⁽²¹⁾So he took him into his house and fed his donkeys. After they had washed their feet, they had something to eat and drink.
   ⁽²²⁾While they were enjoying themselves, some of the wicked men of the city surrounded the house. Pounding on the door, they shouted to the old man who owned the house, "Bring out the man who came to your house so we can have sex with him."
   ⁽²³⁾The owner of the house went outside and said to them, "No, my friends, don't be so vile. Since this man is my guest, don't do this disgraceful thing. ⁽²⁴⁾Look, here is my virgin daughter and his concubine. I will bring them out to you now, and you can use them and do to them whatever you wish. But to this man, don't do such a disgraceful thing."
   ⁽²⁵⁾But the men would not listen to him. So the man took his concubine and sent her outside to them, and they raped her and abused her throughout the night, and at dawn they let her go. ⁽²⁶⁾At daybreak the woman went back to the house where her master was staying, fell down at the door and lay there until daylight.
   ⁽²⁷⁾When her master got up in the morning and opened the door of the house and stepped out to continue on his way, there lay his concubine, fallen in the doorway of the house, with her hands on the threshold.

     What disturbs me the most about this story is... the story itself. Outside of the crucifixion of Jesus, this is the ugliest story in Scripture in my opinion. After the Levite (the intended victim) comes out of the house and finds his concubine dead, he puts her on his horse and takes her home. He then proceeds to cut her into 12 pieces and send those pieces to the 12 tribes of Israel. And all of this is done without comment from Scripture as to whether God approves or disapproves. I have to believe that God disapproved of the whole incident from beginning to end... then again the culture was radically different that what we know today. But it does make me glad I'm not living in those days — and that I didn't deliver the mail.
     The single question I have as to the subject of our study is this: "How does it condemn homosexuals and not heterosexuals"? Or, "How does it condemn homosexual behavior without also condemning heterosexual behavior?" My answer is that it condemns neither.
     Just as the story of Sodom is the story of violence and rape and perversion (behaving in a manner which is contrary to one's nature), so this story has the same theme. In fact, this story is nearly the same story. If the crowd in Sodom had taken Lot up on the offer of his daughters, it could be the same story.

Genesis Leviticus Romans Corinthians Timothy Home Pantheism Scriptural Essays My Thoughts Site Updates Theater Resume Email Me

     These men in Judges were not homosexual. The only way one could possibly believe they were is to believe that all homosexuals are controlled by their sexual appetites and that they really don't care how those appetites are filled. Those that do believe this to be true are simply not living in reality. It is obvious that this crowd had little or no moral base... but it is not so obvious as to their orientation or their motive.
     The question remains, why did the mob make these demands in the first place? Scripture doesn't say. The other Scriptural references to this time, in Hosea 9:9 and 10:9, don't mention a motive (or a specific sin) and so are no help. But the intended victim's retelling of the story is interesting.
     In Judges 20 we find Israel assembled and preparing for war. They had received a piece of the concubine and were, understandably, very upset. They wanted to know what happened. In verses 4 & 5 the Levite says, "⁽⁴⁾I and my concubine came to Gibeah in Benjamin to spend the night. ⁽⁵⁾During the night the men of Gibeah came after me and surrounded the house, intending to kill me. They raped my concubine and she died."
     Why no mention of the intended rape? Perhaps because the Levite recognized that sex wasn't the primary objective, but only a means to an end. It means that the homosexual part of the story was really unimportant.
     The fact is that Samuel — or whoever the author of Judges is — is relating a historical incident. To say that this story (or the story of Sodom) condemns homosexuality is to say that the behavior of these men is representative of the behavior of homosexual people in general. That idea is foolish. We have only to look at the cities of San Fransisco or Amsterdam to see how ignorant this view is.
     If the desired rape of the Levite represents how gay people act, the rape and murder of his concubine must represent how straight people act. Of course we know that neither is true.
     These incidents are representative of a culture we do not fully understand. We do know that among the sins of both Sodom and Gibeah was a gross abuse of sex. This story in Judges shows us that this abuse cut across all orientations. To use this passage to condemn gay people is to ignore the heterosexual abuse that happened. If homosexuality stands condemned in this story, how much more is heterosexuality also condemned?
     The fact is, sexual abuse, violence and rape are condemned throughout Scripture. In this story no orientation is singled out for condemnation. The perverted use of both orientations are clearly seen.