26: Breaking the second Love command: Obsessive hospitality, extreme hostility, and selfishness (Judges 19:1 – 30)

The book concludes the stories of Israel's repeated sin—primarily idolatry—with the two episodes in which the Levite was involved. This observation alludes that the failure of the spiritual leadership played an important role in Israel's repeated idolatry. The nationwide spiritual failure deprived them of God’s reign, and thus, they said there was no king in Israel. In reality, they were refusing the divine kingship of the Lord.

Read Judges 19:1 - 30

Q1. A Levite’s concubine returned to her father’s house in (        ). After four months, her husband came, and his father-in-law welcomed him. But, his father-in-law persuaded and compelled him to stay more. On the (        ) day afternoon, he finally resolved and departed for home with his concubine. As they approached (             ), the Levite refused to stay there, as it was a city of foreigners. Instead, he continued and decided to stay in (          ), a Benjaminite town. Upon arriving there, no one invited them until an old man, originally from (              ), asked them. 

A Levite’s concubine returned to her father’s house in ( Bethlehem ). After four months, her husband came, and his father-in-law welcomed him. But, his father-in-law persuaded and compelled him to stay more. On the ( fifth ) day afternoon, he finally resolved and departed for home with his concubine. As they approached ( Jebus (Jerusalem) ), the Levite refused to stay there, as it was a city of foreigners. Instead, he continued and decided to stay in ( Gibeah ), a Benjaminite town. Upon arriving there, no one invited them until an old man, originally from ( the Ephraimite hill country  ), asked them.

Bethlehem is mentioned in the final episode of Judges and becomes the central setting in the story of Ruth. Is this merely coincidental, or does it convey a deeper message?

Q2. Verses 4–9 highlight the Levite's indecisiveness. What might have caused this hesitation? Clues can be found in the words of his father-in-law, which reflect persistent attempts to delay the Levite’s departure. (5,6,8,9)

He stayed for his own amusement and personal satisfaction. His indulgence in hospitality might have distracted him from his purpose, returning home. 

"Refresh yourself, and wait until afternoon" (5).

"Now, stay overnight, and enjoy yourself" (6).

"Please, agree to stay all night, and your heart may be merry" (9).

The Levite in chapters 17 and 18 became a wanderer due to poverty, symbolizing Israel’s neglect in supporting the Levites as commanded by God. In his desperation, he accepted a position tied to idolatry and even became a promoter of it—directly contradicting his sacred calling to lead Israel in holiness. In contrast, the Levite in chapter 19, seemingly wealthy, displayed self-indulgence and selfishness. 

It could be argued that he delayed because he cared for his concubine and father-in-law. However, the selfishness in his later decisions suggests that his indecisiveness stemmed from indulgence, as he prioritized comfort and personal gratification over the urgency of a safe return.

He lived in the remote region of the Ephraimite hill country, and the Bible specifically addresses this (1, 18), where safe travel was a significant concern given the social conditions of the time. Despite the urgency of ensuring a secure return, he was indecisive and delayed his departure, ultimately making the foolish decision to set out late in the afternoon.

Q3. Why did they decide not to stay in Jebus?  

It was a Canaanite town. (before David captured it)

They expected goodness from the Israelite village (12) but experienced something horrific evil unparalleled in their history (30).

The repeated mention of the "old man" emphasizes his unique role in the narrative as a symbol of virtue amidst widespread moral failure. He was not a native of the town. Meanwhile, the Levite's lengthy response (verses 18–19) suggests that he does not fully grasp why the townspeople are unwilling to welcome him, despite his possessions. In contrast, the old man, aware of the town's depravity, insists that the Levite should not spend the night in the town square (verse 21), clearly recognizing the dangers lurking there.

Q4. The events in verses 22–30 are disturbing and deeply perplexing. They had not invited the traveler, but now came and threatened to assault him. In a shocking response, the house owner attempted to protect his (        ) by offering the women in his place. The Levite handed his concubine over to be raped. Though she was handed over by her (          ), being raped all night, she returned to the house where her (         ) stayed and died there. In the morning, without showing any emotional disturbance, he placed her lifeless body on his (        ) and returned home. He then mutilated her and sent the pieces throughout Israel, prompting widespread horror and outrage. The people responded with disbelief, declaring, "(                )"

The events in verses 22–30 are disturbing and deeply perplexing. They had not invited the traveler, but now came and threatened to assault him. In a shocking response, the house owner attempted to protect his ( guest ) by offering the women in his place. The Levite handed his concubine over to be raped. Though she was handed over by her ( husband ), being raped all night, she returned to the house where her ( master ) stayed and died there. In the morning, without showing any emotional disturbance, he placed her lifeless body on his ( donkey ) and returned home. He then mutilated her and sent the pieces throughout Israel, prompting widespread horror and outrage. The people responded with disbelief, declaring, "( Nothing like this has happened. )"

The previous episode in chapters 17–18 illustrates how they break the first commandment: love your God with all your being. And the one in chapters 19-21 reflects their failure to uphold the second one: love your neighbor as yourself.

The chapter begins with the story of a concubine, a woman in a domestically disadvantaged position (vv. 1–2). Her father's excessive and almost compulsive hospitality (vv. 5–10) feels unsettling. Seeking better hospitality, the travelers chose Gibeah over Jebus (vv. 11–15), but no one welcomed them except an old man—a surprise (vv. 16–21). That night, the men of the city demanded the guest be handed over (v. 22). Repeated references to the "owner of the house" and the "guest" emphasize the passage's central theme: hospitality as an expression of love. 

The overarching theme of the story in Judges 19 is hospitality to strangers. However, their hospitality was not rooted in obedience to God’s commandment to "love your neighbor as yourself," but merely at the level of fulfilling a "cultural obligation." As a result, they failed to love their own family "as themselves." The Bible points out that the fundamental reason for such an error lies in the fact that at the center of all interpretation and values is not God, but "self." This is further emphasized through the Levite's extremely selfish actions in the subsequent narrative.

The mob’s behavior should be understood as hostility toward travelers or strangers, rather than a desire driven by homosexuality.

The homeowner’s refusal of the mob’s request was driven more by his cultural duty to protect his guest than by moral conviction. Hospitality in that era was seen as a divine obligation, often leading to extreme actions. This helps explain the troubling hospitality of the father-in-law and the shocking offer of the homeowner to give his virgin daughter and the guest’s concubine to the mob. Such acts were rooted in self-serving interpretations of hospitality, prioritizing social duty over genuine care.

In verses 25–28, the concubine is treated as property—abused by her husband even before being handed over to the mob. The Bible does not explicitly condemn his behavior but slows the narrative (vv. 26–27) to allow readers to reflect on its horror. Judgment is implied through the absence of direct commentary, making the indictment more profound.

The Levite’s lack of emotion as he retrieved her body, mutilated it, and sent it throughout Israel further underscores his cold detachment. His message—"They destroyed my possession"—reduces her to an object. The Israelites' collective outrage upon receiving the gruesome packages raises a critical question: Were they upset over the evil done to the woman, the Levite’s property loss, or something else?

The father-in-law's excessive hospitality didn't care about the Levite's situation but rather irritated him. The old man's proposal of another victim to the mob shows a distorted perception of 'who your neighbor is that you need to love.' The mob wanted to show their power and dominance against the outsiders; it was totally against the love command. Excessive hospitality and extreme hostility share a common origin: self-centeredness shown in the Levite's actions. 

At the center of such moral collapse and disorder lies the failure of the Levite: indecisiveness in favor of gratification forsaking his (spiritual) responsibility and self-centeredness that caused crooked perception and judgment. 

All, except the mob, had pursued the right things in their eyes but brought out evil deeds because their perception was from themselves, not God. It was because they didn’t have the Lord as King among them. 

In the final episode of the Book of Judges, Israel, the Lord's chosen nation, has fallen into behavior mirroring that of Sodom and Gomorrah, becoming even more corrupt than the Canaanites whom the Lord had commanded them to drive out and whose land was to be given to them. What could Israel possibly deserve but destruction?

Whom do you have as your King in your heart and life? Are you kind to everyone except your family? Are you indecisive about God's kingdom, preferring relaxation and an easy life over dedication? Do you stubbornly cling to your own ideas of what is good and right in a conflicting situation, like the incident that night, instead of choosing self-sacrifice?

Deny yourself and let Him be your King and go His way. Without self-denial, no commandment can be fully kept, nor can the truth be truly understood.