The story we will discuss in this post has been lurking in my awareness since I started working through the book of Judges. It is a kind of grand finale of horror for all those days when "Israel had no king and everyone did as he saw fit." Judges has not been gentle in its recounting of these wild days before the establishment of the monarchy, and it does not wrap things up encouragingly either. Still, when I consider the story of the concubine from Bethlehem, I think I can see a shadow of the story of Christ there.
What we learn about women:
- We see another example of a woman in the role of a victim of a crime which screams the guilt of the perpetrator.
- Women had so little status in this group that it seemed obvious to the men of the household that it would be better for this concubine to meet a terrible fate than for them to try to protect themselves all together.
- The outrage sparked by this crime, after the fact, was enough to bring the whole nation to war; but the obvious risk of the crime ahead of time wasn't enough to provoke anyone to help her in the moment in the moment of her need.
What I'm wondering:
- What spiritual harm comes generally to men in their relative strength which offers them so great an opportunity to oppress?
- What is the backstory of the woman having run away to her father's home, and then him encouraging her to return with her husband, but to stay with her family for an extended visit?
- The big one: what ultimate good or justice comes about through horrific suffering which God allows? How does Christ's suffering relate?
Here is a summary. A Levite travels to Bethlehem to convince his concubine, who has left him, to come back to Ephraim from her parents' house. After a week or so of feasting with her family, they depart Bethlehem late in the day, and pass by several non-Israelite towns which they reject as unsafe, before arriving in a Benjamite city, Gibeah. Since it's so late, they intend to stay the night in the square. But a local man takes them into his house, warning them not to stay outside there under any circumstance. When they are settled inside, men come banging on the door, intending to sexually assault the Levite man. To avoid this, the men in the house push the concubine outside to the mob. She is assaulted through the night, and released at daybreak. She makes it to the door of the home and collapses, dead. The Levite brings her back to his home, and decides he must let the rest of the nation know about the horrible thing that has been done to her. So he dismembers her body and sends part of it to each of the tribes of Israel. The national horror at this message is so great that all of Israel declares war on the tribe of Benjamin.
This is the kind of story which leaves you without words. It is absolutely horrifying. It seems clear that this is the effect which is intended by the author the narrative. All of Israel reacts with the reader in shock and desire for vengeance. The fact that this story is in the Bible evokes several pressing thoughts. In the first place, what are we to make of finding perhaps the worst possible kind of behavior documented among the people group who the Biblical narrative calls the special people of God? What does this say about the effectiveness of knowing God in producing virtue and goodness? In the second place, it is heartening to know that where this type of crime and abuse happens, it is not somehow outside the limits of what God is aware of. The woman who was abandoned to a violent mob to be raped and murdered was not unseen by God. In the third place, we have the perennial question: how could God see this and not intervene on her behalf?
Leaving these crucial questions to stand for a moment, we can also use the lens of the "female gaze" to focus even on a story like this and provide enlightening context. An important element in the story is that the Levite and his host seem to make the decision to offer the concubine to the men on the basis of gender, thinking that it would be worse for the men of Gibeah to commit homosexual sin. This calculation is made under the guise of a concern for righteousness, but it leads them to conclude that it would be better for someone else, weaker and under their authority, to suffer in their places. In the narrative, the rape and murder of the concubine is roundly condemned, but the decision by the Levite and his host to offer her up is not mentioned. Our judgment does not let them off the hook so easily.
The general principle of the duty of the strong to use their power to support and protect the weak which I argue should underlie all social relations, particularly those between men and women, would make other demands on the men in authority here. Perhaps they would claim self defense to attempt to justify tossing someone else to the mob. But the behavior is about as justifiable as using a human shield in war. It leaves us with nearly as much shock and grief as the resulting rape and murder. An enduring bit of the reaction in Israel to this event is the astonishment that this kind of crime has happened, not among the pagan nations who surround them, but within one of their own tribes. Taking this same point of view and applying it within the smaller event, I find myself outraged that this poor woman was offered up by her family, not stolen away violently by those who did not care for her.
Putting together our general questions about this story's role in Scripture with the way gender-based power dynamics fit in, we are led to the overarching demand for justification for the suffering of the powerless. Here I think we can forge an interesting link between the suffering of the weak and the suffering of Christ. The archetype of one person suffering instead of the many in their place is an obvious fit for the archetype of a Christ figure. Of course, in this story there are large and important differences. This was not a willing self-sacrifice, it was a cowardly sacrifice of another to save someone's own skin. But I find myself wondering if we can almost read the archetype backwards in this situation. It seems one aspect of the meaning of Jesus's suffering was for him to identify with us as we experience inflicted suffering. In offering himself passively to the Romans, he took on the experience of enduring the suffering that others perpetrate. His resurrection declared that this kind of suffering is not the end of the story, but is seen and vindicated by God. The evil done by those who would hurt others stands in history as a lasting condemnation of their actions, but the Gospel tells us that the harm itself does not last into eternity. At first glance, it seems unfair that the lot of women is often to serve as symbols of suffering and victimhood which condemn the men who inflict it. But when we remember Christ, who filled this role par excellence, we see that those who suffer, as women or otherwise, are more closely united with him in some ways than those who do not. This gives us resources to interpret a story which is utterly confounding and depressing otherwise.
No comments:
Post a Comment