South Woods Baptist Church

The Outrage at Gibeah
An Exegesis of Judges 19:22-30

22) They, making merry in their hearts, and behold men of the city, men of the sons of belial (or worthless men), surrounded the house, beating violently on the door, and they said to the man, the old owner of the house, saying 'Bring out the man who came into your house that we may know him.' 23) The man, the owner of the house, went out to them, and he said to them, 'No my brothers! Please do not act wickedly!  Since this man came to my house, do not do this disgraceful folly!' 24) 'Behold my virgin daughter [and his concubine].  Let me bring them (her) out and you do violence to them (her), and do with them (her) what is good in your eyes, but to this man do not do this thing of disgraceful folly.' 25) But the men were not willing to hear him, so the man seized his concubine and caused her to go out to them on the outside.  So they knew her and busied themselves with her all night until morning, then they set her free as dawn ascended. 26) Then the woman came when the morning turned, and she fell on the doorway of the house of the man, where her master was there, until light. 27) Then her master arose in the morning and opened the door of the house and went out to go to his way, and behold, the woman, his concubine, fallen at the doorway of the house and her hands on the threshold. 28) Then he said to her, 'Rise!  Let us go.'  But no one was answering.  So he put her on the donkey, then the man arose and he went to his place. 29) Then he went in his house and he took the knife and he seized on his concubine, then he cut her up in pieces according to her bones, into twelve pieces of divided carcass, then he sent her into all the territory of Israel. 30) And it happened that all who saw them said, 'It has not happened, nor has it been seen as this, from the days of the bringing out of the sons of Israel from the land of Egypt until this day; set for yourselves on her, take counsel, and speak.'

            There are few passages in Scripture that provoke such an unpleasant contemplation than Judges 19:22-30.  The morally offensive homosexual desires of a gang of men, the systematic rape, abuse, and murder of a woman, and then her gruesome dismemberment by her own husband seem like the behavior of a group of atheistic, Gentile pagans.  It is surprising, though, to find that these acts were perpetrated by the nation through which God was to show His glory.  Israel's decline in the book of Judges had gotten to the point where one could not distinguish the acts of God's people and those whom they were supposed to conquer.  How did Israel fall so fast?  What importance, if any, did their covenant with God have in their thinking and actions?   Judges 19:22-30 is the centerpiece of revulsion that the author of Judges portrays to show the extent to which Israel had been Canaanized, as well as their need for spiritual reformation.  In order to best see how the author of Judges has set this passage into the context of the story, it is a good venture to follow his narrative line up to and following after the text in question.

Contextual Background

The Place of Judges within the Context of the Old Testament Canon

            Before delving into the passage in question, one should note the ordering of the book of Judges in the whole of the Old Testament canon.  There are different orderings among different canons, but the two better options are found in the accepted Christian canon and that of the Jewish Masoretic Text (MT).  Both canons are quite similar as to the placement of Judges within them.  The Christian and Jewish canons both present firstly the Pentateuch, which covers the span from creation to the death of Moses.  Then comes the book of Joshua, denoting the actions of Israel as lead by Joshua directly following the death of Moses up through the varied conquests of the promised land.  The conquests were not absolute, however.  The book of Judges denotes the time after the death of Joshua, telling of the result of Israel's failure to conquer all of the land, i.e., the ongoing presence of Canaanites in the land, and thus their continued influence on the life of Israel.  The book of Judges concentrates on Israel's spiritual and moral malpractices, as each cycle of judges progressively gets worse from the one previous.  The book ends with Israel in a miserable state, forsaking both God and neighbor, with the author adding the refrain, "In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in his own eyes" (21:25). 

The differences between the two canons are seen in that which follows the book of Judges.  The Jewish canon flows directly into the book of Samuel following Judges, and then into the book of the Kings of Israel.  The importance of the last line of Judges (21:25) is then seen in its intended importance when contrasted to the actual giving of the king, and his heirs, in the books following.  The Christian canon is similar, in that the books of Samuel and Kings follow after Judges, but this canon inserts Ruth between the latter and former ones, highlighting the unlikely creation of the lineage of David, that of the marriage of Ruth and Boaz.  Ruth ends with the cataloging of the lineage of David, which then leads into Samuel, which will tell of the rise of David as king over Israel.

The Place of Chps. 17-21 within the Context of Judges

Now having a better grasp of the place of Judges in the context of the canon, it is important to understand the place of the last chapters of Judges (17-21) in relation to the rest of the book.  The first chapter begins with life for Israel continuing after the death of Joshua.  The author, though, focuses on small, but important, slipups with regards to the eradication of Canaan from the land.  The second chapter reveals the theological implications of Israel's actions in allowing Canaan to live in the land - that God will enact the covenant curses against Israel because they are deserving of them according to the covenant that they transgressed.  The author then begins the third chapter by describing the test that God gave Israel to discern their obedience to Him and His covenant.  The result was a resounding failure on the part of Israel.

Following the conclusion that Israel was a covenant breaker, the covenant curses began to be performed against Israel beginning in 3:7.  From this point until the end of chapter 16, a deteriorating cycle of apostasy and deliverance is illustrated by the recurrent sin, punishment, appeal, and restoration of Israel, cycling from bad to worse.  In every instance of Israel's crying out in the midst of their suffering, God would deliver them by the hand of a deliverer, whom God would use to defeat the oppressor, who was God's instrument for effecting the curse.

By the end of this cycle, the inertia of Israel's decline reaches a violent climax with the final chapters of the book (17-21).  The author sets apart this final section from the rest of the book by the use of an inclusio, writing "In those days there was no king in Israel; every man did what was right in his own eyes" at the beginning of this section (17:6) and completing the book with the same (21:25).  Chapters 17 and 18 speak of the religious degeneration of the tribe of Dan, following the story of an Israelite family's erosion into false religion, and their effect on the tribe of Dan's erosion into false religion.  The author demonstrates in these chapters the religious degeneration of Dan from Yahwism to Canaanite idol worship.  Following these chapters, the author then tracks the moral erosion among the tribes of Israel in Chps. 19-21, focusing specifically on Benjamin, but as a result of Benjamin's outrageous actions, effecting all of Israel.

The Place of 19:22-30 within the Context of Chps. 19-21

The subject matter of the final section of Judges (17-21) is split up into the religious and moral erosion of Israel.  The passage in question is found in the latter division of the last section, and focuses on a specific instance of moral outrage.  This story line is set within the context of another inclusio, formed by the repetition of "in those days, there was no king in Israel" in 19:1 and 21:25.  It may seem odd that this refrain is written at the outset of the passage, because what does the lack of a king in Israel have to do with this anonymous family?  By the end of three chapters, though, it is evident that the problems of this one family caused a national upheaval. 

Chapter 19 begins with the author setting up the story line of the nameless main character of the Levite.  The namelessness of the characters in chapter 19 serves a purpose of both universalizing the events within the story, as well as showing the dehumanization of the Canaanite worldview.[1]  The fact that this anonymous man is a Levite serves to raise the moral outrage in what follows, in that what was desired of him, and what did happen to his concubine, is not at all fitting for one from the Levitical priesthood.  This man took on a concubine from Bethlehem, but after becoming angry with him, she fled and went to her father's house back in Bethlehem.[2]  After a period of four months, the Levite "went after her, to speak kindly to her and bring her back" (19:3).  The woman's father welcomed her husband and entertained him for a period of five days, enticing the man not to leave the comforts of his home.  At great lengths, though, at the end of the fifth day, the Levite arose, and taking his wife, left her father to return home.  The distance from Bethlehem to the remote parts of the hill country of Ephraim was apparently more than a few hours journey since they left Bethlehem as "the day [drew] to a close," and only arrived at Jebus by nightfall.[3]  The man's servant suggested they stay in Jebus, which was inhabited by the Canaanites, and was later to be called Jerusalem.  The man, though, did not want to reside there because he had rather stay among his own countrymen in Gibeah, a little further along the way.  As they arrived at Gibeah, night fell, but no one would welcome them into their home.  So, they went to the town square and sat down.  Soon, though, an old man from the hill country of Ephraim sojourning in Gibeah came by and took them into his home.

The events of 19:22-30 will be discussed below, but this passage cannot be rightly understood without viewing it in light of the preceding context, nor can an interpretation end with it because of the important effects that it has through the end of the book.  As a result of the events at the old man's home, and the subsequent dismemberment of the concubine and the distribution of her parts throughout Israel, the entire nation responded by gathering together as a congregation at Mizpah.  There they decided to go to war with Gibeah, and sent men throughout Benjamin, telling them to give up the men who perpetrated the abhorrent act of violence, but Benjamin refused to obey the other tribes and marched to war against all of them.  There were three battles between Israel and Benjamin, with the latter defeating the former in the first two encounters.  The third battle, though, found Israel the victor, by their luring away the army of Benjamin from the city, and then attacking and burning the city behind them.  By the time Benjamin realized what had happened, the armies of Israel turned about and thoroughly defeated them.

As a result of their defeat at the hands of Israel, Benjamin was at risk of perishing from existence.  The author fills in the background information of why Benjamin was at risk of perishing by alluding to a vow taken by Israel at Mizpah that they would not offer their daughters in marriage to Benjamin.  Their vow was still valid even after Benjamin's punishment, so there was a real crisis as to who would propagate the name of Benjamin.  It was discovered, however, that representatives from Jabesh-Gilead did not go to Mizpah, so it was decided to kill all non-virgin females from there so that they may be wives for the survivors of Benjamin.  After the slaughter of Jabesh-Gilead, only 400 virgins were gathered, which was not enough for Benjamin.  So, the plan was declared that the men still needing wives should lie in wait in the fields surrounding Shiloh for the dancers of the feast occurring at that time.  They kidnapped the women and took them back to the land of Benjamin, and the congregation departed and went back to their respective homelands.  As stated above, the final section ends the book with the refrain that no king was in Israel and everyone did what was right in his own sight.

Textual Exegesis of 19:22-30

            How could such drastic action be necessitated by the actions of a few men of Benjamin at Gibeah?  What would infuriate a man to the degree that he carve up his own concubine and mail her to his distant relatives?  Within the limit of nine verses, a moral outrage like none other in the book of Judges occurs to the Levite and his concubine, thus resulting in the tribal wars mentioned in the previous section.  If the story seems familiar to the reader of the Old Testament, it is probably because it closely parallels the story of Lot, the two angels, and the Sodomites in Genesis 19.  Both stories have a small group of night travelers, an alien who witnesses the travelers' need of shelter, the travelers' insistence on spending the night in the town square, the host's insistence on their residence in his house, feet washing of the travelers, the sharing of a meal, immoral men encircling the house, an objection by the host, and finally the offer of substitution of a female in place of the intended male subject.[4]  As well as the similar subject matter between the two stories, they also have the exact same number of words between them - sixty-nine.[5]  By classifying Judges 19 in the same category of Genesis 19, the author is attempting to show the corollaries between the well-known revulsion of the Sodomites and the similar actions of the Benjamites at Gibeah.[6]   As a result of the close parallels, it is likely that the author of Judges wrote Ch. 19 with Genesis 19 in his consideration.  This fact does not mean that the Judges passage did not happen in this way, but it does mean that the author of Judges was careful in his wording of the account to clearly correspond to the earlier Genesis passage.

Cause of the Outrage at Gibeah

            19:22 - They, making merry in their hearts, and behold men of the city, men of the sons of belial (or worthless men), surrounded the house, beating violently on the door, and they said to the man, the old owner of the house, saying 'Bring out the man who came into your house that we may know him.'

            As was customary in the oriental cultures of the time, the host was entertaining his guests with eating and drinking (19:21).  As they were 'making merry in their hearts,' the men of Gibeah, later identified as the leaders of Gibeah (20:5), came beating on the door, seeking to 'know' the traveling Levite.  These men are referred to as 'sons of belial, belial being a Hebrew term of uncertain origin and meaning.  Block demonstrates the most likely morphological steps in the making of the term being a combination of the negative particle bly, 'without,' with the noun y'l, 'worthlessness;' the words together meaning 'worthless ones.'[7]  Another approach to defining this term is by studying the context of the word when it is used in other places.  It is used in conjunction with 'man of iniquity' in Prov. 6:12, 'evil man' in 1 Sam. 30:22, 'man of blood' in 2 Sam. 16:7, and 'the wicked' in Prov. 19:28.  The above terms refer to murderers, rapists, drunks, rebels, and idolaters.[8]  vəney. is missing from a few of the Hebrew manuscripts as well as those of the Syriac version, while the preceding anshey is omitted in the LXX and V.[9]  The confusion is over the redundancy of the two male classifications of this group of men, and it may be likely that anshey was inserted accidentally by a scribe due to its near adjacent appearance in the same verse. 

            The action ascribed to this group of men is that of surrounding the house, communicated by the Niphal form of the verb.  This Niphal nasavvu, though, is used with a transitive sense here, due to the separation between it and the Qal were reduced so that both could carry an object.[10]  Once surrounded, the men beat violently (Hithpael) on the door, and demanded the Levite be given to them so that they might 'know him.'  This term yd' is carried over by the author from the Genesis 19 story, and is an ambiguous term referring in both contexts to a sexual knowledge.[11]  It is important to note that homosexual rape is not the only motivation for their actions.  They do not seek after the host or the Levite's servant as  potential victims.  What is special about the Levite?  The only other piece of information the author gives us about the man is that he was a Levite.  It is likely that given the moral decline of Israel at this stage in their history, the men sought after the Levite as an insult to his manhood as well as his position in the cult of YHWH.[12 

            19:23 - The man, the owner of the house, went out to them, and he said to them, 'No my brothers! Please do not act wickedly!  Since this man came to my house, do not do this disgraceful folly!'

            The old man of the house did the job of a host by interceding for his guests, just as Lot did in Genesis 19.  He entreats the mob to not 'do the evil' (Gen. 19:7).  The term tare'u is akin to the recurring phrase 'and Israel did evil in the eyes of YHWH (2:1; 3:7, 12; 4:1; 6:1; 10:6; 13:1).  The host then gives the reason for their obligation not to ask for the Levite, that he 'came into my house.'  There is variance in the textual evidence with regard to the MT's negative adverbial particle, 'al.  The Leningrad Codex, as well as multiple manuscripts and editions, have the preposition, 'el.  The latter vowel pointing is likely the correct one since the MT depicts the opposite of what happened in the previous verses, 'this man which came not to my house.'

This situation once again underlines the social, as well as the moral, offense taking place in this scene.  The host implores them not to 'do this disgraceful folly.'  The Hebrew term hannəbalah refers to their defiance of sexual standards, as is seen by its use in other places (Gen. 34:7, Deut. 22:21, and 2 Sam. 13:12).[13] 

            19:24 - 'Behold my virgin daughter [and his concubine].  Let me bring them (her) out and you do violence to them (her), and do with them (her) what is good in your eyes, but to this man do not do this thing of disgraceful folly.'

            The host up to this point has been quite cordial in his treatment of his guests, as well as beneficial in his protection of them in the face of such hostility.  It is odd, then, to see him suddenly offering his daughter as a alternative to homosexual exploits with the visiting Levite.  How could he do this?  One must understand his actions as highlighting the importance of hospitality and honor in his cultural framework.  It is more necessary for him to protect his male guest than to protect a female family member.  This necessity is suggested by the emphatic construction of the last clause in this verse, putting the prepositional phrase 'to this man' as the first phrase in the clause.[14]  The host offers his daughter for the men to 'do violence to her.'  This term və'annu has a wide range of meaning, but is probably acting as a technical term for rape (cf. Gen. 34:2, Deut. 22:24, 2 Sam. 13:12, Lam. 5:11).[15]  This act shows that not only are the Gibeonites doing what is right in their own eyes, but the host is as well.[16] 

There are textual issues centering on the inclusion or exclusion of vupiylagshehu, 'his concubine.'  Certain manuscripts have modifiers referring to a singular person being given to the men (3fs, not 3fpl), showing that the host was speaking of one female.  In the following verse, then, the Levite quickly offers his concubine, not waiting for the host to present his daughter.

            19:25 - But the men were not willing to hear him, so the man seized his concubine and caused her to go out to them on the outside.  So they knew her and busied themselves with her all night until morning, then they set her free as dawn ascended.

            The result of the offer of the host's daughter was a negative from the men on the street, so the Levite took matters into his own hands - literally.  He grabbed (vayyaqəzeq) his concubine and threw her out to them.  There is some question in the Hebrew as to the referent of 'the man' that did the seizing.  Though the host is the closest antecedent to ha'iysh, and though he did offer to throw her out, since his virgin daughter is not thrown out as well, and since the Levite is the main character of the story, 'the man' here is probably the Levite.[17] 

            Once again, the term 'to know' is employed in the domain of sexual knowledge.  They did not just gain this carnal knowledge and leave her, but the text also says that they 'busied themselves with her all night until morning.'  It is obvious that she was being held against her will while this violence was being done to her, because they 'set her free as dawn ascended.'  There is a textual issue as to whether the k^etib or q^ere reading should be utilized with regards to dawn ascending.  The k^etib reading has ba'əloth, 'when the dawn ascended,' while the q^ere reading has ca'əloth, 'as the dawn ascended.'  There are many manuscripts following both uses, and since there is little dissimilarity between the two meanings, the difference is negligible.

            19:26 - Then the woman came when the morning turned, and she fell on the doorway of the house of the man, where her master was there, until light.

            When the men of Gibeah were finally finished raping the woman, they released her, and the reader finds her approaching the host's house once again, but on the other side of the night.  The phrase liphnoth havvoqer, 'when morning turned,' is quite peculiar, and only occurs elsewhere in Ex. 14:27 and Ps. 46:5.[18]  The night of severe sexual abuse behind her, she barely arrives at the host's house, and falls on his doorstep.  The only reason the author implies for her coming back to the host's house is because it is where 'her master' is.  The shift here between referring to her husband as 'the Levite,' 'her husband,' 'the man,' and 'the traveler' to the austere 'her master' depicts the change that has taken place from the author's perspective in light of the night's events. 

            The temporal indicators that the author uses in this passage are worth noting.  Block says, "The narrator keeps the reader's attention on the timing of episodes with repeated chronological references that beat ominously throughout the narrative."[19]  At the beginning of the Levite narrative, tension was built by referring to the two episodes of the husband trying to leave, and the father-in-law stopping him.  The contrast is drawn between the spending of the night eating, drinking, and resting, against what is seen later as a perilous experience.  Then vs. 9 brings the idea of the 'the declining day,' which is mirrored on the next day in vs. 11 by 'when the day had gone down' as they arrived at Jebus.  In this same scene it is repeated that 'the sun was setting' as they approached Gibeah (vs. 14) and the old man found the travelers in the square 'at evening' (vs. 16).  With regards to the absence of light and presence of darkness, the moral outrage occurs 'all night' and lasts until 'dawn ascended' (vs. 25).  The author then speaks of the concubine approaching the house 'when the morning turned,' and she fell on the doorstep and lied there 'until light' (vs. 26).[20]

            19:27 - Then her master arose in the morning and opened the door of the house and went out to go to his way, and behold, the woman, his concubine, fallen at the doorway of the house and her hands on the threshold.

            The Levite, once again referred to as 'master,' arises in the morning, which indicates he was asleep, having the appearance of apathy with regards to the abuse that his concubine was surely receiving throughout the night.  The author pens this verse in a way that makes it seem as though the Levite was planning on leaving without the girl, but is surprised (hinneh) to stumble upon her as he walked out the door 'to go to his way.'[21]  The author shows the directed effort the woman made to get back to the house of her husband, and away from her abusers, by giving attention to her hands being on the threshold.  It was as if she was crawling up to the door, but her body gave out as she reached the sill and she could not even open it or knock on it.

            19:28 - Then he said to her, 'Rise!  Let us go.'  But no one was answering.  So he put her on the donkey, then the man arose and he went to his place.

            Revealing more of his unconcern for his concubine, the Levite commands her to get up and leave with him.  There was no answer, however.  The author is ambiguous as to the woman's condition as she lay before her husband.  Was she dead, or just unconscious?  The author does not benefit his audience with the detailed information of her state, but seeing as the next verse does not speak of the Levite as committing her murder before he divided her body, it is likely that she died from the trauma inflicted on her by the rapists at Gibeah.  The author does not seem outraged at the Levite's slaughtering of his concubine, but portrays the evil as occurring the previous night.  Since she fails to respond to his command, he lifts her up onto one of the donkeys that he brought with him, then took her back to his home in the hill country of Ephraim.  It is important to note the irony of what happened on his round trip journey.  He left Ephraim traveling to Bethlehem to reclaim his concubine, and he returns home with her, but neither of them are the same.[22]  She has died as the result of Israel's moral degeneration, and he is now intent on restoring some sense of moral accountability to the land.

Transition to the Response of Israel to the Outrage at Gibeah

            19:29 - Then he went in his house and he took the knife and he seized on his concubine, then he cut her up in pieces according to her bones, into twelve pieces of divided carcass, then he sent her into all the territory of Israel.

            Vs. 29 begins a short two-verse transition from the outrage at Gibeah (19:22-28) to Israel's reaction to it (Chps. 20-21).  After finishing his journey home with his concubine's lifeless corpse beside him, the Levite decides on an extreme action to call all of Israel to council against the Gibeonites.  He takes a knife and divides the woman into twelve pieces, similar to the actions taken by Saul in 1 Sam. 11:7.  The narrator explains the purpose of Saul's actions in 1 Samuel, the ox parts being sent to warn that, 'Whoever does not come out after Saul and Samuel, so shall it be done to his oxen!'[23]  The practice of sending body parts to distant lands to gather people together is also indicated in other ancient cultures, such as the head of an executed criminal as attested in the Mari document.[24] 

Why twelve pieces?  It is doubtful that it was according to the twelve tribes of Israel, since Benjamin did not receive one of the pieces, but only found out later that the rest of the tribes had gathered at Mizpah.  Benjamin's portion of the body may have been sent to the other of the half-tribes of Manasseh, thus completing the twelve fractions.[25]  In the end, the exact placement or purpose of the number of pieces is not as important as the pieces themselves, and the reaction that they secure among the tribes of Israel.

            19:30 - And it happened that all who saw them said, 'It has not happened, nor has it been seen as this, from the days of the bringing out of the sons of Israel from the land of Egypt until this day; set for yourselves on her, take counsel, and speak.'

            Having received their respective body parts, the tribes were appalled.  Up to this point in Israel's history some exceedingly atrocious sins had been committed, but those seeing the divided body of the concubine were dismayed at what could have caused the need for such extreme measures as severing and sending her body throughout Israel.[26]  Whatever their relation to one another at this point in their tribal life, there was enough of a kinship that they recognized that each tribe was responsible for disciplining the guilty party.  There is a question as to who speaks forth the declaration in this verse.  Many translations place it into the mouths of those seeing the body parts.  Block argues that it may be a declaration by the narrator, as a former prophet, to the audience of readers.[27]  Another possibility is proposed by the LXX: "And he charged the men, who he sent, saying, 'Thus you will say to all the men of Israel, 'Has anything been according to this word from the days of the coming up of the sons of Israel from Egypt until this day?''"  The reading of the LXX may be likely since the Levite does not give any words of instruction to those carrying the body parts, as does Saul in 1 Sam. 11:7.[28]  It is also more likely that the MT is not the original because of the improbability of an addition to the text that would have had to take place if the MT was the original and the text preserved in the LXX was a later emendation.  The exhortation stemming from the viewing of her body is "pay attention to her, take counsel, and then speak."  This set of imperatives anticipates the events of 20:4, 7 and is the intellectual cause of Israel's actions.

Theological Implications and Application

            One of the most striking theological implications of Judges 19:22-30 indicates the cause of the moral decline that is portrayed in this passage.  It is important to recognize a vital missing component from the declaration of offense as found in 19:30.  In most prior references in the Old Testament, especially those in Deuteronomy, the phrase 'bring up out of the land of Egypt' asserts God as the actor of Israel's nurturing and salvation.  In the instance of vs. 30, however, God is not mentioned; rather it is simply acknowledged that Israel came up from Egypt, thus disregarding YHWH's work and purpose.  It may seem a small oversight on the part of the author, but in taking account of the 19:22-30 in the context of the book of Judges, it is likely that the author intends this omission to demonstrate another instance of the moral decline of Israel, which resulted in the contextual situation at hand.[29]

            In line with the absence of God from the pronouncement of wrongdoing in 19:30, the entire passage is riddled with disastrous decisions by those 'doing what is right in their own eyes.'  The men of Gibeah wanted to have relations with the Levite because they had desire to know him and did not consider rightly, that is from God's perspective, the atrocious act they wished to commit.  Instead of relying on God for deliverance at that point, the host offers his daughter as substitute for his male guest for the sake of his honor.  The man also for the sake of his own honor, as a man and as a Levite, neglects God and tosses his concubine outside to the elated men of Gibeah.  Then, instead of helping her from the clutches of the mob of men, her husband falls asleep.  After stumbling upon her dead body, he then severs her limbs and sends them throughout the land, not considering the desecration of a fellow human made in the image of God.  The disregard for the Law of God goes on throughout the end of the book and finds Israel destroying an entire city to cover up for their overzealous reaction to the outrage at Gibeah.  Then Israel bribes Shiloh, a Canaanite city, to come to terms with the fact that their virgin daughters are now the wives of Benjamite men.  By the end of the book, it is difficult to see how Israel could be considered the chosen nation of YHWH by their actions within themselves and among the nations.

            The downward spiral into sin of each judge cycle should cause all readers to pause and reflect on their own life.  First, is the disregard of God that took place in Israel present in his or her life?  Are they guilty of relegating decisions to their own fallible judgments, which instead should be made with the guidance of God by a Biblical worldview?  Many well know Christians have fallen into disrepute with the world and other believers because they made poor decisions based on their own desires apart from the purposes of God.  It is necessary, then, that members of Churches hold each other accountable in their decision making processes, so that God may be glorified not only through the actions of church members, but also through the world's right perception of those actions.

            It should also be noted that the primary cause for Israel's decline into sin is to be found in their failure to do God's revealed will for them by failure in clearing the land of foreign influences.  Due to the presence of Canaanites in the land, Israel began to do evil before God soon after the death of Joshua, which was usually connected with their worshiping of Canaanite idols or behaving by a Canaanite ethic.  In the same way, present day Christians are often guilty of not doing God's revealed will, and incur consequences because of their deficient obedience.

            The book of Judges is especially helpful in tracing the prompt decline of human ability to be holy by their own effort.  Specifically, 19:22-30 is beneficial in demonstrating the extent of moral decline in Israel in the pre-monarchic era, as is anticipated by the last verse of the book, "In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in his own eyes."  Conditions improve during the anticipated kingdom, but morals are still corrupt, resulting in another reoccurring phrase, but this one referring to kings of Israel: "And he did what was evil in the sight of YHWH, just as his father had done."  Ultimately, by the end of the history of the Old Testament, there seems to be no hope for Israel as the people of God due to their continual, purposeful sin.  This nadir of Israel serves to contrast the majestic hope that is to be found in Christ in the New Testament.  By tracing the genealogy of Jesus back to Abraham, the patriarch of the nation of Israel, Matthew not only shows the fulfillment by Jesus of the promises of Israel, but also portrays His goodness over against His fellow Jews.  Righteousness did not come through obedience, because they could not be obedient.  God, though, has raised up Jesus for the purpose of delivering sinful man from his captor, sin.  Christ is our righteousness, and He is now the definitive judge/deliverer, who calls His people to repentance and enacts their liberation.

APPENDIX 1
COMPARISON OF JUDGES 19:4-8 AND GENESIS 19:22-24*