Discussed Judges 19 with my brother (who is a theologian) since I thought it shows a disregard for women, but I’d like to hear more opinions.
Judges 19 (NIV) takes place when the people or Israel were ignoring God and His teachings. It begins by explaining how a Levite’s concubine had been “unfaithful to him,” and then runs out on him to hide with her family. When the Levite tracks her down, the concubine’s family treats him warmly:
[The concubine] took [the Levite] into her parents’ home, and when her father saw him, he gladly welcomed him. His father-in-law, the woman’s father, prevailed on him to stay; so he remained with him three days, eating and drinking, and sleeping there.
On the fourth day they got up early and he prepared to leave, but the woman’s father said to his son-in-law, “Refresh yourself with something to eat; then you can go.” So the two of them sat down to eat and drink together. Afterward the woman’s father said, “Please stay tonight and enjoy yourself.” And when the man got up to go, his father-in-law persuaded him, so he stayed there that night.
The family are gracious hosts and care for their guests well. After this delay, the Levite does not want to stay another night (despite the father's protests again) and takes the concubine with him to travel back to his home.
After being on the road, it becomes night and they need a place to stay. No one is willing to give them a space besides an old man, who treats them well in his house. While he seems to be the ideal host, it quickly changes when “some of the wicked men of the city surrounded the house.”
The wicked men made their intentions clear:
“Pounding on the door, [the men] shouted to the old man who owned the house, ‘Bring out the [Levite] who came to your house so we can have sex with him.’”
The old man decides to dissuade the men, but his methods are worthy of criticism:
“‘No, my friends, don’t be so vile. Since this man is my guest, don’t do this outrageous thing. Look, here is my virgin daughter, and his concubine. I will bring them out to you now, and you can use them and do to them whatever you wish. But as for this man, don’t do such an outrageous thing.’”
My brother brought to my attention this is echoing what was taught from the story of Lot (Genesis 19: 1–38), but is worthy of a separate post by itself.
Comparing the old man as a host with the concubine’s family as a host shows a significant difference, as one was the ideal host while the other is willing to sacrifice their daughter and one of their guests.
However, the old man does not sacrifice his daughter, instead it is the Levite that makes the call:
“[T]he man took his concubine and sent her outside to them, and they raped her and abused her throughout the night...”
The woman then dies due to the horrific abuse, and is left for dead by the wicked men. The Levite’s reaction is not described besides when he “said to her, ‘Get up; let’s go,’” and, upon the realization she’s dead, he simply “put her on his donkey” and left.
This alone is a bad enough tale: men prioritizing their own safety from rape because the rape of men is unnatural and (in their eyes) worse than the rape of a woman. They do not protect the woman and sacrifices her like chum.
However it takes a worse, more graphic turn:
When he reached home, he took a knife and cut up his concubine, limb by limb, into twelve parts and sent them into all the areas of Israel.
Everyone who saw it was saying to one another, ‘Such a thing has never been seen or done, not since the day the Israelites came up out of Egypt. Just imagine! We must do something! So speak up!’”
I understand this story is meant to show how the Israelites were without God’s guidance: men wanted to rape outsiders and hosts abandoned their guests. But it’s obvious to me how the sanctity of men are prioritized, but not just because they’re men. As a concubine, that woman was property. As an unfaithful concubine, she was corrupt.
The Levite is the one to toss her out the door, not the old man. He does not seem to grieve the loss of a person, but a belonging. She does not receive a proper burial, she is made into a message. He does not find her attackers, he moves on.
Can I have thoughts on how others view this story, whether it be by Christian scholars or those simply interested in feminist theory?
Judges 19 is definitely a parallel story to Lot and his daughters; my assumption is that one of the stories is based on the others but I don’t have the biblical studies cred to speculate which (although imo the smart money’s on Judges 19 being the original).
The concubine in Judges 19 is treated abysmally by the text. She’s unnamed (as is the Levite) and her only act of agency (leaving the Levite to return to her father) is overridden by men (the Levite and her father) without any concern for her wishes. In life her choices are made irrelevant. In death her body is a tool for war propaganda (it’s very important to read Judges 19 in the context of Judges 20-21, when the tribes of Israel very nearly commit genocide against the tribe of Benjamin*).
*The resolution to the near-genocide of the Benjaminites also involves women’s agency being overridden by men. The last chapters of Judges are fucked-up even by the standard of the Book of Judges
Not to be all “it gets worse,” but the text doesn’t actually say the Benjaminites rape the concubine to death. The Hebrew in 19:27 describes her as nefelet petah ha-bayit v’yadeha al-hasof (lying [at the] entrance [of] the house and her hands on the threshold). In v. 28 the Levite tells her to get up but v’ein oneh (but no reply). The Septuagint clarifies that she was dead (kai oun apekrithi oti ein nekra), but that’s an interpolation into the Hebrew; not part of the original. It’s entirely plausible to read the concubine as unconscious or dazed and her death not occurring until the Levite cuts her up.
