hide text
We meet another Levite in verse 1 who was paying no attention to God's directions concerning where the Levites should live (cf. 17:7). Since monogamy was God's standard for marriage the Levite should not have married a concubine (Gen. 2:24). This was doubly wrong in the case of a Levite because the Levites were to remain as holy as possible in view of their special ministry in Israel.
It appears that the Levite and his concubine had a disagreement that resulted in the woman leaving him and returning home to her father (v. 2).
"The reason for her return given in many ancient versions, because she was angry with him' (followed by RSV), is more plausible than that supplied in the AV and RV that she played the whore against him. The penalty against the adulteress was death (Lv. 20:10), but a heated argument would allow the Levite to seek a reconciliation when the passions of temper had subsided."340
This opinion rests on the Septuagint translators' rendering of verse 2 that is the equivalent of "his concubine was angry with him."However the Hebrew text has "his concubine was unfaithful to him,"and this is the preferable reading. As we have noted, the Israelites paid less attention to the Law in the period of the judges than they did while Joshua was alive. It is probable that the concubine had been unfaithful and the Israelites simply did not execute the penalty for that offense that the Law prescribed. The fact that the Levite waited four months to get his wife back suggests that he was not eager to do so.
The writer referred to the Levite as the concubine's husband because that is what she was in God's sight (v. 3). His tender words were insincere, as his later dealings with her prove. Apparently he wanted her back for selfish reasons. The two donkeys the Levite brought with him to Bethlehem were for his wife and him to ride back home. The concubine's father was probably glad to see the Levite because it was disgraceful for a woman to leave her husband in that culture. The Levite wanted to patch up the relationship, and that would have pleased his father-in-law.
The writer's mention of the hospitality of the Levite's father-in-law (vv. 4-9) points out the contrast with the Gibeans' lack of hospitality later in the story (v. 15, 22-26). Hospitality was a sacred duty in the ancient Near East when there were few public facilities for travelers (cf. 4:17-23; Gen. 18:5; 24:55). Perhaps it is significant that this man who practiced hospitality (lit. love of strangers) lived in Bethlehem, David's hometown. Saul came from Gibeah where the residents hated strangers, as the story will show. The fact that Israel's first king came from this city has led some scholars to conclude that by including this incident the writer may have intended to discredit Saul.341
Jebus (Jerusalem) was and is about six miles north of Bethlehem (v. 10). The Levite and his concubine would have reached it in about two hours. Gibeah (v. 12) was three miles farther north and Ramah (v. 13) two miles beyond Gibeah. Jebus was then, and until David finally captured it (2 Sam. 5:6-9), a stronghold of the Jebusites who were one of the native Canaanite tribes. The Levite expected to find hate in Jebus and love in Gibeah. He would have been wiser to have stopped for the night in Jebus since he found no hospitality in Gibeah. All the "motels"there were full or at least not open to the Levite and his party.
"The last clause in v. 15 would have been shocking anywhere in the ancient Near East. But it is especially shocking in Israel. The social disintegration has infected the very heart of the community. People refuse to open their doors to strangers passing through. It makes no difference that these travelers are their own countrymen."342
