Outline of Chapter 19:

       vv.   1–2      Introduction: a mistress leaves her Levite man and returns to her father’s home

       vv.   3–9      The Levite goes after her and has a marvelous visit with his father-in-law

       vv.  10–15    In their return to the Levite’s home, they stop for the night in Gibeah, a city of Benjamin

       vv.  16–21    An old man, a temporary resident of the city, takes them in

       vv.  22–26    The men of Gibeah threaten homosexual rape; the man’s mistress is given to them

       vv.  27–30    The Levite cuts up the dead body of his mistress and mails the pieces to the rest of Israel

I ntroduction: What occurs throughout most of the book of Judges should cause you to wonder just what the hell is going on with these Israelites. At Judges 19, we begin a three-chapter story about an early civil war in Israel. This would have occurred right after the death of Joshua and the distribution of the land. Phinehas, who was likely the writer of the final two or three chapters of the book of Joshua, is alive and ministering from the Tent of Jehovah (Judges 20:28).

What happens in this story is a concubine (i.e., a mistress) of a man is unfaithful to him and then she goes and stays at her father’s house. He pursues her to bring her back home. He and his father-in-law get along famously and get tanked for several nights in a row. Finally, he and his mistress and his servants leave and they keep riding past the cities of the heathen until they come to an Israelite settlement in the territory of Benjamin. They stop there. The idea is that they are all Jewish and that someone will put them up for the night. Surprisingly to them, they hang out in the town square as strangers and no one even offers. Finally, this old man takes them in. However, that night, they are accosted by some of the degenerate men of Israel who want to have sexual relations with the young man. Not certain what to do, they offer up his mistress instead. She is raped throughout the night until she dies. Then her man, horrified, cuts her up into twelve pieces and mails these pieces to the twelve tribes of Israel with a note of explanation. Israel is shocked and they rise up against the men of Benjamin, which takes us into the next chapter.

We often like to find clear villains and heroes. Pretty much, all we find in this chapter are villains. We have a woman who has left her man (she is not his wife, which makes their relationship wrong to begin with). He pursues her to her father’s house, gets along fabulously with her father, who apparently is a good old boy who likes his wine, and then the Levite, his servant and his mistress head back toward Ephraim. They have to stop off in Gibeah for the night and are taken in by an old man, who, at first, appears to be kind and noble. However, the men of the town surround this old man’s house, threatening homosexual rape against the Levite, and we get a better idea as to what this old man and Levite are really like. What the Levite will do is despicable and what the men of Gibeah do is despicable beyond words. Both the Levite and the degenerate men of Gibeah are deserving of death in this chapter.

The Mosaic Law offered a perfect moral and civil code for Israel, which was a unique nation as Jehovah God ruled over Israel. One of the demands of the Law was death to those who participated in homosexual acts (Lev. 18:22 20:13). However, it also listed idolatry as a capital offense (Ex. 20:4 Deut. 4:15–19), which was not followed either (Judges 18:23–25). Therefore, homosexuality was tolerated by the tribe of Benjamin. The result was that men burned in lust for other men, to the point where homosexual rape became a common occurrence. We know this because (1) the old man will understand exactly what the group of men want who pound on his door in the middle of the night (Judges 19:22–23); he will warn the strangers against staying out in the town square for the night (Judges 19:20); and, finally, (3) the tribe of Benjamin will not give these men up as criminals in the next chapter (Judges 20:12–14). What began as a simple act of illicit, but consensual sex, resulted in great degeneracy which led to the full scale civil war in Israel.

This leads to the obvious question—how do we deal with homosexuals as believers? That’s a tough question. At one time, there were laws throughout the United States against homosexual behavior. For the most part, these laws have either been repealed or are not enforced. Whereas, in 1960 or 1970, the fact that homosexual behavior was wrong was pretty much accepted in our society, by the 1990’s, a significant portion of our population has come to view homosexuality as an issue akin to race or religion—i.e., it has become, to many, either a trait someone was born with or an act which is a matter of protected free will. Our affect upon society being much less than we would like at times, leaves us with some difficult choices. First of all, we cannot go off the deep end and execute homosexuals. Many a vigil ante as been portrayed in movies and television as one who spouts Old Testament Scripture to support his vigilantism. We are not allowed to break the laws of the land in this way (as should be obvious to most people). We have to recognize that Jesus Christ died on behalf of all mankind, homosexuals included, and His grace is extended to them just as it was to us. No matter how repulsive we find the sin, it has been paid for in full on the cross. Furthermore, just because a male exhibits Lothario-type behavior and is a skirt-chaser, this does not mean that he is any less repugnant to God than the person who engages in homosexual activity. We cannot simultaneously accept the former and reject the latter. In fact, we must realize that every unbeliever is a sinner in God’s eyes; every unbeliever commits sins which God finds appalling; and every unbeliever has had those sins paid for. Just because we find one unbeliever’s sins to be less repulsive than another’s does not give us a right to be self-righteous about it. Finally, every single believer sins. If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us....if we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His Word is not in us (I John 1:8a, 10). We must realize that it is not our job to follow other believers around and observe and record their transgressions. We do have the difficult decision, which is the decision of a church, of what to do when one continues in overtly immoral behavior. Recall the case of incest in the church of Corinth. This involved excommunicating the offenders and actually delivering them up to the sin unto death (I Cor. 5:1–8). We all sin after salvation—however, our sins should not be flaunted before the congregation as some symbol of liberty in Christ.

One important aspect of this chapter is its time frame. Believers may want to blame the prolonged association with the Canaanites on this kind of behavior, but, in fact, this is the first generation of believers in the land. In Judges 20:28, we will see that Phinehas will be called upon to make a decision, meaning that this took place after the death of Joshua and before the death of Phinehas—first generation Israelites. The degeneracy of the Benjamites will be shocking. In fact, this act is so shocking, Hosea, over half a millennium later, will mention it (Hosea 9:9 10:9). If we choose to question the authenticity of this event, Hosea’s mention of the city and its degeneracy bear witness that these things did occur. This is an internal witness of Scripture, of which we have hundreds. There are things which we may not want to believe—e.g., the story of Job, Jonah and the big fish—which are mentioned elsewhere in Scripture as factual. An internal witness means little to the skeptical or to the unbeliever, but it assures the believer that we are speaking of real incidents which really happened.

In this chapter, we have two areas where textual criticism will be an important topic. In v. 2, we have to decide whether this young woman really committed adultery or not. Some versions tells us that she did, others indicate that she left in anger, and still others tell us that she simply left. And then, in v. 18, we have another significant problem. We have the House of Jehovah mentioned in some texts, but not in others. This again will impact our interpretation of this immediate passage significantly.

The actual recording of this event is quite interesting. What most likely occurred is that the Levite in this story, when he cut up the body of this woman and sent it out to the tribes of Israel, he also wrote a note. What this chapter is, is the text of that note, up until v. 30a, which records the reaction of those who read this note. The end of the chapter is a slick literary device which goes back to the end of the note; which would be the same thing that a man, having read the note, would say to the next person that he passed this note to.

     Introduction: a Mistress Leaves Her Levite Man and Returns to Her Father’s Home

I think that we had better start off with a couple of various renderings:

The Emphasized Bible      And it came to pass in those days, when king there was none in Israel that there was a certain Levite sojourning on the farther side of the hill country of Ephraim, who took to him a concubine out of Bethlehem-judah.

NASB                                Now it came about in those days, when there was no king in Israel, that there was a certain Levite staying [or, sojourning] in the remote part of the hill country of Ephraim, who took a concubine for himself from Bethlehem in Judah.

Young's Lit. Translation     And it cometh to pass, in those days, when there is no king in Israel, that there is a man, a Levite, a sojourner in the sides of the hill country of Ephraim, and he taketh to him a wife, a concubine, out of Beth-Lehem-Judah;

The way this chapter begins, and the way this three-chapter story ends, indicates that this was pieced together by an editor from the historical documents of that time; or that an editor added a few lines here or there. There is no indicate throughout the book of Judges that there is some sort of a public clamoring for a king; therefore, the verses like these would indicate that this material was assembled in its final form probably under the reign of Saul. This does not mean that this information was not originally recorded by eyewitnesses nor does it mean that any of the story was changed. For reasons which I never quite got, there are many in the world of Biblical exegesis who think that everything was this oral tradition that got written down hundreds of years later. This simply is not indicated. Even the very earliest information found in the Bible (e.g., the story of Jacob and Rachel) indicate that it was recorded first-hand (in the example cited, by Jacob). Just because an editor a few hundred years later inserts the fact that this took place during the time when there was no king in Israel does not mean that he assembled everything else from oral tradition. On the other hand, this does help us with the placement of these three chapters of the book of Judges. I would have placed them after chapter 1, as that is where they would have occurred chronologically. The mention of no king in Israel at the beginning and the end tells someone else that this information should be kept with the scrolls that contain the history of the Judges. That is, what is more reasonable to hypothesize, is that the history of the Judges existed on several scrolls and this history also existed on a scroll. Because the time period was roughly similar, they were always placed together. If anything, this would indicate that there were different authors for the beginning of the book of Judges and these last three chapters, with a later editor adding the first and last lines to the book, so that it is placed into its proper historical context.

The general idea is easy to grasp. We just need to deal with a couple of details. We begin with the Qal imperfect of hâyâh (ה ָי ָה) [pronounced haw-YAW], which means to be. Many translators will render the wâw consecutive and hâyâh and the bêyth which follows as when (The Amplified Bible, NAB, NASB, NRSV, REB, NJB and Young). However, we do not need to insert a when, as this phrase and the next can just as easily stand alone. This phrase acts to connect the previous chapter to this one, providing us a good ending for the previous incident, and a good beginning for this incident; and the next begins the final recorded incident from the book of the Judges. Strong's #1961 BDB #224. As you no doubt recall, this is our theme verse for the book of Judges (see Judges 17:6 18:1 21:25).

We repeat the wâw consecutive and the Qal imperfect of to be, but we now have a subject, which is masculine singular construct of îysh (שי ̣א) [pronounced eesh], which means man. Some translators render this as a certain and affix it to the next noun. Strong's #376 BDB #35. This is followed by the proper noun lêvîy (י.ו̤ל) [pronounced lay-VEE], which, of course, is transliterated Levi. The wâw (or vâv) is both pronounced as a v and as a w. Strong’s #3878 BDB #532. A man of Levi is the obvious subject of the verb was. We will not learn this man’s name. This is followed by the Qal active participle of gûwr (ר) [pronounced goor], and it means to sojourn. However, that is so outdated, we will render this to [temporarily] reside. Strong’s #1481 BDB #157.

Where this man was temporarily residing was in the masculine plural of yar^ekâh (הָכ ר-י) [pronounced yahr^e-KAW], which means flank, side, extreme parts, recesses. It is used for remote regions of an area (Judges 19:1 Isa. 14:13 Jer. 6:22 25:32). Strong’s #3411 BDB #438. It is interesting that these two concluding stories in the book of Judges deal with wandering Levites. The Levites were given specific cities in which to live. They did not actually own the land on which they lived, unlike the other Israelites, but theirs was a heavenly inheritance, much like believers in the Church Age. However, they were not given the order to wander about aimlessly throughout Israel. They were to help support the Aaronic priesthood and Israel supported the Levites. The fact that we have, almost immediately after the death of Joshua, Levites wandering about, indicates that they could not make a living doing what God had ordered them to do. In other words, they were not being paid as they should be. That is the fault of Israel as a whole.

What this man takes to himself is the feminine singular noun îshshâh (ה ָֹ ̣א) [pronounced eesh-SHAWH], which means woman, wife. It is the name that Adam gave to the woman. This word is used in direct contrast to the Levite, who is called îysh. Strong's #802 BDB #61. This is followed by the feminine singular noun pîylegesh (ש∵ג∵לי.) [pronounced pee-LEH-gesh], which means mistress, paramour, illicit lover, concubine. This is not a Semitic name in origin; however, we do not know its etymology. Strong’s #6370 BDB #811. Now, what we do know for certain is that a wife and a mistress were different (Judges 8:30–31 I Kings 11:3). It would be reasonable to call Zilpah and Bilhah the mistresses of Jacob, and Hagar the mistress of Abram, and they are so designated in Scripture (Gen. 25:6 35:22).

According to ZPEB, a concubine, or a mistress, was sort of a slave-wife-mistress; she belonged to her master, sexual relations between the master and her were accepted, yet she did not have the rights and privileges of a wife. Such a wife might remain living at her father’s house, although the husband may still have sexual relations with her. Eventually, she might be moved to the status of a wife and given a place in her husbands home. Concubines as belonging to common men, seem to be found only in the time of Patriarchs and the early kingdom of Israel. By the time of Solomon, they appear to be a royal prerogative (II Sam. 21:10–14 I Kings 11:3). Douglas concurs that a concubine is a secondary wife, gotten either by purchase or as a captive in war. However, the Mosaic Law also mentions the purchase of a woman; in fact, let me quote the passage: “And if a man sells his daughter as a female slave, she is not to go free as the male slaves do. If she is displeasing in the eyes of her master who designated her for himself, then he will let her be redeemed. He does not have the authority to sell her to a foreign people because of his unfairness to her. And if he designates her for his son, he will deal with her according to the custom of daughters. If he takes to himself another woman, he may not reduce her food, her clothing, or her conjugal rights. And if he will not do these three things for her, then she will go our for nothing, without payment of money.” (Ex. 21:7–11). Now, a woman taken in this way can be a wife. Jacob essentially purchased Rachel and her sister Leah from their father by working for him for 14 years, and they were his wives (Gen. 29:26–28). We also have mention in the Law of a woman being taken in war. “When you go out to battle against your enemies, and Jehovah your God delivers them into your hands, and you take them away captive, and see among the captives a beautiful woman, and have a desire for her and would take her as a wife for yourself, then you will bring her home to your house, and she will shave her head and trim her nails. She will also remove the clothes of her captivity and she will remain in your house and she will mourn her father and mother a full month and after that, you may go in to her and be her husband and she will be your wife. And if will be, if you are not pleased with her, then you will let her go wherever she wishes; but you will not sell her for money, and you will not mistreat her, because you have humbled her.” (Deut. 21:10–14). Now, it is obvious, if her father lives in Bethlehem and has, as we will see, such a rapport with the son, that this woman was not taken in war. It would be reasonable to suppose that she was purchased as a slave by this Levite, for himself from her father. We also know something about concubines via the codes of Hammurabi which gives us, obviously, the heathen version (not that Israel’s version would be any more noble).

Now, we could also do some theorizing: in the ancient world, you have these weddings which are great events put on by both families, and a woman is given by her family to the man. Then you have these other unions to which no formal ceremony is performed. It might be against the wishes of the woman’s family, it may without their consent or without their knowledge; it may follow a sexual union in which the couple then felt obligated to take up together, but they are embarrassed about the circumstances. What appears to be the case is that this is a wild woman who takes up with this Levite, without going through either set of parents; and the woman obviously has second thoughts on the matter of their union. Now, this is simply a matter of conjecture, as the two cases given in the Mosaic Law are not necessarily exhaustive of this nebulous status of the concubine.

So that we do not get off the track, the Mosaic Law deals with what is as well as what should be. The laws regarding concubines do not, by their existence, encourage the Israelites to take concubines; just as the plurality of wives mentioned with regards to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob mean that this is encouraged either. In Gen. 2 Malachi 2:14–17 and Prov. 31:10–31, the ideal situation is one man and one woman. The New Testament confirms that in Eph. 22–31 I Peter 3:5–7. It bears mentioning at this point that the relationship between man and woman began as a monogamous relationship (Gen. 2:2) and then degenerated into polygamy (Gen. 4:19–24).

Now, we all know Bethlehem; however, this was a very small town on the outskirts of Jerusalem and so few people knew of it that it was called Bethlehem-Judah so that other Israelites would at least know where in Israel this little town was located. The Levite of the previous narrative was from Bethlehem (Judges 17:7). Elimelech and his wife Naomi, of the book of Ruth, will move from Bethlehem to Moab for financial reasons (Ruth 1:1). In fact, for such a little city of so little eminence, it is mentioned quite a number of times in the Old Testament (over 30 times, as a matter of fact). We will probably wait until Bethlehem is given as the city from which the Messiah will come (Micah 5:2) before we cover it in any detail.

One more minor point: you will note that there is nothing wrong with the Levite taking a woman as his wife. This is never an issue in the Bible. The priests (the sons of Aaron) and the Levites (those chosen by God to assist the priests) came by their vocation by birth. There was no celibacy involved in the Israelite priesthood. The idea that a man should enter into some specialized priesthood (which is nowhere authorized by Scripture for the Church Age) and that such a man should, in addition, choose celibacy as a lifestyle, is outright cultic.

What his mistress did was the Qal imperfect of zânâh (ה ָנ ָז) [pronounced zaw-NAW], which means to commit adultery, to fornicate, to [sexually] pursue. Strong's #2181 BDB #275. The Greek gives us a very different story here. In the Greek, it reads: And his mistress departed from him and she went away from him to the house of her father in Bethleem-Iouda and she was there four months. In several English translations (e.g., NRSV, REB, NJB, NEB, RSV, TEV), they simply tell us that she was angry with him and left, although the anger is a matter of interpretation and not found in the Greek or in the Hebrew. In fact, my Greek OT does not say that she was angry with her husband (in the Greek or in the English), but simply that she departed; perhaps the alpha translation is different? Now, it is very possible that later copyists inserted her act of fornication simply, perhaps, to make her end more just somehow. That this woman picked up an left her husband, regardless of whether she was in the wrong or not, regardless of whether she committed adultery or not, was not deserving of her tragic end in this chapter. I personally think that the act of adultery was inserted, as this alleged act really has no bearing on the story whatsoever.

in any event, she then goes away from him, which is the point of this introduction. That is actually two prepositions in the Hebrew: mîn (from, off) and êth (ת ֵא) [pronounced ayth] (which means with, among) together they mean from proximity with, from with, from close proximity to. Strong's #854 BDB #85. We aren’t given any details here, as that is not the thrust of the next few chapters. This merely explains that she ended up at her father’s house, and he lived in Bethlehem, which was a part of Judah.

The last sentence is, literally: And so she was days—four months. The final noun is chôdesh (ש∵דֹח) [pronounced KHOH-desh], which means new moon, month. Strong’s #2320 BDB #294. Whether there was a fight, whether he threw her out of the house, whether she slept around and finally just left—we are not told. The implication, in any case, is that she is the one who left him—in fact, it is so stated in the Septuagint. However, the upshot is that she moved back home with her father (her mother is not a part of this picture, which is not significant).

Now, given that she left her husband (or so it appears) and that he went after her a mere four months later indicates that it is more likely that there was a fight, a disagreement, or that she was just unhappy with the arrangement and returned home. In other words, it really does not appear from the clues given throughout that there was any adultery involved on her part.

The Levite Goes after Her and Has a Marvelous Visit with His Father-in-law

The Levite ponders this situation for awhile, and decides that he is better off with her than without her so he pursues her. Again, we are not given the details—since she is called his mistress, he may have had no contact with the parent(s) prior to this. We can only speculate here. In any case, he did know where they lived, which was south of his home in the outskirts of Ephraim.

It is said that he plans to go speak to her heart in this verse. This is the kind of thing that a guy rarely does with another guy; and rarely with women as well. We find this mentioned in Gen. 34:3, but not in the greatest light. This is how a rapist spoke to his victim later after realizing that he was strongly attracted to her. We also find this phrase when Joseph’s father, Isaac died, and his brothers were in sudden fear for their lives based upon what they had done to him. However, he reassured them and spoke to their hearts (Gen. 50:21).

Now, obviously, as a Levite, he was not without means. He apparently has a personal servant and at least two asses. The second ass is not for his servant—his young man—but for himself and his woman.

Then we have the 3^rd person feminine singular, Hiphil imperfect of bôw (א) [pronounced boh], which means to come in, to come, to go in, to go. It means to bring something, to carry when found in the Hiphil. Strong’s #935 BDB #97. It sounds as though she meets the man outside, and then brings him to her father’s house. It could be slightly less literal and her presence in her father’s house actually brought this Levite to her.

Her father sees the Levite and he then does the Qal imperfect of sâmach (ח ַמ ָ) [pronounced saw-MAHKH], and it means to rejoice, to be glad. Strong’s #8055 BDB #970. What he is glad to do is the Qal infinitive construct of qârâ (א ָר ָק) [pronounced kaw-RAW], which means to encounter, to befall, to meet. Strong's #7122 & 7125 BDB #896. This does not mean that they are necessarily meeting for the first time, although that is not out of the question. The NIV Study Bible suggests: The separation of the concubine from the Levite was probably a matter of family disgrace, and so his father-in-law was glad for the prospect of the two being reunited.

When referring to the woman, we have the feminine singular of na׳ărâh (ה ָר ֱע ַנ) [pronounced nah-ar-AWH] means girl, damsel, miss, young woman, woman of marriageable age; it can refer to a prostitute (Amos 2:7), an engaged girl (Deut. 22:25, 27), a little girl (II Kings 5:2) or a mistress (Judges 19:3–6). This generally refers to an unmarried woman. Strong’s #5291 BDB #655. This is somewhat of an aside by the author, further indicating that she and the Levite had not properly married.

My first impression, which I now believe is wrong, is that we have this gal who, for her time, was on the wild side, and probably caused her father some grief. He appears to be the only one of her parents who is still around. My guess is that she left home abruptly and, at some point, took up with this Levite, without having any sort of a formal ceremony. It is probable that her husband and father have never met. When she returned home to her father, from leaving her man, in talking to her, her father perceived that this Levite was quite good to her and for her. As a teacher, I have had occasion to speak with many young ladies concerning their boyfriends, and, no matter how much they are infatuated with their young men, what they say about the young men would indicate that these guys are losers. Similarly, a woman might be furious with her man, but what she says reveals that he has great character and fondness for her. In other words, what she intends to say is one thing, but what she actually conveys is another. Whatever she has told her father, it has given him a very good impression of this Levite. For this reason, the father is quite happy to meet the Levite. In retrospect, I think that this man sold her to the Levite, but was happy with this choice, believing him to be a good man for her. He does what he can to convey this to the young Levite. Also, in retrospect, as I have indicated, I don’t believe that this woman was guilty of adultery, and that was inserted by some ass years later.

The first verb is the Qal imperfect of châzaq (ק ַז ָח) [pronounced khaw-ZAHK], which has four different meanings in the Qal: it means (1) to tie up, to bind; (2) to hold fast, to adhere to, to be stuck to; (3) to be strong, firm, to strengthen, to increase in prosperity; and, (4) when followed by ל-ע, to be urgent (with someone), to press, to coerce, to be persistent (with someone). Related to these four basic meanings, when châzaq is followed by ן ̣מ or ל-ע, it means to prevail over, to be stronger than; when followed by a lâmed, it means to persist (in something), to be constant, to be earnest. Strong’s #2388 BDB #304. What we have here is that châzaq is followed by a bêyth preposition, which means in, at, by, with, the key concept being proximity.

Next we see some more tongue-in-cheek by the author of this portion of Judges. The father of the woman is first called his chôthên (ן ֵתֹח) [pronounced khoh-THAIN], which means father-in-law. Strong’s #2859 BDB #368. Then he is called the father of the unmarried woman. What we have here is a matter of impression. Insofar as the Levite is concerned, she is his wife and this is his father-in-law. Insofar as the woman is concerned, she is still a woman of marriageable age and she is still free to do any damn thing that she pleases.

The last verb is the Qal imperfect of lûn (ןל) [pronounced loon], which means to lodge, to pass the night, to spend the night. Strong’s #3885 BDB #533. So far, this is quite similar to the relationship that Moses had with the father of his first wife. He married a Midianite woman, who later left him because he circumcised their children. However, when he was camped outside of the Land of Promise, his father-in-law brought this woman and her two children to Moses. Moses and his father-in-law were much more intent about administrative matters and appeared to get along famously. We have the same situation here.

Again, the father is referred to as the father of the woman of marriageable age, and then the Levite is called his son-in-law. Therefore, the father and the Levite pretty much considered this a done deal—the Levite was the husband of this woman. The reference to her as a woman of marriageable age, indicates that she may not have gone along completely with this program.

The second verb is the masculine plural, Hiphil imperfect of shâkam (ם ַכ ָש) [pronounced shaw-KAHM], which means to start, to rise, to rise early, to make an early start. Strong’s #7925 BDB #1014. The next verb is the Qal imperfect of qûwm (םק) [pronounced koom], which means, in the Qal stem, to stand, to rise up. Strong’s #6965 BDB #877.

The father-in-law speaks to the Levite, and he uses the Qal imperative of çâ׳ad (ד ַע ָס) [pronounced saw-GAHD or saw-AHD], and it means to support, to prop up, to refresh, to sustain, to stay, to assist. Strong’s #5582 BDB #703. What he offers him is the feminine singular construct of path (ת-) [pronounced path], which means fragment, morsel, piece [of bread]. Strong’s #6595 BDB #837. This is followed by the word for bread. The father of the girl simply offers the young man some basic sustenance to get him on his journey.

The operation of eating then was not quite as simple as it is now. They didn’t hop into the car and head to the local convenience store for a loaf of bread. Furthermore, the offering of a crust of bread did not mean that the father of the girl was offering a crust of bread. He was telling the Levite to stay, he would fix something simple, and then he had a full meal prepared for him. This, along with their spirited conversation, would take a couple hours, and then the father would ask the Levite if he wanted to have a little wine, and they had a little wine. They drank some wine with their meal, and they topped off their meal with some wine as well.

What the father then says to the Levite is the Hiphil imperative of yâal (ל ַא ָי) [pronounced yaw-AHL], which means ti willingly chose, to be willing to, to give ascent to. Strong's #2974 BDB #383. The imperative is the imperative of entreaty, as the polite verbal entreaty is also included.

What he promised is that the Levite’s heart would be the Qal imperfect of yâţa^bv (ב ַט ָי) [pronounced yaw-TA^BV], which means to be good, well, to be pleasing, to do good, to deal well, to make glad, to make a thing good. Strong’s #3190 BDB #405.

Understand that he does not propose this at 4 in the afternoon. They end up having a large morning breakfast, almost a brunch, with a little wine. It is noonish, and they’re both a little tanked, and the father asks this guy to stay another day. The father is certainly enjoying having his daughter around; he likes that she exhibits some sort of personal control while her Levite husband is there; and the father and the Levite get along tremendously. Furthermore, neither man seems to have a problem with getting slightly tanked at brunch.

The third verb is the Qal imperfect of pâtsar (ר-צָ) [pronounced paw-TSAHR], which means to push, to press, to urge. When followed by the bêyth preposition, it means to press upon, to urge. Strong’s #6484 BDB #823. What happened was the father-in-law, after a heart brunch with a few drinks, urged him to remain. He still got up as if to go, but the father-in-law is persistent, so he spent the next night there.

After the father-in-law asks the Levite to sustain his heart, he uses the Hithpalpel imperative of mâhahh (-הָמ) [pronounced maw-HAH], which means to delay, to linger, to tarry. It is found only in the Hithpalpel. He is asked to delay until the Qal infinitive construct of nâţâh (ה ָט ָנ) [pronounced naw-TAWH], which means to stretch out, to spread out, to bow, to extend. It does not mean declinings as Rotherham footnotes, simply because it is not in the masculine plural. Strong’s #5186 BDB #639. Just like before, the man gets up early to leave, and his father-in-law urges him to have a bite to eat, and to maybe enjoy the morning hours there.

What the day does in this verse is the Qal perfect of râphâh (ה ָפ ָר) [pronounced raw-FAW], a verb which means to sink, to relax, to loosen and let drop, to let down, to cast down, to let fall. It is rendered waned (Owen), hath fallen (Young), and hath sunk down (Rotherham). Strong’s #7503 BDB #951. What the day fell to is the Qal infinitive construct of ׳âra^bv (ב-רָע) [pronounced aw-RAH^BV], which means to become evening, to grow dark. Strong’s #6150 BDB #788.

Then the father-in-law urges him with the 2^nd person masculine plural, Qal imperative of lûn (ןל) [pronounced loon], which means to lodge, to pass the night, to spend the night. Strong’s #3885 BDB #533. Here the father-in-law uses the masculine plural in the verb, indicating that he is going to stay the night there himself. Then he uses the Qal infinitive construct of chânah (ה ָנ ָח) [pronounced khaw-NAW] properly means to incline; it is used primarily to pitch a tent, to encamp. Strong's #2583 BDB #333. What this means is that the day itself has pitched a tent and has settled in for the night, which implies that they ought to do the same.

Where they are going to travel to is the masculine singular noun ohel (ל ∵הֹא) [pronounced OH-hel] is translated tent, tabernacle, house; and it refers to the temporary dwellings. Strong's #168 BDB #13. In some codices and one early printed edition, this is plural.

Barnes: This is a perfect picture of the manners of the time. It is probably that the father showed more than usual hospitality, in order to ensure the kind treatment of his daughter by her husband. These particulars are given to account for their journey running so far into the evening, which was the immediate cause of the horrible catastrophe which followed.

In Their Return to the Levite’s Home, They Stop for the Night in Gibeah, a City of Benjamin

The significance of mentioning what the man had with him was to indicate that he had things which heathen would want to steal. He had two good asses along with their saddles, and he had this woman. At this time, Jerusalem was not occupied by Israelites, but by Jebusites (Joshua 15:63 Judges 1:21 ) and the Israelites did not trust the heathen who lived in the land. Jerusalem will not be taken until the time of David, which event is recounted in II Sam. 5:6–9 I Chron. 11:4–5.

It is now late afternoon, somewhere between 2 and 4 pm, and Jerusalem, mentioned in the next verse, is 5–6 miles north of them. The problem, as we will see in the next verse, is that Jerusalem, at this time, is inhabited exclusively by Jebusites.

So they are all going down the freeway interchange, and the see the exit for Jebus, city of the Jebusites, and underneath are the familiar words gas, food, lodging. The servant and the woman are exhausted. What they day had done was the Qal perfect of yârad (ד ַר ָי) [pronounced yaw-RAHD], which means to descend, to go down. Strong’s #3381 BDB #432. With that is the adverb m^eôd (דֹא  ׃מ) [pronounced m^e-ODE], which means exceedingly, extremely, greatly, very. Strong’s #3966 BDB #547. The use of day throughout this chapter suggests that the word sun would have worked just as well.

Because the father of the woman delayed them, what should have been a trip done in a day would require an overnight stay before they can move on. What the servant says to the Levite is the Qal imperative of hâlak^e (׃ך ַל ָה) [pronounced haw-LAHK^e], which means to go, to come, to depart, to walk. With the voluntative hê, it means let us go, let us come, let us walk. Owen renders the verb, the voluntative hê and the particle of entreaty as the colloquialism come now. Strong’s #1980 (and #3212) BDB #229. The second verb that he uses is the 1^st person plural, Qal imperfect of çûwr (רס) [pronounced soor ], which means to turn aside, to depart, to go away. It also has with it the voluntative hê, but no longer is the servant using the imperative. This means he is still making an earnest request. Strong's #5493 (and #5494) BDB #693.

in the Hebrew, the first thing the Levite says is the negative. In the Hebrew, it is literally, “Not we will turn aside.” There is no great emphasis here—this is simply how the Hebrews use their negatives.

The last verb used here is the ׳â^bvar (ר ַ ָע) [pronounced aw^b-VAHR], which means to pass over, to pass through, to pass, to go over. Strong’s #5674 BDB #716. At this time, the Israelites had been relatively new in the land, and had taken the land from the peoples who were living there—therefore, they did not expect to have kind treatment from any of the heathen who lived there. In fact, their lives might be in danger if they stayed there.

Now then, there is Gibeah. In the Hebrew, this is spelled gîb^e׳âh (ה ָע ׃ב ̣) [pronounced gi^bv-ĢAW], which means hill. Strong’s #1390 BDB #149. Because there are several different spellings and because Israel has so many hills, determining which city is Gibeah and where it is located is theoretically quite difficult. And there could be as many as four or more different Gibeah’s. To add to this confusion, once and awhile, in Scripture, Gibeon and Geba are confounded with Gibeah. Now, there are two Gibeah’s of which we are certain: the one here and the one found in Joshua 15:57 which is located far south of Jerusalem. There appears to be another Gibeah in the hill country of Ephraim, mentioned in Joshua 24:33. However, this depends upon which translation you use. In most translations, this si simply a hill which belonged to Phinehas (hill and Gibeah are exactly the same words in the Hebrew). In our present passage, we are moving north from Bethlehem past Jerusalem, on up to Gibeah. Therefore, this is the Gibeah mentioned in Joshua 18:28, and is equivalent to the Gibeah of Saul, the capital of his political kingdom, mentioned in I Sam. 11:4, when Saul was a hero to his people. This same city is mentioned in I Sam. 13:15 after Saul has sinned and offered up a sacrifice to God in Samuel’s stead (after Samuel chews out Saul, he goes up to Gibeah). For other references to Gibeah of Saul, see also I Sam. 10:26 13:2 15:34 Isa. 10:29. It is approximately 4 miles north of Jerusalem, according to ZPEB. By the way, we will carefully sort out these cities in the Doctrine of Gibeon, Geba and Gibeah, which will be covered in I Sam. 13:16.

What they would draw near to would be the numeral construct echâd (ד ָח ∵א) [pronounced eh-KHAWD] and it means one, first. Strong's #259 BDB #25. The noun that this is attached to is the masculine plural of mâqôwm (םק ָמ) [pronounced maw-KOHM], which simply means place. Strong’s #4725 BDB #879. He obviously knows the area relatively well, and a fundamental knowledge of geography could mean the difference between life and death.

Recall that the tribe of Benjamin was given some very famous cities, but, as of this point in time, they had not conquered Jerusalem. It was in control of these cities to the north. We touched on the city of Ramah back in Joshua 18:25.

One source places these cities an hour from one another; the CEV says that it is three miles from Jerusalem to Gibeah, and another three miles to Ramah. These are consistent with one another.

We have the Qal imperfect of ׳â^bvar, again, (ר ַ ָע) [pronounced aw^b-VAHR], which means to pass over, to pass through, to pass, to go over. Strong’s #5674 BDB #716. This is followed by the Qal imperfect of hâlak^e (׃ך ַל ָה) [pronounced haw-LAHK^e], which means to go, to come, to depart, to walk. Strong’s #1980 (and #3212) BDB #229. What is meant is that they passed by Jerusalem and then they continued walking.

Then, instead of day, we have the feminine singular noun shemesh (ש ∵מ ∵ש) [pronounced SHEH-mehsh], which means sun. Strong’s #8121 BDB #1039. What the sun is doing is the Qal imperfect of bôw (א) [pronounced boh], which means to come in, to come, to go in, to go. Strong’s #935 BDB #97. What we have here is all of the very, very common words for to go, to come, to meander. The sun was said to go in, as it appeared to go into the earth, just as we say the sun sets. It obviously does not, but it is a common English phrase and that was a common Hebrew phrase. One thing that you must grasp in the ancient world—when you are wandering along small roads and trails and through forests and over hills, if there is no full moon, then you cannot see a thing after dark. There are no street lights, no bill boards, no house lights. The hikers may as well be blind under these circumstances.

Where they go to sit is the feminine construct of r^echôw^bv (בח ר) [pronounced r^e-KHOB^V], which means broad open place, plaza, open square. Strong’s #7339 BDB #932. This was likely near the entrance to the city, so that everyone could see this group as they came in from the outside after a long day’s work. This was the place where court was held, where the chief men of Israel stood, where trading would occur, where people met, where strangers went when they came into town; a town square or plaza appears to be a part of most every city. It never occurred to them that this would be a dangerous thing to do.

What no man did was the Piel participle of âçaph (ף ַס ָא) [pronounced aw-SAHF], which means relocate, transfer, transport, gather, to gather and remove, to remove. Strong’s #622 BDB #62. No man gathered them up and took them to his house. In other words, no man came up to them and offered them a place to stay.

With house, we have the locative hê, which implies the preposition to.

Recall what our Lord said: “I was hungry, and you gave Me nothing to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me nothing to drink; I was a stranger, and you did not invite Me in; naked, and you did not clothe Me; sick and in prison, and you did not visit Me.” (Matt. 25:42–43). Now, what occurred here was quite unusual. You would think that with three people who have obviously been traveling that some one would offer them a place to stay for the night; particularly because they are fellow Israelites (see Gen. 18:2–4 19:2–3 24:23). We will see why later on in this chapter.

An Old Man, a Temporary Resident of the City, Takes Them in

You have to understand that the tribe of Benjamin in this town had reached intense levels of degeneracy. The only one of the town who offers these strangers a place to stay is not of that town. We will see that this man is quite successful, and lives in a very nice house inside the town. Furthermore, he has servants who work for him.

The person lifting up his eyes is the old man. He is worn out and walking into the city, through the front gates and directly in front of him is the plaza. There sit the two men, the woman and the two mules. The man sitting there is called Qal active participle of ârach (ח-רָא) [pronounced aw-RAHKH], which means to wander, to journey, to go. In the participle, it means the wanderer, the traveler, the wayfarer. Strong’s #732 BDB #72. The old man knows enough about this city and the people in the city to be cautious. He approached this man cautiously, although it seem s pretty clear that he is not from this area.

In the ancient world, it was considered almost a duty to ask strangers into one’s household to spend the night when it was apparent that they had nowhere else to go. There were apparently no inns in most of the Israelite cities (such a custom of taking in strangers at night would preclude the need for an inn).

This is the first time the House of Jehovah is mentioned, and it is properly the Tent of Jehovah. However, in the Hebrew, it literally reads House of Jehovah. In the Greek, it is not the house of the Lord but simply home. The NASB, TEV and the NRSV render this my house and then footnote it as the house of the Lord. The NIV, Young and Rotherham simply go with the Hebrew. The REB, the NAB and the NJB go with the Greek in this instance. The Amplified Bible manages to give us the Greek and the Hebrew together (“I am [now] going [home] to the house of the Lord [where I serve]...”), as does the CEV. Because of the fact that we do not know how the original read, we do not know if his intention is to go to the House of Jehovah (which, again, was really the Tent of Jehovah); however, Scripture accurately records quotations. Now, all that aside, the Tent of Jehovah was located in Shiloh, which was in the hill country of Ephraim, and it would not be out of the ordinary for the Levite to plan a trip there on the way to his own home. Also, even if they were not planning such a detour, it sounds good to a stranger that he is heading to the house of God. The NIV Study Bible suggests that they were going to the Tent of God to offer a thanksgiving offering and perhaps a sin offering. Barnes suggests that he works at the tent of God. However, it would not be said of him that he lived in the remote regions of Ephraim if he served at the Tent of God. Again, we really don’t know what there are plans for, as we do not know for certain how the original read in this case.

Keil and Delitzsch give us the most interesting and possibly most accurate slant on this verse. The man is a Levite; he serves in the House of God. In the Hebrew, it does not say that he is going to the House of Jehovah, but what we have is: A house of Jehovah, I [emphasized] go [Qal active participle]. The Levite is expressing some indignity. In the next verse, we will see that he has everything necessary for his immediate sustenance, and God deems him worthy to serve in the House of Jehovah; yet no one deems him worthy to ask him to stay at his house.

This also helps to explain why this verse may have been altered later. A scribe reading this knows that the Levite is not going to the House of Jehovah, and, figuring that to be an error, subsequently eliminates Jehovah from the original text. There are a great many things that we may not understand in a particular verse; however, God designed His Word to be understood, and several times warns us not to add or subtract from His Word. Eventually, someone will be able to explain what everything means. And, bear in mind, the one thing that you will take with you into eternity is your knowledge of His Word.

You will note that in this chapter we have spent very little time referring to the myriad of translation which are out there. The Hebrew, in general, has been fairly straightforward and the vocabulary has been fairly simple. This verse is one of the few exceptions, and the Hebrew does cause us some problems.

The Emphasized Bible      Nevertheless straw and fodder too is there for our asses, you moreover bread and wine there are for me and for thy handmaid, and for the young man that is with thy servants,—there is a lack of nothing.

NASB                                “Yet there is both straw and fodder for our donkeys, and also bread and wine for me, your maidservant [i.e., my concubine], and the young man who is with your servants; there is no lack of anything.”

Owen's Translation           Straw and also provender we have for our asses and bread and wine there for me and your maidservant and the young man with your servants. There is no lack of anything.

Young's Lit. Translation     ‘...And both straw and provender are for our asses, and also bread and wine there are for me, and for thy handmaid, and for the young man with thy servants; there is no lack of anything.’

The first word in this verse, after the conjunction, is the adverb gam (ם ַ) [pronounced gahm], which means also, furthermore, in addition to, moreover. Here, we have gam repeated, and they should therefore be rendered both...and, furthermore...as well as, also...also, that...so. Strong’s #1571 BDB #168. The second noun is the masculine singular noun miç^ephôw (א ס ̣מ) [pronounced mis^e-POH], which means fodder, provender, donkey food. Strong’s #4554 BDB #704. This is followed by the substantive yêsh (ש ֵי) [pronounced yaysh], which means being, substance, existence. It often acts as a substantive plus the absolute status quo verb to be; and is therefore reasonably rendered there is, there will be, there are. Strong’s #3426 BDB #441.

The word maidservant here is the feminine singular of âmâh (הָמָא) [pronounced aw-MAW], which means maid, maidservant, handmaid, female servant. Often, it is used as a term of humility, rather than one of actual station. Strong’s #519 BDB #51. What he has the very tricky thing to do is to identify how he and his mistress and his servant are to be treated by identifying who they are, and yet come across as humble. Throughout Biblical literature, a woman who is not a maid is called a maid (or calls herself a maid) in humility, just as a man may say, “I am at your service.” or “I am your servant.” We find this done with this particular word in Ruth 3:9 I Sam. 1:15 25:24. Note that the Levite also, in this verse, identifies himself as an owner (or, employee) of a servant, carefully, yet, not in such a way to sound as though he is bragging, putting himself on a level with this older man before him. The interaction of the people in some passages of the Bible makes me feel as though I am observing polite society in Great Britain.

This Levite is getting somewhat desperate. It is getting dark, cold and they apparently have no provisions by which to camp (nor is that altogether safe). The Levite assures this old man that he has a sufficient amount of food for his asses, as well as bread and wine for himself and his wife/mistress (whom he does not so identify, yet he does not place her with his servant). Whatever the old man does on behalf of his own servants, the Levite says that his servant is fine with that.

The last sentence begins with the negative and the masculine singular construct of mach^eçôwr (רס ח-מ) [pronounced mahkh-SOHR], which means need, something needed, poverty, lack. Strong’s #4270 BDB #341. This is followed by the masculine singular construct of kôl (לֹ) [pronounced kole], which means the whole, all of, the entirety of, all, every. When used with a plural noun, we often translate it all of and with a singular noun, we translate it every. Strong’s #3605 BDB #481. This is followed by the masculine singular noun dâ^bvâr (ר ָב ָ) [pronounced daw^b-VAWR], which means word, saying, doctrine, thing. Strong's #1697 (or #1696) BDB #182. Literally, what we have is no lack of anything.

The old man gives them a standard, yet very gracious greeting of shâlôwm (םל ָש) [pronounced shaw-LOHM], which means completeness, soundness, welfare, peace, safe, secure, tranquil, undisturbed, unagitated. Thieme often rendered this prosperous or prosperity. Strong’s #7965 BDB #1022. We have seen this used on several occasions (Gen. 43:23 Judges 6:23 I Sam. 25:6).

The adverb found twice in this verse is raq (ק ַר) [pronounced rahk] means only, provided, altogether, surely—it carries with it restrictive force. Strong’s #7534 & #7535 BDB #956. The old man tells him that all of his wants should be upon him. The word used is the masculine singular noun, which we looked at in the previous verse: mach^eçôwr (רס ח-מ) [pronounced mahkh-SOHR], which means need, something needed, poverty, lack. Strong’s #4270 BDB #341. Note the careful interchange between the two men. The Levite presents himself as one who does not require any trouble or extra care, but just a place to stay for the night. The prospective host, on the other hand, tells him to place all of his needs and wants upon him. He indicates that it does not matter what he and his wife and servant need, he will provide for them.

What was normal for the Jews was to take a stranger into their home. The fact that this small group is sitting in the plaza and no one has asked them of their business, nor has anyone asked them to come into their home, is quite unusual. The reason that no one does will become clear later in the chapter.

One of the early customs of the ancient world was to wash the feet of a traveler. The men walked in sandals throughout the ancient world, and their feet got sore and dirty. One of the great acts of hospitality was to wash the feet of a guest. It was soothing and cleansing and we find it as far back in Scripture as Gen. 18:4 19:2 24:32 43:24 Luke 7:44. Jesus used this as an object lesson for Peter in John 13. Jesus was washing the feet of His disciples, which Peter thought was beneath Him, and said so. When our Lord straightened him out, then Peter thought that Jesus should wash his entire body. However, Jesus declined. The object less on, which Peter no doubt missed, was that Jesus had already washed Peter of his sins—Peter had already been cleansed completely. However, his feet were dirty from walking on this earth. That is, he was dirty in part from sin, and he needed to be cleansed from that. It was not Peter’s entire being which needed cleansing, as all believers are cleansed completely from sin—it was his temporal fellowship with God that needed to be restored. John later gave the mechanics in I John 1:9: If we name our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

Allow me this tangent, if you would. The Bible is filled with the mechanics for our spiritual life. We are told to believe in Jesus Christ—we are not told to ask him into our life, our heart or our soul. When it comes to being temporally cleansed from sin, we are told to name or enumerate our recent, unconfessed sins. When it comes to prayer, we are to address the Father, not Jesus and certainly not the Holy Spirit. At best, it is arrogance on our part to suggest that we accomplish these things in other ways. At worst, it is spiritual subversion.

The Men of Gibeah Threaten Homosexual Rape; the Man’s Mistress Is Given to Them

What the old man and the travelers were doing was the Hiphil participle of yâţa^bv (ב ַט ָי) [pronounced yaw-TA^BV], which means to be good, well, to be pleasing, to do good, to deal well, to make glad, to make a thing good. In the Hiphil, it means to do well, to cause to do well, to do rightly, to do good, to make merry, to make fit, to adjust. Strong’s #3190 BDB #405.

Then we have the wâw conjunction and the demonstrative particle hinnêh (הֵ ̣ה) [pronounced hin-NAY], which means lo, behold, or more freely, observe, look here, look, listen, pay attention, get this, check this out, holy crap, holy shit. Here, given the circumstances, we could even get away with the rendering suddenly, unexpectedly. Strong’s #2009 (and #518, 2006) BDB #243.

The men who came to the house were called sons of the masculine singular noun b^elîyyaal (ל ַע ַ  ̣ל  ׃) [pronounced b^eleey-YAH-ģahl ], which is transliterated Belial, but it means without value, worthless, ruin, good-for-nothing, ungodly, wicked. Strong’s #1100 BDB #116. This is an expression often used to describe the morally depraved—the unbeliever whose degeneracy is pronounced. This designation is associated with idolatry (Deut. 13:13), homosexual rape (our passage), drunkenness (I Sam. 1:16), rebellion (I Sam. 2:12 ) and perjury (I Kings 21:10).

What they did was the Niphal perfect of çâ^bva^bv (ב ַב ָס) [pronounced saw^b-VAH^BV], which means to turn oneself, to go around, to surround, to encompass; in the Niphal, it means to turn oneself or to surround. Hostility is implied. Strong’s #5437 BDB #685. The next verb is the Hithpael participle of dâphaq (פ-פָ) [pronounced daw-FAHK], which means to beat, to knock. In the Hithpael, it means to beat violently, to pound. This is a rare word, being found only here and in Gen. 33:13 and SOS 5:2. Strong’s #1849 BDB #200. It is the custom of our part of the world to knock in order to attain entry into a house. Here, the doors were locked securely and these men were pounding on the door, in such a way as to threaten to break the door down. Keil and Delitzsch tell us that form of the verb indicates a gradual increase of intensity. This was not a polite request for entry into the old man’s house.

What they desire the old man to do is to bring out his guest so that they can do the Qal imperfect of yâda׳ (ע ַדָי) [pronounced yaw-DAHĢ], which means to know. Here, it is used as a euphemism for sex. Strong’s #3045 BDB #393. These men are not speaking simply of consensual, homosexual relations—their intention is to commit homosexual rape on this man. Our prisons have men who have reached this point of degeneracy and a man who commits forcible homosexual rape, just like a man who commits forcible heterosexual rape, ought to be executed. Such a man has degenerated into an animal. One of the marks of the Sodomites, if you will recall, from Gen. 19, was that they behaved this way as well. God destroyed them for their degeneracy. Paul testifies to this great degeneracy in Rom 1:26–32: For this reason, God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire towards one another, men with me, committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, malice, full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful, and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they no only do the same, but also they give hearty approval to those who practice them. Even Ezekiel testifies to the degeneracy of Israel: “Now your older sister is Samaria, who lives north of you with her daughters; and your young sister, who lives south of you, in Sodom with her daughters. Yet you have not merely walked in their ways or done according to their abominations, but, as if that were too little, you acted more corruptly in all your conduct than they. As I live,” declares Lord Jehovah, “Sodom , your sister, and her daughters, have not done as you and your daughters have done.” (Ezek. 16:46–48).

Now what we have here is some slight amount of civility—the old man is comfortable enough to go outside and talk with the men.

What the old man says to the men outside is:

The Emphasized Bible      Do not, my brethren, do not act vilely, I pray you, —after this man hath entered into my house do not commit this impiety.

NASB                                “No, my fellows, please do not act so wickedly; since this man has come into my house, do not commit this act of folly...”

Owen                                 “No, my brethren, do not act so wickedly seeing that this man has come not [or, into] my house. Do not do this vile thing.”

Young's Lit. Translation     ’Nay, my brethren, do not evil, I pray you, after that this man hath come in unto my house, do not this folly;...’

The old man asks them not to do the Hiphil imperfect of râ׳a׳ (ע ַע ָר) [pronounced raw-ĢAHĢ], which means to be evil, to be bad, displeasing, injurious. In the Hiphil, it means to make evil, to do evil, to do ill, to cause to do evil, to cause something injurious to be done. Strong’s #7489 BDB #949. The Hiphil is almost a polite way of saying this. They are not directly going to do evil; they are going to more indirectly cause evil to be done. The old man is being as diplomatic as he possibly can.

Then we have the conjunction achar (ר ַח ַא) [pronounced ah-KHAHR], which means after, following. Strong’s #310 BDB #29. This is followed by the relative pronoun, which can be rendered who or which, and then we have the 3^rd person masculine singular, Qal perfect of to come. Literally, we have: after who has come, the man the this, into my house. All that is meant is that they should not do such evil after this man has been taken in as a guest into the old man’s house.

Some of the linguistic drama that you miss in your translation is that, in the Massoretic text, it does not read into my house but not my house. However, the difference is simply a vowel point, nothing else, and the vowel points were added centuries after the Old Testament canon was closed. Therefore, we can safely go with the word into, as all that occurred is a very tired scribe, wrote the negative down four times rather than three times. In a verse like this, it would be an easy mistake to make.

Then we have the negative for the third time with the verb to do and the feminine singular noun n^ebvâlâh (ה ָל ָב  ׃נ) [pronounced n^ebvaw-LAW], which means senseless deed, vile act, disgraceful thing; the KJV often renders this folly, but that is too tame for its application to rape and incest (Gen. 34:7 II Sam. 13:12). This term is also used of a woman who tries to pass herself off as a virgin at the outset of a marriage, when she is not (Deut. 22:21). The NIV Study Bible describes it as an expression of outrage at the willful perversion of what is right and natural. See also Joshua 7:15 Judges 20:6, 10 Job 42:8 Isa. 9:17 32:6 Jer. 29:23. Strong’s #5039 BDB #615. This old man is obviously in a spot. He does not want his house destroyed nor does he want to be the victim of violence, yet he realizes that he is dealing with degenerate, lawless men who are mostly out of control and should be shot like hydrophobic dogs.

As I had mentioned in the introduction to these last few chapters, you look in vain to find a man with any sort of character—no one, not even those who appear to be reasonable men, are in the right. They are all in this incredible state of degeneracy. The old man offers up his own daughter and the mistress of the Levite. His daughter is described by the feminine singular noun b^ethûwlâh (ה ָלת  ׃) [pronounced beth-oo-LAWH] means virgin. Strong’s #1330 BDB #143.

According to the NEB, this should read: “Here is my daughter, a virgin; let me bring her out to you. Rape her and do to her what you please; but you will not commit such an outrage against this man.” Unfortunately, the NEB does not substantiate from whence they get this reading. They simply say Prob. rdg.; Heb. adds ‘and his concubine.’  No other translation of mine reads that way. From the standpoint of reason, it would seem that this man would not offer up the Levite’s mistress; however, we must go with what our best manuscripts. I am guessing that perhaps this refers to the alpha Septuagint? If I could legitimately change this translation to what the NEB Bible has and be able to back it up, I would.

After the old man urges them to allow him to bring these two women out, he then uses the wâw conjunction and the 2^nd person masculine plural, Piel imperative of ׳ânâh (ה ָנ ָע) [pronounced ģaw-NAWH], which means to humble, to be grace oriented, to be humbled, to be afflicted. In the Piel, this means to oppress, to depress, to afflict. It is used twelve times for men who have sexually forced themselves upon women (Gen. 34:2 Deut. 22:24, 29 Judges 19:24 20:5 II Sam. 13:12, 14, 22, 32 Lam. 5:11 Ezek. 22:10–11). Strong's #6031 BDB #776. He then tells them to do to them the good in their eyes.

In this verse, we also have the 2^nd person masculine singular, Qal imperfect of ׳âsâh (ה ָ ָע) [pronounced ģaw-SAWH] which means to do, to make, to construct, to fashion, to form, to prepare. Strong's #6213 BDB #793. Often, a prohibition is expressed as a Qal imperfect in the Hebrew (this is how all of the ten commandments are stated; i.e., it reads You will not murder, rather than Do not murder). Although Rotherham’s note at this point is somewhat unclear, apparently some of the codices list this as an imperative. Given the Hebrew language and the position that the old man is in, I would think that the Qal imperfect is appropriate.

What they are not to do to the man is a word of the... and then we have again the feminine singular noun n^ebvâlâh (ה ָל ָב  ׃נ) [pronounced n^ebvaw-LAW], which means senseless deed, vile act, disgraceful thing. Strong’s #5039 BDB #615.

It is almost inconceivable that this man would offer up his own daughter and the mistress of this stranger rather than to allow this man to be a victim of homosexual rape. The very idea that this would even pop into this old man’s head is disconcerting. I understand that there are few alternatives open to this old man, or to the Levite; however, offering up their women instead of themselves is absolutely repugnant. From the NIV Study Bible: The tragedy of this story lies not only in the decadence of Gibeah, but also in the callous selfishness of men who would betray defenseless women to be brutally violated. The fact that the men never actually break into the house indicates that it is possible that no one had to be given up to their sexual lusts. However, the key here is the social position of the woman in the ancient world. Because the woman is physically weaker than the man , and because she would go through long periods of semi-helplessness (while pregnant and immediately after), men took advantage of the woman and her weakness. Barnes points out that this incident betrays the low place in the social scale occupied by woman in the old world, from wich it is one of the glories of Christianity to have raised her. There are innumerable females in the women’s movement who have no clue as to the real part Christianity has played in their history. They vilify Christianity out of their ignorance and hard-heartedness as repressive; however, it was Christianity that restored the woman to her true place in the world.

One cannot but help compare this entire incident to the sodomites of Sodom who demanded to have sexual relations with the visitors to Lot’s home. Now the two angels came to Sodom in the evening as Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom. When Lot saw them, he rose to meet them and bowed down with his face to the ground. And he said, “How, observe, my lords, please turn aside into your servant’s house, and spend the night, and wash your feet; then you may rise early and go on your way.” They said, however, “No but we will spend the night in the square.” Yet he urged them strongly, so they turned aside to him and entered his house; and he prepared a feast for them, and baked unleavened bread, and they ate. Before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, surrounded the house, both young and old, all the people from every quarter, 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 have relations with them.” But Lot went out to them at the doorway, and shut the door behind him and he said, Please, my brothers, do not act wickedly. Now, observe, I have two daughters who have not had relations with man; please let me bring them out to you, and you do to them whatever you like—only do nothing to these men, inasmuch as they have come under the shelter of my roof.” But they said, “Stand aside.” Furthermore, they said, “This one came in as an alien and already he is acting like a judge. Now we will treat you worse than them.” So they pressed hard against Lot and came near to breaking the door. But the men reached out their hands and brought Lot into the house with them and they shut the door. And they struck the men who were at the doorway of the house with blindness, both small and great, so that they wore [themselves] out trying to find the doorway (Gen. 19:1–11). That the stories are familiar should not concern us. It is simply that history repeats itself. The great tragedy is that we have Israelites behaving like the Sodomites whom God destroyed for their uncontrolled evil.

Young and Owen are somewhat at odds in their rendering of this verse:

Owen's Translation           And would not the men listen to him so the man seized his concubine and put (her) to them out and they knew her and abused her all night until the morning and they let her go as the dawn began to break.

Young's Lit. Translation     And the men have not been willing to hearken to him, and the man taketh hold on his concubine, and bringeth her out unto them without, and they know her, and rolled themselves upon her all the night, till the morning, and send her away in the ascending of the dawn...

The first verb is the Qal perfect of â^bvâh (ה ָב ָא) [pronounced aw-^BVAWH] is a verb always found with a negative (except in Job 1:19 39:9). In the Qal perfect, it generally means would; in the Qal imperfect it means consent, yield, willing. Strong’s #14 BDB #2.

Then we are at a loss. Suddenly the man does the Hiphil imperfect of châzaq (ק ַז ָח) [pronounced khaw-ZAHK], which means to be strong, firm, to strengthen. The Hiphil means to take, to strengthen, to repair, to hold fast. Strong’s #2388 BDB #304. We have two interesting things that you might miss in the English: first, it is not clear just which man does this. It says that he holds fast to his concubine, which indicates that the Levite, in hearing all of this, grabs up his own mistress and throws her out. And even more tragic, this is in the imperfect tense, which indicates a continuance of the action. This is, this didn’t take place in just a moment—he didn’t just grab her and throw her out; the imperfect tense means this was a process. In other words, he had to chase her down and grab her, and grab her again when she got away, and perhaps again, and then take her kicking and fighting to the door.

Where he brought her is described by the masculine singular noun chûts (ץח) [pronounced khoots], which means outside, street. Strong’s #2351 BDB #299.

What the men did is first given as the Qal imperfect of yâda׳ (ע ַדָי) [pronounced yaw-DAHĢ], which means to know. Strong’s #3045 BDB #393. This is a polite word for saying that they had sex with her. Then we have the Hithpael imperfect of ׳âlal (ל-לָע) [pronounced gaw-LAHL], which means to satisfy [sexual] thirst in the Hithpael when followed by the bêyth preposition (as it is here). Strong’s #5953 BDB #759.

They did this all the night and then we have the preposition ׳ad (ד ַע) [pronounced ģad ] which means as far as, even to, up to, until. Strong’s #5704 BDB #723. Then we have the masculine singular of bôqer (ר∵קֹ) [pronounced BOH-ker], which means morning. Strong’s #1242 BDB #133.

The final verb is the 3^rd person masculine plural, Piel imperfect of shâlach (ח ַל ָש) [pronounced shaw-LAHKH], which means to send, to send forth, to send away, to dismiss, to deploy. In the Piel it means to send off, to send away, to dismiss, to give over, to cast out, to let go, to set free. Strong’s #7971 BDB #1018. When they sent her off is described by the bêyth preposition and the Qal infinitive construct of ׳âlâh (ה ָל ָע) [pronounced ģaw-LAWH], which means to go up, to ascend, to rise. Here, in the Qal infinitive construct, it would mean a rising of, an ascending of, a climbing of, a springing up, a shooting forth of. Strong's #5927 BDB #748. What ascends is the masculine singular noun shachar (ר-ח-ש) [pronounced SHAH-khahr], which means dawn. Strong’s #7837 BDB #1007. There were enough men in the city who raped her that they continued to do so for the entire night. This was abusive enough to kill her.

In the previous verse, morning is described in two different ways. In this verse, we first have the Qal infinitive construct of pânâh (ה ָנ ָ) [pronounced paw-NAWH], which means to turn, to turn away from, to turn toward, to turn one’s face away from, to turn one’s face to. Strong's #6437 BDB #815. What turns to face her is the morning. There are two connotations: first, the morning brings to her grief and sadness as to what has happened to her; but it brings her some solace, as well, as in the light of day, the men left her, and are no longer forcing themselves upon her.

What the woman did was the Qal imperfect of nâphal (ל ַפ ָנ) [pronounced naw-FAHL], which means to fall, to lie, to die a violent death, to be brought down, to settle, to sleep deeply, to prostrate oneself. Strong's #5307 BDB #656. Where she falls is the masculine singular construct of pethach (ח ַת ∵) [pronounced PEH-thahkh], which means opening, doorway, entrance. Strong’s #6607 BDB #835.

The woman remains there until the masculine singular ôwr (רא) [pronounced ohr], which means light. This is used for moonlight, sunlight and morning light. Strong’s #216 BDB #21. The implication is that she lies there for a time—if anything, as an embarrassment and a disgrace to the city and to the men inside the house. They do not go outside immediately to bring her in. In fact, it does not appear that he even goes out to look for her. He apparently just gets his gear ready to go and stumbles across her, as we will see in the next verse.

The Levite Cuts up the Dead Body of His Mistress and Mails the Pieces to the Rest of Israel

What the Levite doesn’t do is the most telling. He does not go outside at the break of dawn to look for his mistress. He apparently does not even expect to find her outside. He is about to quietly leave town. After he arises, he first does the Qal imperfect of yâtsâ (א ָצ ָי) [pronounced yaw-TZAWH], which means to go out, to come out, to come forth. Strong's #3318 BDB #422. This is followed by the Qal infinitive construct of hâlak^e (׃ך ַל ָה) [pronounced haw-LAHK^e], which means to go, to come, to depart, to walk. Strong’s #1980 (and #3212) BDB #229. What he does is open the feminine plural of deleth (ת ∵ל ∵)[pronounced DEH-leth], which means doors, gates of a city. If you will recall Samson taking off the front gates to the city, this was the word that was used. Strong’s #1817 BDB #195. Apparently, this is not the opening or the door where the woman is. She is further out at the entrance of the structures which belong to the old man.

In describing the woman, we have the Qal active participle of nâphal (ל ַפ ָנ) [pronounced naw-FAHL], which means to fall, to lie, to die a violent death, to be brought down, to settle, to sleep deeply. This time is means laying. Strong's #5307 BDB #656. Where she is laying is the masculine singular construct of pethach again, which is ח ַת ∵ [pronounced PEH-thahkh], which means opening, doorway, entrance. Strong’s #6607 BDB #835. I believe that the house was built around a courtyard and that there are several doors and openings to the courtyard and then a gate or door which leads outside of the courtyard into the town and that is where she was. So he exits one of the doors of the house into the courtyard, goes through the courtyard to the gate to exit the courtyard, and there is his mistress, laying in front of the property entrance at the threshold, her hands on the threshold. This is a very sad scene indeed. The man himself does not appear to be looking for her—this does not appear to be his concern anymore. The only reason that he finds her is that he has to pretty much step over her to get out the front door.

Let’s first look at a few translations:

The Emphasized Bible      And he said to her, Up! And let us be going. But there was no answer [or, no one was answering]. So he took her up on the ass, and the man rose up, and went his way to his own place.

NASB                                And he said to her, “Get up and let us go,” but there was no answer. Then he placed her on the donkey; and the man arose and went to his home [lit., place].

Young's Lit. Translation     ...and he saith unto her, ‘Rise and we go;’ and there is none answering, and he taketh her on the ass, and the man riseth and goeth to his place.

Do you recall how he spoke to her when he wanted her back? He spoke to her heart in v. 3 of this chapter. Now, all he says is the Qal imperative of qûwm (םק) [pronounced koom], which means stand, rise up, get up. Strong’s #6965 BDB #877. She has crawled to the entryway of the courtyard and is lying on her front, her hands at the threshold; she is probably half-naked and bruised and beaten. Without even knowing whether she is dead or alive, the Levite tells her get up. There is no particle of entreaty, even. He slightly softens this with the 1^st person plural, Qal imperfect of to go; using the voluntative hê. That means let us go; or, we will go.

There is the wâw conjunction, then the negative ayin (ן ̣י-א) [pronounced AH-yin], which means naught, nothing; or it can be used as a particle of negation; no, not. Strong’s #369 BDB #34. This is followed by the Qal active participle of ׳ânâh (ה ָנ ָע) [pronounced ģaw-NAWH], which means to answer, to respond. Strong's #6030 BDB #772. This could be rendered and none answering or and no one was answering.

There is a quiet resignation in all of this. Perhaps the man justified to himself what he did by what she had done; perhaps he thought he had no other choice. It’s hard to tell; however, despite the fact that she committed a wrong against him was not a justification for him sending her out to her death as he did. The man is to protect and honor the woman, and if he is unwilling to do so, then he ought not to get married. In fact, he ought not to have a relationship with any woman.

We have some similar verbs here, so let’s see how others worked with the verse:

The Emphasized Bible      And when he was come into his house he took a knife and laid hold on his concubine, and divided her, limb by limb, into twelve pieces,—and sent her throughout all the bounds of Israel.

NASB                                When he entered his house he took a knife and laid hold of his concubine and cut her in twelve pieces, limb by limb, and sent her throughout the territory of Israel.

Young's Lit. Translation     ...and cometh into his house, and taketh the knife, and layeth hold on his concubine, and cutteth her in pieces to her bones—into twelve pieces and sendeth her into all the border of Israel.

As always, Young provides us with the most literal of the translations, although the other two are quite close. We have two verbs for to take here. The first is the Qal imperfect of lâqach (ח ַק ָל) [pronounced law-KAHKH] which means to take, to take from, to take in marriage, to seize. Strong’s #3947 BDB #542. What he seizes with his hand is the feminine singular noun maăkeleth (ת∵ל∵כ ֲא-מ) [pronounced mah-uh-KEH-leth], which means knife. This word is only found in four places in Scripture: Gen. 22:6, 10 (where Abraham was to sacrifice Isaac; it was the knife the Abraham took to cut Isaac’s throat), this passage, and Prov. 30:14. Strong’s #3979 BDB #38.

Then we have the Hiphil imperfect of châzaq again; (ק ַז ָח) [pronounced khaw-ZAHK], which means to be strong, firm, to strengthen. The root means to fasten upon, to seize, to grow firm; and this word came to mean to be strong, firm, to strengthen. The Hiphil means to take, to strengthen, to repair, to hold fast. Strong’s #2388 BDB #304. Here, châzaq is followed by lâmed, as it occasionally does, which does not appear to do much other than indicate what follows is a direct object and perhaps indicate purpose..

The fourth verb is the Piel imperfect of nâthach (ח-תָנ) [pronounced naw-THAHKH], which means to cut up, to cut in pieces, to divide by joints. It is only found in the Piel. Strong’s #5408 BDB #677. This is followed by the lâmed preposition and the feminine plural of ׳etsem (ם ∵צ ∵ע) [pronounced ģeh-TSEM], which means bone, substance, self. Strong’s #6106 BDB #782. This is followed by to twelve and then the masculine plural noun nêthach (ח-ת̤נ) [pronounced NAY-thahkh], which means piece, pieces and it is primarily used of the divided carcass of a sacrificial animal. This is obviously the noun cognate of nâthach. Strong’s #5409 BDB #677.

Where he sends her is into all of the masculine singular of g^ebvûl (לב׃) [pronounced g^eb-VOOL], which means border, boundary, territory. Strong’s #1366 BDB #147. This is followed by Israel.

Obviously, we have entered into weird. This guy is making a point, and since his Kodak instamatic was on the fritz, he sent pieces of his mistress instead to each tribe in Israel (except for the Benjamites). Recall that there were twelve territories for the twelve tribes (the tribe of Joseph being divided into Ephraim and Manasseh, and Manasseh being divided into east and west Manasseh. The Levites were scattered throughout. So, he sent a piece to each of the tribes, to Manasseh twice and to the Levites. Obviously, he sent a note along with the body to indicate what had taken place. For all intents and purposes, you are holding that note in your hand. The note that he sent to the twelve tribes is this chapter of Judges. Obviously, such a thing is shocking, but what was done as shocking. What the Benjamites did was behavior rarely observed even among the Gentiles.

Barnes: There is something truly terrible in the stern ferocity of grief and indignation which dictated this desperate effort to arouse his countrymen to avenge his wrong. NIV Study Bible: Dismembering the concubine’s body and sending parts to each of the 12 tribes was intended to awaken Israel from its moral lethargy and to marshal the tribes to face up to their responsibility. It is ironic that the one who issued such a call was himself so selfish and insensitive.

You may be asking yourself, why the melodrama? Why does he cut her up and send her throughout Israel? Let me offer two possible answers. What occurred was shocking—the idea that, so soon in the land, Israel could commit such a crime is almost unthinkable. We would expect this to occur a couple centuries after Joshua and this took place relatively near to the time of his death. These Israelites, many of them, have just conquered and slaughtered the gentiles of the Land of Promise as per God’s command due to the incredible degeneracy of the gentiles—and now the men of Benjamin reveal themselves to be equally degenerate. When this Levite sends a piece of this woman’s body, it is a complete shock to the recipients, which is the reaction that he had hoped for. Now let me give you the real reason that he sent her cut up body through the mail: this Levite showed no personal integrity. He grabbed his own mistress and threw her out to the degenerate men of Benjamin to save his own skin. This makes him culpable in this crime. In order to accuse the men of Benjamin, this Levite needs two or three witnesses. He will be the one witness and the cut up body of his mistress the other witness. He does not want the old man or his servant to make a statement concerning this act. When we read what he says to the rest of Israel in chapter 20, we will note how carefully he gives an account of the incident. All personal culpability will be omitted from his testimony and there will be no additional witnesses which would implicate this Levite.

In preface to v. 30, I want to make a couple of comments. In your eagerness to read through the Bible in one year or in three years, or in whatever, you scoured v. 30 for all of about two or three seconds—you probably don’t even recall it. In your Bible discussion group, for the very few of you who ever even thought to study this book of the Judges, probably devoted all of one or perhaps five minutes of discussion to this verse (and whoever put in five minutes of discussion, you were wanting him to shut up). Just to wade through the Hebrew of this one verse required nearly four hours of my time; this is apart from any other sort of commentary. I will make two suggestions in this verse based upon the Hebrew and the interpretation thereof that you have not read anywhere else.

Throughout this chapter, we have had some very easy Hebrew. We have seen the same words over and over again; the sentence structure has been simple. We did look at a couple of other translations, but these translations were pretty much in agreement. In fact, we have seen nothing which was all that difficult until this verse. What we just read in vv. 1–29 was the note written by this Levite to the other tribes of Israel. He stated the incident in fairly simple language. The result of this note and the body being distributed throughout Israel is recorded in this verse, which was done by someone who was a bit more erudite. Therefore, we need to see what others have done here:

The Emphasized Bible      And so it was that every one who beheld said— There hath not happened nor been seen the like of this, from the day when the sons of Israel came up out of the land of Egypt, until this day: Put it to yourselves concerning it, take counsel and speak!

NASB                                And it came about that all who saw it said, “Nothing like this has ever happened or been seen from the day when the sons of Israel came up from the land of Egypt to this day. Consider it, take counsel and speak up!”

Owen's Translation           And all who saw it said, Nas never happened or has never been seen as this from the day that came up the people of Israel out of the land of Egypt until this date [here]; consider it, take counsel and speak.

Young's Lit. Translation     And it hath come to pass every one who seeth hath said, ‘There hath not been—yea there hath not been seen like this, from the day of the coming up of the sons of Israel out of the land of Egypt till this day; set your heart upon it, take counsel, and speak.’

this verse begins with the wâw conjunction and the 3^rd person masculine singular, Qal perfect of the verb hâyâh (ה ָי ָה) [pronounced haw-YAW], which means to be. Without a specific subject and object, it often means and it will come to be, and it will come to pass, then it came to pass (with the wâw consecutive). Without a specific subject and object, it is rendered by the KJV and Rotherham as It came to pass, by the NASB as it came about, by Young as It cometh to pass. Literally, we should render this and it was. Strong's #1961 BDB #224. This is immediately followed by the masculine singular construct of all (or, every), the definite article and the Qal active participle of to see. Literally, this gives us every [one] of the seeing; it means every one seeing [this]. This is followed by and said or and he said; which is going to sound rather stilted in the English. This would give us: And he was every [one] of the seeing and he said... Less literally, but more accurately: And it was everyone seeing [this] said... Obviously, not every single person in Israel saw the cut up body and read the note. However, of the hundreds (or, perhaps thousands) of men who did, they all said essentially the same thing. Now, that was the easy part of this verse.

The text of what they said is the negative particle lô (אֹל or אל) [pronounced low], which means not, no. This generally negates the word immediately following it. This word represents the absolute negation. Whereas, al (ל-א) might be dehortative, lô is prohibitive. Al denies subjectively as one would wish and lô denies objectively as a fact. Strong’s #3808 BDB #518. This is followed by the 3^rd person feminine singular, Niphal participle of hâyâh, again; (ה ָי ָה) [pronounced haw-YAW], means to be. In the Niphal, it means to become, to be made, to come to pass, to occur, to happen. Strong's #1961 BDB #224. Since this is the 3^rd person feminine singular, which really matches nothing in the verse, this refers in general to the event which had occurred. Israel, even in degeneracy, could not imagine such a thing as having occurred among their own brothers.

Then we have the wâw conjunction and the negative lô again and the 3^rd person feminine singular, Niphal perfect of to see. Literally, it is: ...and she has never been seen... However, more in keeping with the nuances of the language, this should be rendered: ...and never has [such a thing] been seen... This is followed by as this (the demonstrative pronoun is in the feminine singular).

Then we have the lâmed and the mîn prepositions together, which would be, literally, for from; the lâmed prefixed preposition and mîn together almost always form what BDB calls a terminus a quo, which means a starting point, the earliest possible date, or end from which. We can render the two together as for from, even from, from. Lâmed = Strong’s #none BDB #510; mîn = Strong’s #4480 BDB #577. This is followed by day and the Qal infinitive construct of ׳âlâh (ה ָל ָע) [pronounced ģaw-LAWH], which we had just a few verses ago, and it means to go up, to ascend, to rise. As a Qal infinitive construct, it means a rising up of, a coming up of. Strong's #5927 BDB #748. This is followed by the sons of Israel from a land of Egypt; then we have the terminating point given by the preposition ׳ad (ד ַע) [pronounced ģad ] which means as far as, even to, up to, until. Strong’s #5704 BDB #723. This gives us: ...and never has [such a thing] been seen as this even from a coming up of sons of Israel from a land of Egypt until the day the this...

There is something that you will miss completely in the English. In the previous verse, when the man is cutting up his mistress, all five verbs are in the imperfect tense. What occurred, insofar as this Levite was concerned, was a long, painful process. Each action seemed drawn out and continuous. However, by contrast, four of the first five verbs in v. 20 are in the perfect tense. To the man who wrote this, the cutting up of the woman was a process; however, what followed he viewed as a completed process. The person who did this—who cut the woman up and mailed out her body in pieces—would view that as a process; and he would likewise see the receiving of these pieces, as well as what they would say, as a single action, although these actions would be repeated over and over again. Another, even better explanation, is that the perfect tenses would be employed by a later historian, whereas the imperfects would be used by the person who experienced the events himself.

Then we have the oddest ending to this chapter. We have two Qal imperatives and then a Piel imperative, all of them 2^nd person masculine plural. The first is the Qal imperative of sîym (םי  ̣) [pronounced seem] which means to put, to place, to set. Strong's #7760 BDB #962. This is followed by the lâmed preposition affixed to the 2^nd person masculine plural suffix. That means to you [all], for you, with respect to you; and then we have the preposition ׳al (ל ַע) [pronounced ahl ], which means upon, on, against, above, over, by, beside. Strong’s #5920, #5921 BDB #752. This is affixed to the 3^rd person feminine singular suffix, so it would be literally rendered upon her, on her, against her. So, therefore, most literally, we have set for yourselves on her or place with respect to yourselves upon her. Her could reasonably be expected to refer to the dead mistress and you (plural) to the recipients of this letter. However, it is more likely that her refers to the incident in general (this is in the feminine singular, and this refers to the incident). What the hell this all means is obviously no piece of cake to translate. Owen went with simply consider; Young with set your [heart] upon it; Rotherham went with put it to yourselves concerning it; and the NASB went with consider it. The Septuagint has take counsel [you] concerning it. My own thinking is the original Hebrew read Set your heart on her [this]. In the Hebrew, without the vowel points, your [plural] heart [singular] would be םכבל and what we have here is םכל, meaning that a scribe could have left out the bêyth. I should point out, however, that BDB does give several instances where we have sîym used without heart, yet appears to imply that it should be there (Job 34:23 37:15 Judges 19:30 Isa. 41:20).

Without even an intervening conjunction, we jump to the 2^nd person masculine plural, Qal imperative of ׳ûwts (ץע) [pronounced oots or goots], and it means take counsel, plan, discuss. This verb is found only in the Qal imperative in Judges 19:30 and Isa. 8:10.* Strong’s #5779 BDB #734.

Then we throw in the wâw conjunction and the 2^nd person masculine plural, Piel imperative of to speak; the Piel is the intensifier, so this can mean talk, backed with action; give your opinion; speak out; talk it around. Strong’s #1696 BDB #180.

Now, here’s what I think has happened. I think we have a clever literary device employed right here. We have the story of what occurred being passed around with the body parts of this young woman; its last line is Set this on your heart, discuss [this] and speak out. However, when someone would read this scroll, they would hand it to someone else (or, to a group), and they would repeat this phrase in handing it to that person or group.

In other words, what we read in this chapter was the original note passed around with the body parts of the woman. The first part of v. 30 was the reaction that this note got. The last sentence in v. 30 was both the final sentence of the letter as well as the words of those who read the letter.