and over again.

personal question: have you ever put the Lord’s patience to the test?

And here is the thing to always remember: Israels disobedience will remove them from the Land….. but God keeping his word and promise to their forefathers will prompt the heart of God to leave a remnant but also seek the captive and call them back.

God will discipline as any father worth his salt would do… and as a good good father he calls back those to whom disciplined

So as we dive into our study it behooves us to approach this as a warning to the body of Christ that we cannot claim to be the church and live outside of the Word of God and not expect our true sinful nature show itself.

And if we are honest there are some that we are still struggling through.

Lets Get into our Study!

Verse 1: In those days, when there was no king in Israel

We have set the context of when these events occured and why that is so important. Now we are really about to zero in on the condition of the nation.

Where else did you find this statement in the book of Judges?

Answer: Judges 17:6 / Judges 18:1 / Judges 21:25

In those days there was no king in Israel. Everyone did what was right in their own eyes.

I find it wild that the last verse of the book is this very statement.

Reflection Point: will this be the last statement in the book that documents your life?

Lets analyze this verse in two parts.

The First Part: “In those days there was no king in Israel”

When you hear this what do you think it describes regarding Israel?

It describes for us that there is no central authority governing the people; they don’t even really acknowledge the Lord as such.

The person writing this more than likely lived during the time period of the monarchy of Israel [Samuel is considered to be the one that wrote this]

So the writer would be writing from the perspective of how a kings rule and authority would unify in some degree the nation; this is regardless if how he ruled was righteous in the eyes of the Lord or not.

[Keep in mind that who, what, and how a king worshiped would be who, what, and how the people would worship- and worship permeates into our daily lives]

But perhaps it is also pointing to the reality that the people already dethroned the Lord their God as their King.

Why is a central authority important for a congregation? What are some dangers of not having a central authority?

The Second Part “and every man did what was right in his own eyes”

What do you think this let’s us know about the further condition of Israel?

it lets us know that there is no central corporate focus of worship. And when there is no central corporate focus of worship we all worship who, what, and how we please. And for Israel, God being the focus has been replaced with the self-serving desires of the god of their belly’s.

So not having a central authority to govern them has left each man and woman scattered to fend for themselves on who/what they will consider to be the gods of their lives….

Why is a central focus of worship so important for a congregation? And what are some of the dangers of not having a central focus of worship?

Reflection point: Where the Lord is not the central focus of worship the congregation becomes more obsessed with self-serving ornaments masquerading as true worship. The authority of the Word of the Lord is replaced with a overly indulgence of our taste buds desiring what satisfies the gods of our belly. The Lord is no longer our Lord but just simply the God we call on trying to invoke his name but no longer with submission.

What is your biggest fear for the church in the near and/or distant future?

What are you optimistic about?

This statement “In those days, when there was no king in Israel; and every man did what was right in his own eyes” I would argue is the actual theme of the the book of Judges; I would go further to argue that the cause is at the beginning of the book “and there rose up a generation after that did not know the Lord and the mighty works that he did for Israel.”

Reflection Point: When you fail to pass down the gospel to the next generation, that generation will grow up to not know the Lord nor his works. And it behooves us not to think that simply because the congregation is doing a lot of great things that this doesn’t apply to them. [A congregation with good works but no gospel is a church baptized not in the Holy Spirit but in deception].

We’ve established some foundation regarding the back drop and even laid a perspective for the first verse. Let’s move forward to look at our character studies.

Character Study

Judges 19:1–3 CSB

In those days, when there was no king in Israel, a Levite staying in a remote part of the hill country of Ephraim acquired a woman from Bethlehem in Judah as his concubine. But she was unfaithful to him and left him for her father’s house in Bethlehem in Judah. She was there for four months. Then her husband got up and followed her to speak kindly to her and bring her back. He had his servant with him and a pair of donkeys. So she brought him to her father’s house, and when the girl’s father saw him, he gladly welcomed him.

In the first three verses we are introduced to three people; the levite, the concubine, and the father-in-law.

It behooves us to not just read them as just three individuals within the account of the story.

Who these individuals were in the society of the time, in my opinion, is significant to the events that are to follow.

Let’s look at the Levite & the Concubine. We will get to the father-in-law when we get to our discussion of hospitality

The Levite

Who/What is a Levite?

The tribe of Levi was the tribe that bared the responsibility of handling the holy things of the tabernacle along with the structure of the tabernacle itself; but they also performed the priestly duties on behalf of Israel.

As you’ve heard stated in class time and time again that the priest stood in the threshold between the Lord and the people.

In fact the tribe itself when traveling through the wilderness literally camped around the tabernacle in the middle of the camp; they were in the center. Basically creating a barrier and a threshold between the other 11 tribes and the tabernacle; because anyone that was not chosen by the Lord to handle the tabernacle and its furnishing and articles would be put to death.

The Point is that we need to understand as we read through this account that the Levite is a representative of God among the people. He is to stand in the threshold setting the standard for the central corporate focus of worship. So as we read about the Levites acton let us keep that in mind.

He represents the standard & the protection of what is holy in the land.

Discussion: Peter says that we are “a royal priesthood”. Knowing this about the Levite what is the churches role as a priesthood?

Quick Recap: chapters 19 starts off with letting us know that the land has no central focus of authority and no central focus of worship. And the very next verse we are introduced to a person that is a representative of God; a Levite. We are introduced to someone who should keep and uphold the standard because he handles the holy things of the Lord.

The Concubine

What did you find out about what a concubine is/was? What is here significance to the account

A concubine is often defined as any woman living with a man but having lower status that his wife or wives.

The Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible has this to say: “the practice of a man cohabiting with a woman who is regarded only as his sexual partner or as a secondary wife in his household, of lower station than his primary wife.” It goes on to say “A man might have a concubine simply as an economical form of marriage, since no dowry or bride-price was required. A concubine could add to a man’s prestige by giving him two wives and thus an increased capacity for children… The concubine was also another servant added to the work force.”

The Holman Illustrated Bible dictionary has this to say: “A concubine, whether purchased or won in battle was entitled to some legal protection but was her husband’s property. A barren woman might offer her maid to her husband hoping she would conceive.

For Example:

Hagar would be considered Abrahams concubine given to him by his wife Sarah

Zilpah and Bilhah would be considered concubines of Jacob given to him by his two wives Leah and Rachel

Reference to the Laws that talked about protection of concubines

Ref: Ex 21:7-11 / Dt 21:10-14

Ref: Dt 21:15-7

After hearing this why is this so significant to the concubine being a part of the account here?

What’s the point:

We cannot read this as a woman who is just a wife; but we cannot read this as a woman who is just a second or third wife. We need to seriously make note that as a concubine she has little to no command over her life. In fact, while yes the Law of the Lord grants her some legal protection, that legal protection is dependent upon the law of the Lord being honored by the people of the land.

And it behoves us to remember that “In those days there was no king in Israel. Everyone did what was right in their own eyes”

Think about it: This is a women who has little to no command or authority over her life living in a time period where there was no command or authority over the land.

To drive this point home: Probably the only decision she made that was of her own was to leave the Levite and go back to her fathers house.

But to drive this point home even more: She goes back to her father who more than likely was the one who sold or gave her over to the Levite

And to drive this point home even even more: When the Levite goes to “win her back” she ends up going back with him anyways. She is stuck between who to serve but not being able to really pick because the decision is made for her

Who do you think she represents in this account?

She represents the powerless and the voiceless of the land. She represents the powerless and the voiceless in the body of Christ. She is at the service of those who hold ministries and even the whole congregation in the palm of their hands

Her life can either be secured or destroyed all on whether or not those individuals honor the word of the Lord.

Side note: there are people who have good standards that are corrupted by a lack of love, grace, and mercy in their hearts.

She represents the people in the hands of those who have good standards on paper but lack them in their heart

This isn’t just a matter of showing grace and mercy this is the willingness to be a servant to a servant when they need you to be a servant the most!

Discussion: What are your thoughts and/or input?

Quick Recap:

Israel has no central authority and no central focus of worship.

Then we are introduced to a man who is a Levite; the one who handles the holy things of God and stands in the threshold of the people

And secondly we are introduced to a concubine who is powerless and voiceless; and whose wellbeing and protection is all centered around the law of the Lord being honored by her master.

Unfaithful

Judges 19:2 ESV

And his concubine was unfaithful to him, and she went away from him to her father’s house at Bethlehem in Judah, and was there some four months.

The concubine is said to have been unfaithful to her husband; the Levite and she returned home to her father house in Bethlehem in Judah.

The voiceless and powerless has made the choice to leave.

The word unfaithful is translated as ‘fornication’, however there are commentaries that state that adultery might be to harsh of a description and that the full text doesn’t necessarily support that the concubine committed adultery or fornicated.

Instead the commentaries suggest that the woman left to go back home to her father due to perhaps the Levites harsh treatment of her.

So there are two interpretive positions of the text:

The concubine committed adultery

The Levite harsh treatment of the concubine

Regardless of your position the point is that something occured that caused the woman to leave and go back home to her father.

What’s even more telling about the Levite is that he didn’t pursue her for four months!!!

What can this tell us about the Levite and how he viewed his concubine?

Again, lets remember that the Levite represents the one who handles the holy things and represents the presence of the Lord.

Before we take a side consider our reflection point:

Reflection Point:

Can you recall the last time you broke your word due to the harsh treatment towards you?

Or….Can you recall the last time you were unfaithful to your own word and that unfaithfulness caused you to flee from your responsibilities?

Lets go a little father:

When was the last time you thought the Lord was treating you harshly and/or unfairly?

When was the last time you was unfaithful to your own prayers that you spoke to the Lord? [One of the issues we tend to have with prayer is that we don’t treat it like we are speaking in covenant.]

Hospitality of a Father-in-Law

Judges 19:4–10 ESV

And his father-in-law, the girl’s father, made him stay, and he remained with him three days. So they ate and drank and spent the night there. And on the fourth day they arose early in the morning, and he prepared to go, but the girl’s father said to his son-in-law, “Strengthen your heart with a morsel of bread, and after that you may go.” So the two of them sat and ate and drank together. And the girl’s father said to the man, “Be pleased to spend the night, and let your heart be merry.” And when the man rose up to go, his father-in-law pressed him, till he spent the night there again. And on the fifth day he arose early in the morning to depart. And the girl’s father said, “Strengthen your heart and wait until the day declines.” So they ate, both of them. And when the man and his concubine and his servant rose up to depart, his father-in-law, the girl’s father, said to him, “Behold, now the day has waned toward evening. Please, spend the night. Behold, the day draws to its close. Lodge here and let your heart be merry, and tomorrow you shall arise early in the morning for your journey, and go home.” But the man would not spend the night. He rose up and departed and arrived opposite Jebus (that is, Jerusalem). He had with him a couple of saddled donkeys, and his concubine was with him.

What are your thoughts on the Father-in-Law and his hospitality towards his son-in-Law

One of the things that stuck out to me was that the scripture says that the father-in-law detained the Levite.

Also the father-in-law on the 4th day said to the Levite to eat and then he would be able to go only to talk the Levite into staying the night. And on the fifth night he tried the same thing.

For me this verse comes to mind: “For some have entertained angels unaware” rings a bell within this passage of scripture; which calls back to Abraham with the three men that visited him.

Considering this, I myself am prone to a different conclusion of the intentions of the father-in-laws hospitality.

Add when I consider also the treatment of the Levite in chapters 17 & 18 my suspicion only grows.

In chapter 17 Micah had a whole home based shrine with idols, a linen ephod, and he made one his sons into a priest of his house. That was until he met the Levite and then he paid the Levite to be a priest for his home saying “Now I know that the Lord will be good to me, because a Levite has become my priest”.

In chapter 18 the tribe of Dan hears about Micah’s household gods, ephod and everything else and they invade his home and take the items and then persuades the Levite to go with them saying “it is better to be a priest for the house of one person or for you to be a priest for a tribe and family in Israel.”

The Levite’s are now seen as conduits by which they would receive special blessings, favor, and provision from God.

So, coming back to the father-in-law… perhaps… his hospitality pouring over to trying to get the Levite to stay with him, could it be derived from the hope that “Now I know the Lord will be good to me, because a Levite has become my priest”.?

Could it be that the father-in-law is thinking “it is better to be a priest over my house” than over the house of another to even the house of the Lord.

Question: Does any one recall what I explained regarding hospitality in these times?

Again hospitality of the ancients was very important because it was believed that entertaining strangers meant I could very well be entertaining God or even the gods. So you treated the stranger with the upmost hospitality just incase the stranger was a deity coming to visit you.

For Israel at this time it is obvious to entertain a levite would mean that the blessings of the Lord would fall upon me and my household.

So I will take you in in hopes I get something in return.

So maybe, just maybe, hospitality was taken so serious that having someone under your roof brought them under your protection because it could very well be the god you serve or one of his messengers coming to visit you for whatever may be the reason.

I know I’m jumping ahead but maybe, just maybe… Lot offering his daughters and the old man offering his daughter and the concubine of the Levite was to keep the Levite from being violated because if the stranger is violated than I risk the chances of the god that came to visit me being violated.

This doesn’t justify the action… And nor am I saying my explanation is correct. But it is worth keeping in observation of our study, interpretation, and reflection of the passage

But even we just consider that the father-in-laws hospitality was purely wholesome in motive; he placed the Levite and his daughter in grave danger due to his hospitality.

Which Leads us to our Reflection point:

Final Thoughts: