We meet another Levite in Judges 19:1 who was paying no attention to God"s directions concerning where the Levites should live (cf. 2 Samuel 5:6-9). Since monogamy was God"s standard for marriage the Levite should not have married a concubine ( Judges 17:75). This was doubly wrong in the case of a Levite because the Levites were to remain as holy as possible in view of their special ministry in Israel. It appears that the Levite and his concubine had a disagreement that resulted in the woman leaving him and returning to her father"s home ( Judges 19:2). [source][source][source]
"The reason for her return given in many ancient versions, "because she was angry with him" (followed by RSV), is more plausible than that supplied in the AV and RV that she played the whore against him. The penalty against the adulteress was death ( Leviticus 20:10), but a heated argument would allow the Levite to seek a reconciliation when the passions of temper had subsided." [1][source]
Arthur Cundall"s preference, expressed in the quotation above, rested on the Septuagint translators" rendering of Judges 19:2 that is the equivalent of "his concubine was angry with him." However the Hebrew text has "his concubine was unfaithful to him," and this is the preferable reading. As we have noted, the Israelites paid less attention to the Law in the period of the judges than they did while Joshua was alive. It is probable that the concubine had been unfaithful and the Israelites simply did not execute the penalty for that offense that the Law prescribed. The fact that the Levite waited four months to get his wife back suggests that he was not eager to do so. [source][source][source]
The writer referred to the Levite as the concubine"s husband because that is what she was in God"s sight ( Judges 19:3). The Levite"s tender words were insincere, as his later dealings with her prove. Apparently he wanted her back for selfish reasons. The two donkeys the Levite brought with him to Bethlehem were for his wife and him to ride back home. The concubine"s father was probably glad to see the Levite because it was disgraceful for a woman to leave her husband in that culture. The Levite wanted to patch up the relationship, and that would have pleased his father-in-law. [source][source][source]
The writer"s mention of the hospitality of the Levite"s father-in-law ( Judges 19:4-9) points out the contrast with the Gibeahites" lack of hospitality later in the story ( Judges 19:15; Judges 19:22-26). Hospitality was a sacred duty in the ancient Near East when there were few public facilities for travelers (cf. Judges 4:17-23; Genesis 18:5; Genesis 24:55). Perhaps it is significant that this man who practiced hospitality (lit. love of strangers) lived in Bethlehem, David"s hometown. Saul came from Gibeah where the residents hated strangers, as the story will show. The fact that Israel"s first king came from this city has led some scholars to conclude that by including this incident the writer may have intended to discredit Saul. [2][source]
Jebus (Jerusalem) was and is about six miles north of Bethlehem ( Judges 19:10). The Levite and his concubine would have reached it in about two hours. Gibeah ( Judges 19:12) was three miles farther north and Ramah ( Judges 19:13) two miles beyond Gibeah. Jebus was then, and until David finally captured it ( 1714204909_70), a stronghold of the Jebusites who were one of the native Canaanite tribes. The Levite expected to find hate in Jebus and love in Gibeah. He would have been wiser to stop for the night in Jebus since he found no hospitality in Gibeah but hatred. All the "motels" there were full, or at least not open to the Levite and his party. Of all people, the Israelites were to give special consideration to their Levites ( Deuteronomy 16:14; Deuteronomy 26:12). [source][source][source]
"The last clause in Judges 19:15 would have been shocking anywhere in the ancient Near East. But it is especially shocking in Israel. The social disintegration has infected the very heart of the community. People refuse to open their doors to strangers passing through. It makes no difference that these travelers are their own countrymen." [3][source]