29 November 2009

Judges 19: Gang rape, dismemberment, and body part messages

I was going to skip over this story, since it is so damned disgusting and God seemed to have nothing much to do with it (other than inspiring it, that is). And yet, it's in the Bible, so it must be important to him. Maybe a believer that can explain why God likes it so much.

It seems to be based upon Genesis 19, where the just and righteous Lot offers his virgin daughters to a crowd of angel rapers.

This time, though, the visitor that the men of the city found so attractive was a Levite, not a couple of angels. (As always, see the Brick Testament for the details.)

Now as they were making their hearts merry, behold, the men of the city, certain sons of Belial, beset the house round about, and beat at the door, and spake to the master of the house, the old man, saying, Bring forth the man that came into thine house, that we may know him. Judges 19:22

Can't you just picture it? All the men of a city come to a house and demand to have sex with the new guy in town.

So what do you think the host did when he answered the door? Well, he offered the mob his virgin daughter (and his guest's concubine), of course! It's the polite thing to do. Any just and righteous man would do the same.

Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man do not so vile a thing. Judges 19:22

But the the men didn't want his virgin daughter, so he gave them the concubine instead.

But the men would not hearken to him: so the man took his concubine, and brought her forth unto them; and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning. Judges 19:25

The next morning, the concubine came back to the house and collapsed at the door.

The Levite opened the door, saw the concubine lying there, and told her to get up. But she didn't answer. So he put her on his donkey and went home.

And when he was come into his house, he took a knife, and laid hold on his concubine, and divided her, together with her bones, into twelve pieces, and sent her into all the coasts of Israel. Judges 19:29

Did you catch that? The Levite cut the concubine into twelve pieces and sent the bloody body parts to the twelve tribes of Israel. (As Brucker points out, the text doesn't even say whether the concubine was alive or dead when her body was dismembered.)

Now that is a strange way to send a message! Someone from each tribe of Israel got a rotting piece of flesh in the mail. What the fuck were they supposed to make of that? (Oh, look Martha, here's a stinking hunk of putrefied abdomen that arrived in the mail parcel post!)

The story ends with this advice:

Consider of it, take advice, and speak your minds. Judges 19:30

Those who do consider it will immediately reject the idea that the Bible was inspired by God. Hopefully, they will then speak their minds.

There is nothing in this story that indicates that God disapproves of:
  1. A man having a sex slave (concubine)
  2. A father offering his virgin daughter to a sex-crazed mob
  3. Chopping up bodies (dead or alive)
  4. Sending messages with body parts
It's just a stupid, nasty story that was put in the Bible because it is a stupid, nasty story.


skanksta said...

Weird how this story gets repeated - it MUST be important - great stuff Steve.
It's been a long 8 days wondering what absurdity you're bringing us next....

busterggi said...

Yahweh sends messages like the Mafia does.

Of course, there are other similarities too.

twillight said...

The strangest part for me was "all the men of the city" went to gangbang their "holy man".

According to the passages they were 700 man. They all fucked the concubine. If all spent 1 minutes with the woman, that'd be 700/60 = 12 hours.
I'm not familiar with lenght between sundown and sunrise (and from that you'd have to deduce the time they spent raming the door), but how did they done it? They entered in a queue, grabing they "testicles" like rolling a porn-movie, or what?

Tim Atheist said...

Shanksta, I'm betting the story is repeated because such a damn disgusting Bible chapter deserved reviewing.

I wonder what the average Christian response is to this section... probably something like "well this was the society back then." This is so pointless and so brutal that someone should go through all the "Christian bookstores" and glue the pages together at this section.

Unknown said...

To be honest, the average Christian does not know their Bible & most likely would not be able to offer up a convincing defense of these passages based on personal critical thought; most Christians repeat their pastor's conventions.

It would be interesting to see if prominent Christian apologists, like Josh McDowell, have addressed this issue.

Also, the reason that these atrocities could be committed to women is because the Bible ensconced the idea that a woman was a man's property. A man could do with his property as he pleased, whether it was land, a donkey, cows, his concubines or wives. The whole story of Job demonstrates this by providing a list of property that Job first loses to test his faith and then gets better ones as a reward for keeping that faith.

Disgusting is the only word that comes to mind.

Matthew Blanchette said...

This story was highlighted in a book I read as an adolescent, The Day They Came to Arrest the Book; it immediately piqued my interest, so I went searching for it...

...and found so much more. Thanks for highlighting this hideous story, Steve.

Kirk Yetton said...

Dead right, there's nothing in this passage that indicates that God disapproves of a man having a concubine, nor of a father offering his virgin daughter to a sex-crazed mob, nor of chopping up bodies, nor of sending messages with body parts. But then, here's nothing in this passage to suggest that he does.

Pretty much everyone in the book of Judges is sinful and depraved and does not have God's approval of their actions. Read the book as a whole in its context. To assume that God approves because his approval isn't expressed is a pretty poor judgement. I know many, many, many people who have never said, for example, that the shooting at Columbine was wrong. By you logic, I should assume that they approve of it, right? Take the book of Judges in context and your assumptions are even more absurd.

3D said...

Blogger Kirk Yetton said...

>>I know many, many, many people who have never said, for example, that the shooting at Columbine was wrong. By you logic, I should assume that they approve of it, right?<<

Wrong. Regular people don't have the power to smite people on the spot for sin. God does, and he does it all the time in the Bible, but never for having concubines.

God's Bible also gives tips for proper care and maintenance of slaves. You would think that wouldn't be an essential portion in the book of a god who is anti-slavery, but it is.

Also, God refers to guys who offer up their daughters to be gang raped as "just and righteous men" so it doesn't get any more condoning than that, does it?

Unknown said...

Kirk had a good response. If you read chapter 19 from any book and expect to know what's going on you'll miss out. Judges keeps saying that "each man did what was right in his own eyes." The implication was that these were historical events during a wicked time period. That's why they did such vile things. And the point of the hypocritical man cutting up his concubine was to show what they had done to her was wrong (course he let his concubine be raped all night and die to spare himself). Read Judges 20 to see that was when armies gathered to take out the city.

Richardhg said...

Eeeeeeek! Eeeeek! Eeeeeeeek! Flee for your life.

Unknown said...

To my fellow Christians who would try to convince this person or those swallowing his lies, I give you this advice...

Revelation 22:11 (NIV)

"Let him who does wrong continue to do wrong; let him who is vile continue to be vile; let him who does right continue to do right; and let him who is holy continue to be holy."

Maybe we should simply follow he instruction given to the 12 when Jesus sent them out and said to "shake the dust off your feet when you leave their town as a testimony against them." Do not return to try and convince them otherwise. They bring about their own condemnation. These people have received the Word and called it evil, and have so committed blasphemy. You will not see another post from me, as I take my own advice.

Hebrews 10:30-31

Kirk Yetton said...

Steve, you've just completely ignored my point.

3D, the Bible condones slavery as it was at the time of writing. This is not slavery as we think of it today but rather bond slavery. If we employed this idea of slavery to modern times anyone who has a job would be considered a slave. Slaves became slaves voluntarily. There's a passage in the New Testament (I'm sorry, I can't remember which it is, I'll get back to you on that) where Paul condemns kidnapping and where the original text is thought to mean slavery as we think of it. Once again, it's all about reading in context, you can't take a text written 2000 years ago and read it with a modern mindset.

I might also point out the Wilberforce fought in parliament for the abolition of the slave trade because of his Christian faith; he believed that, as all are made equal under God, no one had the right to enslave anyone else.



Autumn said...

From what I understand, Christians will view this as the man making a sacrifice. While some Christians feel that this was wrong and he should have offered himself instead, they honor the concubine because HER sacrifice brought about change. The reason he sent out the body parts is to send a message that this particular city had wronged him. Not exactly sure how rotting body parts would have conveyed this, but it did. My question - Wasn't it a bad thing to NOT bury the dead properly?

skanksta said...

Kirk does NOT have a good response!

How dare you say that Steve (or any of us) is (are) "taking the bible out of context!"
Let me spell it out.....

What could be fairer than that ?

We've now reached Judges and I'm starting to get 'a context' for how God and his favourites behave. So are the other readers and it isn't nice....

DJ said...

Your article is written as though it should be taken as a truism, and thus is a demonstration of willfully biased ignorance. You had an agenda, and it’s clear, but if you would allow me to comment…

There is nothing in this account that indicates God’s disapproval (or approval) of these actions, but you can easily find moral prescriptions for them if you care to look and approach the Bible in a meaningful way. A common fallacy of atheistic bias towards scripture is the assumption that because something is recorded in the Bible then it is automatically esteemed by God to be morally righteous. This is obviously not the case and it takes a clear agenda to read these things into scripture, it’s known as eisegesis.

That being said, a concubine was a member of the family, respected, and protected by law, not a sex slave as we see in modern Asia or India. The account refers to the man as her husband which denotes responsibility not simply mastery over her. He went to get her back and seems to have been emotionally attached to her. If merely a sex slave he could just buy another…

There is no explicit moral indictment towards the offering of a virgin daughter to a mob of sexually depraved lunatics because the responsibility of a father in Hebrew culture was well understood. The original audience would have been well aware that this was morally reprehensible based on the writings of Moses.

There is no reason to believe that the woman was alive. Being abused overnight (likely physically and sexually) by hundreds of men is all but certain death. Her being non-responsive is also a reason to think that she was dead…

I can’t recall anything in the Bible regarding the chopping of bodies being right or wrong… We do this all the time today as well. We amputate limbs and use cadavers all the time for our own purposes. I think you would have to reject an important aspect of medical science to hold your case here.

I’ll grant that mutilating a dead body for the wrong reasons (IE: Dahmer) and delivering body parts to send a message seem ridiculous, however we are unjust to say that it is being commended at all here because the Bible is silent on it.

When he says to consider this, he is asking them to consider the horror that took place in Gibeah and how to respond. If you read on it leads to the avenging of the women and the Israelites dominate the men who started it all.

All the best.

uzza said...

I should know this, but is there any intelligent reason why
"that we may know him" is interpreted as meaning they want sex with him?

skanksta said...

Ok, Dirk, Kirk, DJ etc...

OMG !! You guys really are an eye-opener...*

re: slavery, rape, stoning, genocide etc. - Can you just stop all the "custom at the time," relativism please v?

This book is THE BIBLE.

It is written by the creator of THE UNIVERSE.

The creator who invented, black holes, mathematics, evolution, particle physics, language DNA, music, sunrise, sliced bread, rainbows and embryology.

As Sam Harris puts it so beautifully,

"HOW good do you think his guide to humanity would be!??"

Do you not think this book SHOULD have transcendence ? Do you not think it should have ADVANCED morality ?

And yet....

you get THIS tome of limiting brutality. This sordid collection of jealousy, random violence and rank unfairness.

Slavery is assumed, stoning is a given. Homophobia is enshrined and genocide is everyday. There is no conception of modern, evolved, compassionate morality, No transcendent inspiration, no challenge to a morality of the future, no inkling of science to be discovered....

It's almost as if it was written by limited bronze age men!

*(We NEVER get people like this in Europe. This must be your 'bible belt' we keep hearing about, lol! How MANY of these people ARE there in the US!? Why aren't they EMBARRASSED to say these things in public ? So fascinating....

Kirk Yetton said...

skangsta, the problem is that the killings in Judges are not God's killings. If you can't see that, you're either not reading contextually or you're not reading it carefully enough. Could it be you're reading into it what you want to read into it.

There are killings in the Bible, some of them quite brutal, which God condones, but those in Judges are not among them.

Brandon said...

To be fair, in the following chapter (judges 20) the Lord made it pretty clear that he wished for all the tribes of Israel to go to war against the Benjaminites, Gibeah being a city of theirs, for vengence. They did so, and nearly wiped the Benjaminites out. That is what the discussion is for: for the tribes to discuss and decide whether to go to war or not.

Of course, the part about offering the women to save the man is rather savage, and I don't mean to defend that, or the cutting up of the concubine later. I'm not even a Christian. I just think you should present the whole story.

Matthew Blanchette said...

I think he'll get to that in his next update, Brandon.

Damn... I'm gone for a few days, and the Bible-bashers go to town on here; what is it with these nuts? Don't they realize how foolish their attempted rhetoric makes them look?

Brucker said...

Steve: It would be interesting to see if prominent Christian apologists, like Josh McDowell, have addressed this issue.

I found a fairly good (although not deeply analytical) commentary that covers this chapter:
Gibeah's Crime by David Guzik. He points out that the Bible does condemn this event, albeit in the book of Hosea. And of course, at the risk of overdoing it, I repeat the link to my own analysis, in which I share my suspicions that what's going on here is even worse than a surface reading will give you.

Steve: Also, the reason that these atrocities could be committed to women is because the Bible ensconced the idea that a woman was a man's property.

In O.T. times, this was indeed largely true, unfortunately.

skanksta: How dare you say that Steve (or any of us) is (are) "taking the bible out of context!"
Let me spell it out.....

Just because you're using context doesn't mean you're using it correctly. Case in point:

skanksta: We've now reached Judges and I'm starting to get 'a context' for how God and his favourites behave. So are the other readers and it isn't nice....

You're reading right through it with the rest of us, but I don't see where it says that God did anything in this story, nor that these particular people are God's "favourites".

skanksta: Do you not think this book SHOULD have transcendence ? Do you not think it should have ADVANCED morality ?

Sometimes you have to teach morality by giving examples of morality gone wrong. Actually, there's a lot more of that in the Bible than much of anything else, especially in Judges.

Kirk Yetton said...

skangsta, anything written in history needs to be read in the context of what was meant in that particular period. If you don't do that than your idea of world history must be somewhat bizarre. Don't let your hatred towards Christians and the Bible get in the way of reasonable thinking.

Steve Wells said...


the problem is that the killings in Judges are not God's killings.

Do you want to revise this statement now that you know that it isn't true?

Kirk Yetton said...

Are mostly not God's killings.

Steve Wells said...


You say (now) that the killings in Judges are mostly not God's killings. Which of the 15 killings that I have attributed to God do you think shouldn't have been included?

You say that God was involved in Samson's killing of 30 guys for their clothes (to punish them for their vanity). Do you also agree that God was involved in the other 14 killings that I have attributed to him? If so, how do you figure that "the killings in Judges are mostly not God's killings?" Is 0 out of 15 most?

skanksta said...

I don't hate Christians - I'm European, (British) so we don't really have any!

Those that we DO have are generally lovely souls that spend their time comforting old ladies, feeding homeless people and restoring churches.
For eg. Verger @ my sister's local church, (she still has such a thing, cos she lives in remote rural area - no such thing in London) asks my sister why she doesn't come to church ? Sister replies, "don't believe in God."
Verger, "I don't think I do really, it's just nice for the community."
Hence sister now goes to church with family and discovers it's just a social thing, for bell ringing and using the village hall. Percentage of congregation that BELIEVE is about 20 apparently. Very high for actual believers, but like I said, she lives in cultural desert in rural North Wales.

It really IS an eye-opener to discover that so many people in the US actually, really BELIEVE and further, that they're not embarrassed by this.

I'm no angry atheist - I love the bible, it's got sex, violence humour, war, drama &c. but I GENUINELY had no idea that people actually BELIEVE it, actually wrestle with their consciences trying to justify it's horrors, actually try and assimilate and understand such brutal bronze age nonsense in to the lives.
Why can't you just pay it lip service and wheel out the good parts for special occasioans - a bit like what we do with the Queen ?

Now, back to this context thingy....

"skangsta, anything written in history needs to be read in the context of what was meant in that particular period."

Yet, funnily enough, I bet you don't let Mo off shagging 9yos so easily ?

God kills a lot of people, accepts huge numbers of sacrifices, (incl. the odd human, lol), starts a few wars, tortures millions with random cruelty.

That is either wrong, or not.

feralboy12 said...

"This is not slavery as we think of it today but rather bond slavery. If we employed this idea of slavery to modern times anyone who has a job would be considered a slave. Slaves became slaves voluntarily."
Does this mean it's OK to beat your employees, as long as they don't die right away? (Exodus 21:20.) If they live for a day or two, there is no punishment, "for the slave is his money."

Unknown said...

Certainly throughout time men have distorted the stories of any event. I have no doubt that many parts of the records of these events are incomplete. Along with that multiple interpretations of the meanings of these stories, real or imagined are presented leaving the majority to rely on their on learning and understanding.
Even in our day men sacrifice women by abusing them for the men's own lustful purposes or gain. Use of drugs, need of food and shelter, even force is used to get women to submit to acts they would not ordinarily do.
We as a society are slowly making our way to an acceptance of vial practices which will ultimately doom us and our posterity.

Jackie said...

The Book of Judges is a summation of what is what like in those days ... there was no king in Israel and every man did what was right in his own eyes. To infer that God condones these heinous acts is dangerous (for you). Sin has entered the world and death through sin. The creation groans for a time yet to come when God will restore His creation. But, this is only through the Rule of Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior. I wish those who have torn God's character apart based on this hard to understand and repulsive section of Scripture would be as avid in reading the entirety of the Bible. In Judges 19, you get a glimpse of man at his worst .... Yet, in spite of man's horrific condition, God so loved the world that He was willing to give His only begotten Son that whoever believes in Him (Jesus Christ) would have eternal life.

Xenolilly said...

I didn't read the comments so somebody else might have mentioned this. The story doesn't end in that chapter. It goes on to the next. Remember the chapters in the verses were added thousands of years later. Always read the whole book so that it can be taken in context. Chapter 20 and 21 are part of this same tale. The people try to set right what happened. (Not that they succeed.) The last verse of the last chapter sums up the whole book. "In those days Israel had no king; everyone did as they saw fit." Meaning the whole book of Judges is about people do stupid evil stuff if they have no guidance. That's why it is in scripture. That's its point.

Azael said...

(Part 1 of 2)

My take on this is a bit different, having investigated this particular event

extensively given its extreme importance as the catalyst that caused all the

Tribes of Israel to do the absolutely unthinkable: gang up and slaughter an

entire Tribe (with the exception of only about 600 men). This genocide of

Benjamin included all men, women and children... no one was spared! And all

because one man claimed his concubine was (gang)raped by a bunch of hoodlums in

one small town? The more one examines this story, the more it unravels before

your eyes.

The concubine, we're told, plays the "harlot" against her husband (meaning she

found a beau/lover) and left him, apparently for this beau/lover. Yet... he knew

instead that she had gone to her own parents' house in Bethlehem. And apparently

the husband knew this because he traveled straight there to get her... thus

indicating he knew she hadn't "eloped" or gone off with anyone. Thus... this was

an apparent lie. Further, the most plausible reason why a wife (concubine =

lesser wife) would leave her husband and return home to her parents is if she

were dissatisfied with married life. And given the importance of marriage there

and how powerful the patriarchal system was, it is reasonable to assume she must

have been extremely dissatisfied of his treatment of her to risk bucking the

system to that degree.

Next, we are told the father greets him warmly and is happy that he has come to

recover his daughter ... and yet, he goes to great pains to try to delay as long

as possible their departure... by at least a few days. And he initially

succeeds. This would seem to indicate that despite the Biblical narrative, the

father was not at all happy to see the husband and wanted to delay as long as

possible her return with him to the life she had with him. Both her leaving him

and the father's doing all he can to delay her return to/with him would seem to

evidence that she was not treated well and perhaps had suffered abuse.

Next we find the (loving) couple returning home and ending up in the town of

Gibeah... with nowhere to sleep. Darkness has already fallen and both he and his

concubine simple sat in the town square in the center of the town... for all to

see. And in all the time they sit there, no one bothers them at all. No

hoodlums are mentioned cruising the streets looking for a convenient gangrape.

Nothing! Then an old man happens by and invites the couple into his home.

Then we find the real meat-and-potatoes of the husband's story (remember... all

of this is his account, only, as he claimed things happened!). While

"celebrating" with the old man inside the house, these "sons of Belial"

mysteriously appear and demand to have sex with the husband. So... as they

apparently hadn't seen the couple when they were right there in the town square

and didn't accost them when they were going to the old man's house, how the hell

did they know where this visiting couple was after they had already entered the

house some time before and were, at the time, "celebrating" with food and drink?

Anyway... let's keep going.

Azael said...

(Part 2 of 2)

These apparently gay hoodlums are then offered both the concubine and the old man's virgin daughter... and they are fine with this and take the concubine and rape her all night long. In the morning, they let her go and she walks back to the old man's house and falls down at the door where she remained until "full daylight." Only then does her husband awaken, apparently having slept fitfully all night long and without a care in the world (so we're to believe), opens the door, walks out, sees her on the ground and tells her to get up so they can go. The account doesn't say she is dead, only that she doesn't answer him and is apparently either asleep or too traumatized to reply. So... he picks her up and "placed her on the donkey" (implying she rode the donkey and was not a corpse laying over it).

This "loving" husband then travels back home with her and, upon arrival, grabs a knife, hacks her into 12 pieces and sends one piece of her to each of the 12 Tribes of Israel. When the outraged Tribes ask him to explain what happened, he claimed the "men of Gibeah" (not just a few of them) tried to "kill" him (not have sex with him) and then blamed them for killing his concubine when it had been he who hacked her into pieces.

The Tribe of Benjamin... apparently knowing all of this was a lie... refused to deliver up the men accused of doing this by this one man. Most likely, they had already spoken with the old man and with others in Gibeah and knew it was all a concocted story and weren't about to let this one man's lies result in the execution of many innocent men.

And based on that alone... all the other Tribes ganged up on the Tribe of Benjamin and slaughtered EVERYONE in all the Benjamite cities until only 600 men remained. Only then did they realize what they had done and stopped the slaughter.

All because of an abusive husband who couldn't stand that one of his many wives (she was a concubine, thus one of his lesser wives) had "dared" to leave him... and so had gone to her childhood home, to which he knew she had returned, demanded her back, which her father would have had to comply with though he did all he could to delay her departure... and then as soon as he had her in his custody and returned home, he murdered her out of vengeance and spite... and then, so as not to run afoul of the Law of Moses, he blamed it on strangers... and deliberately and slyly concocted a story highly reminiscent of Genesis 19 (when "angels" entered Sodom, also were to spend the night in the town square, also were invited to spend the night in Lot's home, and also were accosted inside the home by gay rapists to whom Lot attempted to offer his virgin daughters). This husband knew if he could concoct such a story well enough, everyone would view the men of Gibeah with the same fury and hatred they already did for those "Sodomites" whom God destroyed.

And that is exactly what happened... and the Tribe of Benjamin was effectively wiped out.

... and now you... the "rest of the story" (at least as the evidences would appear to reveal).

Azael said...

Of course, this still doesn't quite explain why all 11 Tribes would:

1. Believe this one man's account above all others and to the point of willingly slaughtering an entire Tribe

2. Consider the life of one woman of such importance that they would slaughter tens of thousands of their own kinsmen, kinswomen and their children to avenge that one woman (additionally, women weren't that important to them, any way... so why the outrage to that degree?!)

There were scandals and murders and rapes all the time in Israel... yet none ever prompted all the Tribes to gang up and slaughter another Tribe. So why now? And why Benjamin?

Was something else going on here? The evidences point strongly to that possibility... and one that links the Tribe of Benjamin directly with the descendants of the "Fallen Angels" were were alleged to have been living in Sodom and Gomorrah when "destroyed" ... and, thus, made the lie told linking the alleged "crime" with those same "Sodomites."

Metatron said...

I would then ask this...Is it unlike God to judge you, whereby you judge Him, in action or lack thereof, especially without the understanding of the times that these actions were condoned? You would seek to spite the Word, claiming you know more than a Christian, whereby citing lack of faith, you display faith? You believe those words true, but claim it all a fallecy? Were I to call you Brother soley on being of the same creator would be just as sinful as condemning you for the sins I commit myself. I would ask that our actions speak louder than the words we throw around carelessly. Hate only brings about more hate. In good faith I pray you find wisdom and serenity. Accept that which you have no understanding, if not to bring about peace, and just that. Rather than seeking to poison the well. I am devout to no faith, as man has made these twisted for profit and fame. I simply seek to make peace as all men and women should, if not for faith, than for humanity's sake.

paulus said...

Read MOB and not "mod". OK?

Stephen Harris said...

(Apologies, I had a typo in my first comment, so here is the corrected version)

I can tell that I'm a little late to the thread here, but if it's helpful I would like to contribute a thought or two. I think that it's odd that you recognized that the Judges text is "based upon Genesis 19" while simultaneously holding that "there is nothing in this story that indicates that God disapproves of... (etc)." In biblical type-scenes, when elements of one story are intentionally reproduced in another, it also imports the themes and message of the previous account in order to juxtapose them over and against one another.

Having said that, the fact that the prelude to the Sodom story (Gen 18) and the destruction that follows (Gen 19) clearly reflects YHWH's judgment on the people of Sodom implicates the Israelites in Judges with the same judgment as their predecessors. Indeed, in the very next chapter the Benjaminites are destroyed at the hands of the other tribes (itself a juxtaposition against where the punishment came from in the former narrative.)

As several other commentators have noted on this thread, a major theme of the book of Judges is the depravity and political vulnerability of the pre-monarchic Israelites. As in any literature, it seems, to me, a bit shortsighted to demand an explicit statement by YHWH in the Judges account when the author is so clearly using his interaction with the Genesis 19 story as a rhetorical device to intimate the judgment of Sodom, and thereby judge the Benjaminites. The story is meant to be unpleasant, shocking, and “nasty,” but also familiar, and suspenseful.

To summarize:

The moral judgment on the actions of the Benjaminites by the author of Judges is explicit 1) through its dependence upon and allusions to the parallel story in Genesis, and 2) in that they shared a very similar fate to the Sodomites (cf. Jdg 20:38-40). All that aside, the takeaway of this story is not that it is morally permissible to have a sex slave, offering one’s virgin daughter to a sex-crazed mob, chopping up bodies, or sending messages with body parts. It is that Israel, or more specifically Gibeah, has been implicated in a crime akin to that of the Sodomites. This all fits in with the overall strategy of the author to paint a picture of Israel in the book of Judges in which “everyone did what was right in their own eyes.“ This is consistent both with Deuteronomy 17’s outline of Israel’s future political structure, as well as YHWH’s explanation for their necessity: namely, that they have cast YHWH aside from reigning over them (1 Sam 8:7).

Stephen Harris said...

Mr. Wells,

Thank you for your quick, and candid response. I am preparing a bit of a longer response to your reading of the text here. I just wanted to let you know that I haven't forgotten to respond. In fact, would you prefer that I emailed longer responses to you, or that I just post them here? I don't want to weigh down your thread here too much with a longer post if that is outside of your interests for this blog.

All the best,
Stephen Harris

Steve Wells said...


A long response would be fine, either as a comment or, if you'd prefer, as a guest post. I am very much interested in your view of this story, which seems completely indefensible from believer's point of view. I don't think any of God's killings in the Bible are justified, but this story is especially nasty, cruel, misogynistic, and absurd (even though, God is not directly involved in the killing).

If you'd like to do a guest post on this story, send me an email with your response.

Stephen Harris said...

Mr. Wells,

Either of those sound fine to me. Would a guest post be like a separate blog post, where I would basically be a guest contributor? That would be fine by me.

All the best,

Cassie said...

Just read the email next chapter to find out what God thinks of this. It's the first example of where he wipes out all the men of one of his own tribes in retribution. I'd say that's a big old disapproval right there.

Cassie said...

You can say it's about gays but where is your proof? This is not like Sodom (which was doomed for many reasons long before the men wanted to have sex with those angels). Horrific crimes occurred after theseeing men wanted to have sex with the levite, and it was after these crimes that the men, not the entire population, was murdered by fellow israelites, not by God himself. They are very different stories.

Stephen Harris said...


I sympathize with your objections here, and I'm in the process of preparing a longer guest post to Mr. Wells' comments here. My response will be addressing (among other things) the claim that this passage and Genesis 19 are dealing with homosexuality. That's not why I'm responding here though.

I'd like to address the second comment that you made about how similar or different that Judges 19 is from Genesis 19. The thematic and linguistic similarities between the two have been dealt with very well by commentators before, and it is these connections that give the Judges account its rhetorical power. To save myself the effort, I'll just copy and paste a brief summary of the connections between the stories, along with a link to a full article explicating them. I hope this helps.


The parallels between Genesis 19 and Judges 19 are striking. At the thematic level we note:

1) A small group of travelers arrives in the city in the evening.

2) A person who is himself an alien observes the presence of this company.

3) The travelers have a mind to spend the night in the open square.

(5) The host washes the guests’ feet (implied in Gen 19:3 after the offer in v. 2).

(6) Host and guests share in a fellowship meal.

(7) Base men of the city surround the house.

(8) They demand of the host that he deliver his male guests over to them that they might
commit homosexual gang rape.

9) The host protests this display of wickedness.

10) When the protests prove futile the hosts hand over a substitute female.

But the connections extend beyond common motifs. The chapters also share a common vocabulary, particularly verbs: “spend the night” (Gen 19:2; 11 times in Judges 9, functioning as a Leitmotif tying vv. 1–9 to the events that happen at Gibeah), “to turn aside” (Gen 19:2; Judg 19:11, 12, 15), “rising early and going on one’s way (Gen 19:2; Judg 19:9), “to dilly dally” (Gen 19:16; Judg 19:8), “washing the feet” (Gen 19:2; Judg 19:20), “and they ate” (Gen 19:3; Judg 19:21). The substantives also correlate, as in “at evening” (Gen 19:1, Judg 19:16), and “house” (Gen 19:2, 3, 4, 11; Judg 19:18, 21–23).

Here's a link to the full article that has a pretty good bibliography for additional resources.


All the best,
Stephen Harris

Unknown said...

I read this story again this morning, and wanted to investigate further. I want to say that this story is so much more powerful than I had given it credit for the first time I read it last year.

First, I want to say that Chapter 19 is not the whole story. It goes from Chapter 19 to the end of Chapter 21, sandwiched between the repeated phrase "...In those days there was no king in Israel..." So, in order to get the big picture, one must read the whole story, not just the introduction.

If one were to look at the big picture, one will find that this story is not about gruesome rapists, wicked husbands, or dismembering body parts. The big picture is this:

Israel was not following God: they were following idols and the wild whims of their hearts. This is the story that is sadly repeated again and again in the book of Judges. The land was full of evil and injustice.

Before I continue, there are three things you need to understand about God's character for this story to make any sense:

1.) God is holy, and he is completely opposed to evil. He has zero tolerance for evil.

2.) God is just, and he defends those to whom injustice is committed. Furthermore, God has every right to judge and execute judgment.

3.) God is jealous, and he loves his people with a jealous love. He does not just sit around and let his people "play the whore" with false gods. Idolatry incenses God to wrath, like a husband whose beloved wife has committed adultery. Or like a loving father whose daughter keeps running away with a bad crowd. God actively fights to bring his people back to him, no matter how many times they turn away, because he is jealously passionate for them.

Given that God is holy, just and jealous, it is clear that by Judges 19, an idolatrous and wicked Israel is due for a reality check. The Levite just so happens to be the spark that ignites the flame. His actions in casting his wife/concubine out to the mob are difficult to justify, so I won’t. The *point* is not justifying this dude’s actions, otherwise the writer of this story would have done so. The *point* is how this made the whole gruesome affair shockingly public.

*Continued in next post*

Unknown said...

When the Levite carried his dead wife home, chopped her up and sent her to the twelve tribes of Israel, he was making a serious declaration about how low Israel’s morality had fallen. The dude, a Levite no less, was threatened and his wife raped to death! This kind of behavior was cause for God to utterly destroy the city of Sodom. I have no doubt that when the Levite’s servants presented the body parts and their master’s story to the twelve tribes of Israel, that the Israelites were hearkened back to Sodom and how God felt about the Sodomites.

Basically, it was an appropriately grotesque way of saying, “Look Israel! We’re just as bad as Sodom, and if we let this kind of crap happen in our cities, God’s going to do the same to us as he did to Sodom.”

This shocking message woke the Israelites out of their hedonistic slumber, and they immediately “gathered together as one man… unto the LORD in Mizpeh.” (20:1)

The Israelites forgot about their idols and playthings and turned to God. That’s another way of saying that they recognized their sin and repented. Then the Israelites, recognizing that their holy God would not tolerate evil in Israel’s midst, went to Gibeah to purge the city of its evil. (20:13)

The children of Benjamin refused to repent, and what followed were a series of bloody battles in which Israel fought to redeem themselves to God, ultimately resulting in the near-annihilation of the tribe of Benjamin.

The thing that must be noted is that this story’s emphasis continually turns to how “the children of Israel went up and wept before the LORD… and asked counsel of the LORD.” (20:18, 23, 26… 21:2) The Israelites had gotten so serious about returning to God that they made an oath to kill anyone who refused to attend the congregation in beseeching the mercy and guidance of God. (21:5) This is like a 180!

Another cool thing to note is that God *responded.* He carried the Israelites to the point where they were so desperate for God that they were driven weep and fast. (20:26) And God showed up and “smote” the enemy, just as he had done in the past. (20:35)

Do you see where I’m getting at?

God is holy and opposed to evil. The evil within Israel at the time was disgusting and utterly inexcusable.

God is just and will execute judgment. It took a shocking message like rotting body parts to jolt the Israelites into realizing just how dire their situation was.

God is jealous and he actively strives to bring his people back to him. As the Israelites fought against the tribe of Benjamin, they became increasingly dependent on God and desperate for his salvation. They became so desperate that they swore to kill anyone who was not on board with suing for peace with God.

The long and short of it is that Judges 19-21 is not a story about an abominable God who condones wicked acts. It is a story about the spiritual revival of a wicked people who needed a particularly brutal wake-up call to drive them back to God.

I know this was a long one, but I hope it’s helpful.

Unknown said...

Today is February 3, 2015, and this was my comment to a friend about the news this morning: An 80 year old man was in his home. Some hoodlums rang his doorbell, and when he opened the door, they got into his house and raped him. Yes. Sodomized the old man. This is so disturbing to me. I can't believe things such as this are going on. Not only old people, but there have been so many cases of child abuse with the kids dying from their injuries, and violence against women (partners or exes beating them up or killing them), and last, but not least, this past month we have had weekly cases of abuse toward animals.
These are not only "interesting times". They are deplorable times. Such social deterioration... reminds me of a story in the book of Judges, in the Hebrew Scriptures).
Now I add this: The author or authors of the text which we call "Judges" is trying to make the point that before there were kings, there was total lawlessness among the people. The author(s) intent was to legitimize the existence of kings in a nation that was founded as a theocracy. It just goes to show you that the more things change, the more they are the same...

Unknown said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
adsdasdadaddasdasdadadas said...

I see Jesus as the concubine (from Bethlehem-Judah) whom God the indifferent Levite husband locked out of heaven to be ravaged to death by evil men (Benjamite Wolves). I see the 12 Disciples of Jesus as the parts(branches) cutoff from Jesus (the main vine) upon his death. I see Judas (the Traitor) as the tribe of Benjamin. I see King Saul and Saul of Tarsus (aka Paul) as the 600 man remnant of Benjamin allowed to live and kidnap virgin wives to perpetuate the evil clan. God (Jehovah) appeared indifferent because it was his plan for Jesus to die this way (Isaiah 53). The Paradox is that a concubine is an earthly woman who belongs to an earthly man and inherits nothing from him. Whereas, Jesus was a heavenly man who belonged to God and inherits all things from his Father. The other paradox being that 40,000 (22,000 + 18,000) warriors from Judah (10% of 400,000 fighting men in Israeli Army) died to avenge the death of a single lowly concubine, and rid/purge Israel of evil. Whereas, Jesus (the concubine in this story) died for the many, for all who will accept and receive him from the House of Israel. It was Jesus who in Gospel of MARK chapter 8 verses 15-21 pointed to the 22,000 + 18,000 Judah tribe warriors killed fighting Benjamin, by his miracle of feeding the 5000 + 4000. 5 loaves + 5 [000] fed + 12 baskets gentile dog/puppy (MARK 7) fragments/scraps collected = 22 or 22 [000]. 7 loaves + 4 [000] fed + 7 baskets gentile dog/puppy (MARK 7) fragments/scraps collected = 18 or 18 [000]. 18+22=40 DAYS PROPHECY of ACTS 1:3, 1:11, 3:21, 10:41. Jesus warned us in Mark 8:15 in effect: Beware the yeast (false teaching) of the [Benjamite] Pharisees. That could only mean one person in my opinion in scope at the time of Book of ACTS i.e. Saul of Tarsus(Wolf) and Paul of Tarsus(Wolf in Sheep's clothing). Righteous Jesus and King David came from Judah tribe. Evil King Saul and Saul of Tarsus came from Benjamin tribe. Saul of Tarsus devoured and divided Jesus' followers of the WAY, by persecution. Paul of Tarsus caused followers of the WAY to devour and divide one another with sin accusations and countless denominations arising from doctrinal conflicts caused by false teaching. A LITTLE SLEEP, A LITTLE SLUMBER, A LITTLE FOLDING OF THE HANDS TO REST, and POVERTY (spiritual poverty from false teaching) WILL CREEP IN (into the body of Christ and New Testament) LIKE A BANDIT (Benjamite Wolf n Sheep's clothing - false apostle Paul). In 1 Corinthians 10, Paul condemns the sinning Israelites (in the wilderness) and their resulting destruction as examples to us not to sin and tempt Christ. Yet Paul fails to mention God's GRACE to them through Moses' lifted up copper symbol of a serpent on a pole, to heal them. Jesus compared himself to this lifted up serpent in Gospel of John 3. All who behold the lifted up Christ on a Tree, and believe, will gain eternal life. It is a gift from God. We should not be like Paul/Saul of Tarsus, who like the unmerciful servant Jesus warned about, would not accept the free gift of debt pardon from his master, but only wanted more time to clean up his act, so to speak, and rid his life of sin - and demand others do the same. Jesus warned that such as person would be thrown into debtor's prison until their insurmountable sin debt should be paid in full. For them, there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Jackie the ironic said...

I find it fascinating that you are an atheist who reads the bible! You know my friends tell me not to read things like this, that it will ruin my faith, but I do anyways. I find that it makes my faith stronger to try and see things from both sides. I don't feel much like arguing, but it is curious that people hate Christians for what is in the old testament. We only keep it to remind us of all that we have left behind. It is actually Judaism that you are criticizing, because believe it or not, the old testament IS the Jewish bible. They STILL believe in this stuff. Just wanted to let you know :) Have a great day and Gad be with you all!

Travis said...

Surprise, surprise, you completely misrepresent what is actually said and actually seem to believe your misrepresentation.

Steve Wells said...


How did I misrepresent the text in Judges 19?

Unknown said...

There are a few notes on the Judges passage below, but first, a more important point. The disgust we feel (rightly so) at the actions portrayed in this passage has no bearing on the truth content. Atheists and Christians could bash each other all day with examples of the other's immorality (Stalin, Crusades, Mao Tse Tung, Inquisition, etc), but that would not achieve any progress toward finding the truth, which is the only reason we should be discussing any of this.

Judges 19 exhibits vile behaviour, for sure, but this book must be read in context. Reading through to the end of Chapter 21, we find this:

"In those days there was no king in Israel. Everyone did what was right in his own eyes."

The first part, the bit on there being no king, is repeated multiple times throughout the book of Judges, implying that the Israelites did as they pleased. God generally allowed them to act out of their free will, and intervened on the infrequent occasion that they came to him to clean up the mess they made.

There are not many biblical characters whom God intends to "lift up" as examples to us. The Bible is a story, and as such, it has a theme. This theme isn't a call to "be like this fellow, and God will love you". Boiled down, the theme is: We are all horribly messed up, but God still loves us and as a result offers a path out of our miserable state. Reading this passage with the entire story/theme in mind, one can say the following: God is full of grace, if he can continue to forgive and love people as screwed up as these folks.

Unknown said...

wow...the reason why horrible stuff happened in the OT, still happens today....
But...If the scriptures are really inspired of God, then why would God, want us to see an hear of these things,..well for short He gave us a FREE will, and has set a time according to his time when the time of the gentiles will be ful filled...ie ..end times etc..otherwise eventully , man will destroy our selves..
BUT...to get to the point....a lot of tradgedy can be avoided...and the sole point of that chapter, is simple... The Levite didn't have Discernment to the Voice of God..God spoke to him through the father in Law..pleading him to stay, but the Levite made up his mind, and didn't even pray about it, OK, second chance, the Levites servant, pleaded with him to go into Jebus, a non Isrealite city,..Did he stop and Pray..?..Of course not..and u know the rest...God teaches us an later generations, through his Word, that we live in a Evil world with out God, and God responds to prayers, and how he answers is in his way an time, but learning to pray in his Will, is Key...And ive been readin the Bible for 10 years...the OT breaks my Heart...But it just shows me, that WE REJECT GOD as a WHOLE..But if a Nation wont turn to him...we as an Individual can...and he wont turn us away....

Anonymous said...

"There is nothing that indicates God's approval" is a ridiculous argument.

There is also nothing that indicates god's disapproval of those deeds. In fact, when looking through the bible, this is exactly what god does time and again. It's his MO.

Three great examples are the great flood, the story of Moses and the whole deal with Sodom and Gomorrah.

The great flood. People aren't doing what god wants them to do, so he drowns over 99% of them. Men, women and children, because he can. And over 99% of all animals.

The story of Moses. Moses wants to leave, what does god do? He hits Egypt with the plagues and those plagues hit EVERY Egyptian. He doesn't solely go after the pharaoh, the one man who holds all power. No, he even goes after the guy who shovels up the camel dung in the streets, a guy who wields zero power and can't do anything about Moses and the Jews. Ultimately he kills even camel dung shoveler's first born son. Why? Because he can, that's how it is. Going after all Egyptians, even those with no power or rights, has zero tactical or strategical value. It's just spiteful and cruel for absolutely no reason.

Sodom and Gomorrah. Rinse and repeat. The people don't do what god wants them to do, so he kills them.

This god is a psychopath.

Way to be!! said...

JST, Genesis 19:9–15.
Compare Genesis 19:8–10
9 And they said unto him, Stand back. And they were angry with him.

10 And they said among themselves, This one man came in to sojourn among us, and he will needs now make himself to be a judge; now we will deal worse with him than with them.

11 Wherefore they said unto the man, We will have the men, and thy daughters also; and we will do with them as seemeth us good.

12 Now this was after the wickedness of Sodom.

13 And Lot said, Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, plead with my brethren that I may not bring them out unto you; and ye shall not do unto them as seemeth good in your eyes;

14 For God will not justify his servant in this thing; wherefore, let me plead with my brethren, this once only, that unto these men ye do nothing, that they may have peace in my house; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.

15 And they were angry with Lot and came near to break the door, but the angels of God, which were holy men, put forth their hand and pulled Lot into the house unto them, and shut the door.

There all better.

Autumn Hamm said...

It's more than likely she is actually dead when cut up. It says "but none answered", meaning she was unconscious or dead. The next chapter says "and my concubine have they forced that she is dead". This probably means that she died as a result from the rape and abuse. The Levite cut up her dead body and sent it out because of what they did to her

adsdasdadaddasdasdadadas said...

This story is not about an earthly woman concubine at all. She is a God/Man, Jesus the Christ, the Messiah, the heavenly man. The Levite husband is not an earthly man, but God himself, Creator of the Universe and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Remember in Genesis at Sodom and Gomorrah that God himself (or perhaps Jesus) was also attempted to be raped by the evil men of the town. God came down to see for himself the wickedness of the cities. God had told Abraham (per his request) that God would spare the cities for the sake of 10 Righteous living there, if that many found. God cast Jesus out of heaven (so to speak) and locked the door, to be ravaged to death by evil men. This was the only way. Jesus had to drink this cup of suffering on our behalf, the righteous for the unrighteous. Something like the Rigtheous Lion dying in the place of the unrighteous boy in: THE LION, THE WITCH, AND THE WARDROBE (C.S. Lewis). The cutting up of the concubine into 12 pieces represents the 12 Disciples cutoff from the main vine Jesus/Messiah upon his death/crucifixion. Jesus had said to his 12 Disciples, "I am the vine, and you are the branches". Judas did not remain in Jesus and was thus burned in the fire. Judas may be represented by Benjamin tribe, and Saul of Tarsus (pseudo-apostle Paul) may be the remnant of Benjamin who kidnapped virgin wives to perpetuate the evil clan. Paul kidnapped "the WAY" and turned it in to a cult called Christianity based upon his many writings (13+ books perhaps, and other yeast impeded in the NT text). Jesus warned beware the yeast[false teaching] of the [Benjamite] Pharisees, wolves in sheep's clothing, who would enter the flock. If you can't beat'em, join'em. Infiltrate from and undermine from within. Fight fire with fire. The WAY was spreading fast. Saul/Paul turned his zeal against "the WAY", and its followers, to what appeared to others as zeal for it/them. ASK YOURSELF THIS: Does it make sense for 40,000 Judah warriors (Righteous side) and 25,000 Benjamin warriors (Evil side), plus untold thousands of Benjamite {women, children, and animals}, should die to avenge (or in the retaliation of) the death of a single lowly concubine? Of course not. But it's not that the many died for the one, but rather, the ONE (Jesus the concubine) died for the many, for all who will accept Him. A concubine is an earthly woman, who belongs to an earthly man, and inherits nothing from him. Whereas Jesus was a heavenly man, who belongs to God, and inherits ALL THINGS from the Father. Jesus said, to him that has much understanding, more will be given, but to him that has little understanding, even the little he has will be taken away. Seek and you will find. Knock, and the door will be opened to you.

ST said...

I just wanted to address Steve Well's final statement, and I think it is the theme of his entire blog:

"It's just a stupid, nasty story that was put in the Bible because it is a stupid, nasty story."

If you don't believe in the God of the Bible, then you cannot logically say that any deed done by man or God is unjust. If, according to you, there is no law giver, then there can be no moral law; no right or wrong. Everything would be relative (you can stop here if you change your mind and are now fine with murder and rape).

Therefore, for this story to be stupid and nasty, God must exist. The reason there is so much evil and suffering in the world is beCAUSE God exists. I lot of people miss this, I understand. So assuming God must exist... but the real question is, is God good?

To figure this out, the most basic question we can ask is, if God is good, why does he allow evil? Why does he allow women to be treated like this and why does he record these events in the Bible?

The most basic answer to this is another question. Would God be more good to kill every evil doer on the earth (which would be everyone because we all have broken God's holy law)? Or to allow everyone to have free-will and choose whether to do evil or to do good? God doesn't want blind obedient good robots. He allowed man to know sin so man would choose God.

Time is running out. The world is drawing to a close. The question God places before all humanity is this. Will you accept God's free gift of eternal life through Jesus Christ?

adsdasdadaddasdasdadadas said...

This is a stupid story about stupid people who would die for a silly worthless concubine.
40,000 Judah warriors and 25,100 Benjamin warriors died, plus untold thousands of Benjamite men, women, children, and their animals all died because these people thought so highly of a worthless concubine that they would give their lives avenging her death and/or protecting those who killed her. How crazy is that!

Jesus said that a person is not likely to die for another person, but for a righteous person, someone might consider dying.

That said, the only possible interpretation to this story is that God is the Levite husband who offers up Jesus the concubine as a sacrifice for "the many". It is not that "the many" died for the lowly concubine, but rather, Jesus the lowly concubine died for "the many", for all who will accept him from the house of Israel.

A concubine is an earthly woman who belongs to an earthly man and receives no inheritance from him, whereas Jesus is a heavenly man who belongs to God and inherits all things from His Father. These things have been hidden. To him that has much understanding more will be given, but to him that has little understanding even the little understanding he has will be taken away.

paulus said...

Jackie the ironic, The Bible is one of the most important book (or set of the books) of the humanity. It is a cultural heritage of mankind, such as the Upanishads, the Tao Te Ching, the Koran, the Baghava Gita, The Odyssey, the Iliad, One Thousand and One Nights and so many others. I am agnostic and read the Bible and the books I mentioned since ny youth. A person can not be considered cultured without reading them, okay? In the Bible I find history, literature (beautiful poems, some erotic as the Song of Songs), wisdom (Ecclesiastes, Proverbs and the Book of Job) and also many superstitions, prejudices and bullshit.

adsdasdadaddasdasdadadas said...

This story reminds me of the stupidity of Mordecai the Jew from the Bible book of Esther.
Mordecai, you will remember, refused to bow down to Haaman (a sign of respect), 2nd in command to the King. Mordecai had a foolish reason for not bowing (He was outwardly a Jew).

You didn't see Naaman the cleansed Leper, and Captain of the Host, refuse to bow to a foreign god, when his King leaned against him to himself bow. Elisha the Prophet said it was okay to bow. God granted permission.

It is being a Jew on the inside that counts, not outward appearances.
You can bow to men in respect for their high position, without bowing to them as a god.
Jesus told the Pharisees that they were great at outward appearances, but their Jewish hearts were wicked, and they were all going to die in their sins.

My point is this...

Mordecai the Jew started the whole "SHOCK & AWE", "PREEMPTIVE STRIKE" thing.
Thousands of non-Jews were slaughtered in the holocaust against them in book of Esther carried out by the Jews. This was carried out in a 2-day period of time.
The non-Jews must have been wearing t-shirts which read, "I HATE JEWS!" or "ALL JEWS MUST DIE!". Now the Jews celebrate this holocaust against the non-Jews as an eternal holiday. This is a man-made holiday, unlike Passover which Jehovah instituted Himself as an everlasting solemn Sabbath for the Jews to hold annually.

Anyway, the Benjamite warriors (25,100) all died except for 600 men (Judges chp 19-21). All the Benjamite non-warrior men, women, children, and animals died; plus 40,000 Judah warriors. All because a lowly concubine was rape/murdered.

"Things do get out of hand", spoken by General Robert E. Lee
at Gettysburg (1st Day) after one of his general's regiments had attacked a small band of dismounted cavalry, thinking they would quickly defeat them, but soon to find they were in over their head when heavy Union reinforcements arrived to assist.

Samuel Yeoh said...

The 1st verse itself tells us that God disapproves of everything which happened in this passage. When it tells us that Israel had no king, it implies that even God wasn't their King. From the time the Israelites left Egypt, till the time of Samuel, Israel was governed by a theocratic system, where God was supposed to be their King. The tragedy which was highlighted in the book of Judges is that everyone rejected God as their King, and did as they saw fit (Judges 21:25).

adsdasdadaddasdasdadadas said...

God, the unnamed Levite, becomes the Judge of Israel in this story. After God makes his judgment known to Israel (i.e. nothing so horrible has happened since the Israelites left Egypt as the current rape/murder of the Son of God/concubine), the unnamed Levite departs the story. This is similar to God coming down from heaven and appearing to Abraham (along with 2 angels) to tell Abraham what is going to happen to Sodom and Gomarrah. Had God not left the story in Sodom and Gomarrah, God would likely have been the target of rape there (instead of the angels) as IS THE CASE in the Gibeah story of the unnamed Levite and his concubine (Jesus) from Bethelem-Judah. The unnamed Levite sacrifices his Son (concubine) casting him out the door of heaven to be ravaged to death by evil men.

A concubine is an earthly woman who belongs to an earthly man and receives no inheritance from him, whereas Jesus is a heavenly man, who belongs to God, and inherits all things from his Father.

And it is not that 40,000 Judah warriors, 25,000 Benjamite warriors, and thousands of Benjamite: men, women, children, and animals, all died to avenge the death of a single lowly concubine, but rather, Jesus (the concubine) died for "the many", for all who will receive him from the house of Israel.

adsdasdadaddasdasdadadas said...

More revelation on Jesus, the LAMB GOAT of GOD. GOAT? yes, goat. Jesus is The Yom Kippur GOAT sacrificed for the sins of the world, once, and for all time. John the Baptist might be considered the 2nd Yom Kippur Goat sent ALIVE into the wilderness with the sins of the people confessed upon its head. The people went to John and confessed their sins upon John's head just as Aaron had confessed the sins of the people of Israel upon the head of the Yom Kippur Scapegoat. John's head had to come off. A goat can't talk nor write. John could. He was thus a potentially dangerous man with the knowledge of the people's sins, and I should think especially dangerous to public figures whose sins could be found out publically. Later Rabbinical teaching/practice did insure that the Yom Kippur Scapegoat was killed too.

Passover Sheep lambs or Goat lambs were slain for their blood painted on the doors as a "SIGN" only, for the Destroyer to bypass the homes of the Israelites enroute to killing the firstborn of Egypt. I was the third born in my family. How can a Passover Lamb hope to save me? But it was the Day of Atonement GOAT that was slain on Yom Kippur for the sins of the people that can save me.

Concubine-Jesus might well have fulfilled two or more sacrifices carried out by Aaron (Passover Lamb, Yom Kippur Goat, etc.), thus killing two or more birds with one stone. Without the annual sacrifice for sin (Yom Kippur Goat), you and I are lost eternally. Jesus our High Priest in the order of Melchizedek serves in heaven forever on our behalf. He offered himself ONCE for us as the Yom Kippur Goat slain for the sins of the people. He himself was without sin, thus he offered no sacrifice for himself as Aaron had.

Although, it may be that Israel (especially Judah) offered 40,000 of 400,000 warriors (Judges 19-21) as a type of 10% tithe to Melchizedek (as Abraham had given 10% to him) perhaps serving as a heavenly sanctuary tax for the 400,000 man military census taken before going up against the evil Benjamites who had brutally slain concubine-Jesus (Melchizedek).

It was a 1/2 Shekel sanctuary tax that each person paid "as a ransom for their life" whenever a census was taken during the Levitical priesthood. God the unnamed Levite sacrificed his concubine-Jesus to be ravaged to death by evil men, then judged the rape/murder as the worst atrocity seen since the Israelites left Egypt.

Was this the changing of the guard, so to speak. A foreshadowing of a change in the priesthood from Levite to Melchizedek? Abraham paid 10% tithe to the King of Salem (of ancient Israel) who was Mechizedek, priest of the Most High God. Jesus (line of Judah) gave himself as a ransom (sanctuary tax) to ransom our lives from Judgment.

ladygodiva said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
ladygodiva said...

ladygodiva said...
Just read the chapter and the story is a warning instead of an acceptance of behavior. The Levite married a concubine. She cheated and left to go stay with her father for several months. The father kept urging him to stay and he did for awhile, then left but in the evening. His servant said they should not stay in a place that doesn't have their laws but he insisted. No one in the town would give them lodging except for an old man. A group of men saw the Levite and demanded the old man hand him over. The old man offered the wife aka concubine and virgin daughter. They left the virgin and raped the concubine all night and let her go in the morning. Her husband was about to leave and go home when he saw her there. He said get up. When she didn't move he put her on a donkey and went home and killed her. The point: Her father suspected something was wrong and encouraged them to stay. She left with him and he set her up. When he realized she wasn't dead, he killed her. Moral: Once you leave, don't go back. The bible reference's people by their title from the life they lead before. In the story of David, Bathsheba is commonly referenced as Uriah's wife and not Queen Bathsheba or King David's wife

adsdasdadaddasdasdadadas said...

So if concubine-Jesus from Bethlehem-judah died as ransom for Israel...
who died as a ransom for concubine-Jesus-Messiah?

The firstborn of Israel had to have their lives ransomed.
This was done (I believe) by setting aside (consecrating) the tribe of Levi as the Lord's.
Jesus was firstborn to Mary and Jonah(the intoxicating dove), adopted by Joseph (Mary's husband).

Since there are no Levites in heaven to redeem Jesus(Melchizedek) by, perhaps Judah warriors (10% of 400,000 - that is 22,000 + 18,000 = 40,000) must have been needed?
Since you can't take a sanctuary tax to heaven, and since there has been a "Changing of the Guard" from Levitical priesthood to Melchizedek,
perhaps the only thing that could be taken to heaven to serve as both (1) heavenly sanctuary tax and (2) ransom for the life of Jesus - is 40,000 Judah warriors?

Perhaps these 40,000 Judah warriors serve Melchizedek in the heavenly sanctuary in the new priesthood from the tribe of Judah (not Levi)?

adsdasdadaddasdasdadadas said...

Is concubine-Jesus-Messiah from Bethlehem-judah (Judges chp 19-21), the same person as Ben-Deker (i.e. Son of Piercing - Isaiah 53, serving in Solomon's court), Melchizedek, Elijah, Jonah, Moses, John the Baptist? There appears to be substantial evidence that God (Immanuel - God with us - in the flesh) has served many roles (on earth) throughout Biblical history - even perhaps serving multiple roles at the same time (John the Baptist - Yom Kippur Scapegoat, and Jesus - The Lord's Yom Kippur Goat). Perhaps stopping this Immanuel reign (of terror - NOT!) at the Ascension (Acts 1:11), to remain in heaven (Acts 3:21) until the Last Day.

Even Jesus' earthly dad (Joseph, son of Jacob) played the roles at least 3 persons:
Jospeh dad of Jesus(a "just man"), Joseph of Arimathea (a "just man"), and Joseph Justus - Apostle candidate (next to Matthias) to replace Judas the Traitor as the 12th Apostle of the Lamb.

Unknown said...

Fascinating discussion.

I have nothing much to add, except that I certainly do not hate Christians. Now if yous Christians are feeling many hate-vibes, then perhaps you should reflect upon the manner in which you express your religious enlightenment; I am guessing that most peoples (including atheists) do not like being told that, due to their actions (or lack thereof) they are heading to hell (which yous depict as a pretty awful place).

adsdasdadaddasdasdadadas said...

For those of you who doubt that the concubine (firstborn in heaven, Melchizedek the High Priest) is the Son of God (2nd person of the Holy Trinity) i.e. such as Jesus-Yeshua/Moses/Joshua son of Nun/John the Baptist/Elijah, Ben-Deker (Son of Piercings), etc. incarnate, like the Disciples Peter and John are the 3rd person of the Holy Trinity incarnate, then let me say this to you:

Is God a mere man that he is appointed to die once, and then see the Judgment? No.

God (3 persons of Trinity) can conceivably live and die in human flesh form as often as they see fit in the course of human events to accomplish God's will (Emmanuel/Immanuel - "God with us").

Many of you have read the Book of Tobit (Catholic/Orthodox deuterocanonical book i.e. added later to the canon). Many commentators are at a loss for why a DOG (some old manuscripts say the Lord followed along, instead of a dog). A reversal of DOG is GOD, perhaps like G-d is often used by Jews to hide the name of God) is mentioned in chapter 6 and 11 as following Tobias (Son of Tobit) and his incognito companion the archangel Raphael (going incognito as Azariah, son of the great Hananiah, Tobit's kinsman).

I did some checking in Strong's Hebrew Dictionary and found that the word for "fish" used in the Book of Jonah, is the Hebrew word "Dag" or "Da'g" pronounced "Dawg".

In the Book of Tobit, a large fish almost swallows Tobias' foot, but the archangel tells Tobias to grab hold and haul the fish ashore (instead of being swallowed like Jonah). In the Book of Tobit, Tobit leaves Nineveh, whereas in the Book of Jonah, Jonah goes to Nineveh.

This is an interesting reversal of events (Like DOG is to GOD).

This reversal of events (Tobit not being swallowed by the big fish. and leaving Nineveh instead of going to it) are reminiscent of how the Sodom & Gomorrah story are reminiscent of the Concubine's story.

In the Sodom & Gomorrah Story, God (the middle angel - Son of God) comes with 2 real angels and visits Abraham and Sarah and announces (Annunciation) the birth of Isaac. This Son of God also has come down from heaven to see if the reports to Him (reports from holy angels implied) are true about the wickedness of those cities.

The Lord disappears from the story leaving the 2 angels to visit Lot.
The 2 angels are in danger of being raped by the men of the city.
This does not happen, which is a reversal of the Concubine's story.

The unnamed Levite (husband of the concubine) is likely God the Father, representative of
Aaron the High Priest under the Levitical priesthood, who sacrifices his concubine (a woman, because the rape of a man by other men is seen as too horrible to mention - although this is told in the Concubine's story as the worst atrocity seen by the Israelites since leaving Egypt i.e. the firstborn slaying of the Egyptians by the Destroyer).

Did you know that 22,000 Judah warriors killed in the first battle (Judah always goes first
on the march from camp), is the exact same number as the number of Levites found during the Census Moses and Aaron took in Number 3:39. Since this 22,000 are from Judah, it is understood that these 22,000 Judaites are likely the new assistants to concubine-Melchizedek (High Priest) in the heavenly sanctuary - serving in the similar capacity to the Levites on earth. This may however occur at the Resurrection of the dead at the 2nd Coming of Christ?

Moses was not a prophet, just as John the Baptist was not a prophet - they were more than a prophet because God spoke to them face-to-face. They are either angelic beings or are the Holy Spirit or Son of God incarnate - in various forms at various times in Biblical history. God said that when he speaks to prophets, He does so in visions and dreams, not face-to-face as God speaks to the archangels (who stand ready in the presence of God to do his bidding), nor as God speaks face-to-face to his Son or the Holy Spirit.

adsdasdadaddasdasdadadas said...

God has a sense of humor.

In my last post, I mentioned that the Hebrew word for "fish" is DOG i.e. the reversal of GOD.
Actually, the Hebrew word for fish is Dag or Da'g (pronounced Dawg, like DOG). Jonah was swallowed by a Dag or Da'g (Dawg). And I mentioned a Dog followed along behind Tobias and the archangel Raphael, as they traveled, in the Book of Tobit. Tobias was almost swallowed by a fish (Dag/Da'g - pronounced Dawg/Dog), like Jonah, but instead hauled it ashore at the archangel's bidding.

Simon Peter/Cephas Bar-Jonah is the Holy Spirit incarnate, I believe.
So is the Apostle/Disciple John "whom Jesus loved".
Jesus could love God (3rd person of Trinity) above all other men, but Jesus would not play favorites and love one man (human being, Son of Adam) above the other.

John tarried/stayed with us as the Holy Spirit is said to tarry/stay with us until Jesus returns.

This is reminiscent of Elijah and Elisha.
Elijah told Elisha to not follow him to Jericho, Jordon, and Bethel.
Elijah was actually trying to get rid of/dodge Elisha, so that God could take
him back to heaven (where he came from as the Son of God - 2nd person of Trinity).
But each time Elijah told Elisha to stay put, Elisha, the 3rd person of the Trinity,
kept saying, "I will not leave you".

This is reminiscent of Jesus and Peter. Both in Peter's denial of Jesus (3 times before the cock crows 2 times), and when Jesus asks Peter 3 times, "Do you love me". "Yes Lord, you know that I love you" (more than the other Disciples i.e. actual human beings/Sons of Adam.). Peter also told Jesus he was ready to die with him. Jesus told Peter to stay. "You can't follow me now, but later you can follow me" i.e. at the 2nd Coming of Christ.
John also was to remain and not follow Jesus, but remain as the Holy Spirit to abide with us until Jesus returns.

Remember when Elisha kills the 42 boys who called him "Baldy", with a curse upon them, which brings out 2 female bears from the woods to maul the boys to death (tear them into pieces). Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (i.e. Elisha) will not be forgiven neither in this life nor in the life to come. But Blasphemy against Jesus or the Father will be forgiven.

Cephas (Peter) is not pronounced See-Fuss. Probably more like Kee-fa/Keefa.
The Hebrew is Keph/Kaph, the word for rock/hollow rock/palm leaf/hollow of the palm.

The word for rock (a hollow rock to be more precise) is the play on words Jesus was driving at when he named Peter. The total name for Peter/Pita(pocket)/Cephas/Kepha/Keef-a is thus:

A hollow rock/palm leaf (first name) in the form of an intoxicating dove (last name).
This represents the Holy Spirit.

A palm leaf swishes up and down like a bird's (dove's) wing. This creates a current of wind as in to breathe upon (the Spirit of God breathed into or upon. Jesus breathed upon his Disciples and told them to receive the Holy Spirit.

Water gushing forth from a hollow rock (in the wilderness) is like the Holy Spirit gushing forth from our inmost belly as the Spirit gives utterance. The Spirit is like a river of waters gushing forth from us e.g. Day of Pentecost speaking in tongues.

I guess a Pita pocket bread sandwich is another analogy. It is a hollow pocket like a hollow rock or palm (hand)

Understanding that God (any of the 3 persons of the Holy Trinity) can take the form of human flesh, as often and as many times as they want, is required to understand the concubine and unnamed Levite characters.

Jesus said about Nathanael,
"Here is a true Israelite. In him there is no duplicity".

Jesus was saying, "FINALLY ! A real human being/Son of Adam".
Jesus was probably tired of seeing all the copies/duplicates of the 3 persons of the Holy Trinity and Holy angels going incognito in human form, and was happy to see Nathanael.

Jesus picked John and Peter first. Then Jesus started to pick up real human beings (Sons of Adam) as his Disciples.

adsdasdadaddasdasdadadas said...

Praise the LORD! I have some very interesting confirmation to report.
[a wild Central American "wild" pineapple of scientific Latin name "Ananas Magdalenae".]
Where have we heard that name before?
I explain in a minute...

Yesterday, I reported that the concubine in this story (and the unnamed Levite - who goes away from the story after pronouncing Judgment on Benjamin - similar to the 3rd angel leaving the Sodom & Gomorrah story)... are likely both the 2nd or 3rd persons of the Holy Trinity in human form.

If you doubt that the Holy Spirit (or Son of God) can be in the form of a woman, let me just say this:

What about Mary Magdalene? She followed Jesus like the DOG/GOD/G-d/Dag/Da'g/D-g/Dawg followed Tobias and Raphael the archangel in the Book of Tobit (Orthodox/Catholoc Christian Canon).

I have found that the name Jesus/Yeshua gave to Simon/Simeon Peter (Written as Cephas - said to mean "a rock"), is not pronounced See-Fuss or Sea-Fuss, etc. It is more like the pocketed bread: Pita (pronnounced Peta), from the Hebrew: Kefa (a rock or hollow rock or palm leaf, or palm of hand).

So too, for Mary Magdalene, her name is tied to Peter's(Cehpas') name. How?

I mentioned Peter's name (Hebrew: Kefa, Cephas perhaps in Greek?), means:
pocket, like a Pita(Peta) bread pocket, or a pocket created by the palm of the hand,
or a pocket of a hollow rock, or perhaps even a pocket chamber for the souls of the
dead in the heart of the earth. It also means palm leaf (which signifies the Triumphal
Entry of Christ into Jerusalem (Palm Sunday) with much rejoicing!
And a palm leaf looks like an outstretched hand, and is very useful for moving air (fan)
like Jesus breathed the Spirit upon his Disciples. And a hollow rock (which Jesus would
build his church upon)
i.e. one built on the gushing water that flows out of the hollow rock in the desert, or
which gushes forth from the belly of a man filled with God's Holy Spirit (e.g. Day of

Getting back to Mary Magdalene. If you look up the word "Pita(Peta)" in the dictionary (I used the Webster's 7th Edition Collegiate Dictionary), it comes from a Spanish/Portuguese word. It refers to any of several fibrous plants such as the Yucca and Century Plants, Agave, Aloe, etc. These are cultivated in arid/desert environments. But it also refers to a wild Central American "wild" pineapple of scientific Latin name "Ananas Magdalenae".

Where have we heard that name before?
[Try to google this Latin name and look at the IMAGES of the plant/fruit.]

So was Mary Magdalene, like Peter, the Holy Spirit incarnate in human form, who followed along behind Jesus?
[similar to the dog that followed behind Tobias and Raphael the archangel - Book of Tobit.]
[similar to the prophet Elisha(Eli-sha) who followed behind the prophet Elijah(eli-JAH)]

the word Ananas (Genus Latin name) in the scientific name "Ananas Magdalenae" sounds alot like Ananias the High Priest (Book of Acts). And Ananias the one sent to restore the sight to Paul of Tarsus. And Annas the High priest related to Caiaphas. It is related to the name Hananiah which means "Favored of God", like Mary the Mother of Jesus was "Favored of God". So this "wild" pineapple (on of several Pita/Peta plants), points to that "wild" woman of the street Mary Magdalene, who was highly favored of JAH (sacred name of God),
a strong tower (as the name Magdalene suggests), unlike the Tower of Babel which fell (r likely fell?). Mary is the rock (hollow rock - Kefa/Pita/Peta), a strong tower, that Jesus would build his church upon too - like Peter. i.e. the Holy Spirit.

The Syriac name for the Tower of Babel, get this, is:
Magdla d-Babel.

adsdasdadaddasdasdadadas said...

When Jesus/Yeshua
(i.e. Jehoshua Ben-Deker "Jehovah saved the Son of Piercings - Isaiah 53/1 Kings 4)
saw the Disciple Nathanael coming towards him, Jesus said about him:

"Now here is a true Israelite. In him there is no duplicity".

How do you know me? Nathanael (bewildered) replied.

"I saw you whilst you were under the fig tree."

This showed that Yeshua, even while in human form (incarnate) was a least somewhat omnipresent (i.e. everywhere at the same time).

This is perhaps the most dramatic first encounter recorded in the New Testament of Yeshua/Jesus meeting any one of his 12 Disciples.

According to John's Gospel, Jesus first encountered John(son of Zebedee) and Andrew (Peter's brother) whilst those two were with John the Baptist. Jesus walked by those 3, and the 2 Disciples of John the Baptist left him to follow Jesus. "Behold the [goat] Lamb of God".

Then Jesus encountered Peter (brother of Andrew) whom Andrew went and found.
"You shall be called "Kepha" (or Kapha) which means: "a [hollow] rock".

Then Jesus went and found Philip, who went and found Nathanael and brought him to Jesus.
Why is this important?
Because I believe when Jesus said there was no "duplicity" in Nathanael, that this could indicate that Nathanael was the very first

"human being"

that Yeshua encountered among his 12 Disciples.

The others (some, or likely all) being either incarnations of the Holy Spirit (Peter and John son of Zebedee) or holy angels (perhaps Philip) or devils (Judas Iscariot).

I beileve Jesus/Yeshua built his "church" upon the

"holy trinity (3 persons incarnate - Pita) of the 3rd person of the Holy Trinity (i.e. the Holy Spirit)".

Jesus/Yeshua built his church upon:

(1) one Holy wild Pineapple (Pita)
Latin: "Ananas magdalenae" - In Hebrew translates: "A strong tower - highly favored of JAH".
Unlike the weak Tower of Babel - not at all favored by JAH.

(2) He also built it upon the "Son of an Intoxicating Dove" i.e. a Bar-Jonah.

(3) And he also built the church upon the mantle/cover of EliJAH i.e. upon a Son of Zebedee.

This is the doctrine of the "holy PITA". A term I coined (credit given to the Holy Spirit for showing me, and told to him by Jesus/Yeshua).

These 3 represent the "hollow rock" (Keph/Kaph - Pita) upon which Jesus/Yeshua would build his church.

How can Living Water gush forth from a rock in the desert unless that rock be hollow?
How can Living Water (Yonah/Jonah) gush/spew forth from the belly of a great FISH,
and out its mouth, if that great FISH

(Hebrew: Dag/Da'g - pr. Dawg/Dog - perhaps impl. D-g/G-d/God)

be not filled with the Holy Spirit?

PENTECOST was just a bunch of people laughing uncontrollably, hitting/striking a soft "hollow rock"(Hebrew: Keph/Kaph) piece of decorative pottery i.e. a Spanish pinata (Pinnah-Yahh-ta in Hebrew i.e. an upper chamber/room of JAH - filled with his gifts). "THEY WILL STRIKE THE SHEPHERD AND SCATTER THE SHEEP".

I'm just kidding (Goat Lamb - Passover sacrifice)

SO CAN A LEVITE'S CONCUBINE be the 2nd person of the Holy Trinity incarnate (incognita)?

CAN AN unnamed LEVITE be the 1st person of the Holy Trinity incarnate, sacrificing his wife(Son) to evil men, and allowing them to ravage him to death?

Definitions: Duplicity - twofold (as in a twofold purpose), or doubling.

possible synonyms for duplicity:

Incarnation, incarnate (in human form), incognito(male), incognita(female), duplicate, copy, mock-up, mimic, mimicry, masquerade, mask, impersonator, stand-in, body double.

adsdasdadaddasdasdadadas said...

A holistic approach to understanding the Levite and his concubine, begins with recognizing and understanding the functional relationship between each of the subservient parts and their wholes within the Holy Trinity (Father/Son/Holy Spirit)...

PART 1 or 2:

The lead Disciple/Apostle Simon Peter Bar-Jonah ("a rock", Hebrew: keph/kaph), was a holotype of the Holy Spirit (3rd person of the Holy Trinity).
Bar-Jonah means in Hebrew, "Son of an intoxicating dove".
per Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary (7th Edition)...
A holotype is: (1.) a single specimen designated ( e.g. Peter - Hebrew: Keph/Kaph - meaning "a rock") by an author (e.g. Jesus/Yeshua) as the type of a species or lessor taxon at the time of establishing the group (i.e the Holy Spirit), or (2.) the type of a species or lesson taxon (e.g. Pita - Hebrew: Keph/Kaph - meaning "a hollow rock", or "a hollow pocketed unleavened bread" or "a wild pineapple" - genus: Ananas, species: magdalenae) designated at a later date (e.g. Aug. 2016) than that of establishing a group (e.g. the Holy Spirit) or by another person (e.g. myself) than the author (e.g. Jesus/Yeshua) of the taxon.

So to fully understand that Jesus'/Yeshua's church was founded upon "a rock" i.e. Peter(Hebrew: keph/kaph), one must understand that this "rock" was more precisely a
"hollow rock" which the Hebrew word is also defined as.

One must also understand that "Peter" is only 1 of 2 species, in a lessor taxon "Pita", in the group Holy Spirit.
The other species in the taxon "Pita" is Mary Magdalene, the faithful reformed harlot that stuck to Jesus/Yeshua like glue. It is written: "There is a friend that sticks closer than a brother".

There is a wild pineapple in Central America, Latin scientific name: Ananas magdalenae. This translates in Hebrew to:
"A strong tower, highly favored of JAH/YAHH". God's sacred name. This wild pineapple is in a taxon of fibrous plants known as "Pita". These include the: Century plant, Agave, Aloe, and wild pineapple. The Tower of Babel was perhaps a weak tower(boastful/proud), and not highly favored by JAH/YAHH. Perhaps that tower was a "solid rock", with steps spiraling up its outer perimeter (as shown in the movies). Perhaps a strong tower is one that is hollow instead (a "hollow rock") with interior steps spiraling up to the top?
Jesus/Yeshua said of Mary Magdalene that her (humble/selfless) deeds would be told around the world forever as a testimony. She is likely the one that both wiped her tears from the feet of Jesus, and wiped them with her hair, but also anointed his feet with very costly perfume in preparation for his burial. And it was this Mary that Jesus first appeared to at the tomb upon rising from death. Jesus told Mary to, "Go tell my Disciples that I ascend to my Father and their Father. My God and their God."

continued in Part 2 of 2, posted next...

adsdasdadaddasdasdadadas said...

A holistic approach to understanding the Levite and his concubine, begins with recognizing and understanding the functional relationship between each of the subservient parts and their wholes within the Holy Trinity (Father/Son/Holy Spirit)...

PART 2 or 2:

The 3rd person besides Simon Peter(Pita) Bar-Jonah, and Mary Magdalene (Pita), that are in a lessor taxon of the Holy Spirit, is the Apostle/Disciple, John son of Zebedee. Jesus loved this John, perhaps above all the others (indications are that He did), like we are to love God above all men. The name Zebedee means clothed/covered, perhaps as in a mantle (sleeveless outer garment worn over other clothes). Perhaps as in the mantle of EliJAH? The mantle left for Elisha when EliJAH was taken up to heaven. It is written: "No one has ever gone up to heaven except for the Son of Man who came down from heaven". It is also written: "They will strike the Shepherd and scatter the sheep". Both EliJAH and Elisha took that same mantle and used it to strike the Jordan River and part it. It was the
Apostle/Disciple John (son of Zebedee) that left John the Baptist at the River Jordan to follow Jesus/Yeshua as his first Disciple.

John son of Zebedee is the one acknowledged as having written the Gospel of John (unlike the synoptic Gospels) and the Book of Revelation. Jesus told Peter(Pita) that John son of Zebedee might just remain/tarry with us until Jesus returns at his 2nd Coming. Perhaps John's subservient role (lessor taxon) in the group Holy Spirit was in a higher taxon than that of Peter(Pita) and Mary(Pita)?

With this in mind, we have to consider that the group "Son of God/Son of Man" might just as easily have lower taxon below that group. Were EliJAH and John the Baptist (i.e. the Yom Kippur/Day of Atonement, Scapegoat) in a taxon just below the taxon "Jesus/Yeshua/Messiah"(i.e. Passover goat Lamb sacrifice + Yom Kippur Lord's Goat sin sacrifice)?

And was Stephen (the "Stoned One", "Clothed/Covered One") an additional sacrifice for sin to cover the sin of the woman caught in the very act of adultery, who should have been stoned to death according to the Law of Moses, at a time before the crucifixion took place.
Did Stephen stand in the stead/place of the adulteress woman whom Jesus pardoned, but later (as Stephen) took upon himself that punishment (stoning)?

Websters's dictionary says that an incarnation can be a deity or spirit being taking on the form of human or animal.
Could God (The Father) have been the great FISH that swallowed Jonah? The Hebrew word for "fish" is (Dag/Da'g) pronounced Dawg or Dog. It was a Dag/Da'g that swallowed Jonah. This could indicate a reversal of characters as in Dog/D-g/G-d/God. How to I imagine this? Take the reversal of fortune in the deuterocanonical Book of Tobit where the archangel Raphael (going incognito, in human form, incarnate manifestation) presented himself as "Azariah, son of the great Hananiah - a kinsman of Tobit. In this story, Tobit's son Tobias is accompanied on a journey away from Nineveh, followed closely by a Dog. On the way, Tobias is almost swallowed by a FISH, but reverses this fate(Jonah's fate) by instead grabbing hold of the FISH and pulling it onto land.

Can an unnamed Levite and his concubine (Judges chp 19-21) be God the Father(Levite) and God the Son(the sacrificed concubine - an incognita)? This story is a reversal of the Sodom & Gomorrah story, in that in this story, God (2nd Person of Trinity) gets raped to death by the evil men of the city. Perhaps as in the adulteress woman, whom Stephen may have died for, in her stead/place (and for all adulteress women of all time), taking upon himself that stoning requirement of Moses' Law), perhaps also the concubine(Son of God) took upon himself (as a woman) all the pain and suffering and humiliation that women of all time have endured who have been raped, or raped to death?

adsdasdadaddasdasdadadas said...

CONFIRMATION (a Sign) that my last 2 part post was from the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit gave to me the below information:

JOKE: PENTECOST was nothing more than a bunch of people gathered together in an upper room/chamber, laughing uncontrollably, while striking with a stick, a Spanish pinata (a special hollow decorative pottery, used at a festive occasion, hung from a ceiling, and filled with candy/fruit/gifts). it is written: "I will strike the shepherd and the sheep will be scattered."

If you don't like the idea of striking your Messiah/Christ with a stick at PENTECOST, just to get at the candy(gifts of the Holy Spirit), then you might like to think of the pinata (while you are striking it) as Judas Iscariot (the Traitor). The picture below is reminiscent of Judas hanging himself (e.g. Passion of the Christ film - Mel Gibson).

It is also said of Judas that his bowels gushed out.
So when you disembowel that pinata to get at the scattered coins (30 pieces of Silver), think of Judas. It is written of that man, "It would be better for that man never to have been born than to have betrayed the Son of God/Man into the hands of sinners" - paraphrased.

Pinata translates in Hebrew to: "pinnah-Yahh-ta", or an upper (top level) chamber/room of God(sacred name). And filled with the gifts of the Holy Spirit.

How can Living Water gush forth from a rock in the desert if that rock (Keph/Kaph - Pinata - hollow rock) be not hollow?

adsdasdadaddasdasdadadas said...

CROWN HIM LORD of ALL - words from a Christian hymn

Was Stephen (the "Stoned One"; the "Crowned One" - meaning of the name Stephen in Greek) an additional sacrifice for sin to cover the sin of the woman caught in the very act of adultery, who should have been stoned to death according to the Law of Moses, at a time before the crucifixion took place. Did Stephen stand in the stead/place of the adulteress woman whom Jesus pardoned, but later (as Stephen) took upon himself that punishment (stoning)?

Remember: The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe" C.S. Lewis?
Remember how the Lion took the place/stead of the sinful boy upon the STONE TABLE?
That Lion was pierced (to death), laid out and tied, upon the stone table.
This is representative of both Jesus/Yeshua being pierced to death, laid out upon the cross, and Stephen being stoned to death.

Can an unnamed Levite and his concubine (Judges chp 19-21) be God the Father(Levite) and God the Son(the sacrificed concubine - an incarnate incognita)?

Perhaps as in the adulteress woman, whom Stephen may have died for, in her stead/place (and for all adulteress women of all time), taking upon himself that stoning requirement of Moses' Law), perhaps also the concubine(Son of God) took upon himself (as a woman) all the pain and suffering and humiliation that women of all time have endured who have been raped, or raped to death?
Isaiah 53:4(KJV) says that,
"Surely he [and might I add - she] hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him [her] stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted."

Unknown said...

The old testament was not written by Christians....so why all the Christian bashing?

Anonymous said...

My Comments: This old man of the house was going to sacrifice his virgin daughter and the Levite’s concubine in exchange for the Levite’s safety? Does the old man care about his daughter? Does the Levite care about his concubine? What is going on here and why do the town men want to rape the Levite? What did the Levite do to deserve this? Regardless of this, both the town men, the old man of the house, and the Levite are sick and evil people. They deserve to all die. This Levite who went out of his way to get his concubine because he missed her and had feelings for her; he turned around and through her out to the town men so they can rape her. Not only is this Levite a sick and evil person but also a stupid hypocrite. And to make matters worse, he killed her and cut her up into 12 pieces. And for what? No woman, no matter how unfaithful she is to her husband does not deserve to be raped and killed. This is simply wrong. And where was God to intervene and save the concubine?

Anonymous said...

My Comments: This old man of the house was going to sacrifice his virgin daughter and the Levite’s concubine in exchange for the Levite’s safety? Does the old man care about his daughter? Does the Levite care about his concubine? What is going on here and why do the town men want to rape the Levite? What did the Levite do to deserve this? Regardless of this, both the town men, the old man of the house, and the Levite are sick and evil people. They deserve to all die. This Levite who went out of his way to get his concubine because he missed her and had feelings for her; he turned around and through her out to the town men so they can rape her. Not only is this Levite a sick and evil person but also a stupid hypocrite. And to make matters worse, he killed her and cut her up into 12 pieces. And for what? No woman, no matter how unfaithful she is to her husband does not deserve to be raped and killed. This is simply wrong. And where was God to intervene and save the concubine?

adsdasdadaddasdasdadadas said...

Divine Doctrine of the Holy Pina, Pita, Pinata - or DDHPPP.

Mary Magdalene ("Pina Pita") is the spirit of the “empty hollow rock tower”.
Ananas magdalenae - the wild pineapple. A Pina in group taxon Pita.
This Latin scientific name translates in Hebrew to:
"A strong tower, highly favored of YAHH" - God's sacred name.
This tower is in direct contrast to the Tower of Babel (Magdla d'Babel - in Syriac).
It is written,
"The name of the LORD is a strong tower. The Righteous run inside and are safe."
Mary is the spirit of Yom Kippur(Day of Atonement) and Feast of

Peter ("Pita") is the spirit of the “empty hollow rock tomb”.
Peter went straight into the "empty hollow rock tomb" on Resurrection morning.
Peter is the spirit of Passover/Unleavened Bread/First Fruits.
Pita is the modern Hebrew word for "hollow pocketed unleavened bread".
Peeta in modern Greek. A Pita pocket looks something like both a "tomb" and a "womb".
Peter is referred to sometimes as "Kepha" or "Kapha". Keph means "hollow rock".
A "Kaph" is the hollow of the palm of the hand, or a palm leaf/branch.
Interestingly, there is a "Pineapple Palm". Looks like a Pineapple (Pina in Spanish).
It was palm branches/leaves that the people waived at Jesus during the Triumphal Entry
into Jerusalem (riding a young donkey) just days before the Passover and Crucifixion.
Bar-Jonah (as in Simon "Peter" Bar-Jonah) in Hebrew means: "Son of an intoxicating dove".
[yayin yownah]

John ("Pinata") is the spirit of the “gift filled, hollow clay pottery" traditional Spanish pinata. Zebedee means "gift".
Both EliJAH and Elisha parted the Jordan River with the mantle of EliJAH, striking it.
It is thus fitting that John(Elisha) left John the Baptist(EliJAH) at the River Jordan to
follow after Jesus.
In the Old Testament, Elisha had promised 3 times to never leave EliJAH.
But now one greater than EliJAH had come i.e. Jesus the Christ.
John(Elisha) left John the Baptist(EliJAH) to follow Jesus. That was okay.
John is the spirit of Pentecost.
The 3 Hebrew words: Pinnah + YAHH + ta = "An upper room of God" his sacred name.
"I will strike the Shepherd(donkey Pinata) and the sheep (gifts or Zebedees) will be scattered".

Unknown said...

Continue reading on to the next chapter,(chapter 20) and you will see the punishment meted out to those perpetrators of that heinous act in the passage, and the approval of God towards that punishment when the children of Israel asked God if they should go up to fight with them(The Benjamites) after they went and fought with them the first and second times and were defeated, and God says yes go up and fight with them.

adsdasdadaddasdasdadadas said...

I believe that Saint Joan of Arc was the return of the apostle Mary Magdalene. Both women saved France, Mary with the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and Joan with the Sword of the Lord. Both provided a sign to the King (or Dolphin/Dauphin - heir apparent to the throne of France e.g Charles VII). King Charles VII died on the feast day of Mary Magdalene July 22nd. Joan was born on January 6, the Epiphany of our Lord Jesus Christ. Where am I going with this?

Just as EliJAH returned as John the Baptist, so too I believe Mary Magdalene returned as Joan of Arc. John was martyred and Joan was martyred. And Jesus will come again with a two-edged sword in his hand, riding a white horse, just as Joan of Arc had to defeat the enemies of God.

Was the unnamed Levite's concubine the pre-incarnate Jesus Christ?
Was Saint Stephen (the stoned/crowned one) the post-incarnate Jesus Christ, who took upon himself the physical punishment due the pardoned woman caught in the act of comitting adultery? Did Jesus write a contract in the sand with his finger to return later after suffering the cross? Jesus had to suffer the cross first. The woman was not under grace before the cross. Her stoning would have been just. Did Jesus(as Stephen) take on the punishment himself just as the Lion (in "The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe" - C.S. Lewis) had taken the punishment n the stead of the sinful boy who sided with the witch and betrayed his kin and all of Narnia?

adsdasdadaddasdasdadadas said...

I invite everyone interested to look at the film, THE MESSENGER (the story of Joan of Arc).
In this film, the Burgundians (Benjamites, Sons of Belial) sided with the English, attack the village of Domremy La Pucelle France (Joan's village) and burn it, raping to death Joan's sister in the process. The attack on Domremy was led by a pack of black wolves, and symbol of the evil tribe of Benjamin. In this film, the graphic rape/murder of Joan's sister is almost so obscene that you want to turn it off.

Lawana Hulsey said...

I think the reason this was added to the Bible was to show perversion happened in that day too. Evil prevails in the hearts of man. There are many parallels between Bible times and today. And it's sickening no matter what time it happens in.

Maphesdus said...

I would just like to point out that actually, the story does imply that the concubine was already dead in verse 28.

"28 And he said unto her, Up, and let us be going. But none answered. Then the man took her up upon an ass, and the man rose up, and gat him unto his place."

The sentence "But none answered" means that the woman did not respond or display any signs of life when the man addressed her, thereby indicating that she was already dead at that point. Some translations of the Bible even say that the man had to lay the woman across the donkey's back and transport her like a piece of luggage, something which would only be necessary if he was transporting a dead body. Even today, the way that dead bodies are transported naturally has to be different from the way we would transport a living passenger.

What this tells us is that the men of the city gang raped the woman (presumably because she was a foreigner and they were extremely xenophobic), and then left her to die in the street, which she did. The reason her husband dismembered her body by cutting her into 12 pieces is so that he could provide proof of her murder to the elders of Israel. That way the elders could know that the man's story was true, and could then decide on the most appropriate course of action to take in response to the rape/murder. This is why the chapter ends by saying to consider it, seek council, and speak your minds. This "advice" is not directed to the modern reader, but rather is an excerpt from the letter to the elders that was sent along with each piece of the body. The man is asking the elders to pass judgement and come to a consensus about what to do.