JUDGES 17 COMME TARYEDITED BY GLE PEASE

Micah’s Idols1 ow a man named Micah from the hill country of Ephraim

BAR ES, "See the introduction to the Book of Judges. The only point of contact with the preceding history of Samson is, that we are still concerned with the tribe of Dan. See Jdg_18:1-2, note. Josephus combines in one narrative what we read here and in Jdg_1:34, and places it, with the story in Judg. 18–21, immediately after the death of Joshua.

CLARKE, "And there was a man of Mount Ephraim - It is extremely difficult to fix the chronology of this and the following transactions. Some think them to be here in their natural order; others, that they happened in the time of Joshua, or immediately after the ancients who outlived Joshua. All that can be said with certainty is this, that they happened when there was no king in Israel; i.e., about the time of the Judges, or in some time of the anarchy, Jdg_17:6.

GILL, "And there was a man of Mount Ephraim,.... This and the four following chapters contain an history of facts, which were done not after the death of Samson, as some have thought, and as they may seem at first sight, by the order in which they are laid; but long before his time, and indeed before any of the judges in Israel, when there was no king, judge, or supreme governor among them, as appears from Jdg_17:6 even between the death of Joshua and the elders, and the first judge of Israel, Othniel; and so Josephus (e) places them in his history, and the connection of them is with Jdg_2:10and so accounts for the rise of idolatry in Israel, how it got into the tribe of Dan, and spread itself over all the tribes of Israel, Jdg_2:11 which brought on their servitude to Cushanrishathaim, in which time the Jewish chronology (f) places those events; but they were certainly before that, for the idolatry they fell into was the cause of it; yet could not be so early as the times of Joshua, and before his death; because in his days, and the days of the elders, Israel served the Lord; the reasons why they are postponed to the end of this book, and the account of them given here, are, according to Dr. Lightfoot (g), that the reader observing how their state policy failed in the death of Samson, who was a Danite, might presently be showed God's justice in it, because their religion had first failed among the Danites; that when he observes that 1100 pieces of silver were given by

every Philistine prince for the ruin of Samson, Jdg_16:5 he might presently observe the 1100 pieces of silver that were given by Micah's mother for the making of an idol, which ruined religion in Samson's tribe; that the story of Micah, of the hill country of Ephraim, the first destroyer of religion, and the story of Samuel, of the hill country of Ephraim, the first reformer of religion, might be laid together somewhat near. That the facts after related were so early done as has been observed, appears from the following things; the priest of the idol Micah made was a grandson of Moses, Jdg_18:30, the Danites' seeking to enlarge their possessions, related in the same chapter, was most probably as soon as they were driven into the mountains by the Amorites, Jdg_1:34. Mahanah Dan, from whence they marched, and had its name from their expedition, Jdg_18:12 is mentioned before in the history of Samson, Jdg_13:25 and therefore the expedition must be before his time. Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, was alive at the battle of Gibeah, Jdg_20:28 and Deborah speaks of the 40,000 Israelites slain by Benjamin at it, Jdg_5:8. This man with whom the idolatry began was of the tribe of Ephraim, and dwelt in the mountainous part of it:

whose name was Micah; in the original it is Micajehu, with part of the name Jehovah affixed to it, as Dr. Lightfoot (h) remarks, till he set up his image, and thenceforward was called Micah; but, according to Abarbinel, the former was his name while he was a child, and in his youth, and with his mother, being a diminutive term, and when he became a man be was called Micah, Jdg_17:5.

HE RY, "Here we have, I. Micah and his mother quarrelling. 1. The son robs the mother. The old woman had hoarded, with long scraping and saving, a great sum of money, 1100 pieces of silver. It is likely she intended, when she died, to leave it to her son: in the mean time it did her good to look upon it, and to count it over. The young man had a family of children grown up, for he had one of age to be a priest, Jdg_17:5. He knows where to find his mother's cash, thinks he has more need of it than she has, cannot stay till she dies, and so takes it away privately for his own use. Though it is a fault in parents to withhold from their children that which is meet, and lead them into temptation to wish them in their graves, yet even this will by no means excuse the wickedness of those children that steal from their parents, and think all their own that they can get from them, though by the most indirect methods. 2. The mother curses the son, or whoever had taken her money. It should seem she suspected her son; for, when she cursed, she spoke in his cars so loud, and with so much passion and vehemence, as made both his ears to tingle. See what mischief the love of money makes, how it destroys the duty and comfort of every relation. It was the love of money that made Micah so undutiful to his mother as to rob her, and made her so unkind and void of natural affection to her son as to curse him if he had it and concealed it. Outward losses drive good people to their prayers, but bad people to their curses. This woman's silver was her god before it was made thither into a graven or a molten image, else the loss of it would not have put her into such a passion as caused her quite to forget and break through all the laws of decency and piety. It is a very foolish thing for those that are provoked to throw their curses about as a madman that casteth fire-brands, arrows, and death,since they know not but they may light upon those that are most dear to them.

JAMISO , "Jdg_17:1-4. Micah restoring the stolen money to his mother, she makes images.

a man of mount Ephraim— that is, the mountainous parts of Ephraim. This and

the other narratives that follow form a miscellaneous collection, or appendix to the Book of Judges. It belongs to a period when the Hebrew nation was in a greatly disordered and corrupt state. This episode of Micah is connected with Jdg_1:34. It relates to his foundation of a small sanctuary of his own - a miniature representation of the Shiloh tabernacle - which he stocked with images modeled probably in imitation of the ark and cherubim. Micah and his mother were sincere in their intention to honor God. But their faith was blended with a sad amount of ignorance and delusion. The divisive course they pursued, as well as the will-worship they practiced, subjected the perpetrators to the penalty of death.

K&D, "Jdg_17:1-3

A man of the mountains of Ephraim named Micah (מיכיהו, Jdg_17:1, Jdg_17:4, when

contracted into מיכה, Jdg_17:5, Jdg_17:8, etc.), who set up this worship for himself, and “respecting whom the Scriptures do not think it worth while to add the name of his father, or to mention the family from which he sprang” (Berleb. Bible), had stolen 1100 shekels of silver (about £135) from his mother. This is very apparent from the words which he spoke to his mother (v. 2): “The thousand and hundred shekels of silver which

were taken from thee (the singular ח�ל refers to the silver), about which thou cursedst

and spakest of also in mine ears (i.e., didst so utter the curse that among others I also

heard it), behold, this silver is with me; I have taken it.” לה�, to swear, used to denote a

malediction or curse (cf. לה� Lev_5:1). He seems to have been impelled to make this ,קולconfession by the fear of his mother's curse. But his mother praised him for it, - “Blessed be my son of Jehovah,” - partly because she saw in it a proof that there still existed a germ of the fear of God, but in all probability chiefly because she was about to dedicate the silver to Jehovah; for, when her son had given it back to her, she said (v. 3), “I have sanctified the silver to the Lord from my hand for my son, to make an image and

molten work.” The perfect הק�ש�י is not to be taken in the sense of the pluperfect, “I had sanctified it,” but is expressive of an act just performed: I have sanctified it, I declare herewith that I do sanctify it. “And now I give it back to thee,” namely, to appropriate to thy house of God.

COFFMA , "Verse 1THE SO-CALLED "APPE DIX" OF THE BOOK OF JUDGES;

ALLEGED EXAMPLES PROVI G THAT ISRAEL " EEDED" A KI G (Judges 17-21)

We reject the designation of these last five chapters of Judges as "an appendix added to Judges by a later hand." There is O break in the text, and nothing except the theories of critics supports such a view.

The reason why some critics (as Dalglish did, for example) attempt to date these last five chapters in "a period following the fall of the orthern Israel at a time after 734 B.C.,"[1] is obviously due to their efforts to avoid the positive proof of the existence

of the Pentateuch at a time long PRIOR TO the Book of Judges, as dramatically indicated by the undeniable references to the Book of Moses abounding in these chapters. Of course, the acceptance of these references as having existed when Judges was written effectively proves that the dating of the Pentateuch in the times of Josiah is nothing but a rather clumsy fairy tale.

Again, from Dalglish, these five chapters are included here because, "They illustrate the absolute need of a king in Israel."[2] It seems never to have occurred to Dalglish that if these chapters had been added for that purpose at such a date as he suggested that, at that time there was O EED whatever to prove that Israel needed a king. They had already had one for over three hundred years - GOD! ( evertheless, Dalglish's statement of the purpose of these chapters is most surely correct).

On the other hand, if, as we believe, Samuel authored the Book of Judges at a time in Samuel's life when the kingship of Saul appeared to be a great success, that would have been the time when these chapters were needed, and it is the conclusion of this writer that it was precisely in those days that Samuel wrote these chapters, and that they form a vital, necessary part of the Biblical Book of Judges.

In the successive judgeships of Gideon, Jephthah and Samson, the progressive deterioration of the institution of the judgeship itself became painfully evident, and the author of Judges concluded the narrative by registering two special events, both of which occurred DURI G the period of the Judges, as his concluding argument that Israel had to have a king in order to survive. Those two events were: (1) the apostasy and migration of Dan, and (2) the horrible outrage at Gibeah. Samuel wrote Judges near the end of his life in the early and popular period of King Saul's reign, because, at first, Samuel opposed the institution of the monarchy, and therefore, Judges must have been written AFTER the change had occurred and at a time when it APPEARED to be successful.

EXAMPLE I

THE MIGRATIO A D APOSTASY OF THE TRIBE OF DA (Judges 17-18);

A HOUSE OF GODS WAS ESTABLISHED I THE TERRITORY OF EPHRAIM

This chapter (Judges 17) is actually a preliminary introduction to Judges 18, explaining the origin of that Danite shrine. It tells of the founding of an illegal center of worship in the hill-country of Ephraim. A part of God's Old Covenant with Israel was the restriction of the worship of God to the authorized tabernacle. What Micah did in this chapter was a gross violation of God's commandments.

The evil character of Micah, as well as that of his mother, contrast sharply with the righteousness of Manoah and his wife, the parents of Samson.

REGARDI G THE 1,100 PIECES OF SILVER

"And there was a man of the hill-country of Ephraim, whose name was Micah. And he said unto his mother, The eleven hundred pieces of silver that were taken from thee, about which thou didst utter a curse, and didst also speak it in mine ears, behold, the silver is with me, I took it. And his mother said, Blessed be my son of Jehovah. And he restored the eleven hundred pieces of silver to his mother; and his mother said, I verily dedicate the silver unto Jehovah from my hand for my son, to make a graven image and a molten image: now therefore I will restore it unto thee."

Josephus placed these events shortly after the times of Joshua in the days of Othniel the Judge,[3] and Campbell pointed out that, "Many scholars agree with this, because of the mention of Jonathan the grandson of Moses (Judges 18:1) and because of the presence of Phinehas, the son of Eleazer in Judges 20:28."[4]

"Micah" (Judges 17:1). This is the short form of the name "[~Mikayehuw], with the meaning, `Who is like Yahweh.'"[5] Boling paraphrased this name as "Yahweh-the-incomparable" in order to give ironic force to the conclusion in Judges 17:4."[6]

"Thou didst utter a curse" (Judges 17:2). The marginal reading indicates that the Hebrew here is "an adjuration" instead of "a curse." This is a direct reference to Leviticus 5:1 which lays down God's law that anyone under such an adjuration shall respond with the truth under the penalty of God's judgment, if he should fail to do so. Both Micah and his mother were aware of this Mosaic teaching, and Micah immediately confessed to his sin. Significantly, Jesus Christ himself responded to such an adjuration in Mark 14:61-62.

"Blessed be my son of Jehovah" (Judges 17:2). "This is the formula used by Melchizedek in his blessing of Abraham (Genesis 14:19)."[7]

The mother's prompt pronouncement of a blessing upon her son reflects another passage from the Pentateuch, namely Exodus 12:32. "The adjuration could not be removed, but it could be counteracted by a blessing (see Exodus 12:32)."[8]

It appears that the purpose of the narrator here is to expose the wretched, sinful history of that despised sanctuary constructed by Micah. "Its venerated image was made of silver stolen from his mother, and when the money was recovered and dedicated to Jehovah, the greater part of it was kept back by fraud."[9]

"A graven image and a molten image" (Judges 17:3). "A graven image was something carved or hewn; a molten image was cast in a mold."[10] This, of course, speaks of "two images," but, since it is spoken of with a singular pronoun in the following verse, it appears that O LY O E IMAGE was made. What was apparently intended, as indicated by Yates was "actually one image consisting of carved wood overlaid with silver."[11]

With regard to what that image actually was, Keil stated that, "There can hardly be any doubt that it was a representation of Jehovah as a bull, like the golden calf that Aaron made at Sinai (Exodus 32:4), and the golden calves that Jeroboam set up in

orthern Israel, and one of which was set up at Dan (1 Kings 12:29)."[12]

BE SO , "Verse 117:1. Here begins what may be called a supplement to the book of Judges; which gives an account of several memorable transactions, in or about the time of the judges: whose history the author would not interrupt, by intermixing these matters with it, but reserved them to be related apart by themselves, in the five following chapters. In these he first gives an account how idolatry came into the tribe of Ephraim; which he doth in this chapter: secondly, How it came to be introduced in the tribe of Dan, chap. 18. And then he relates, in chap. 19., a most barbarous and shameful act done by some Benjamites, and the entire destruction of that tribe, except six hundred men, for countenancing it, chap. 20. And lastly, in chap. 21., he relates how the tribe of Benjamin was kept from being extinguished. Whose name was Micah — When Micah lived, and did what is related in this chapter, we may with some certainty gather from 17:6, which tells us, there was no king in Israel at that time; that is, no supreme governor, with a power to keep the people to their duty; which is supposed by learned men to have been between the death of those elders who survived Joshua, and the first oppression of Israel by Cushan. In which space of time, it is manifest, the Israelites first fell from the worship of God, and polluted themselves with idolatry, 2:13, and 3:7. The beginning of which defection from God’s described briefly in this chapter.

PULPIT, "We here light upon quite a different kind of history from that which has preceded. We no longer have to do with judges and their mighty deeds in delivering Israel from his oppressors, but with two detached histories, which fill up the rest of the book, relating to the internal affairs of Israel. There is no note of time, except that they happened before the time of Saul the king ( 17:6; 18:1), and. that Phinehas the son of Eleazar was alive at the time of the occurrence of the second ( 20:28). Both, no doubt, are long prior to Samson. The only apparent connection of the history of Micah with that of Samson is that both relate to the tribe of Dan, and it may be presumed were contained in the annals of that tribe. Compare the opening of the Books of Samuel (1 Samuel 1:1). Mount Ephraim; i.e. the hill country of Ephraim, as in 3:27; 7:24, etc.

COKE, "Micah, an Ephraimite, restores the money which he had taken from his mother; from which she commands a graven image to be made; Micah hires a Levite to be his priest.

Before Christ 1426.

Judges 17:1. And there was a man of mount Ephraim— The second part of the book of Judges begins here; containing an account of several transactions in and about the time of the judges, which the sacred historian omitted in their proper order, that he might not interrupt the thread of a narrative relating to the transactions of the whole nation.

ELLICOTT, "Judges 17:1-2. An Ephraimite, named Micah, first steals eleven hundred shekels from his mother, and then restores them. Judges 17:3-5. She blesses him, and uses them, with his assistance, for the establishment of an idolatrous form of worship. Judges 17:6. Anarchy of the times. Judges 17:7-13. A wandering Levite comes from Bethlehem to the house of Micah, and consents to become priest of the new worship.

The two narratives which occupy the five remaining chapters of the Book of Judges are disconnected from one another and from what precedes. They are, in fact, two Appendices, which serve the purpose of showing the social anarchy, religious confusion, and moral degradation to which tribes and individuals were liable during this period. In date they belong to an earlier time than most of the preceding chapters, and they are connected by various terms of phraseology with the preface (Judges 17:1, Judges 2:5). The migration of Dan in Judges 18 (Joshua 19:47-48) is accounted for by the pressure to which the tribe was subjected by the Amorites, as related in Judges 1:34. The story of Micah, so valuable and interesting as a sketch of manners, seems to have been preserved solely from its bearing on the fortunes of this tribe. The fact that Jonathan, the grandson of Moses (Judges 18:30), and Phinehas, the grandson of Aaron (Judges 20:28), are prominent characters in the two narratives shows that the events must have happened (as Josephus states) at a time shortly subsequent to the death of Joshua, and previous to the career of many of the judges. The first narrative (Judges 16, 17) still bears on the fortunes of Dan, the tribe of Samson; and in both the narratives the tribe of Judah—which has been almost unnoticed in the body of the book—occupies an important position (Judges 16:9; Judges 18:12; Judges 19:1-2; Judges 19:10; Judges 20:18). These chapters belong, in fact, mainly to the annals of Dan and Judah. It is somewhat remarkable that both of them turn on the fortunes of a Levite of Bethlehem-Judah (Judges 17:7; Judges 19:1).

Verse 1(1) There was.—The Vulg. has, “there was at that time” which is an error, for these events happened before the days of Samson.

A man of mount Ephraim.—The hill-district of Ephraim, as in Judges 2:9. The Talmud (Sanhedr. 103, b) says that he lived at Garab, not far from Shiloh, but the name (“a blotch”) is probably a term of scorn (Deuteronomy 28:27). Similarly, we find in Perachim, 117, a, that he lived at Bochi. (See Judges 2:1-5.) Most of the idolatrous violations of the second commandment occurred in the northern kingdom (Gideon, Judges 8:27; Micah, Judges 17; Jeroboam, 1 Kings 12, 13). These apostasies were not a worship of other gods, but a worship of the true God under unauthorised conditions, and with forbidden images.

Whose name was Micah.—Scripture does not deem it necessary to say anything more about him. His very name—here Micayehû, “Who is like Jehovah “—seems to show that he had been trained by pious parents. The contraction Micah is adopted throughout the rest of the story.

PETT, "IntroductionJudges Chapter 17-18.

We now come to the third section of the Book of Judges. The first section in Judges 1 to Judges 2 was introductory to the activity taking place in Canaan after the time of Joshua and described the decline and fall of Israel in relation to the covenant, followed by the statement that God raised up Judges to deliver His people, only for them to decline again. The second section in Judges 3 to Judges 16 described the rise of twelve judges whom God raised up to deliver Israel, the successes and failures of some of them, but the continued ultimate failure of Israel to be faithful to the covenant.

This third section in Judges 17-21 will now use two incidents in order to demonstrate the parlous state of Israel during this time. Its theme is ‘in those days there was no king in Israel’ (Judges 17:6; Judges 18:1; Judges 19:1; Judges 21:25). This is not to be taken pedantically. It does not just mean that this was before the time when there was a king in Israel, it also makes clear that the situations came about because they ignored Yahweh their true King. They had neither the one nor the other. They ignored and refused to acknowledge He Who was King over them and that was why in the end Yahweh would reluctantly give them an earthly king.

But they had been warned through the examples of Gideon and Abimelech what that would mean for them. The giving of this king was in itself an indication of their failure. God’s ideal for them was that He should be King, and this principle continued and was recognised for some time in that the first kings were called ‘nagid’ (war leader). Thus the writer supported the kingship, but only on the basis that because of the failure of Israel to fully respond to their King they had to make do with second best. It was not God’s ideal. It resulted from men’s faithlessness. Judges was thus an apology for kings in both senses of the word.

This rejection of Yahweh as King is made very apparent in this third section. The two incidents described emphasise that Yahweh’s commandments were being spurned and ignored. The first majors on the breaking of the sixth and ninth commandments, ‘you shall not steal’ and ‘you shall not covet’, the second on the seventh and eighth commandments ‘you shall not murder’ and ‘you shall not commit adultery’. Furthermore in the first incident the apostasy of Israel is emphasised in the setting up of a rival Sanctuary at Laish by the half-tribe of Dan, and that by a direct descendant of Moses!

Judges 17. Micah and the Levite.

This chapter illustrates the rise of idolatry and disobedience to Yahweh in Israel after the death of Joshua. It is illustrated from an incident which occurred in the hill country of Ephraim, where a man, who had stolen a large sum of money from his mother, returned it, on which part of it was sadly converted to an idolatrous use. Two images and a teraphim were made of it, and eventually a Levite appointed to be priest. In the following chapter this priest would then aid the half-tribe of Dan to

steal the images from their owner. Thus theft is central to, and emphasised in, the account. The second sad final result is the setting up of a rival Sanctuary to that already in place, in Laish (Dan). It was contrary to the covenant with Yahweh, directly as a result of this theft.

Verse 1Judges 17. Micah and the Levite.

This chapter illustrates the rise of idolatry and disobedience to Yahweh in Israel after the death of Joshua. It is illustrated from an incident which occurred in the hill country of Ephraim, where a man, who had stolen a large sum of money from his mother, returned it, on which part of it was sadly converted to an idolatrous use. Two images and a teraphim were made of it, and eventually a Levite appointed to be priest. In the following chapter this priest would then aid the half-tribe of Dan to steal the images from their owner. Thus theft is central to, and emphasised in, the account. The second sad final result is the setting up of a rival Sanctuary to that already in place, in Laish (Dan). It was contrary to the covenant with Yahweh, directly as a result of this theft.

Judges 17:1

‘And there was a man of the hill country of Ephraim, whose name was Micah.’This incident took place fairly early on in the period of the Judges for it occurred prior to the movement of the Danites from their allotted territory to Laish (Judges 18:1), yet not early enough to be too much before this event. It is significant because it occurred within reasonable reach of the central sanctuary, demonstrating that the hold and significance of the central sanctuary, and of the Law of God which it upheld, was at this time fairly minimal even within a close range.

The people were now settling down into the land and were prepared to coexist with the inhabitants of the land and imitate their ways. And from this incident and what follows we can see why there was a necessity for Yahweh’s activity as described in the book of Judges.

The name Micah means ‘who is like Yah (Yahweh)?’ It was deliberately ironic that someone with a name like that should be presented as an example of those who turned from Yahweh to their own ways, bringing Him down to the level of other religions. The description of his whereabouts was deliberately vague although it would be some miles north of Jerusalem. He represented in general the behaviour of many Israelites.

EXPOSITOR'S BIBLE COMME TARY, "THE STOLE GODS

17:1-13, 18:1-31

THE portion of the Book of Judges which begins with the seventeenth chapter and extends to the close is not in immediate connection with that which has gone before.

We read { 18:30} that "Jonathan, the son of Gershom, the son of Manasseh, he and his sons were priests to the tribe of Dan until the day of the captivity of the land." But the proper reading is, "Jonathan, the son of Gershom, the son of Moses." It would seem that the renegade Levite of the narrative was a near descendant of the great lawgiver. So rapidly did the zeal of the priestly house decline that in the third or fourth generation after Moses one of his own line became minister of an idol temple for the sake of a living. It is evident, then, that in the opening of the seventeenth chapter, we are carried back to the time immediately following the conquest of Canaan by Joshua, when Othniel was settling in the south and the tribes were endeavouring to establish themselves in the districts allotted to them. The note of time is of course far from precise, but the incidents are certainly to be placed early in the period.

We are introduced first to a family living in Mount Ephraim consisting of a widow and: her son Micah, who is married and has sons of his own. It appears that on the death of the father of Micah a sum of eleven hundred shekels of silver, about a hundred and twenty pounds of our money-a large amount for the time-was missed by the widow, who after vain search for it spoke in strong terms about the matter to her son. He had taken the money to use in stocking his farm or in trade and at once acknowledged that he had done so and restored it to his mother, who hastened to undo any evil her words had caused by invoking upon him the blessing of God. Further she dedicated two hundred of her shekels to make graven and molten images in token of piety and gratitude.

We have here a very significant revelation of the state of religion. The indignation of Moses had burned against the people when at Sinai they made a rude image of gold, sacrificed to it and danced about it in heathen revel. We are reading of what took place say a century after that scene at the foot of Sinai, and already those who desire to show their devotion to the Eternal, very imperfectly known as Jehovah, make teraphim and molten images to represent Him. Micah has a sort of private chapel or temple among the buildings in his courtyard: He consecrates one of his sons to be priest of this little sanctuary. And the historian adds in explanation of this, as one keenly aware of the benefits of good government under a God-fearing monarch-"in those days there was no king in Israel. Every man did that which was right in his own eyes."

We need not take for granted that the worship in this hill chapel was of the heathen sort. There was probably no Baal, no Astarte among the images; or, if there was, it may have been merely as representing a Syrian power prudently recognised but not adored. o hint occurs in the whole story of a licentious or a cruel cult, although there must have been something dangerously like the superstitious practices of Canaan. Micah’s chapel, whatever the observances were, gave direct introduction to the pagan forms and notions which prevailed among the people of the land. There already Jehovah was degraded to the rank of a nature divinity, and represented by figures.`

In one of the highland valleys towards the north of Ephraim’s territory Micah had

his castle and his ecclesiastical establishment-state and church in germ. The Israelites of the neighbourhood, who looked up to the well to do farmer for protection, regarded him all the more that he showed respect for religion, that he had this house of gods and a private priest. They came to worship in his sanctuary and to inquire of the ecclesiastic, who in some way endeavoured to discover the will of God by means of the teraphim and ephod. The ark of the covenant was not far away, for Bethel and Gilgal were both within a day’s journey. But the people did not care to be at the trouble of going so far. They liked better their own local shrine and its homelier ways; and when at length Micah secured the services of a Levite the worship seemed to have all the sanction that could possibly be desired.

It need hardly be said that God is not confined to a locality, that in those days as in our own the true worshipper could find the Almighty on any hill top, in any dwelling or private place, as well as at the accredited shrine. It is quite true, also, that God makes large allowance for the ignorance of men and their need of visible signs and symbols of what is unseen and eternal. We must not therefore assume at once that in Micah’s house of idols, before the widow’s graven and molten figures, there could be no acceptable worship, no prayers that reached the ear of the Lord of Hosts. And one might even go the length of saying that, perhaps, in this schismatic sanctuary, this chapel of images, devotion could be quite as sincere as before the ark itself. Little good came of the religious ordinances maintained there during the whole period of the judges, and even in Eli’s latter days the vileness and covetousness practised at Shiloh more than countervailed any pious influence. Local and family altars therefore must have been of real use. But this was the danger, that leaving the appointed centre of Jehovah worship, where symbolism was confined within safe limits, the people should in ignorant piety multiply objects of adoration and run into polytheism. Hence the importance of the decree, afterwards recognised, that one place of sacrifice should gather to it all the tribes and that there the ark of the covenant with its altar should alone speak of the will and holiness of God. And the story of the Danite migration connected with this of Micah and his Levite well illustrates the wisdom of such a law, for it shows how, in the far north, a sanctuary and a worship were set up which, existing long for tribal devotion, became a national centre of impure worship.

The wandering Levite from Bethlehem-Judah is one, we must believe, of many Levites, who having found no inheritance because the cities allotted to them were as yet unconquered spread themselves over the land seeking a livelihood, ready to fall in with any local customs of religion that offered them position and employment. The Levites were esteemed as men acquainted with the way of Jehovah, able to maintain that communication with Him without which no business could be hopefully undertaken. Something of the dignity that was attached to the names of Moses and Aaron ensured them honourable treatment everywhere unless among the lowest of the people; and when this Levite reached the dwelling of Micah beside which there seems to have been a khan or lodging place for travellers, the chance of securing him was at once seized. For ten pieces of silver, say twenty-five shillings a year, with a suit of clothes and his food, he agreed to become Micah’s private chaplain. At this very cheap rate the whole household expected a time of prosperity

and divine favour. " ow know I," said the head of the family, "that the Lord will do me good seeing I have a Levite to my priest," We must fear that, he took some advantage of the man’s need, that he did not much consider the honour of Jehovah yet reckoned on getting a blessing all; the same. It was a case of seeking the best religious privileges as cheaply as possible, a very common thing in all ages.

But the coming of the Levite was to have results Micah did not foresee. Jonathan had lived in Bethlehem, and some ten or twelve miles westward down the valley one came to Zorah and Eshtaol, two little towns of the tribe of Dan of which we have heard. The Levite had apparently become pretty well known in the district: and especially in those villages to which he went to offer sacrifice or perform some other religious rite. And now a series of incidents brought certain old acquaintances to his new place of abode.

Even in Samson’s time the tribe of Dan, whose territory was to be along the coast west from Judah, was still obliged to content itself with the slopes of the hills, not having got possession of the plain. In the earlier period with which we are now dealing the Danites were in yet greater difficulty, for not only had they Philistines on the one side but Amorites on the other. The Amorites "would dwell," we are told, "in Mount Heres, in Aijalon and in Shaalbim." It was this pressure which determined the people about Zorah and Eshtaol to find if possible another place of settlement, and five men were sent out in search. Travelling north they took the same way as the Levite had taken, heard of the same khan in the hill country of Ephraim, and made it their resting place for a night. The discovery of the Levite Jonathan followed and of the chapel in which he ministered with its wonderful array of images. We can suppose the deputation had thoughts they did not express, but for the present they merely sought the help of the priest, begging him to consult the oracle on their behalf and learn whether their mission would be successful. The five went on their journey with the encouragement, "Go in peace; before the Lord is your way wherein ye go."

Months pass without any more tidings of the Danites until one day a great company is seen following the hill road near Micah’s farm. "There are six hundred men girt with weapons of war with their wives and children and cattle, a whole clan on the march, filling the road for miles and moving slowly northward. The five men have indeed succeeded after a fashion. Away between Lebanon and Hermon, in the region of the sources of Jordan, they have found the sort of district they went to seek. Its chief town Laish stood in the midst of fertile fields with plenty of wood and water. It was a place, according to their large report, where was no want of anything that is in the earth." Moreover the inhabitants, who seem to have been a Phoenician colony, dwelt by themselves quiet and secure, having no dealings or treaty with the powerful Zidonians. They were the very kind of people whom a sudden attack would be likely to subdue. There was an immediate migration of Danites to this fresh field, and in prospect of bloody work the men of Zorah and Eshtaoi seem to have had no doubt as to the rightness of their expedition; it was enough that they had felt themselves straitened. The same reason appears to suffice many in modern times. Were the aboriginal inhabitants of America and Australia

considered by those who coveted their land? Even the pretence of buying has not always been maintained. Murder and rapine have been the methods used by men of our own blood, our own name, and no nation under the sun has a record darker than the tale of British conquest.

Men who go forth to steal land are quite fit to attempt the strange business of stealing gods that is appropriating to themselves the favour of divine powers and leaving other men destitute. The Danites as they pass Micah’s house hear from their spies of the priest and the images that are in his charge. "Do you know that that there is in these houses an ephod and teraphim and a graven image and a molten image? ow therefore consider what ye have to do." The hint is enough. Soon the court of the farmstead is invaded, the images are brought out and the Levite Jonathan, tempted by the offer of being made priest to a clan, is fain to accompany the marauders. Here is confusion on confusion. The Danites are thieves, brigands, and yet they are pious; so pious that they steal images to assist them in worship. The Levite agrees to the theft and accepts the offer of priesthood under them. He will be the minister of a set of thieves to forward their evil designs, and they, knowing him to be no better than themselves, expect that his sacrifices and prayers will do them good. It is surely a capital instance of perverted religious ideas.

As we have said, these circumstances are no doubt recounted in order to show how dangerous it was to separate from the pure order of worship at the sanctuary. In after times this lesson was needed, especially when the first king of the northern tribes set his golden calves the one at Bethel, the other at Dan. Was Israel to separate from Judah in religion as well as in government? Let there be a backward look to the beginning of schism in those extraordinary doings of the Danites. It was in the city founded by the six hundred that one of Jeroboam’s temples was built. Could any blessing rest upon a shrine and upon devotions which had such an origin, such a history?

May we find a parallel now? Is there a constituted religious authority with which soundness of belief and acceptable worship are so bound up that to renounce the authority is to be in the way of confusion and error, schism and eternal loss? The Romanist says so. Those who speak for the Papal church never cease to cry to the world that within their communion alone are truth and safety to be found. Renounce, they say, the apostolic and divine authority which we conserve and all is gone. Is there anarchy in a country? Are the forces that make for political disruption and national decay showing themselves in many lands? Are monarchies overthrown? Are the people lawless and wretched? It all comes of giving up the Catholic order and creed. Return to the one fold under the one Shepherd if you would find prosperity. And there are others who repeat the same injunction, not indeed denying that there may be saving faith apart from their ritual, but insisting still that it is an error and a sin to seek God elsewhere than at the accredited shrine.

With Jewish ordinances we Christians have nothing to do when we are judging as to religious order and worship now. There is no central shrine, no exclusive human authority. Where Christ is, there is the temple; where He speaks, the individual

conscience must respond. The work of salvation is His alone, and the humblest believer is His consecrated priest. When our Lord said, "The hour cometh and now is-when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth"; and again, "Where two or three are gathered together in My name there am I in the midst of them"; when He as the Son of God held out His hands directly to every sinner needing pardon and every seeker after truth, when He offered the one sacrifice upon the cross by which a living way is opened into the holiest place, He broke down the walls of partition and with the responsibility declared the freedom of the soul.

And here we reach the point to which our narrative applies as an illustration. Micah and his household worshipping the images of silver, the Levite officiating at the altar, seeking counsel of Jehovah by ephod and teraphim, the Danites who steal the gods, carry off the priest and set up a new worship in the city they build-all these represent to us types and stages of what is really schism pitiful and disastrous-that is, separation from the truth of things and from the sacred realities of divine faith. Selfish untruth and infidelity are schism, the wilderness and outlawry of the soul.

1. Micah and his household, with their chapel of images, their ephod and teraphim, represent those who fall into the superstition that religion is good as insuring temporal success and prosperity, that God will see to the worldly comfort of those who pay respect to Him. Even among Christians this is a very common and very debasing superstition. The sacraments are often observed as signs of a covenant which secures for men divine favour through social arrangements and human law.

2. The spiritual nature and power of religion are not denied, but they are uncomprehended. The national custom and the worldly hope have to do with the observance of devout forms rather than any movement of the soul heavenward. A church may in this way become like Micah’s household, and prayer may mean seeking good terms with Him who can fill the land with plenty or send famine and cleanness of teeth. Unhappily many worthy and most devout persons still hold the creed of an early and ignorant time. The secret of nature and providence is hid from them. The severities of life seem to them to be charged with anger, and the valleys of human reprobation appear darkened by the curse of God. Instead of finding in pain and loss a marvellous divine discipline they perceive only the penalty of sin, a sign of God’s aversion, not of His Fatherly grace. It is a sad, a terrible blindness of soul. We can but note it here and pass on, for there, are other applications of the old story.

3. The Levite represents an unworthy worldly ministry. With sadness must confession be made that there are in every church pastors unspiritual, worldlings in heart, whose desire is mainly for superiority of rank or of wealth, who have no vision of Christ’s cross and battle except as objective and historical. Here, most happily, the cases of complete worldliness are rare. It is rather a tendency we observe than a developed and acknowledged state of things. Very few of those in the ranks of the Christian ministry are entirely concerned with the respect paid to them in society and the number of shekels to be got in a year. That he keeps pace with the crowd instead of going before it is perhaps the hardest thing that can be said of the

worldly pastor. He is humane, active, intelligent; but it is for the church as a great institution, or the church as his temporal hope and stay. So his ministry becomes at the best a matter of serving tables and providing alms-we shall not say amusement. Here indeed is schism; for what is farther from the truth of things, what is farther from Christ?

Once more we have with us today, very much with us, certain Danites of science, politics, and the press who, if they could, would take away our God and our Bible, our Eternal Father and spiritual hope, not from a desire to possess but because they hate to see us believing, hate to see any weight of silver given to religious uses. ot a few of these are marching, as they think triumphantly, to commanding and opulent positions whence they will rule the thought of the world. And on the way, even while they deride and detest the supernatural, they will have the priest go with them. They care nothing for what he says; to listen to the voice of a spiritual teacher is an absurdity of which they would not be guilty; for to their own vague prophesying all mankind is to give hoed, and their interpretations of human life are to be received as the bible of the age. Of the same order is the socialist who would make use of a faith he intends to destroy, and a priesthood whose claim is offensive to him, on his way to what he calls the organisation of society. In his view the uses of Christianity and the Bible are temporal and earthly. He will not have Christ the Redeemer of the soul, yet he attempts to conjure with Christ’s words and appropriate the power of His name. The audacity of these would be robbers is matched only by their ignorance of the needs and ends of human life.

We might here refer to the injustice practised by one and another band of our modem Israel who do not scruple to take from obscure and weak households of faith the sacraments and Christian ministry, the marks and rights of brotherhood. We can well believe that those who do this have never looked at their action from the other side, and may not have the least idea of the soreness they leave in the hearts of humble and sincere believers.

In fine, the Danites with the images of Micah went their way and he and his neighbours had to suffer the loss and make the best of their empty chapel, where no oracle thenceforth spoke to them. It is no parable, but a very real example of the loss that comes to all who have trusted in forms and symbols, the outward signs instead of the living power of religion. While we repel the arrogance that takes from faith its symbolic props and stays we must not let ourselves deny that the very rudeness of an enemy may be an excellent discipline for the Christian. Agnosticism and science and other Danite companies sweep with them a good deal that is dear to the religious mind and may leave it very distressed and anxious-the chapel empty, the oracle as it may appear lost forever. With the symbol the authority, the hope, the power seem to be lost irrecoverably. What now has faith to rest upon? But the modern spirit with its resolution to sweep away every unfact and mere form is no destroyer. Rather does it drive the Christian to a science, a virtue far beyond its own. It forces we may say on faith that severe truthfulness and intellectual courage which are the proper qualities of Christianity, the necessary counterpart of its trust and love and grace. In short, when enemies have carried off the poor teraphim and

fetishes which are their proper capture they have but compelled religion to be itself, compelled it to find its spiritual God, its eternal creed and to understand its Bible. This, though done with evil intent, is surely no cruelty, no outrage. Shall a man or a church that has been so roused and thrown back on reality sit wailing in the empty chapel for the images of silver and the deliverances of the hollow ephod? Everything remains, the soul and the spiritual world, the law of God, the redemption of Christ, the Spirit of eternal life.

PARKER, "A Series of Surprises

The book of Judges properly closes with the sixteenth chapter. What follows after the sixteenth chapter has been described as an appendix—two appendices, indeed, dealing with the case of two Levites. From the seventeenth chapter onward the matter was probably written long before other portions of the book, in the days of Joshua and the greater judges. Certainly, this part of the book was written when there was no king in Israel, and when every man was left to do that which was right in his own eyes. The history of the two Levites is full of romantic interest. The first history is to be read aloud and preached about quite freely; the second is to be read in secret—hardly read at all, and yet fully comprehended, because of the following chapter in which vengeance, just and tremendous, is dealt out to men who inflicted upon Israel a scandal that was never forgotten. Let us publicly and openly read the case of the first Levite, and then read in shame and secrecy what follows; then come into the light once more, and close the book of Judges amid a blaze of glory.

Is not this a fair picture of life? What undulation! What incessant variety! what visions of beauty! what disclosures of shame! how bright is the fair, great heaven; and yet how near the deep and awful hell! Micah dwelt in mount Ephraim, and stole silver from his mother: Micah afterwards became a maker of gods. What rapid transitions in character! what wonder if the rapidity of the transitions sometimes excites suspicion as to the reality of the conversion? But is not history condensed? The verses read in flowing sequence, as if no time had elapsed between one line and another: hence the shock with which we come upon the fact that the man who was but yesterday a concealed criminal is today a manufacturer of gods and churches. Is there not a punctuation in life which is inserted by the hand of God? Are not the observers to blame for a good deal of what is called unnatural and too swift transition in character? Who knows what may happen in one hour when God is the minister and a repentant soul is the subject? Sometimes life is wrought out very swiftly, so far as public observation can detect; yet it is being lived very slowly in the consciousness of the man: he is so fired with pain because of conscious sin that he would have himself transported in unnamable swiftness of time into a new consciousness and a blessed individuality. At the same time, a sober lesson does reveal itself at this very point. Whilst conversion may scarcely be too sudden, the manufacture of gods and churches ought not to take place with indecent haste, if at all. It is difficult to believe that a man can spring at one bound from being a concealed felon into being a patron of the universe—a builder of gates that open heaven, a creator of altars and priests. There should be some time spent in solitude,

in secrecy, in earnest wrestling prayer: the whole night should be thus spent, and the morning light will shine upon a new personality, bearing a new and larger name. At the same time, recognising the sobriety and gravity of the lesson, let no man be discouraged should he really feel what by its purity must be a divine impulse to move instantly and to act like a man who, having wasted many days, seeks to redeem the time, and to make one day as long as two, by diligent industry, by the passion of consecrated love.

This chapter is full of surprises. What can be more surprising than that a layman should consecrate a priest? This is what Micah did. Micah began where he could. Everything was to be done at once. So Micah consecrated one of his sons, who became his priest Men do things in high passion which would be unnatural and almost irrational if done in cold blood. We must always calculate the influence of spiritual temperature upon human action. Some things we must have heard, and not read; the whole meaning was in the way of saying them. The Bible only tells us that certain persons "cried unto the Lord,"—verily a poor report, utterly inadequate, yet all that was possible: for who can write down a "cry"? who can paint, even in letters, an agony? So some allowance must be made for the new spiritual passion of Micah. A man can do great things when he is really on fire. o man knows himself, as to the full volume and bulk of his being, until he is possessed—no longer a little measurable self, but part of an infinite immeasurable totality. We speak of men being "mighty in prayer." They cannot account for it. Yet they know that sometimes they have hold of God, and that omnipotence graciously yields to the gracious violence. Indeed, man must at certain historical periods make priests. Whether we are in such a historical period now, is not the immediate question, but following the unfolding of history along the biblical line we see how now and again man must be almost almighty. Despair finds new energies. Religious despair, religious helplessness, finds God, or makes an image supposed to be like him. Do not let us mock at idolatry of a really heathen kind too flippantly; there may be an aspect of idolatry that touches our sense of the ludicrous, but there is also an aspect of it which touches our tears. To be an idolater in a Christian land is not only an anachronism, it is a blasphemy: but follow the whole history of idolatry and study its pathetic side, and see if it be not true that in man"s attempts to make gods, and altars, and priests, there is something infinitely touching. To that mystery in our being a divine revelation may one day be made. It may be at that very point God will begin the miracle of self-revelation—of incarnation. Man must have a priest. There are necessities which cannot be denied—urgencies of soul which must be appeased, soothed, if not gratified. Are not all men looking round—some hopelessly and indistinctly—for helpers, spiritual assistants, for brother-men larger than they and altogether mightier in the nobler life, to lift them up, to eke out their poor expressions, to find prayers which their poor lips may utter as if their own? Is there not something in the heart that cries—"Master, Lord, teach us how to pray"? The fault does not lie in the impulse, but in its perversion; nay, rather, there is an unmistakable touch and signature of divinity in the impulse. Blessed are they who have received the ministry of sanctification and have responded to the divine provision made for great human passions, and great spiritual necessities. Yet no man can make a priest. Priests are the miracles of manhood—men who have the gift

of prayer, men who by looking on human sorrow are moved heavenward to intercede on man"s behalf A strange gift, signalised by fire, is that of being able to pray in every tongue, so that every man may hear in the tongue in which he was born an interpretation of his soul"s poverty and need. Such intercessors are not made by man: these are the gifts of God to every age. "The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much." Yet this is confining the idea of priesthood to intercession. If it be so confined, what possible objection can be lodged against it? To make a priest anything more than one who is mighty in prayer, mighty in sympathy, keen in moral insight, patient more than woman, is not the work of man.

A surprising thing it is that a converted thief should elaborate a religious system: "And the man Micah had an house of gods and made an ephod"—a gorgeous priestly robe—"and teraphim"—little Syrian images. This is a condensed statement. Who can go into the detail of these two lines? "An house of gods "—a consecrated place—a gods" house: what patience in the elaboration of the deities; what painstaking in the fabrication of the ephod; what detailed and critical, if not artistic, care, in the shaping of the teraphim; we are apt to overlook the detail of all worship. Look upon the poorest little church, on the bleakest hillside, and what does it look like but a handful of6tones rudely put together,—a sight that might be remarked upon at the moment, and passed by and forgotten? yet who can tell the history of these few stones? who knows with what hands they were carried and shaped and put in place? who knows how the labourers toiled when the day"s work was done that they might put up the simple structure, to have a home in which to worship God? Who knows at what sacrifice the Bible was bought by these poor peasant worshippers, how small sums were laid by from week to week, and how as the little pile neared maturity the thrifty one almost had the Bible by the anticipation of love, how the Bible was preserved, loved, almost worshipped? Do not let us pass by all these things carelessly as if they meant nothing; they are full of tears, full of pathos, full of that finest quality of manhood which is the real wealth of any nation.

Yet Micah was ill at ease. Who can make one of his own sons into his superior? The son was but a makeshift after all. How superstition tyrannises over men! To have a son for a priest as Micah had was like a kind of illicit marriage. A sense of un-naturalness marred the service. The son was quite right in many respects, worthy of confidence and honour and love; but in his official capacity he was still a son. Who does not like his minister to come down out of the clouds? Who likes to see a minister grow up before his very eyes—to know the child at home, to follow the boy at school, to see him pass through various processes, and at length appear as a recognised minister of Christian truth? Who does not feel slightly uneasy if he knows the minister"s mother and brothers and sisters? Who does not say, "Are they not all with us? Is not this the carpenter"s son"? To some people, if a man is once a carpenter"s Song of Solomon , he never can be anything else by all the miracles of Heaven. Why? Because they themselves could never be anything else: they measure themselves in measuring him. Who does not like a species of ghostliness to be round about a minister? Who likes to think that his minister eats and drinks and sleeps? In very deed, some quite hide that aspect of the ministry and graciously pay no attention to it. Micah was but a man. It would be a beautiful thing if ministers could

come down from the clouds and go back to the clouds, and we could have nothing to do with them but enjoy a momentary revelation. This has many applications. The man who felt somewhat uneasy or dissatisfied as to his son being priest, represents a great many men. Who could be so grand a minister as the brother sitting at our side, who, suddenly inflamed by the divine presence, rises and speaks to human need in human speech? If we were not so little, so superstitious, so denuded of the higher and sublimer reason, we should find in man—known man—our truest representative. It is because we have misunderstood humanity that we have undervalued the true ministry.

But fortune seemed to be upon Micah"s side. We are now in times of wandering and adventure and bold enterprise, and in those times a young man was travelling out of Beth-lehem-judah of the family of Judah, and he happened to be a real Levite; and when he came to mount Ephraim, to the house of Micah , Micah elicited his story, and instantly said to him, "Dwell with me, and be unto me a father and a priest." The Levites in those days were driven about. It was mourned in one of the prophetic books that the portion of the Levites was withheld from them. They were under Heaven"s frown:—"I will divide them in Jacob, and scatter them in Israel." So this young man was wandering, more or less in a spirit of enterprise and curiosity; and he came, as we now say, by chance to the house of Micah. There was something interesting about him. He certainly was not a money-seeker; the terms were these:—"And I will give thee ten shekels of silver by the year, and a suit of apparel, and thy victuals" ( Judges 17:10)—twenty-five shillings a year was not much for a priest, even including one suit of clothes and victuals. A man who had spent hundreds of shekels upon his gods thought he was liberal in spending five-and-twenty shillings a year on his priests! There are persons who think more of the church as a building than of the minister as a servant of the soul. Who was this Levite? Was he a man of any name? ot much in himself, but he was the grandson of Moses. To what adversities may we come in life, and to what "base uses"! The grandson of Moses, the caretaker of Syrian images, and the priest of an idolater! Who can say to what we may be driven? Once let the centre go; once depart from the vital point; take one step in a wrong direction, and who can calculate the issue? Be steadfast; hold on to the ascertained—to that which is proved to be beneficent, pure, noble; or you may come into a servility which not only disennobles you but throws unjustly a slur on the most famous memory. o man liveth unto himself. We have to take care of the past, if we would really take care of the future. ow Micah was comparatively happy. Micah consecrated the Levite. The Levite was not a priest, but he seemed to have an odour of sanctity about him, and, for the rest, Micah , having once got his hand into priest-making, made no account of it. The young man became his priest, and was in the house of Micah; then Micah was at rest.

The greatest surprise of all remains. Here is an idolater appealing to the true God! "Then said Micah , ow know I that the Lord will do me good, seeing I have a Levite to my priest" ( Judges 17:13). Here is a false worshipper unconsciously throwing off his own idols! He keeps the idols as men keep cabinets of curiosities. He has a house, a little museum, a small miniature pantheon; but in his finer moods he

appeals to the true and living God. So literal are we, we like to have something to lay the hand upon. Men like a substantial and visible religion. Yet Micah felt that God would do him good, seeing he had a Levite for his priest. The son did not quite fill up the space, but now with a real living Levite on the premises, the Lord—the eternal God, the Father of every living thing—will do this man of mount Ephraim good. How we degrade God,—that is to say, how we misconceive him and misrepresent him to ourselves! The Lord will do us good if our heart is right towards him. The Lord will make up for the absence of all priests, ministers churches, books, and ordinances, if we are unable to avail ourselves of such help: God will allow us to eat the shewbread, if there be no other food with which to appease our hunger. The true Church is where the right heart is. God himself is a Spirit. There is no image of him that can be made by human hands. There is one Priest—Jesus Christ, the true Melchizedek. He alone can sacrifice and has sacrificed and is sacrificed for us. There is one altar—the cross—the cross of Jesus Christ: God forbid that we should even know any other altar than the cross of our redeeming, atoning, glorious Saviour. For what are we looking? We cannot appease our deepest needs, silence our most poignant cries, by any manufactures possible to our ingenuity and skill: the Son of God is the Saviour of the world; he is able to save unto the utmost all that come unto God by him, seeing that he ever liveth to make intercession for us. If any man should now say that he himself is needful to our communion with Heaven, he is more than wrong in opinion, the case is infinitely more serious than that which can be measured by mere mistakenness of judgment: he usurps the place of Christ, he dethrones the Son of God, he at least divides the prerogative of the one Advocate. This, then, is our Christian position: Man needs a priest—that Priest is Jesus Christ; man needs communion with Heaven—that communion is spiritual; man needs an answer to the agony of his own accusation—that answer is in the cross of Christ. These are great mysteries, but the soul may become reverently familiar with them, after great suffering, prolonged prayer, and simple trust in the living God.

This "Micah" is not Micah the prophet. The name "Micah" means "who is like God?"

DAVID LEGGE ow we're going to look at a couple of chapters at the end of the book of Judges that are akind of appendix to this book. They're not chronological in a narrative sense, meaning thatwhat you're reading in chapter 17, 18 and following does not come after, in a time order, thelife of Samson or the Judges that we have considered. It's more of a glimpse, a cameo of thegeneral conditions that prevailed over the whole of this time period that we would call theperiod of the Judges. As we will see, there's an uncanny similarity in this time period and thetime period in which we live.

The first of these is the history of Micah, a man of mount Ephraim. In outward

appearance both Micah and his mother were people of deep, religious inclination. Their

conversation was filled with repeated references to the name of Jehovah, with

affirmations of dedication to him, and with pleas for Jehovah's blessing. In actual

practice, however, it was quite evident that they cared not one whit for Jehovah, for what

He said or how He commanded that He should be worshipped. They had no real desire to

serve Him or dwell in his fellowship. Their piousness was the sickening sort of which we

read in lsaiah, " This people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honor

me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the

precept of men." (Is 29:13)

The account opens with Micah returning to his mother eleven hundred shekels of silver

which he had stolen. Superstitiously, he feared the curse which she had pronounced upon

the thief. Piously, his mother wished the blessing of Jehovah upon him because, she said,

she had dedicated the money to Jehovah for the making of a graven image and a molten

image. Thereupon she gave two hundred shekels of the money to Micah, and he

proceeded to have them formed into two idols. In addition, he made an ephod (a priestly

garment), teraphim (a number of small images), a sanctuary to hold them, and he

consecrated one of his sons to be a priest. It all served to make him a man of distinction in

his community, a man with his own gods, his own sanctuary in which to worship, and his

own priest to lead in service. But, if that was not enough, when a wandering Levite

appeared at his house, he enlisted him to be priest in place of his son, for after all God

had separated the tribe of Levi for temple service, and, if possible, it was best to observe

such formalities. Proudly Micah exclaimed, "�ow know I that Jehovah will do me good,

seeing I have a Levite to my priest." (RV) It reflected the sad way in which the service of

Jehovah had been corrupted and intermixed with pagan idolatry. Micah was not alone in

such practices.

BI 1-13, "Micah.

Micah’s mother

In the second verse of this chapter Micah makes a clean confession of a great wrong which he had done to his mother. “It seems,” says Matthew Henry, “that this old woman, with long scraping and saving, had hoarded a considerable sum of money—eleven hundred pieces of silver. It is likely she intended, when she died, to leave it to this son. In the meantime, it did her good to count it over and call it her own.” On discovering that she had been relieved of her treasure, Micah’s mother became justly indignant. She scolded and called down curses on the one who had robbed her. This she did in her son’s presence, and though she made no direct charge of the offence upon him, her conduct greatly disturbed his conscience. Some time later he made an open acknowledgment to his mother of the whole matter, and restored the stolen treasure. The reappearance of the lost shekels had a remarkably soothing effect on her disposition. She forgot all about the wrong done to her, and all about her own distemper. “Blessed be thou of the Lord, my son,” said this forgiving mother. Is it not wonderful what a difference a little money makes in one’s disposition and feelings? She who could curse at its loss now as readily blesses with its return. One can imagine a very different state of things had Micah come to her with his confession, but without the eleven hundred pieces of silver. Note now another incident in this transaction. After this money had been stolen Micah’s mother gave as one reason for feeling so badly that “she had dedicated it wholly to the Lord.” When she had it in her possession she had not the heart to do this, but as soon as it was gone she made known her good intentions. For some reason Micah was moved to restore to his mother the money which belonged to her. What did she do with it? Did she give it to the Lord; according to her reported oath of dedication? The record shows she gave to

Him but the veriest part of it. Nine hundred shekels she kept for herself. The remaining two hundred she devoted to religious uses. What a picture in this conduct of Micah and his mother of poor, weak, vacillating, human nature, sinning and confessing, cursing and blessing, as circumstances determine! “What wonder,” says Matthew Henry, “that such a mother had such a son! She paved the way for his theft, by her probable stinginess.” In her poverty she professed generous feeling towards the Lord’s cause. When her money came back, she gave to it less than one-fifth of the all she had promised. (W. H. Allbright.)

There was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes.

Anarchy

At the first, one would think that it were a merry world if every man might do what he listed. But yet sure those days were evil. This, a complaint. To let you see, then, what a monster lurketh under these smooth terms, “doing that which is right in our eyes.” Two parts there be, the eye, and the hand. To begin with the eye, and that which is right in the eye. There began all evil in the first temptation—even from this persuasion, they should need no direction from God, or from any; their own eye should be their director to what was right. Three evils are in it. It is not safe to commit the judgment of what is right to the eye; and yet it is our surest sense, as that which apprehendeth greatest variety of differences. But I know withal, the optics (the masters of that faculty) reckon up twenty several ways, all which it may be and is deceived. The object full of deceit; things are not as they seem. The medium is not evenly disposed. Take but one: that of the oar in the water. Though the oar be straight, yet, if the eye be judge, it seemeth bowed. And if that which is right may seem crooked, that which is crooked may seem right.. So the eye is no competent judge. But admit we will make the eye judge, yet not every man’s eye; that were too much. Many weak and dim eyes there be, many goggle and mis-set; many little better than blind; shall all and every of these be allowed to define what is right? Some, it may be (perhaps the eagle), but shall the owl and all? I trow not. Many mis-shapen kinds of right shall we have if that may be suffered. We all know self-love, what a thing it is, how it dazzleth the sight; how everything appeareth right and good that appeareth through those spectacles. Therefore, not right by the eye. At least, not every man’s eye. Nay, not any man is right by his own eye. I now pass to the next point. Here is a hand, too. For here at this breaketh in the whole sea of confusion, when the hand followeth the eye, and men proceed to do as lewdly as they see perversely. And sure the hand will follow the eye, and men do as seemeth right to them, be it never so absurd.

1. Micah liked an idol well; Micah had a good purse; he told out two hundred shekels, and so up went the idol.

2. The men of Dan liked well of spoiling; they were well appointed, their swords were sharp; they did it.

3. They of Gibeah, to their lust, rape seemed a small matter; they were a multitude, no resisting them; and so they committed that abominable villainy. But what, shall this be suffered and no remedy sought? God forbid. First, the eye, error in the eye, is harm enough; and order must be taken even for that. For men do not err in judgment but with hazard of their souls; very requisite, therefore, that men be travailed with, that they may see their own blindness. But, if they be strongly

conceited of their own sight, and will not endure any to come near their eyes: if we cannot cure their eyes, what, shall we not hold their hands neither? Yes, in any wise. We see, then, the malady; more than time we sought out a remedy for it. That shall we best do if we know the cause. The cause is here set down. If the cause be there is no king, let there be one: that is the remedy. A good king will help all, if it be of absolute necessity that neither Micah, for all his wealth, nor Dan, for all their forces, nor Gibeah, for all their multitude, do what they list. This is then God’s means. We cannot say His only means, in that there are states that subsist without them, but this we may say, His best means—the best for order, peace, strength, steadiness. The next point is, no king in Israel. That this is not noted as a defect in gross, or at large, but even in Israel, God’s own chosen people. It is a want, not in Edom or Canaan, but even in Israel. Truly Israel, being God’s own peculiar people, might seem to claim a prerogative above other nations, in this, that they had the knowledge of His laws, whereby their eyes were lightened and their hands taught. Of which there needeth no reason but this: that a king is a good means to keep them God’s Israel. Here, for want of a king, Israel began, and was fair onward, to be no longer Israel, but even Babel. I come to the third part: and to what end a king? What will a king do unto us? He will in his general care look to both parts, the eye and the hand—the eye, that men sin not blindly for want of direction; the hand, that men sin not with a high hand for want of correction. But this is not all; the text carrieth us yet further—that it is not only the charge of the king, but the very first article in his charge. (Bp. Andrewes.)

Anarchy

I. The tragical antecedent: In those days there was no king in Israel.

II. The terrible consequent: Every one did that which was right in their own eyes.

III. The infallible connection between that cause and this effect. (Thos. Cartwright, D. D.)

The evil of unbridled liberty

To live as we please would be the ready way to lose our liberty, and undo ourselves. Tyranny itself were infinitely more tolerable than such an unbridled liberty. For that, like a tempest, might throw down here and there a fruitful tree, but this, like a deluge, would sweep away all before it. Many men, many minds, and each strongly addicted to his own. If, therefore, every man should be his own judge, so as to take upon him to determine his own right, and according to such determination to proceed in the maintenance of it, not only the government, but the kingdom itself would quickly come to ruin; and yet admit of the former, and you cannot exclude the latter. Diseases in the eye, errors in the judgment, are dangerous; and there being not one reason in us, there is the more need of one power over us. Yet they who see amiss, hurt none, they say, but themselves; but how if their unquiet opinions will not be kept at home? but prove as thorns in their sides, and will not suffer them to take any rest, till from liberty of thinking, they come to liberty of acting! Nor is there any reason we should be lawless, to do what we please, for we cannot fathom the depth and deceitfulness of our own hearts, much less of the hearts of other men. Only this we know, we are all the worse for that which we mistake for liberty (mistake, I say), for to live as we please is indeed to lose our liberty, of which the law is so far from being an abridgement that it is the only firm foundation upon which it must

be built. (Thos. Cartwright, D. D.)

The Levite was content.—

The young Levite; or, rich content

His morals were bad, but his spirit of general contentedness was good. Can it be said of men now that they are content? How much unrest is there all around us! The discontented spirit is easily discovered. The merchant, in his office or on the market, makes certain profits, but frets himself that he has not made more. The tradesman bitterly complains of the badness of trade, and the artisan of slackness of work. When he has succeeded in finding employment he will be found quarrelling with the rate of payment. Nor is the discontented spirit confined to the town; it is found in rural districts too. Speak with the occupier, and what a string of complaints he has about home or weather; speak with the wife, and she complains of her wayward family; with the son, and you find that he is weary of country life, and longs for the excitement of a city; with the daughter, and she is annoyed that school life has to be followed by what she terms “home drudgery.” You may go away from such a place of beauty in complete disgust. The appearances have completely belied the reality. Even the Indian, for whom a blanket and weapon would appear to suffice, is ofttimes discontented because game is scarce or his maize plot unproductive. It is difficult to find any person who is without some reason for discontent, or any position which places a man beyond its reach. The joy of the early Church (Act_2:46) grew out of its contentedness. Its first experience of the results of religion was so joyous that it was a foretaste of millennial bliss. It lasted, unfortunately, too short a time, and yet long enough to show what should be the ideal of life.

1. This “simplicity of heart,” this contentedness of mind, is not always inherited, does not always come by nature, but may be obtained. It can only come fully when the heart is at peace with God through Christ. The man is “alive to God.” He gives all his affection to God, because he lives in the love which God has to him. His greatest desire is to have his whole nature subdued to Christ, and serve Him in “singleness of heart.”

2. Again, this state is not one which comes to all suddenly. Indeed, it comes to most gradually. Paul, the apostle, only attained it by degrees.

3. There is a temporary advantage in discontent. But for dissatisfaction with our spiritual state and progress, we should not strive to make any advance.

4. Look at some of the results which follow the attaimnent of the contented spirit.

(1) There will be a readiness to make the best of any position in which we may be placed. There was a schoolmaster among the Cumberland Hills, of whom Robertson speaks in one of his lectures—a man who rested content with a very small school, small salary, and small house; though his abilities would have obtained for him a position much higher in the eyes of the world, but who refused every inducement to remove. He said, “I reckon that the privilege of living amid beautiful scenery much more than compensates for a large salary with work in the stifling atmosphere of some town.” It is possible, therefore, to gain contentedness in respect to position, and the more surely if we can have the assurance that Christ has taken up His abode in our hearts.

(2) Where this spirit obtains, there will be a more cheerful view of life cherished. A little girl once inquired, “Mamma, did the cheerful God make all the beautiful

flowers?” The child’s idea of God was far higher than of many Christians. Her expression, which was apparently bold, was one indicative of sweet simplicity and “singleness of heart.” Would that we could be in spirit as that little child.

(3) Where this spirit of content obtains, there will be a more earnest performance of any duty that may fall upon us. That which our hands find to do we shall do with our might. We shall ever search out occasions of usefulness. If we see any wrong, we shall not be content to let it rest. If we see ignorance and sin around, we shall strive to remove it.

(4) Where there is this rich content and true “singleness of heart” there will be a clearer and yet clearer perception of God’s truth and will. There is a clearness of vision following on “singleness” of desire.

(5) Moreover, there will be perfect willingness to leave everything in God’s hands. Much of the fret and worry of life will thus be saved. (F. Hastings.)

Micah consecrated the Levite.—

An unauthorised ordination; or, a pastor-elect’s recognition services

I. The pastor.

1. A recognised minister.

2. Without a charge.

3. Very poor.

4. In search of a ministry.

5. Of a good character.

6. A young pastor.

II. The call.

1. Its nature.

(1) To a small church.

(2) Unanimous.

(3) With little inquiries.

(4) Upon his own merit.

(5) By a very rich church.

2. Its condition.

(1) Much respected.

(2) Poor stipend.

III. The acceptance of the call.

1. Immediate.

2. Without a scruple.

IV. The recognition service.

1. An unauthorised ordination.

2. Without any ceremony.

3. With a good purpose.

V. The great satisfaction of the church in their choice. (M. Jones.)

Now know I that the Lord will do me good.—

The great religious want and mistake of humanity

I. The great religious want of humanity.

1. A friendly relation with the Eternal.

2. Some mediator to procure this friendship.

II. The great religious mistake of humanity. This man concludes that he shall obtain the Divine favour simply because he has a priest in his house. He may have drawn this false and dangerous conclusion from one of the following popular assumptions:

1. That there was something morally meritorious in merely supporting a minister of the Lord.

2. That the priest would have some special power with Heaven to obtain “good.”

3. That by his formally attending to the religious ordinances which this Levite prescribed “the Lord would do him good.” (Homilist.)

Micah and the Levite

I. Selfishness in religion. This lies at the foundation of Micah’s trouble. The institution of Micah’s new form of worship had its root in this vice. He did not break away from the old form of things because he was dissatisfied with it, but because it caused self-denial and money to support the established order of worship at Shiloh. It took time to go up there, and means to convey himself and family. Why could he not manage the matter more economically and just as satisfactorily at home, and thus avoid the annoyance and expense? Many a man has made this mistake of Micah, in think- ing he could worship God as acceptably in his own way as in any other—in thinking there is no difference between a man-made and a Divinely-appointed religion. In Micah’s case selfishness defeated itself, as it does invariably. In departing from the true religion he soon came to have no religion at all. And is not this the inevitable course of religious declension? If I could paint a picture that would preach a sermon, it would be Micah running after his gods and his renegade priest, and crying: “Ye have taken away my gods and my priest, and what have I more?“

II. Imitation in religion. Micah’s worship was a cross between Judaism and heathenism. He had the priest and the ephod on one side, and the molten and graven images on the other. Either he did not perceive the incongruity, or he thought it would make no difference. Some form of worship he considered a necessity. He was not ready to throw religion overboard. His difficulty was in thinking it made little difference after all what kind of religion a man has so long as he has some form of worship. Having no true idea as to the place of worship, he came soon to have no true idea of worship itself. This is a natural order of declension. Men nowadays break away from the sanctuary, not meaning to give up all religion. Having no stated place of worship, they go here and there for a

time, and then cease to go altogether. Breaking with the established order of worship, Micah manufactured a worship of his own. He mistook the sign for the thing signified. His religion was an imitation—a counterfeit—and a counterfeit is more or less a copy of the genuine. Many a man has made this mistake of Micah, in thinking that some religion was better than none—that a poor thing was better than nothing at all. Counterfeits and shams abound in religion. Imitations and incongruities are seen on every hand. One is forced to inquire, “Is there anything real and genuine?” Is every man the maker of his own idols? Is each and every one to be guided by his own ideas of worship? God forbid! If it be so, then unity is impossible, and confusion and bitterness and babble are the inevitable sequence.

III. Self-complacency. With his young priest and his heathen gods Micah was satisfied. Because he was, he thought God would be. Hence his complacent utterance: “Now know I that the Lord will do me good, seeing I have a Levite to my priest.” We have seen, even in our day, instances not altogether dissimilar. Families depending on the orthodoxy of the Church for the Divine approbation; Churches expecting all will go well from the ecclesiastical standing or ordination vows of their ministers. How often families and Churches and ministers have been disappointed! The truth is, there can be but one way of securing God’s blessing, whether for the individual, the family, or the Church. That one way is the way of loving and faithful obedience to His requirements. Not what we think, but what He thinks; not what we consider best, but what He commands, is our duty and happiness. Religion is not a human invention, but a Divine obligation. It is not a matter of mental caprice, but of joyful submission to the will of Heaven. (W. H. Allbright.).

2 said to his mother, “The eleven hundred shekels[a] of silver that were taken from you and about which I heard you utter a curse—I have that silver with me; I took it.”

Then his mother said, “The Lord bless you, my son!”

CLARKE, "About which thou cursedst - Houbigant and others understand this of putting the young man to his oath. It is likely that when the mother of Micah missed the money, she poured imprecations on the thief; and that Micah, who had secreted it,

hearing this, was alarmed, and restored the money lest the curses should fall on him.

GILL, "And he said unto his mother,.... Who seems to have been a widow, and an ancient woman since Micah had sons, and one of them at age to become a priest:

the eleven hundred shekels of silver that were taken from thee: which were taken away by stealth from her, though it may be rendered "taken to thee" (i); which she had taken to herself out of the rest of her substance, and had separated and devoted it to religious uses; but Jarchi and Kimchi interpret it as we do, and which seems to be the best sense; of the value of this sum; see Gill on Jdg_16:5 and because the like sum is there offered, and was given to Delilah, hence some have thought, as Jarchi relates, that this woman was Delilah; but, as he observes, it is a mistake; for this woman lived long before the times of Samson and Delilah:

about which thou cursedst; which when she perceived was stolen from her, she fell into a passion, and cursed and swore, cursed the thief that took it, whether of her own family or another; or adjured her son, that if he knew anything of it, that he would declare it, suspecting him of the robbery; some think this refers to the oath she had made, that she would devote the silver to a religious use:

and spakest of also in mine ears; of the sum how much it was, and of the use she had designed it for; or rather the curse was delivered in his hearing, and cut him to the heart, and wrought that conviction in him, that he could not retain the money any longer, not being able to bear his mother's curse; though Abarbinel connects this with the following clause, "behold, the silver is with me"; as if the sense was, that she spake in his ears, and charged him with the theft to his face; saying, verily the silver is with thee, thou hast certainly taken it; upon which he confessed it, "I took it"; but the former sense seems best, that not being willing to lie under his mother's curse, he owned that the money was in his hands, and he had taken it from her:

and his mother said, blessed be thou of the Lord, my son; she reversed the curse, and pronounced a blessing on him, or wished one to him, and that without reproving him for his sin, rejoicing to hear of her money again.

HE RY, "Micah and his mother reconciled. 1. The son was so terrified with his mother's curses that he restored the money. Though he had so little grace as to take it, he had so much left as not to dare to keep it when his mother had sent a curse after it. He cannot believe his mother's money will do him any good without his mother's blessing, nor dares he deny the theft when he is charged with it, nor retain the money when it is demanded by the right owner. It is best not to do evil, but it is next best, when it is done, to undo it again by repentance, confession, and restitution. Let children be afraid of having the prayers of their parents against them; for, though the curse causeless shall not come, yet that which is justly deserved may be justly feared, even though it was passionately and indecently uttered. 2. The mother was so pleased with her son's repentance that she recalled her curses, and turned them into prayers for her son's welfare: Blessed be thou of the Lord, my son. When those that have been guilty of a fault appear to be free and ingenuous in owning it they ought to be commended for their repentance, rather than still be condemned and upbraided for their fault.

III. Micah and his mother agreeing to turn their money into a god, and set up idolatry in their family; and this seems to have been the first instance of the revolt of any Israelite from God and his instituted worship after the death of Joshua and the elders that out-lived him, and is therefore thus particularly related. And though this was only the worship of the true God by an image, against the second commandment, yet this opened the door to the worship of other gods, Baalim and the groves, against the first and greatcommandment. Observe,

COKE, "Judges 17:2. About which thou cursedst— Houbigant renders this, and for which you put me to my oath; connecting the whole sentence thus: the eleven hundred shekels of silver which thou saidst in my hearing were taken from thee, and for which thou didst put me to my oath, behold, are with me, &c. In which he nearly follows the Arabick. See Dr. Hammond on St. Matthew 26 annot. 1.

ELLICOTT, "(2) He said unto his mother.—The story is singularly abbreviated, and all details as to how she had acquired the money, &c., are left to conjecture.

The eleven hundred shekels of silver.—The value of eleven hundred skekels would be about £136. It is the same sum which each of the lords of the Philistines promised to give Delilah (Judges 16:5), and only six hundred shekels less than the entire mass of the earrings given to Gideon—only that those were golden shekels. It is hard to say whence this Ephraimitish lady could have amassed so large a sum.

That were taken from thee.—This is probably the true rendering. The LXX. (Cod. B) have “which thou tookest for thyself,” and (Cod. A) “those taken by thee,” as though she had stolen them.

About which thou cursedst.—Literally, and thou didst adjure. The LXX. (Cod. B) add, “dost adjure me.” The adjuration was clearly that commanded in Leviticus 5:1 : “And if a soul sin, and hear the voice of swearing, and is a witness, whether he hath seen or known of it; if he do not utter it, then he shall bear his iniquity.” (Comp. Ecclus. iii. 9: “The curse of a mother rooteth out foundations.”)

I took it.—Micah is terrified into confession by his mother’s adjuration. He shows throughout a singular mixture of superstition and ignorance.

Blessed be thou of the Lord, my son.—Because of his penitence and confession.

PETT, "Verse 2Judges 17:2 a

‘And he said to his mother, “The eleven hundred pieces of silver which were taken from you, about which you uttered a curse, and also spoke of to me, behold, the silver is with me. I took it.”His story begins with his admission that he was a thief. It would seem that he was moved to confess by the fact that she had put a curse on the silver, so that in order to avoid the curse he admitted his wrongdoing and returned the silver. His mother

was clearly an old woman for Micah himself was a father of grown up sons. It speaks volumes of Micah that he felt able to steal from his aged mother. ‘Spoke to me’ may suggest that she had also adjured him under the curse to tell the truth.

Judges 17:2 b

‘And his mother said, “Blessed be you of Yahweh, my son.” ’On his owning up his mother reversed the curse, turning it into a blessing.

BE SO , "17:2. About which thou cursedst — That is, didst curse the person who had taken it away. The mother seems to have uttered this curse in the hearing of her son; who, being struck therewith, confessed that he had taken the money; upon which his mother wishes that her curses may be turned into blessings upon him.

WHEDO , "2. About which thou cursedst — Having missed the money, she uttered imprecations against the thief.

Also in my ears — She so uttered and kept repeating her curses that among others Micah also heard her.

I took it — The son had been the thief, but his mother’s curses seem to have awed him, and led him to make restitution. This act of robbery, and the thief being allowed to go unpunished, show the lawlessness of the time.

Blessed — Instead of reproof and penalty for his theft he receives a blessing. This blessing sprang from sudden joy at receiving again her lost silver.

PULPIT, "The eleven hundred. See 16:5, note. Thou cursedst. The Cethib and the Alexandrian Codex of the Septuagint read, Thou cursedst, i.e.. adjuredst me, which is a better reading. There is a direct and verbal reference to the law contained in Le 5:1. The word thou cursedst here and the voice of swearing in Leviticus are the same root. It was in consequence of this adjuration that Micah confessed his guilt. Compare Matthew 26:63, when our Lord, on the adjuration of the high priest, broke his silence and confessed that he was Christ, the Son of God. In Achan's confession (Joshua 7:19, Joshua 7:20) there is no distinct reference to Le Matthew 5:1, though this may have been the ground of it.

TRAPP, "Verse 217:2 And he said unto his mother, The eleven hundred [shekels] of silver that were taken from thee, about which thou cursedst, and spakest of also in mine ears, behold, the silver [is] with me; I took it. And his mother said, Blessed [be thou] of the LORD, my son.

Ver. 2. And he said unto his mother.] His conscience troubled him when he heard his mother curse the thief, which he knew to be himself:

“ Conscia mens ut cuique sun est, &c. ”

The eleven hundred shekels of silver.] Lyra telleth us of some that held Delilah to be Micah’s mother, because she received one thousand one hundred pieces of silver of each lord of the Philistines, to betray Samson into their hands. But this is but a blind guess, and no whit likely; let it therefore pass for a Jewish fable. I like his note better who saith, (a) Old wood is apt to take fire. After all the airing in the desert, Micah’s mother will smell of Egypt. And again, As civilly, so also morally, the birth followeth the belly, as Micah, his mother. Hence most of the kings’ mothers are named.

About which thou cursedst.] Whilst her wealth lasted, she could dedicate a good part of it. But now she hath lost it she falleth a-cursing; as a parrot when beaten falleth to her own hoarse and harsh voice. Wicked men’s mouths are "full of cursing and bitterness." But cursing men are cursed men.

And spakest of also in mine ears.] He started at and was terrified by a mother’s curse. And indeed if there be just cause, God sometimes says Amen to parents’ curses, as were easy to instance. See Genesis 9:25 {See Trapp on "Genesis 9:25"}

I took it.] Of robbing parents, see Proverbs 28:24, with the note.

Blessed be thou of the Lord, my son.] "Out of the same mouth proceedeth blessing and cursing." [James 3:10] So doth it out of the Pope’s eftsoons, as in the case of Henry IV of France.

And not only is he a thief, he is a superstitious thief. What makes him come clean to his

mother? Not repentance, but fear. His mother has pronounced a curse on whomever took

her silver. And Micah is afraid, so owns up. And so his mother makes a blessing to

overcome the curse. She is as superstitious as her son.

And though has been blessed by his mother, he is actually under God’s curse - in Deut

27:15 God says ‘cursed is the man who carves an image or casts an idol’ which is what

Micah has done.

Stealing from mother, what could be worse,

But she forgave and reveresed the curse.

But then she used her newly filled purse

To encourage her son in ways more perverse.

To go and build idols and God's will reverse.

C W POWELL

1. The sad story of the idolatry at Dan began with a woman who had put away some

money for the service of God. The money was in the form of silver coins, maybe about

600 ounces or about 37 lbs of silver, worth in today’s money about 72 thousand dollars..

She professed to be intending the service of the Lord God of Israel. The idolatry begins

with this covetous old woman, saving up her coins, probably intending to leave them to

her son.

2. The money, however, was stolen, and the woman was very upset and uttered a curse

against whoever had stolen it. She probably suspected her son, but at least her curse was

known. Her son was grown, old enough to have a son of his own old enough to be a

priest.

3. The curse frightened the thief, who turned out to be her son. She seemed to be

gratified that her son had showed remorse, and so she blessed him instead of cursing him.

Curses and blesses often fall from the same mouth—James says that this ought not to be.

4. She was a pious old hypocrite, pretending to really intended the work of the Lord,

perhaps feeling guilty that she had not used the money where it would have done some

good. Such is often done.

5. The idolatry in her heart, is now translated into outward idolatry, for she returns at

least a part of the sil-ver to her son in order to make an idol, although she pretended that it

was for the service of Jehovah. But the 2nd commandments prohibits all images for the

worship of God, for God is in heaven, and cannot be represented by earthly things. It is

suggested that the rest of the money was to be used to support the new worship.

3 When he returned the eleven hundred shekels of

silver to his mother, she said, “I solemnly consecrate my silver to the Lord for my son to make an image overlaid with silver. I will give it back to you.”

BAR ES, "Such a superstitious and unlawful mode of worshipping Yahweh is quite of a piece with Jdg_8:27; Jdg_11:31; 1Ki_12:28, etc. It argues but slight acquaintance with the Ten Commandments, which, from the ignorance of reading and writing, were probably not familiar to the Israelites in those unsettled times. The mother intimates that the consecration of the silver was for the benefit of her son and his house, not for her own selfish advantage: and that she adheres to her original design of consecrating this silver for her son’s benefit.

CLARKE, "I had wholly dedicated - From this it appears that Micah’s mother, though she made a superstitious use of the money, had no idolatrous design, for she

expressly says she had dedicated it ליהוה layhovah, to Jehovah; and this appears to have been the reason why she poured imprecations on him who had taken it.

GILL, "And when he had restored the eleven hundred shekels of silver to his mother,.... The whole sum, having embezzled none of it:

his mother said, I had wholly dedicated the silver unto the Lord from my hand, for my son to make a graven image and a molten image; this she had done either before it was stolen, and it troubled her the more, and caused her the rather to curse the man that had taken it; or after it was stolen, that if it should be recovered again she would appropriate it to such an use; so Abarbinel; and by the Lord, or Jehovah, she doubtless meant the true God; for she had no intention to forsake him, but to worship him in and by these images, and which she designed for the use of her son and his family, that they might not go so far as Shiloh to worship at the tabernacle there:

therefore I will restore it unto thee; for that use, and so gave him the money again, to be laid out in images, or to make images of it.

HE RY, " The mother's contrivance of this matter. When the silver was restored she pretended she had dedicated it to the Lord (Jdg_17:3), either before it was stolen, and then she would have this thought to be the reason why she was so much grieved at the loss of it and imprecated evil on him that had taken it, because it was a dedicated and therefore an accursed thing, or after it was stolen she had made a vow that, if she could retrieve it, she would dedicate it to God, and then she would have the providence that

had so far favoured her as to bring it back to her hands to be an owning of her vow. “Come,” said she to her son, “the money is mine, but thou hast a mind to it; let it be neither mine nor thine, but let us both agree to make it into an image for a religious use.” Had she put it to a use that was indeed for the service and honour of God, this would have been a good way of accommodating the matter between them; but, as it was, the project was wicked. Probably this old woman was one of those that came out of Egypt, and would have such images made as she had seen there; now that she began to dote she called to remembrance the follies of her youth, and perhaps told her son that this way of worshipping God by images was, to her knowledge, the old religion.

JAMISO , "a graven image and a molten image— The one carved from a block of wood or stone, to be plated over with silver; the other, a figure formed of the solid metal cast into a mould. It is observable, however, that only two hundred shekels were given to the founder. Probably the expense of making two such figures of silver, with their appurtenances (pedestals, bases, etc..), might easily cost, in those days, two hundred shekels, which (at 2 shillings, 4 pence each, is about 23 pounds) would be a sum not adequate to the formation of large statues [Taylor, Fragments].

COKE, "Judges 17:3. For my son, to make a graven image, and a molten image— It is very plain, from the sequel, that the intention of this woman was, not to form any images of false gods to herself, but to make a representation of the tabernacle in Shiloh. She says, I had wholly dedicated the silver unto Jehovah; and therefore it has been reasonably conjectured by some, that these images, as well as the teraphim mentioned in the 5th verse, were made in imitation of the cherubim; the ephod being formed like that which God appointed for the priests, and the rest of this idolatrous preparation being designed to imitate the ark, with all its sacred furniture. See Spencer de Leg. Heb. lib. iii. c. 3. dissert. 7.

ELLICOTT, "(3) I had wholly dedicated the silver.—Literally, Consecrating, I consecrated—either, “I have now consecrated it” as a thanksgiving for its restoration, or “I had done so before it was stolen.”

For my son—i.e., for your benefit.

To make a graven image and a molten image.—Whether in the universal decadence of religion, the people, untaught by a careless priesthood, had become ignorant of the second commandment, or whether she justified her conduct by the same considerations which have been used even in the Christian Church in favour of image-worship, we cannot tell. The word used for a graven image is pesel, and for a molten image is massecah. They are the very words used in the curse against idolaters in Deuteronomy 27:15. Some suppose the two words to be used by Hendiadys (like “cups and gold” for “golden cups” ) to describe one silver image adorned with sculptured ornament. All that is clear is that the pesel is the more prominent, but the details are left quite vague. It is therefore impossible to determine whether the graven and molten image consisted of one or of two silver “calves,” like that of the wilderness, and those afterwards set up by Jeroboam at

Dan and Bethel. This, however, was a form which the violation of the second commandment was constantly liable to take, and it probably involved much less blame than other violations of it—not, as is often stated, because the Israelites had become familiar with the worship of Apis and Mnevis in Egypt, but because the calf was a recognised cherubic emblem, and had consequently been deliberately sanctioned in the symbolism of the Temple. (See Exodus 20:4; Exodus 20:23; Exodus 32:4-5; 1 Kings 7:25, &c.) Some suppose that the massecah was the pedestal of the pesel, and that it was too heavy for the Danites to carry away, since it is not mentioned among the things which they seized.

ow therefore I will restore it unto thee.—Rather, for thee—in which case “I will restore it” may possibly mean “use it for its original purpose for thy advantage.” If not, a slight correction would give us the much simpler reading of the Syriac, “restore it to me.”

PETT, "Verse 3Judges 17:3 a

‘And he restored the eleven hundred pieces of silver to his mother, and his mother said, “I truly dedicate the silver to Yahweh from my hand for my son, to make a graven image and a molten image.”His mother was so pleased that he had owned up and returned the silver that she dedicated sufficient to Yahweh to make a graven image and a molten image. The graven image would be made of wood and covered with silver, while the molten image would be made totally of silver. What these represented has caused endless controversy, and in the end we must admit that we do not know. The descriptions ‘graven image’ and ‘molten image’ (see Deuteronomy 27:15) were the contemptuous descriptions of a writer who thoroughly disapproved of what Micah did and may thus not be fully representative of what they actually were.

But any theory must take into account that there were two different ‘images’ (Judges 18:18). Some have therefore suggested a graven wooden silver-coated image with a molten silver decorated base (this would be supported by the use of ‘it’ in Judges 17:4). Furthermore we must take into account the emphasis on the facts that she was seeking to please Yahweh, that Hebrew has no word for goddess (and thus goddesses were unknown in Yahwism) and that images of Yahweh are rarely found, if they occur at all, in archaeological digs, and thus that images of Yahweh were at no stage an accepted norm. Thus neither of these last were seen as acceptable at any stage to an Israelite, even in syncretism, as an aspect of Yahwism.

The graven image was the central feature (Judges 18:30-31). It may be that this was therefore a miniature representation of the Ark of the Covenant as conceived in Micah’s mind, including the cherubim with their wings over the throne. Such would be considered a graven image by the writer as not being the true Ark, and he would not wish to describe it as anything but a forbidden thing, and ‘a graven image’. The molten image could then have been Micah’s representation of a further cherub as bearer of the Ark, the throne of Yahweh, possibly in the form of a base holding the

Ark. A cherub is depicted as bearing the throne of Yahweh in 2 Samuel 22:11; Psalms 18:10. Compare also Ezekiel 1, 10.

It is quite likely that the shape of a cherub was depicted as somewhat similar to those found in excavations at Samaria and in Phoenicia with human face, lion body, four legs and two conspicuous and elaborate wings for in Scripture they are regularly connected with lion, eagle and ox as well as man (1 Kings 7:29; Ezekiel 1:10; Ezekiel 10:14) and represent creation. At Byblos such beings were found supporting the throne of the king.

This would be seen as supported by the fact that when the priest went forward with the tribe of Dan ‘in their midst’ he wore the ephod and carried the graven image and the teraphim, but not the molten image. As he was probably intended to picture Yahweh among His people, replacing the Tabernacle and the Ark, this demonstrated the secondary nature of the molten image and would support the idea that it was only a base.

Alternately the graven image may have been a silver bull seen as the throne of the invisible Yahweh (the god Hadad was pictured standing on a bull), with the molten image again a guardian cherub, possibly represented as a stand made to receive the bull. The golden bull or calf was the symbol that Israel tended to use when replacing the Ark (Exodus 32:1-8; 1 Kings 12:28-30; Hosea 8:6). And a bronze bull associated with a possible Israelite high place from the time of the Judges has been found. But the combination of bull and cherub is not known elsewhere. If the bull was elsewhere seen as the bearer of Yahweh it replaced the cherubim.

Another suggestion is that the two images suggest a god and a goddess, the wooden one coated with silver possibly representing Asherah, the molten one of pure silver possibly representing Baal, and possibly also Yahweh as well, as identified with ‘Baal’ (‘Lord’). If this was so it was an indication of the syncretism that had taken place that this kind of hybrid situation was possible. But as the writer is so firm that Micah’s mother was committed to Yahweh and was dedicating it to Yahweh this does not really seem likely. He had no time for the Baalim and the Asheroth. We consider the first option would seem to be the most likely and fits well with the final result.

Judges 17:3 b

“ ow therefore I will restore it to you.”His mother not only dedicated such silver as was necessary for the images to Yahweh but promised her son that he would have it restored to him for his ‘house of God’ (or ‘gods’).

BE SO , "17:3. I had wholly dedicated the silver unto the Lord — The meaning seems to be, that when she had lost the money, she vowed, that if she recovered it, she would dedicate it to the Lord, and her superstitious ignorance made her conceive that she could do this in no better way than in laying it out in images of

some kind to be made use of in his worship. In the Hebrew here, the word for Lord is Jehovah, the incommunicable name of the true God, whereby it is apparent that neither she nor her son intended to forsake the true God, but only to worship him by an image, which also the Israelites designed to do when they made the calf in the wilderness, (Exodus 32:1,) and Jeroboam afterward. Hence this Micah rejoiced when he had got a priest of the Lord’s appointment. Their error lay in worshipping God according to their own fancies, and not as he had commanded. But this chapter and the following show that the Israelites were at this time fallen into a most deplorable and shameful ignorance of God and his law. For my son — For the benefit of thyself and family; that you need not be continually going to Shiloh to worship, but may do it at home. Therefore I will restore it unto thee — To dispose of it, as I say, in making an image.

PULPIT, "I had wholly dedicated. It is not clear whether the words are to be rendered as in the A.V had dedicated, expressing the dedication of them before they were stolen, or whether they merely express her present purpose so to dedicate them. But the A.V. makes very good sense. Her former purpose had been that the money should be given for her son's benefit to make his house an house of gods. ow that he had confessed, she resumed her purpose. ow therefore I restore it unto thee—that is, in the shape of the graven and molten images, as it follows in the next verse. The narrative gives a curious example of the semi-idolatry of the times. A graven image and a molten image. There is a good deal of difficulty in assigning the exact meaning of the two words here used, and their relation to one another in the worship to which they belong. The molten image (massechah), however, seems to be pretty certainly the metal, here the silver, image of a calf, the form which the corrupt worship of Jehovah took from the time when Aaron made the molten calf (Exodus 32:4, called there 'egel massechah, a molten calf) to the time when Jeroboam set up the golden calves at Dan and Bethel (1 Kings 12:28, 1 Kings 12:29). And that massechah means something molten is certain both from its etymology (nasach, to pour) and from what Aaron said in Exodus 32:24 : "I cast it into the fire, and there came out this calf." Here too Micah's mother gives the silver to the founder, i.e. to the fuser of metals. The pesel, or graven image, on the other hand, is something hewn or graven, whether in wood or stone, and sometimes overlaid with gold and silver (Deuteronomy 7:25). One might have thought, from the language of verse 4, and from the mention of the pesel alone in 18:30, 18:31, that only one image is here intended, which was graven with the chisel after it was cast, as Aaron's calf seems to have been. But in 18:17, 18:18 they are mentioned separately, with the ephod and teraphim named between them, so that they must be distinct. From the above passages the pesel or graven image would seem to have been the most important object, and the difficulty is to assign the true relation of the massechah or molten image to it. Hengstenberg thinks the massechah was a pedestal on which the pesel stood, and that the ephod was the robe with which the pesel was clothed, and that the teraphim were certain tokens or emblems attached to the ephod which gave oracular answers. But this is not much more than guess-work. Berthean considers the ephod, here as elsewhere, to be the priest's garment, put on when performing the most solemn services, and specially when seeking an answer from God. And he thinks that the massechah formed a part of the ornament of the ephod, because in

18:18 the Hebrew has "the pesel of the ephod." The teraphin he thinks are idols, a kind of Dii minores associated with the worship of Jehovah in this impure worship. But there does not seem to be any means at present of arriving at any certainty. The massechah might be a rich gold or silver overlaying of the wooden image, possibly movable, or it might be the separate image of a calf supposed to belong, as it were, to the pesel, and to symbolise the attributes of the Godhead.

WHEDO , "3. I had wholly dedicated — Rather, I have wholly dedicated. Her purpose to sanctify the silver unto the Lord seems to have originated with the pleasure with which she received it from the hand of her son.

Graven image and a molten image — The former was carved out of either metal or wood, the latter cast or poured; but the difference of form or make between the two is hard to determine. Keil conjectures that the graven image was an image of a bull, like the golden calf at Sinai. But these images were not meant for idols to be worshipped, though they naturally led to idolatry. They seem to have been looked upon as household or tutelary gods, not to be worshipped as gods, yet to be reverenced as talismans. This act of Micah and his mother was, however, a coming nearer to idolatry than the act of Gideon in setting up his famous ephod in Ophrah, and yet this home idolatry of Micah may have been a consequence of Gideon’s wrong example. Compare note on Judges 8:27.

ow therefore I will restore — Rather, and now I restore it to thee, that is, for the purpose of making images to place in Micah’s house of gods. Judges 17:5.

TRAPP, "17:3 And when he had restored the eleven hundred [shekels] of silver to his mother, his mother said, I had wholly dedicated the silver unto the LORD from my hand for my son, to make a graven image and a molten image: now therefore I will restore it unto thee.

Ver. 3. And when he had restored.] Restore your ill-gotten goods, saith father Latimer, or else you will cough in hell, and the devil will laugh at you.

I had wholly dedicated the silver.] Many women are very superstitious. In the Papacy, sundry crosses graven in the pavements of their churches, have indulgences annexed for every time they are kissed: which is so often done, by the women especially, that hard marble is worn with it. (a)

To make a graven image.] To despite the Lord with seeming honours. A good intention here excused not. Men that would be approved in Christ, as Apelles was, [Romans 16:10] must "come to the light" of God’s word, "that it may be made manifest that their deeds are wrought in God." [John 3:21]

It is important to understand here that the mother had truly dedicated the money to

the Lord, YHVH, the sacred name of the Lord. In the name of God, she swore that she would give this money to him for the honor and glory of God, but in doing so she has given it over to idolatry. The money is given over to build idols and the making of graven images. Did you get what is happening here? When she feels that she would like to do something religious, in the same manner as the people that are biblically illiterate. She rushes out and makes something that she can see and feel spiritual about. She has no idea in that world what pleases God, so she is going to make something that pleases her, while she is trying to convince herself that this act is pleasing to God. She wanted to do something for our Heavenly Father, so she break the very laws that pleases Him.

CHUCK SMITH ow Micah in making these images was not making really pagan kinds of images but images, no doubt, that would represent God to him. But in the second commandment God had expressly forbidden making any graven images or likeness of God, to bow down and worship. So he was violating the commandment of God but trying to make an image of God. He was not turning from Jehovah in that sense of making an image of Baal or Molech or one of the pagan gods but he was trying to make an image of God. And then with the teraphim and the ephod, seeking to tie the whole worship of Jehovah together, making a little worship center in his house where he has his own little idols in the house where he goes to pray and goes to worship. ow this was expressly forbidden by God, and yet, having lost the conscienceness of God's presence, he is wanting something to remind him of the presence of God. And thus, he's made his little worship center in his house with his little idols and all, the place where he can go and pray, his own little private altar.

ow whenever a person makes an idol, the very fact that he has made an idol indicates that that person has lost the conscienceness of the presence of God. The second thing it indicates is that he is desiring to regain that conscienceness of God's presence, and thus, he has set up this as a reminder to him of God's presence. And thus it is actually speaking of a desire to regain something that is lost, a vitality of relationship with God. Whenever a person has to set up an image or an idol, it is a testimony that that person has lost something vital in his relationship with God and he needs some kind of a little reminder to remind him of God's presence. And thus, it is always a mark of spiritual deterioration; any image, any idol of any thing is a mark of spiritual deterioration. So it is important to note that Micah wasn't really turning his back on Jehovah, for he even speaks of Jehovah, but he has lost something vital in his relationship with Jehovah which causes him to make these little images and set up a worship center as a place for his prayers.

4 So after he returned the silver to his mother, she took two hundred shekels[b] of silver and gave

them to a silversmith, who used them to make the idol. And it was put in Micah’s house.

CLARKE, "A graven image and a molten image - What these images were, we cannot positively say; they were most probably some resemblance of matters belonging to the tabernacle. See below.

GILL, "Yet he restored the money unto his mother,.... Gave it to her a second tithe, not as disapproving her idolatrous intention, as the sequel shows, but being desirous to be entirely free of it, and not have his mind disturbed with it as it had been, and that she might do with it as she thought fit:

and his mother took two hundred shekels of silver, and gave them to the founder, who made thereof a graven image, and a molten image; the other nine hundred pieces she kept to herself, repenting of her vow, and being unwilling to part with so much money for such an use; or else they were laid out in an ephod, and teraphim, and what else were thought necessary for the idolatrous worship they were about to set up; though Kimchi is of opinion, that the two hundred shekels were what she gave the founder for making the images, and of the nine hundred the images were made; and indeed the images must be very small ones, if made out of two hundred shekels of silver only; some have thought there was but one image, called both molten and graven; because after the silver was melted, and cast into a mould, it was fashioned with a graving tool, as the golden calf was by Aaron; but they are manifestly distinguished and represented as two, Jdg_18:17 and they were in the house of Micah; in an apartment in his house, peculiar for them, as appears by the next verse; here they were put and continued.

HE RY, " The son's compliance with her. It should seem, when she first proposed the thing he stumbled at it, knowing what the second commandment was; for, when she said (Jdg_17:3) she designed it for her son to make an image of, yet he restored it to his mother (being loth to have a hand in making the image), and she gave it to the founder and had the thing done, blaming him perhaps for scrupling at it, Jdg_17:4. But, when the images were made, Micah, by his mother's persuasion, was not only well reconciled to them, but greatly pleased and in love with them; so strangely bewitching was idolatry, and so much supported by traditions received from their parents, 1Pe_1:18; Jer_44:17. But observe how the old woman's covetousness prevailed, in part, above her superstition. She had wholly dedicated the silver to make the graven and molten images (Jdg_17:3), all the 1100 pieces; but, when it came to be done, she made less than a fifth part serve, even 200 shekels, Jdg_17:4. She thought that enough, and indeed it was too much to give for an image that is a teacher of lies. Had it been devoted truly to the honour of God, he would not thus have been put off with part of the price, but would have signified his resentment of the affront, as he did in the case of Ananias and

Sapphira. Now observe,

K&D, "Jdg_17:4

Hereupon-namely, when her son had given her back the silver (“he restored the silver unto his mother” is only a repetition of Jdg_17:3, introduced as a link with which to connect the appropriation of the silver)-the mother took 200 shekels and gave them to the goldsmith, who made an image and molten work of them, which were henceforth in Micah's house. The 200 shekels were not quite the fifth part of the whole. What she did with the rest is not stated; but from the fact that she dedicated the silver generally, i.e., the whole amount, to Jehovah, according to Jdg_17:3, we may infer that she applied the remainder to the maintenance of the image-worship.

(Note: There is no foundation for Bertheau's opinion, that the 200 shekels were no part of the 1100, but the trespass-money paid by the son when he gave his mother back the money that he had purloined, since, according to Lev_6:5, when a thief restored to the owner any stolen property, he was to add the fifth of its value. There is no ground for applying this law to the case before us, simply because the taking of the money by the son is not even described as a theft, whilst the mother really praises her son for his open confession.)

Pesel and massecah (image and molten work) are joined together, as in Deu_27:15. The

difference between the two words in this instance is very difficult to determine. Pesel

signifies an idolatrous image, whether made of wood or metal. Massecah, on the other hand, signifies a cast, something poured; and when used in the singular, is almost exclusively restricted to the calf cast by Aaron or Jeroboam. It is generally connected

with עגל, but it is used in the same sense without this definition (e.g., Deu_9:12). This makes the conjecture a very natural one, that the two words together might simply denote a likeness of Jehovah, and, judging from the occurrence at Sinai, a representation of Jehovah in the form of a molten calf. But there is one obstacle in the way of such a

conjecture, namely, that in Jdg_18:17-18, massecah is separated from pesel, so as necessarily to suggest the idea of two distinct objects. But as we can hardly suppose that Micah's mother had two images of Jehovah made, and that Micah had both of them set

up in his house of God, no other explanation seems possible than that the massecah was

something belonging to the pesel, or image of Jehovah, but yet distinct from it-in other

words, that it was the pedestal upon which it stood. The pesel was at any rate the principal thing, as we may clearly infer from the fact that it is placed in the front rank among the four objects of Micah's sanctuary, which the Danites took with them (Jdg_

18:17-18), and that in Jdg_18:30-31, the pesel alone is mentioned in connection with the setting up of the image-worship in Dan. Moreover, there can hardly be any doubt that

pesel, as a representation of Jehovah, was an image of a bull, like the golden calf which Aaron had made at Sinai (Exo_32:4), and the golden calves which Jeroboam set up in the kingdom of Israel, and one of which was set up in Dan (1Ki_12:29).

COFFMA , "Verse 4MICAH SETS UP HIS OW CE TER OF WORSHIP

"And when he restored the money unto his mother, his mother took two hundred pieces of silver, and gave them to the founder, who made thereof a graven image and a molten image: and it was in the house of Micah. And the man Micah had a house of gods, and he made an ephod, and teraphim, and consecrated one of his sons, who became his priest. In those days, there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes."

"His mother took two hundred pieces of silver ... gave them to the founder, who made a graven image and a molten image" (Judges 17:4). The question that rises here is "What did she do with the other nine hundred pieces of silver?" Moore tells us that, "Some say that the two hundred pieces were the wages of the founder and that the rest of the silver was made into the image. Lyra and others think the rest of the money was used for furnishing and adorning the shrine."[13] The simple truth of the matter seems to be that, "The woman through avarice broke her vow and gave to God only a small part of the consecrated treasure."[14]

"An ephod" (Judges 17:5). This was a part of the ceremonial dress of Israel's high priest, "A sacramental vestment, richly decorated, and in design somewhat like an apron with pockets."[15] It is by no means sure, however, that the ephod spoken of here was like that. It might have been some kind of an idol.

"Teraphim" (Judges 17:5). It is not certain what this was. Dalglish thought that, "It was a figurine or image of some kind."[16] In Genesis 31:19, Rachel is said to have stolen the teraphim of her father, and from this, it is supposed that these small idols were associated with the pagan habit of adoring household gods. Significantly, it is Rachel's posterity who in this chapter are involved in such pagan worship.

"Consecrated one of his sons ... his priest" (Judges 17:5). "The Hebrew here rendered `consecrated' is actually `filled the hand of.'"[17] "This was the regular God-given formula for the investiture of priests (Exodus 29:35; Leviticus 8:33)."[18] Thus, we have five references to the Pentateuch in as many verses, indicating, not merely, the existence of the Pentateuch long prior to the times of Joshua and Othniel, but also the general acquaintance of the Israelites with its provisions, especially with those procedures in which they were particularly interested.

It is strange indeed that such knowledge of the Books of Moses did not prevent the kind of departure from God's Word which is presented in this chapter.

o, Micah was not intent on worshipping Baal. He was merely adopting pagan practices in a kind of syncretistic worship of Jehovah. "Micah intended to worship Israel's God with his idols, but God not only had condemned idolatry but also the worship of the one true God by the use of images."[19]

" o king in Israel" (Judges 17:6). This verse is obviously the comment of the author of Judges; and as Campbell said, "He declares in effect that, "A king would have put a stop to that kind of corrupt worship."[20] Yes, that is exactly what is implied in the repeated use of this Judges 17:6, not only here, but several times

subsequently, as in Judges 18:1; Judges 19:1, and in Judges 21:25,

This is one of the most important statements in Judges 17. The author of this narrative evidently believed that a king in Israel would have prevented the formation of such an illegal shrine. Hervey thought that this indicates that the author might have lived in the days of Asa or Jehoshaphat.[21] However that cannot be correct. o author who lived after the first few honeymoon years of Saul's reign could have supposed such a thing. The record of Israel's kings from Solomon and afterward was one of shameful compromise with idolatry and the open acceptance of it. This verse practically nails down the time when our author (of Judges) lived as being in those first few years of the reign of Saul. This points to SAMUEL. The truth of the business is that "If Israel had had a king," he would have led the way in idolatry, as proved by the vast majority of them. Only the innocent SAMUEL could have supposed such a thing as that which is implied here. Anyone except him would have implied, that, the right kind of a king was needed to prevent every man from doing what was right in his own eyes.

"The lesson here is clear, `If people do what is right in their own eyes, they will end up doing what is wrong in the eyes of God.'"[22]

When Micah rejected the Word of God as the standard of regulation for his behavior, he was left to determine what was right or wrong upon the basis of his own evaluations, and it was this departure from objective truth that led to the moral and spiritual degeneration of Israel and the ushering in of the Dark Ages of Israel's period of the Judges.

ELLICOTT, "(4) Yet.—Rather, And.

Two hundred shekels of silver.—Bertheau supposes that these two hundred shekels were not apart of the eleven hundred, but the trespass-money of one-fifth, which by the law Micah had to pay for his theft (Lev. ). But apart from the sum not being exact, no such impression is given by the narrative. It is left to be understood that the remaining nine hundred shekels were spent in other parts of the idolatrous worship. (It may be mentioned, by way of passing illustration, that when Sir John Hawle was murdered in Westminster Abbey, the £200 paid in penance by his murderers seem to have been expended upon the purchase of a costly image, which was placed in the Chapel of St. Erasmus.)

Gave them to the founder.—An illustration of the folly which Isaiah pursues with such a storm of irony and contempt (Isaiah 46:6-13). These pesîlîm were originally of all sorts of materials (e.g., wood, brass, stone, and clay, Daniel 2:33; Daniel 5:23; Deuteronomy 7:5; Deuteronomy 12:3, &c.), but usually of metal (Isaiah 40:19; Isaiah 44:10, &c.), adorned with plates and chains of precious metal, and embroidered robes (Jeremiah 10:9; Ezekiel 16:18, &c.). (See Excursus I.: Calf-Worship. )

EXCURSUS O OTES TO JUDGES.

EXCURSUS I.—O Judges 17:4. (CALF-WORSHIP.)

IT may be regarded as certain, from the testimony of Scripture itself, that the calf of Aaron and those by which the rebel king

“Doubled that sin in Bethel and in Dan,

Likening his Maker to the grazed ox,”

were not idols in the ordinary sense of the word, but were intended as symbols of the one God. The calf-worship was a violation not of the first, but of the second commandment. The main element of the fourfold cherub was certainly an ox, as is clear from the comparison of Ezekiel 10:14 with Judges 1:7-8; and the knowledge of this cherubic emblem was not confined to the Jews, but was spread at least through all Semitic races. That the calf was intended to be an emblem of God seems to be the opinion of Josephus, who in such a matter would represent creditable Jewish traditions (Antt. viii. 8, § 4). Aaron in proclaiming the feast at the inauguration of his golden calf distinctly calls it a feast to Jehovah (Exodus 32:5). It was the well-understood purpose of Jeroboam not to introduce a new worship, but to provide a convenient modification of the old; and it appears from 1 Kings 22:16 that the prophets of the calf-worship still regarded themselves, and were regarded, as the prophets of Jehovah; but the fate of Amos is sufficient to show that they must have sanctioned, or at least tolerated, the use of these unauthorised symbols, against which, so far as we are informed, not even Elijah or Elisha ever raised their voices, though the former was so implacable a foe to all idolatry, and the latter lived on terms of close friendship with at least one of the northern kings. (See the article “Calf,” by the present writer, in Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible.)

PETT, "Verse 4‘And on his restoring the silver to his mother, his mother took two hundred pieces of silver and gave them to the smith, who made of it a graven image and a molten image. And it was in the house of Micah.’At the mother’s request two hundred pieces of silver were turned into a graven image and a molten image. These were then placed in Micah’s house. It should be noted that she dedicated the silver to Yahweh for the purpose of making these two images. That did not necessarily involve the use of all of it, only what was required. Some further of it may however have been used to make the ephod and teraphim. (Such setting aside of things to Yahweh as ‘Corban’, with the use of part of it retained until death, certainly occurred later - Mark 7:11. It does not necessarily mean that she was cheating God of the remainder of the 1100 pieces).

WHEDO , "4. Two hundred shekels — Less than one fifth of the eleven hundred shekels. What was done with the remaining nine hundred? They were probably used for making the ephod and teraphim mentioned in Judges 17:5, and paying the founder who made all the images; for, according to Judges 17:3, the silver was to be in some way wholly dedicated to the Lord. This mention of the founder, or smelter,

indicates the knowledge at this time in Israel of the art of metallurgy.

TRAPP, "17:4 Yet he restored the money unto his mother; and his mother took two hundred [shekels] of silver, and gave them to the founder, who made thereof a graven image and a molten image: and they were in the house of Micah.

Ver. 4. Yet he restored the money unto his mother.] And so disburdened his conscience, which was grated upon by this guilt, worse than the kidneys are by gravel. I myself, saith a reverend divine, (a) knew one man that had wronged another but of five shillings, and fifty years after could not rest till he had restored it.

And gave them to the founder.] For his pains, haply, in making her gods of the other nine hundred: or, two hundred she laid out upon the images, and nine hundred upon the other trinkets. Idolaters "lavish money out of the bag." [Isaiah 46:6] Canutus bestowed as much upon a crucifix as a year’s revenue of his kingdom came to. He gave a hundred talents of silver and one of gold for St Augustine’s arm, which he bestowed on Coventry. Our Edward I prepared thirty-two thousand pounds to have his heart carried to Jerusalem, which he charged his son upon his deathbed to see done.

PULPIT, "Yet he restored. Rather, so he restored, repeating what was said in 17:3, and adding the consequence, that his mother took two hundred shekels and gave them to the founder. It is a great puzzle to explain why two hundred shekels only are here spoken of, and what became of the other nine hundred. Bertheau thinks the two hundred were different from the eleven hundred, and were the fifth part of the whole value stolen, which the thief, according to Le 6:5, was bound to give in addition to the principal. He therefore translates 6:4 thus: "So he restored the money to his mother (and his mother took two hundred shekels), and she gave it to the founder," etc. Others understand that two hundred only were actually made into the graven and molten image, and the other nine hundred were devoted to other expenses of the worship. In the house of Micah. This explains, ow I will restore it unto thee, and, for my son to make, etc; in verse 3.

The number "two hundred" in biblical numerics means "insufficiency", and it truly was. This money was not brought to God, not to the Levitical priest as an offering to God, but to the founder, the man of the world who will set up his standard, and make their form of worship. The founder is the silversmith, or goldsmith that pours the hot metal into the form of the images to be worshipped out of the raw materials.

The laws of God, five out of the ten commandments are gone and broken, and all in the name of God. So ask yourself, do you think that anyone that violates God's laws are going to be blessed by Him? Of course not. This gets to the question that we should as ourselves; is our church systems teaching the things that conform to the Word of God, or are those teaching just the customs and traditions of men? If you

are accepting the forms of men over the Word of God, you are placing your eternal soul in jeopardy. It is from His Word that we get our instructions and wisdom to govern our lives, to be able to receive God's blessings.

DAVID LEGGE You might say: 'How on earth did these people believe they were serving theLord through this idolatry?'. Listen to what I'm saying this morning: Micah and this priest, andhis mother and the family, they didn't worship Baal! They weren't worshipping the false godsof the Canaanites, they were worshipping Jehovah the LORD! Verse 3 mentions the LORD,verse 13, it is the LORD that they are dedicating these idols to!Isn't this frightening?

At the mother’s request two hundred pieces of silver were turned into a graven image and a molten image. These were then placed in Micah’s house. It should be noted that she dedicated the silver to Yahweh for the purpose of making these two images. That did not necessarily involve the use of all of it, only what was required. Some further of it may however have been used to make the ephod and teraphim. (Such setting aside of things to Yahweh as ‘Corban’, with the use of part of it retained until death, certainly occurred later - Mark 7.11. It does not necessarily mean that she was cheating God).

GRIFFITH MUCH OF WHAT IS HOMEMADE IS MEDIOCRE 1. In many things, it is OK to settle for mediocre. 2. If your wife puts a mediocre meatloaf in front of you, it's always best to just smile and eat it. 3. On the other hand, there are some things where it would be a tragedy to settle for mediocre. 4. Would you want a backyard brain surgery performed on you? 5. Would you want homemade brakes on your car? 6. Would you want to wear homemade contact lenses?

C. HOMEMADE RELIGIO IS MEDIOCRE 1. The faith that is based on a homemade religion is mediocre at best. 2. It will turn out to be a poor, low-quality substitute for the real thing.

Advantages of home made religion in that you can stay home and go to church at the same time. You never have to give any money for it is your own offering you would get. ever need to get up early or rush to get there on time. ow worry about weather or with putting up with music you don't like or people who don't like what you wear.

HOMEMADE RELIGIO IS SELF-RIGHTEOUS 1. Micah was concerned that his priest was not proper. 2. He had appointed his own son to be priest but his son was not of the priestly tribe of Levi. 3. Micah felt that everything would be just right if he only had a priest from the correct tribe.

4. The truth is, everything would be right in Micah's eyes, but it would never be right with God. 5. Micah was fooling himself. 6. He had replaced God's righteousness with his own self-righteousness. 7. Judges 17:7-13 tells of a "real" priest who passed by Micah's house. 8. Micah offered him the pastorate for ten pieces of silver a year, and a place to stay. 9. The young man was happy to accept and Micah thought everything was perfect. (v.13) 10. Micah was only concerned with how he looked to himself and to those around him. 11. He hadn't asked God what God wanted or expected from Micah. 12. Micah only "did that which was right in his own eyes." (Judges 17:6) 13. How about you, are you only concerned with how you look to yourself and to others? 14. Do you only do that which is right in your own eyes, or are you concerned with what is right in God's eyes?

5 ow this man Micah had a shrine, and he made an ephod and some household gods and installed one of his sons as his priest.

CLARKE, "The man Micah had a house of gods - ,beith(Elohim should בית)אלהיםI think, be translated house or temple of God; for it is very likely that both the mother and the son intended no more than a private or domestic chapel, in which they proposed to set up the worship of the true God.

Made an ephod - Perhaps the whole of this case may be stated thus: Micah built a house of God - a chapel in imitation of the sanctuary; he made a graven image representing the ark, a molten image to represent the mercy-seat, teraphim to represent the cherubim above the mercy-seat, and an ephod in imitation of the sacerdotal garments; and he consecrated one of his sons to be priest. Thus gross idolatry was not the crime of Micah; he only set up in his own house an epitome of the Divine worship as performed at Shiloh. What the teraphim were, see the note on Gen_31:19; for the ephod, see the note on Exo_25:7; and for the sacerdotal vestments in general, see the note on Exo_28:4, etc.

Who became his priest - cohen, which the Targum translates chumera. The כהן

word כהן cohen is the common name in Hebrew for a priest of the true God; but sometimes it is applied to idolatrous priests. When it is to be understood in the former

sense, the Targum renders it cahen; when in the latter, it uses the word כומרא chumera, by which it always understands an idolatrous priest. But that this was not a case of idolatry, and that the true God was worshipped here, is evident from the word Jehovah being used, Jdg_17:4, and oracular answers being given at this house, as we see from Jdg_18:6, etc.

GILL, "And the man Micah had an house of gods,.... Having two images in it, besides teraphim, which were a sort of idols; and the Targum is, an house of images, or idols; though it may be rendered "an house of God"; a temple, a place for religious worship:

and made an ephod; a priestly garment, a linen one very probably, not so rich an one with a breastplate to it as the high priest had, which was very costly. Ben Melech interprets it a girdle, and there was a curious girdle of the ephod, with which it was girt; this may be here put for the rest of the priestly garments which Micah provided:

and teraphim; which were a sort of household gods, like the Lares and Penates of the Romans, and by which consultations were made; See Gill on Hos_3:3, Hos_3:4, Zec_10:2 Micah proposed to have an oracle in his house, whereby he might consult the Lord about future things, and not be at the trouble of going to the tabernacle, and consult there by Urim and Thummim; and the same some take the teraphim to be:

and consecrated one of his sons, who became his priest; or, "filled the hand" (k)of one of them; that is, with offerings, as Ben Melech interprets it; in which way priests were initiated, and consecrated to their office; see Exo_28:41 or, as Kimchi expresses it, he offered his offerings by the hand of one of his sons, and appointed him to be a priest, very probably his eldest son.

HE RY, " What was the corruption here introduced, Jdg_17:5. The man Micah had a house of gods, a house of God, so the Septuagint, for so he thought it, as good as that at Shiloh, and better, because his own, of his own inventing and at his own disposal; for people love to have their religion under their girdle, to manage it as they please. A house of error, so the Chaldee, for really it was so, a deviation from the way of truth and an inlet to all deceit. Idolatry is a great cheat, and one of the worst of errors. That which he aimed at in the progress of his idolatry, whether he designed it at first or no, was to mimic and rival both God's oracles and his ordinances. [1.] His oracles; for he made

teraphim, little images which he might advise with as there was occasion, and receive informations, directions, and predictions from. What the urim and thummim were to

the prince and people these teraphim should be to his family; yet he could not think that the true God would own them, or give answers by them, and therefore depended upon such demons as the heathen worshipped to inspire them and make them serviceable to him. Thus, while the honour of Jehovah was pretended (Jdg_17:3), yet, his institution being relinquished, these Israelites unavoidably lapsed into downright idolatry and demon-worship. [2.] His ordinances. Some room or apartment in the house of Micah

was appointed for the temple or house of God; an ephod, or holy garment, was provided for his priest to officiate in, in imitation of those used at the tabernacle of God, and one of his sons he consecrated, probably the eldest, to be his priest. And, when he had set up a graven or molten image to represent the object of his worship, no marvel if a priest of his own getting and his own making served to be the manager of it. Here is no mention of any altar, sacrifice, or incense, in honour of these silver gods, but, having a priest, it is probable he had all these, unless we suppose that, at first, his gods were intended only to be advised with, not to be adored, like Laban's teraphim; but the beginning of idolatry, as of other sins, is like the letting forth of water: break the dam, and you bring a deluge. Here idolatry began, and it spread like a fretting leprosy. Dr. Lightfoot would have us observe that as 1100 pieces of silver were here devoted to the making of an idol, which ruined religion, especially in the tribe of Dan (as we shall presently find), which was Samson's tribe, so 1100 pieces of silver were given by each Philistine lord for the ruin of Samson.

JAMISO , "the man Micah had an house of gods—Hebrew, “a house of God” - a domestic chapel, a private religious establishment of his own.

an ephod— (see on Exo_28:6).

teraphim— tutelary gods of the household (see Gen_31:19 and see on Gen_31:26).

consecrated one of his sons who became his priest— The assumption of the priestly office by any one out of the family of Aaron was a direct violation of the divine law (Num_3:10; Num_16:17; Deu_21:5; Heb_5:4).

K&D, "Jdg_17:5-6

His mother did this, because her son Micah had a house of God, and had had an ephod and teraphim made for himself, and one of his sons consecrated to officiate there as a

priest. מיכה is therefore placed at the head absolutely, and is (the man Micah) האיש

connected with what follows by לו: “As for the man Micah, there was to him (he had) a

house of God.” The whole verse is a circumstantial clause explanatory of what precedes,

and the following verbs וימ6א ,ו5עש, and ויהי, are simply a continuation of the first clause, and therefore to be rendered as pluperfects. Micah's beth Elohim (house of God) was a

domestic temple belonging to Micah's house, according to Jdg_18:15-18. את־יד to fill ,מ6אthe hand, i.e., to invest with the priesthood, to institute as priest (see at Lev_7:37). The ephod was an imitation of the high priest's shoulder-dress (see at Jdg_8:27). The teraphim were images of household gods, penates, who were worshipped as the givers of earthly prosperity, and as oracles (see at Gen_31:19). - In Jdg_17:6 it is observed, in explanation of this unlawful conduct, that at that time there was no king in Israel, and every one did what was right in his own eyes.

COKE, "Judges 17:5. An house of gods— This might be rendered more properly, a temple or house of God; אלהים בית beith elohim: so the LXX and the Vulgate render it, as well as Houbigant, aedes deo sacra. Micah and his family were desirous to have a little tabernacle, a place consecrated to the elohim, at their own house, without the trouble of going up to Shiloh. Respecting the teraphim, see Genesis 31:17.

ELLICOTT, "Verse 5(5) Had an house of gods.—The Hebrew is Beth Elohim, which may mean equally well “a house of God” (Vulg., œdiculam Deo, and so too the LXX.). It is quite clear that Micah did not abandon the worship of God under the names of Jehovah and Elohim, by which He was known to the Israelites. How he coordinated this worship with his grossly idolatrous symbols, or whom those symbols were intended to represent, it is impossible to say. The fact remains that in the Beth-Micah we find “a house of gods”—“whole chapel of idols”—consecrated to Jehovah as a pious act (Judges 17:2; Judges 17:5; Judges 17:13; Judges 18:6).

An ephod.— o doubt the ephod was nothing more than a gorgeous priestly garment, though possibly it may have been used for oracular purposes. (See Judges 8:27.)

And teraphim.—These were Syrian images (Genesis 31:19), the use of which among the Israelites seems to have lasted for a long period, until it was put down by King Josiah in his great reformation (2 Kings 23:34; Ezekiel 21:26; Hosea 3:4; Zechariah 10:2). I have entered upon the interesting question of the use of Teraphim in an article on the subject in Kitto’s Cyclopœdia. (See Excursus II: Teraphim.)

Consecrated.—The curious Hebrew phrase is “filled the hand” (see Exodus 28:41; Exodus 29:24; Leviticus 7:37), i.e., gave him the office by putting certain offerings in his hands. It is rather installed than “consecrated.”

EXCURSUS II.—O Judges 17:5. (TERAPHIM.)

THE Hebrew word Teraphim is always simply transliterated as in our version, or rendered by “images,” with “teraphim” in the margin, except in 1 Samuel 15:23, Zechariah 10:2, where it is represented by “idolatry,” “idols.” The singular of the word, “a teraph,” does not occur in Scripture, although it is clear that only one can have been put into David’s bed (1 Samuel 19:13-16). The LXX. adopt many different renderings, as does the Vulg., but they all point to idolatrous images or the implements of necromancy, as do the two renderings of the Targums, images and (Hosea 3:4) “announcers.”

1. Teraphim are first mentioned in Genesis 31:19, where Rachel steals her father’s “images,” and successfully hides them from his search under the hiran on which she was sitting—the coarse carpet used to cover the wicker-work pack-saddle of her camel. Josephus supposes that she was actuated by idolatrous reverence; Iben Ezra that she expected oracular guidance from them; others that she stole them because of their intrinsic value. She probably shared the superstitions of her father, and regarded them as sacred (Genesis 30:14; Genesis 31:30), as being the figures of ancestral divinities (Genesis 31:53). It is not impossible that they were among the “strange gods” which Jacob ordered his family to bury under “the sorcerer’s oak”—Allon Meonenim (Judges 9:37). But that Jacob’s right feeling in the matter

was not permanent is proved only too clearly by the conduct of Micah (Judges 17:5) and the Danites (Judges 18:3), although, unlike Jeroboam, they could not even plead the poor palliation of political motives.

2. The next definite notice of teraphim occurs in 1 Samuel 19:13-16, where Michal, in the dark eastern chamber, conceals her husband’s absence by putting the teraphim in his bed, with a bolster of goat’s hair for a pillow. The use of the article shows that even in David’s family the use of the “teraphim” was perfectly well known. or can we rely on the vague conjecture of Thenius, that barren women (Rachel and Michal) were especially addicted to their worship, or on that of Michaelis, that Michal may have possessed them unknown to David. The passage seems to show that they had at least some rude resemblance to the human shape, whence Aquila renders the word by protomai (“busts”), which is used of figures like the ancient Hermae. This is not the place to enter into the curious reading of the LXX. on this verse, by which they seem to connect the worship of teraphim with what the ancients called extispicium—i.e., divination by means of the liver of sacrifices, as in Ezekiel 21:21. Josephus follows the same reading, and dishonestly suppresses all mention of the teraphim.

3. The next important passage is Hosea 3:4, where the primâ facie view of every unbiassed reader would be that the “image” (matsêbah) and the teraphim are mentioned without blame as ordinary adjuncts to religious worship. Hence, perhaps, arose the notion that the teraphim were in some way connected with the Urim and Thummim, which led to the rendering of the word in this passage by δήλοι (LXX., “bright gems”), and by φωτισµούς (“enlightenments,” Aquila), and by “implements of priestly dress” (St. Jerome). This is the theory maintained most unconvincingly, though with great learning, by Spencer in his De Legibus Hebrœ-orum, lib. 3, pp. 920-1038.

But if these passages show that even in religious families teraphim were sometimes tolerated as material adjuncts to an Elohistic worship, on the other hand we find them unequivocally condemned by Samuel (1 Samuel 15:23), by Josiah (2 Kings 23:24), and by the prophet Zechariah (Zechariah 10:2 ); and in Ezekiel 21:21 the use of them, is attributed to the heathen ebuchadnezzar.

The general inference seems to be that the use of the teraphim involved a violation of the second commandment, but that this use of symbols, this monotheistic idolatry, which is very different from polytheism, arises from a tendency very deeply ingrained in human nature, and which it took many years to eradicate. If centuries elapsed before the Jews were cured of their propensity to worship “other gods,”we can feel no surprise that “image worship” continued to linger among them, in spite of the condemnation of it by the stricter prophets. The calf-worship, the toleration of teraphim and consecrated stones (baetylia) and high places, the offering of incense to the brazen serpent, the glimpses of grave irregularities even in the worship of the sanctuary, show that it was only by centuries of misfortune and a succession of prophets that Israel was at last educated into the spiritual worship of the true God.

The reader will find further remarks on this subject in the article on “Teraphim,” by the present writer, in Kitto’s Biblical Cyclopœdia.

PETT, "Verse 5‘And the man Micah had a house of God (or ‘gods’), and he made an ephod and a teraphim, and installed (‘filled the hand of’) one of his sons who became his priest.’The fact that he at this stage installed one of his own sons suggests that this house of God was new, prepared by him to receive the ‘images’. Both Micah and his mother appear to have been genuinely determined to please Yahweh, although in a way that contributed to their own prestige. But they were clearly not well taught in what was necessary, although having some general idea about such things. The fact that Israel had the Law of God at the central sanctuary did not mean that the knowledge of it was satisfactorily disseminated. And they were influenced by what went on around them.

From now onwards the name of Micah (micyhu) is abbreviated (to micah) in the Hebrew text, dropping the name of Yahweh. This may have been the writer’s way of expressing his disapproval of what follows.

They seemingly did not recognise that to have their own house of God, their own ephod and their own throne of Yahweh was contrary to Moses’ teaching, and that teraphim especially were frowned on as linked with divination and idolatry (1 Samuel 15:23). or, seemingly did they recognise that to have their son as their own family priest was not acceptable, although the fact that when the opportunity came to appoint a Levite, he did so, demonstrates that he was aware of this defect (someone may have pointed it out to him). We must not necessarily assume that the son acted as a full sacrificing priest. His responsibilities might have been limited to using the ephod to discover the will of God and offerings not of a sacrificial kind.

Micah was a religious innovationist and demonstrated how the Israelites were developing forbidden forms of worship contrary to the Law of Moses. They did what was right in their own eyes due to their failure to let Yahweh have His rightful place as King by honouring the covenant and the central sanctuary. To ‘fill the hand’ was to appoint as priest - umbers 3:3. We note that David also appointed his sons as priests, but this would be as priests of the order of Melchizedek in Jerusalem, as recognising their authority there, but not as sacrificing priests (2 Samuel 8:18).

The ephod was a priestly metallic robe worn by ‘the priest’ in the Tabernacle which among other things was involved with the Urim and Thummim (Exodus 28:30; umbers 27:21) , which were used for discovering the mind of Yahweh. In the case of Laban, teraphim were described as ‘gods’, divine objects (Genesis 31:30 with 35). But they were used for divination (2 Kings 23:24; Ezekiel 21:21). Otherwise we know little about them. Thus Micah was wanting to doubly ensure that he could discover the mind of Yahweh, although his means were unacceptable to the pure Yahweh worshipper.

In all this there is no mention of an altar. Worship in this house of God may well have been by offering other things than sacrifices.

Micah and his mother would have been familiar with the idol shelves found in Canaanite houses, and which soon found their way into some Israelite houses. They were seeking to have something similar but dedicated to Yahweh. But such was the state of Yahwism, of the central sanctuary and of the teaching of the Law at the time, that they did not realise that they were doing wrong. Yahwism was at a low ebb.

BE SO , "17:5. The man Micah had a house of gods — The Hebrew בית אלהים, Beth Elohim, may more properly be translated a house of God; that is, he had made, or at least intended to make, in his own dwelling, an imitation of the house of God in Shiloh. And teraphim — A sort of images so called. And consecrated one of his sons — Because the Levites, in that corrupt state of the church, neglected the exercise of their office, and therefore they were neglected by the people, and others put into their employments.

WHEDO , "5. House of gods — Or, a house of God, a sanctuary after the model of that at Shiloh. He would have a tabernacle of his own.

An ephod — Probably after the fashion of Gideon’s. See on Judges 8:27.

Teraphim — Idolatrous images among the Syrians, but in Israel connected rather with corrupt notions of religion than with open idolatry. It does not appear that they were ever worshipped. But see on Genesis 31:19, and Joshua 24:14.

Consecrated — Literally, filled the hand, in allusion to the sacred and solemn duties which filled the hands — required all the care — of those who occupied the priest’s office.

One of his sons — This fact affords further evidence of the looseness of that age, and shows how completely some of the most solemn enactments of the law had become a dead letter. But Micah did not feel fully satisfied with this priest of his own household, and hence his subsequent consecration of the wandering Levite.

TRAPP, "17:5 And the man Micah had an house of gods, and made an ephod, and teraphim, and consecrated one of his sons, who became his priest.

Ver. 5. And the man Micah had an house of gods.] Aediculam sacram. The devil is ειδωλοχαρης, saith Synesius, a great promoter of idolatry. His champion Julian was by the Christians merrily called Idolian.

And teraphim,] i.e., Seraphims and cherubims, saith Hugo: but it seemeth rather to signifiy certain statues, whereby the devil gave answers or oracles. [Ezekiel 21:21

Zechariah 10:2]

PULPIT, "And the man Micah, etc. It is impossible to say for certain whether the state of things here described in respect of Micah preceded the events narrated in the preceding verses, or was consequent upon them. If it preceded, then we have the reason of his mother's vow: she wished to make her son's "house of God" complete by the addition of a graven and molten image. If it was consequent upon his mother's vow, then we have in the opening verses of this chapter a history of the circumstances of the foundation of Micah's "house of God," which was to play an important part in the colony of Danites, whose proceedings arc related in the following chapter, and for the sake of which this domestic history of Micah is introduced. House of gods. Rather, of God (Elohim); for the worship was of Jehovah, only with a corrupt and semi-idolatrous ceremonial. An ephod. See 8:26, 8:27, note. Teraphim. See Genesis 31:19 (images, A.V.; teraphim, Hebrews); 1 Samuel 15:23 (idolatry, A.V.; teraphim, Hebrews); 1 Samuel 19:13 (an image, A.V.; teraphim, Hebrews); Hosea 3:4,to etc. They seem to have been a kind of Penates, or household gods, and were used for divination (Ezekiel 21:21; Zechariah 10:2). Became his priest. One function of the priest, and for which it is likely he was much resorted to, was to inquire of God by the ephod ( 18:5, 18:6). What his other duties might be does not appear.

JOH HA EMA In a word, then, idolatry was Micah's sin. He had established a household worship system. His was a self-made religion. He could have written the "Sunset" book on do-it-yourself religion. It was religion without revelation; religious practice without God's truth; a religion of convenience rather than a religion of obedience; a private religion rather than community involvement. But it was really worse than that. What is being referred to in this text is not some pagan idol or abomination. We don't find the names "Baal" or "Ashteroth" here. What Micah did was something much more subtle and dangerous. He had the right God (he called him "the Lord"), but he had a wrong worship. He was making images of God and worshipping this god falsely.

The key to understanding all of this is found in the last verse of chapter 18, "they set up for themselves Micah's graven image which he had made, all the time that the house of God was at Shiloh." God's house was not far away. Worship was to be carried out only at the place designated by God, as the book of Deuteronomy stated, "the place which the Lord your God chooses" (Deut 12:5, 14; 16:1-7). Micah had the right God but the wrong worship. He had taken religion into his own hands and placed it in his own home. The result of this was that nothing that he was doing distinguished him from the worship of all the Canaanite tribes. This was how they worshipped. Even though Micah proclaimed service to Yahweh, he acted like all the other peoples around him.

When God condemns idolatry, he not only forbids the worship of false gods, he

forbids the worship of himself, the one true God, by images. Such false worship robs God of his glory and leads people into spiritual darkness. Luther said, "Anything that one imagines of God apart from Christ is only useless thinking and vain idolatry." John Calvin wrote, "A true image of God is not to be found in all the world and hence His glory is defiled, and His truth corrupted by the lie, whenever He is set before our eyes in visible form. Therefore to devise any image of God is itself impious: because by this corruption His majesty is adulterated and He is figured to be other than He is."

When I was a young Christian, a friend gave me a cross to wear as an identifying mark of my new faith. Soon that cross became a symbol of protection for me, signifying that God was with me. If I forgot to wear it, I felt a little unsure and tentative, uncertain whether God was with me. ow there is nothing wrong with wearing a cross, but if we look to it rather than God himself, we can fall into idolatry. One day I discovered that I had mislaid my cross and I was dismayed. Later, however, I came to see that God designed things that way because he wanted me to know that his presence with me did not depend on some outward symbol or image.

Micah was not trying to break the law. This was not high-handed law breaking with malice aforethought. As soon as the opportunity arises to have a proper, kosher, Levite as his priest (in vv. 7-9), Micah leaps at it, no expense spared. ‘Then Micah said to him, “Live with me and be my father and priest, and I’ll give you ten shekels of silver a year, your clothes and your food.” So the Levite agreed to live with him, and the young man was to him like one of his sons. Then Micah installed the Levite, and the young man became his priest and lived in his house. And Micah said, “ ow I know that the Lord will be good to me, since this Levite has become my priest”’ (17:10-13).

He is trying to be religious and to win God’s favour. But he is paying no attention at all to what God had said. It was religion without revelation. If God has not spoken, then we have got to do the best we can to please Him, as Micah did. But there had been revelation. It was just not being heeded. When you or I decide we will respond to God in our own way and on our own terms, we make the same mistake. If I ask clearly and specifically for a white coffee and the waiter brings me iced water, it might be well-meaning but it won’t please me. Those of us who choose to ignore what God has said and to decide for ourselves what we will offer Him, may be well-meaning, but we won’t please Him. We are not treating Him as God, if we do that.

Can I ask: Is your God a speaking God? (The God of the Bible certainly is). And, if so, are you responding to what He is saying? It is so easy to squeeze revelation out of religion, and then we end up doing what is right in our own eyes. Well, I’ve called our second point:

In outward appearance both Micah and his mother were people of deep, religious

inclination. Their conversation was filled with repeated references to the name of

Jehovah, with affirmations of dedication to him, and with pleas for Jehovah's blessing. In

actual practice, however, it was quite evident that they cared not one whit for Jehovah, for

what He said or how He commanded that He should be worshipped. They had no real

desire to serve Him or dwell in his fellowship. Their piousness was the sickening sort of

which we read in lsaiah, " This people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips

do honor me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is

taught by the precept of men." (Is 29:13)

So we will see here in these next chapters where the people themselves will drift away,

and even though they want to do right, by their own ignorance they do wrong. It was no

difference then as it is now, the people like to play church, set their own rules, and

pretend that those forms of idolatry are from God. So that is what these next chapters are

about, the people forming their own system of religion and playing church with it.

This Micah had a whole church full of his idols and false gods. Micah set up his own

form of worship, he has made the robes to go with his house of false gods. He has even

set aside one of his own sons to become the priest of this false church. Do you get the

joke that is presented here? The father is suppose to teach the son, and now it is the son

doing the teaching. You know that if Micah's mother knew nothing, and he was ignorant

of God's laws, how in the world would the son have any wisdom of God either? This

ignorant father looking to an equally ignorant son, both sitting there in the house of idols

claiming to be a men of God. Do you see how foolish this all is?

Micah imitates the worship at the true Tabernacle of God, by making an ephod - a

specific garment worn by priests

c. In addition to this first idol, Micah also made household idols - literally, terephim -

gods that were worshipped in hopes of gaining prosperity and guidance

d. Finally, Micah establishes a priesthood among his sons; he has done everything he can

to make a rival religion in Israel

i. We notice more than anything that all of this originates with Micah, not with God; this

is a completely man-originated and man-centered religion

ii. The purpose of the shrine, the beautiful ephod, the attractive idols, and an established

priesthood was to serve and please man, not God - as is the case with many religions and

churches today

The fact that he at this stage installed one of his sons suggests that this house of God was

new, prepared by him to receive the ‘images’. Both Micah and his mother appear to have

been genuinely determined to please Yahweh, although in a way that contributed to their

own prestige. But they were clearly not well taught in what was necessary, although

having some general idea about such things. The fact that Israel had the Law of God at

the central sanctuary did not mean that the knowledge of it was satisfactorily

disseminated. And they were influenced by what went on around them.

From now onwards the name of Micah (micyhu) is abbreviated (to micah) in the Hebrew

text, dropping the name of Yahweh. This may have been the writer’s way of expressing

his disapproval of what follows.

They seemingly did not recognise that to have their own house of God, their own ephod

and their own throne of Yahweh was contrary to Moses’ teaching, and that teraphim

especially were frowned on as linked with divination and idolatry (1 Samuel 15.23). Nor

that to have their son as their own family priest was not acceptable, although the fact that

when the opportunity came to appoint a Levite, he did so, demonstrates that he was aware

of this defect. We must not necessarily assume that he acted as a full sacrificing priest.

His responsibilities might have been limited to using the ephod to discover the will of

God and offerings not of a sacrificial kind.

Micah was a religious innovationist and demonstrated how the Israelites were developing

forbidden forms of worship contrary to the Law of Moses. They did what was right in

their own eyes due to their failure to let Yahweh have His rightful place as King by

honouring the covenant and the central sanctuary. To ‘fill the hand’ was to appoint as

priest - Numbers 3.3. We note that David also appointed his sons as priests, but this

would be as priests of the order of Melchizedek in Jerusalem, as recognising their

authority there, but not as sacrificing priests (2 Samuel 8.18).

The ephod was a priestly metallic robe worn by ‘the priest’ in the Tabernacle which

among other things was involved with the Urim and Thummim (Exodus 28.30; Numbers

27.21) , which were used for discovering the mind of Yahweh. In the case of Laban,

teraphim were described as ‘gods’, divine objects (Genesis 31.30 with 35). But they were

used for divination (2 Kings 23.24; Ezekiel 21.21). Otherwise we know little about them.

Thus Micah was wanting to doubly ensure that he could discover the mind of Yahweh,

although his means were unacceptable to the pure Yahweh worshipper.

In all this there is no mention of an altar. Worship in this house of God may well have

been by offering other things than sacrifices.

Micah and his mother would have been familiar with the idol shelves found in Canaanite

houses, and which soon found their way into some Israelite houses. They were seeking to

have something similar but dedicated to Yahweh. But such was the state of Yahwism, of

the central sanctuary and of the teaching of the Law at the time, that they did not realise

that they were doing wrong. Yahwism was at a low ebb.

6 In those days Israel had no king; everyone did as they saw fit.

BAR ES, "In those days ... - This phrase, indicating distinctly that the writer lived after the establishment of the kingly government in Israel, is unique to the author of these last five chapters.

CLARKE, "There was no king in Israel - The word מלך melech, which generally means king, is sometimes taken for a supreme governor, judge, magistrate, or ruler of any kind; (see Gen_36:31, and Deu_33:5); and it is likely it should be so understood here.

Every man did that which was right in his own eyes - He was his own governor, and what he did he said was right; and, by his cunning and strength, defended his conduct. When a man’s own will, passions, and caprice, are to be made the rule of law, society is in a most perilous and ruinous state. Civil government is of God; and without it the earth must soon be desolated. There was a time when there was no king in England; and that was, in general, a time of scandal to religion, and oppression to men.

GILL, "In those days there was no king in Israel,.... That is, no supreme magistrate, judge, or ruler, Joshua being dead and Caleb also, and the elders contemporary with them; for what the Samaritan Chronicle says (l) is without foundation, that Joshua a little before his death cast a lot in the presence of the congregation, to know who should govern after him, and the lot came to one Abel, of the tribe of Judah:

but every man did that which was right in his own eyes; which accounts for the idolatry of Micah, there being no supreme magistrate to take cognizance of his sin, and restrain him from it, or punish him for it according to the law of God.

HE RY, "What was the cause of this corruption (Jdg_17:6): There was no king in Israel, no judge or sovereign prince to take cognizance of the setting up of these images (which, doubtless, the country about soon resorted to), and to give orders for the destroying of them, none to convince Micah of his error and to restrain and punish him, to take this disease in time, by which the spreading of the infection might have been happily prevented. Every man did that which was right in his own eyes, and then they soon did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord. When they were without a king to

keep good order among them, God's house was forsaken, his priests were neglected, and all went to ruin among them. See what a mercy government is, and what reason there is that not only prayers and intercessions, but giving of thanks, should be made for kings and all in authority, 1Ti_2:1, 1Ti_2:2. Nothing contributes more, under God, to the support of religion in the world, than the due administration of those two great ordinances, magistracy and ministry.

JAMISO , "every man did that which was right in his own eyes— From want of a settled government, there was no one to call him to account. No punishment followed any crime.

COKE, "Judges 17:6. In those days there was no king in Israel— That is to say, no supreme governor; and, consequently, a total anarchy prevailed, (see 2 Chronicles 15:3.) which words are inserted, not only as a reason why Micah set up this sanctuary at home, being afraid, through the deficiency of government, and the danger of the times, to go up to Shiloh; but also as a reason why he did it with impunity. ote; (1.) Corruptions in the church arise from small beginnings; to avoid idolatry, we must keep from superstition. (2.) It matters little whether the idol be set up in the heart or the house; whatever alienates the affections from God leads us into idolatry. (3.) The reason is given why this conduct of Micah met with no reproof; there was no judge in Israel; and they must be bad days indeed when no magistrates restrain sin, and ministers are negligent to reprove it.

ELLICOTT, "Verse 6(6) In those days there was no king.—This shows that these narratives were written, or more probably edited, in the days of the monarchy. (See Judges 18:1; Judges 19:1; Judges 21:25.)

Did that which was right in his own eyes.—The notice is added to show why there was no authoritative interference of prince or ruler to prevent idolatrous or lawless proceedings. (Deuteronomy 12:8 : “Ye shall not do after all the things which we do here this day, every man what is right in his own eyes.”)

PETT, "Verse 6‘In those days there was no king in Israel, every man did what was right in his own eyes.’Here is now the reason for their questionable behaviour. It was because in Israel every man did what was right in his own eyes. This in the writer’s view was the sad state of things. The first stress here was that the people were lawless and acknowledged no one over them. They did what they wanted and they ignored their true King Who was Yahweh (Deuteronomy 33:5). They did not submit to His kingship or seek to know His laws. So it was their attitude of heart which was in question, not the lack of One to rule over them. Because of this they were not submissive to the central sanctuary and to the covenant and to the religious authorities appointed by Him. The theocracy was failing because of the

unresponsiveness of the people. And this was seen as illustrated by Micah.

Perhaps, however, it also had in mind the coming ideal king as depicted in Deuteronomy 17:14-15, who would not multiply wives to himself, but would sit on his throne and study Yahweh’s Laws and keep them. Such a king was not here as yet, for there was clearly no one to guide Israel in the way of truth. To make this phrase simply a comparison with and justification of the monarchy is just too glib and pedantic. The writer has earlier made quite clear his views on that kind of monarchy in, for example, chapter 9. It may, however, have been a wistful look forward to when such an ideal king as is described in Deuteronomy might come. This might suggest that it was written when such a king was theoretically still in prospect in the time of Samuel, without having been marred by the reality.

BE SO , "17:6. There was no king in Israel — o judge to govern and control them; the word king being used largely for a supreme magistrate. God raised up judges to rule and deliver the people when he saw fit; and at other times for their sins he suffered them to be without them, and such a time this was; and therefore they ran into that idolatry from which the judges usually kept them; as appears by that solemn and oft-repeated declaration in this book, that after the death of such or such a judge, the people forsook the Lord, and turned to idols. His own eyes — That is, not what pleased God, but what best suited his own fancy.

WHEDO , "6. o king — This verse seems here, as everywhere, to explain the irregularities and evils of the age. It here explains how a man in central Palestine could establish such a semblance of idolatry, and profanely make a priest contrary to the requirements of the law. There was no central government to look after such irregularities, and bring the whole nation to uniform methods of worship, or counteract and destroy the growth of various evils.

TRAPP, "17:6 In those days [there was] no king in Israel, [but] every man did [that which was] right in his own eyes.

Ver. 6. In those days there was no king in Israel,] i.e., o ordinary supreme magistrate: hence this idolatry and the following outrages. Of the two, tyranny or ochlocraty, that rule of rascality, is better than anarchy. It is noted as a just wonder, that "the grasshoppers have no king, yet go they forth in bands": [Proverbs 30:27] for the body of the commonwealth which lacked a chief ruler, is like the body of Polyphemus, without an eye. Ulysses, asking what kind of kingdom the Cyclopes had, was answered by Silenus, οµαδες, ακουει ουδεις ουδενος, they wander at pleasure, and do what they want without control. The inhabitants of Brazil are said to be sine fide, sine rege, sine lege, without religion, law, or government, and must therefore needs be miserable. Look what a ship is without a steersman, a flock without a shepherd, a house without the father of the family, or a school without a schoolmaster; such is a state without a supreme government. This when none would take upon them, the prophet showeth that confusion followed, [Isaiah 3:6] and men became as fishes, devouring one another.

But every man did that which was right in his own eyes.] So they did in the interregnums at Rome, and do still in Turkey, to the great disturbance of the public welfare. Stobaeus (a) telleth us, that by the Persian law, there was at the death of their king a five days’ lawless liberty proclaimed, to the end that, by the want of good government for such a time, people might be made to know the worth of it, and so might prize it the better ever after.

U K OW AUTHORS, "The Israelites sought to be independent of God during the time of the Judges, but this resulted in great calamity, hardship and affliction. The book is best understood by reading Judges 17:6 and 21:25. The people rebelled against their heavenly King, had no earthly king and, therefore, made self king in the decision making process. Each person did what was right in his own eyes. It was a dark and sad time for Israel. We need to study Judges in order to see the results of life when it is lived independently of God’s Word, Will and Way.

The answer is there in that little phrase repeated 4 times in chs 17-21, each time at the end of a major incident. There it is in 17:6; in 18:1, in 19:1, and in 21:25 - the very last verse. This is the answer - in those days Israel had no king. And because there was no king, everyone did as he saw fit. And we’ve seen just a small glimpse of how awful that was.

The first stress here was that the people were lawless and acknowledged no one over them. They did what they wanted and ignored their true King Who was Yahweh (Deuteronomy 33.5). They did not submit to His kingship or seek to know His laws. It was their attitude of heart which was in question, not the lack of One to rule over them. Because of this they were not submissive to the central sanctuary and to the covenant and to the religious authorities appointed by Him. The theocracy was failing because of the unresponsiveness of the people. And this was seen as illustrated by Micah.

Perhaps, however, it also had in mind the coming ideal king as depicted in Deuteronomy 17.14-15, who would not multiply wives to himself, but would sit on his throne and study Yahweh’s Laws and keep them. Such a king was not here as yet, for there was clearly no one to guide Israel in the way of truth. To make this phrase simply a comparison with and justification of the monarchy is just too glib and pedantic. The writer has earlier made quite clear his views on that kind of monarchy in, for example, chapter 9. It may, however, have been a wistful look forward to when such an ideal king as is described in Deuteronomy might come. This might suggest that it was written when such a king was theoretically still in prospect in the time of Samuel, without having been marred by the reality.

7 A young Levite from Bethlehem in Judah, who had been living within the clan of Judah,

BAR ES, "The Hebrew words for “he sojourned there” are, שם gêr גר shām, which words are used Jdg_18:30 in the genealogy of this young Levite, whose name was

“Jonathan, the son of Gershom” (גרשם gêreshôm). Hence, some read here, “the son of Gershom.”

CLARKE, "Of the family of Judah - The word family may be taken here for tribe; or the young man might have been of the tribe of Judah by his mother, and of the tribe of Levi by his father, for he is called here a Levite; and it is probable that he might have officiated at Shiloh, in the Levitical office. A Levite might marry into any other tribe, providing the woman was not an heiress.

GILL, "And there was a young man out of Bethlehemjudah,.... As there were two Bethlehems, one in the tribe of Zebulun, Jos_19:15 and another in the tribe of Judah, the place here designed, Judah is added to it, to distinguish it from the other:

of the family of Judah: which refers either to the young man, who was by his father's side a Levite, and by his mother's side, as Jarchi thinks, of the tribe of Judah, which seems very probable, though the genealogies of families were not reckoned from the mother; wherefore he might be so called because he had lived chiefly in the tribe of Judah, and particularly at Bethlehem; but Kimchi, and several other Jewish commentators, refer this to the city of Bethlehem, that was of the tribe of Judah, family being put for the tribe; or belonged to the children of Judah; though one would think there was no need to have added this, since it was fully expressed before by calling it Bethlehemjudah; the former sense therefore seems best:

who was a Levite; his father being, as before observed, of that tribe, though his mother might be of the tribe of Judah: and he sojourned there; that is, at Bethlehem; he was not a native, nor an inhabitant there, but a sojourner, it not being a Levitical city.

HE RY 7-8, "We have here an account of Micah's furnishing himself with a Levite for his chaplain, either thinking his son, because the heir of his estate, too good to officiate, or rather, because not of God's tribe, not good enough. Observe,

I. What brought this Levite to Micah. By his mother's side he was of the family of Judah, and lived at Bethlehem among his mother's relations (for that was not a Levites' city), or, upon some other account, as a stranger or inmate, sojourned there, Jdg_17:7.

Thence he went to sojourn where he could find a place, and in his travels came to the house of Micah in Mount Ephraim, Jdg_17:8. Now, 1. Some think it was his unhappiness that he was under a necessity of removing, either because he was persecuted and abused, or rather neglected and starved, at Bethlehem. God had made plentiful provision for the Levites, but the people withheld their dues, and did not help them into the possession of the cities assigned to them; so that they were reduced to straits, and no care was taken for their relief. Israel's forsaking God began with forsaking the Levites, which therefore they are warned against, Deu_12:19. It is a sign religion is going to decay when good ministers are neglected and at a loss for a livelihood. But, 2. It seems rather to have been his fault and folly, that he loved to wander, threw himself out where he was, and forfeited the respect of his friends, and, having a roving head, would go to seek his fortune, as we say. We cannot conceive that things had yet come to such a pass among them that a Levite should be poor, unless it was his own fault. As those are fit to be pitied that would fix but may not, so those are fit to be punished that might fix but will not. Unsettledness being, one would think, a constant uneasiness, it is strange that any Israelite, especially any Levite, should affect it.

JAMISO , "Beth-lehem-judah— so called in contradistinction to a town of the same name in Zebulun (Jos_19:15).

of the family— that is, tribe.

of Judah— Men of the tribe of Levi might connect themselves, as Aaron did (Exo_6:23), by marriage with another tribe; and this young Levite belonged to the tribe of Judah, by his mother’s side, which accounts for his being in Beth-lehem, not one of the Levitical cities.

K&D, "Jdg_17:7-9

Appointment of a Levite as Priest. - Jdg_17:7. In the absence of a Levitical priest, Micah had first of all appointed one of his sons as priest at his sanctuary. He afterwards found a Levite for this service. A young man from Bethlehem in Judah, of the family of

Judah, who, being a Levite, stayed (ר>) there (in Bethlehem) as a stranger, left this town to sojourn “at the place which he should find,” sc., as a place that would afford him shelter and support, and came up to the mountains of Ephraim to Micah's house,

“making his journey,” i.e., upon his journey. (On the use of the inf. constr. with (ל in the sense of the Latin gerund in do, see Ewald, §280, d.) Bethlehem was not a Levitical town. The young Levite from Bethlehem was neither born there nor made a citizen of the place, but simply “sojourned there,” i.e., dwelt there temporarily as a stranger. The

further statement as to his descent (mishpachath Judah) is not to be understood as signifying that he was a descendant of some family in the tribe of Judah, but simply that he belonged to the Levites who dwelt in the tribe of Judah, and were reckoned in all civil matters as belonging to that tribe. On the division of the land, it is true that it was only to the priests that dwelling-places were allotted in the inheritance of this tribe (Jos_21:9-19), whilst the rest of the Levites, even the non-priestly members of the family of Kohath, received their dwelling-places among the other tribes (Jos_21:20.). At the same time, as many of the towns which were allotted to the different tribes remained for a long time in the possession of the Canaanites, and the Israelites did not enter at once into the full and undisputed possession of their inheritance, it might easily so happen that

different towns which were allotted to the Levites remained in possession of the Canaanites, and consequently that the Levites were compelled to seek a settlement in other places. It might also happen that individuals among the Levites themselves, who were disinclined to perform the service assigned them by the law, would remove from the Levitical towns and seek some other occupation elsewhere (see also at Jdg_18:30).

(Note: There is no reason, therefore, for pronouncing the words יהודה of) מ@ש?חתthe family of Judah) a gloss, and erasing them from the text, as Houbigant proposes. The omission of them from the Cod. Vat. of the lxx, and from the Syriac, is not enough to warrant this, as they occur in the Cod. Al. of the lxx, and their absence from the authorities mentioned may easily be accounted for from the difficulty which was felt in explaining their meaning. On the other hand, it is impossible to imagine any reason for the interpolation of such a gloss into the text.)

COFFMA , "Verse 7A LEVITE COMES TO THE HOUSE OF MICAH

"And there was a young man out of Bethlehem-judah, of the family of Judah, who was a Levite; and he sojourned there. And the man departed out of the city, out of Bethlehem-judah, to sojourn where he could find a place; and he came to the hill-country of Ephraim, to the house of Micah, as he journeyed. And Micah said unto him, Whence comest thou? And he said unto him, I am a Levite of Bethlehem-judah, and I go to sojourn where I may find a place. And Micah said unto him, Dwell with me, and be unto me a father and a priest, and I will give thee ten pieces of silver by the year, and a suit of apparel, and thy victuals. So the Levite went in."

Strahan's comment on this labeled, "The young man as a native of Judah and a Levite by profession, adding that, `it is a contradiction to say that he sojourned among his own people.'"[23] This is an erroneous view. That the young man was a Levite indicates his tribal connection, not a so-called profession. The mention of his being from Bethlehem-judah of the family of Judah is a somewhat ambiguous reference to his residence, as proved by the simple declaration that "he sojourned there." The background of this is that the Levites received no inheritance when Canaan was allotted to the Israelites, but they were scattered throughout the tribes, being assigned to certain cities. It was illegal and sinful for anyone to be a `Levite,' except those belonging to that tribe. This Mosaic regulation was well known to Micah, as indicated by his pleasure in being able to employ a real Levite. "The reference to Judah does not signify that he descended from that tribe, but simply denotes that he belonged to the particular group of Levites who had been assigned to Judah, thus being reckoned in all matters as belonging to that tribe."[24]

"Of the family of Judah" (Judges 17:7). The failure of critics to understand what this means has led them to declare it a gloss and to erase it from the text. Keil cited the error of such in the following:

"There is no reason to pronounce these words a gloss. Their omission by the Codex Vaticanus rendition of the Septuagint (LXX) cannot warrant this, because the

words are retained in the Codex Alexandrinus rendition of the LXX, and their omission in the former is easily accounted for by the difficulty which was felt in explaining their meaning. Also, it is impossible to imagine any reason for the interpolation of such a phrase into the text."[25]We may only pity the poverty and distress of the Levite who could be bribed to accept a sinful assignment for such an insignificant stipend.

ELLICOTT, "Verse 7(7) A young man.—Later on in the story we, as it were incidentally, make the astonishing discovery that this young man was no other than a grandson of Moses.

Out of Beth-lehem-judah.—So called to distinguish it from the Bethlehem in Zebulon (Joshua 19:15). (See ote on Judges 12:8.) In later times, when Bethlehem was famous as David’s birthplace, and the other Bethlehem had sunk into insignificance, the descriptive addition is often dropped.

Of the family of Judah.—It may be doubted whether this refers to the “young man” or to Bethlehem, or whether it ought not, as in some MSS. and versions (LXX., Cod. B, and Syriac), to be omitted. If it applies to the young Levite, it must mean that he did not live in one of the Levitic cities, which belonged to his own family (the family of Gershom), which were in the northern and eastern tribes (Joshua 21:6), but in Judah, and therefore was ranked in civil matters as belonging to that tribe. Homes in the tribe of Judah were assigned to the priests alone (Joshua 21:9-42).

He sojourned there.—Comp. Judges 19:1. The curse had been pronounced on the tribe of Levi: “I will divide them in Jacob, and scatter them in Israel” (Genesis 49:7).

PETT, "Verse 7‘And there was a young man out of Bethlehem-judah, of the family of Judah, who was a Levite, and he sojourned there.’There were two Bethlehems, one in the tribe of Zebulun, (Joshua 19:15), and this in the tribe of Judah. This Bethlehem occurs twice in the narrative, as a source here of a dishonest Levite and in Judges 19:1 of a faithless concubine (see also Ruth 1:1). They were not good advertisements for the moral state of Bethlehem-judah.

From there came a young man who was a Levite with connections with Judah. The Levites were scattered throughout the whole of Israel and ‘adopted’ into their various tribes, but only as sojourners. Thus this man had become a member of the family of Judah while retaining his Levite identity. The fact that he ‘sojourned’, took up residence among them there (compare Judges 19:1 of another Levite), when it was not a Levitical city, was a further sign of the state of affairs in the country, although the Levites may have had a ministry of guiding the people (‘to bless in His name’ - Deuteronomy 10:8). ‘Sojourner’ strictly referred to a resident alien. But Levites were seen as sojourners because they belonged to God, not as being one of the people.

God’s theoretical blueprint as described in the Law of Moses would have produced a strong and fair nation, avoiding the excesses of kingship, satisfying its religious needs, always united and powerful, looking to Yahweh for guidance and deliverance, the perfect theocracy. But unfortunately human beings were involved. Thus the blueprint was in process of time adapted and altered to suit man’s convenience, desires and local customs, until it was only partially recognisable and very much distorted, with the result that it failed in its purpose due to the weakness of its participants.

And this affected no one more than the Levites, men set aside for the service of the Tabernacle and to make the Law known, who retained respect and deference in the community as men of God, but who came far short of the ideal. Indeed, as with this man, many took advantage of their status to advance their own wealth and position and were not too particular about the legal requirements of the Law.

BE SO , "17:7. Beth-lehem-judah — So called here, as Matthew 2:1; Matthew 2:5, to distinguish it from Bethlehem in Zebulun. There he was born and bred. Of Judah — That is, of or belonging to the tribe of Judah; not by birth, for he was a Levite; but by his habitation and ministration. For the Levites were dispersed among all the tribes: and this man’s lot fell into the tribe of Judah. Sojourned — So he expresseth it, because this was not the proper place of his abode, this being no Levitical city.

WHEDO , "7. Of the family of Judah — This does not mean that this young man was a descendant of Judah, for he is immediately called a Levite, but that he belonged to the Levites who occupied by divine appointment cities within the tribe-territory of Judah. Compare Joshua 21:8-16. In Judges 18:30, this Levite is called “Jonathan the son of Gershom, the son of Manasseh.” He seems from Judges 18:3, to have been a person of some distinction, known at least to leading persons in the tribe of Dan. See notes on those passages. Beth-lehem-judah was not one of those cities allotted to the Levites, and hence it is added that this young man had only sojourned there, that is, dwelt there for a time as a stranger; it was not his native city nor his permanent home.

TRAPP, "17:7 And there was a young man out of Bethlehemjudah of the family of Judah, who [was] a Levite, and he sojourned there.

Ver. 7. And there was a young man.] Puer: so he is called ratione ministerii [Exodus 33:11] saith Junius. And why not for his folly? as Genesis 34:19. eque distulit puer? A novice he was, Cereus in vitium flecti, one that would murder souls for a morsel of bread; [Ezekiel 13:19] which was the worse in him, because this was Jonathan, the nephew of Moses the man of God: for men are therefore worse than others, because they ought to be better. See 18:30.

PULPIT, "Of the family of Judah. These words are difficult to explain. If the man was a Levite he could not be of the family or tribe of Judah. Some explain the words

to be merely a more accurate definition of Bethlehem-judah, as if he would say, I mean Bethlehem in the tribe of Judah. Others explain them to mean that he was one of a family of Levites who had settled in Bethlehem, and so came to be reckoned in civil matters as belonging to Judah. Others, that he was of the family of Judah on his mother s side, which might be the cause of his settling at Bethlehem. But many commentators think them spurious, as they are not found in the Septuagint (Cod. Vat.), nor in the Peschito, nor in o. 440 of De Rossi's MSS. The Septuagint has Bethlehem of the family of Judah.

Don't get confused here, this man was of the tribe of Levi, and of the tribe of Judah, for the Levites did not have their own lands and territory, but were scattered through all the tribes. Each of the tribes of Israel had a certain number of Levites that were given to them to be their priests. This man here was a Levite that was staying over night with a family of the tribe of Judah, he was not living there, but traveling through, and resting there. This Levite was looking for a place to fulfill the duties of the priest.

There were two Bethlehems, one in the tribe of Zebulun, (Joshua 19.15), and this in the tribe of Judah. This Bethlehem occurs twice in the narrative, as a source here of a dishonest Levite and in 19.1 of a faithless concubine (see also Ruth 1.1). They were not good advertisements for the moral state of Bethlehem-judah.

From there came a young man who was a Levite with connections with Judah. The Levites were scattered throughout the whole of Israel and ‘adopted’ into their various tribes, but only as sojourners. Thus this man had become a member of the family of Judah while retaining his Levite identity. The fact that he ‘sojourned’, took up residence among them there (compare 19.1 of another Levite), when it was not a Levitical city, was a further sign of the state of affairs in the country, although the Levites may have had a ministry of guiding the people (‘to bless in His name’ -Deuteronomy 10.8). ‘Sojourner’ strictly referred to a resident alien. But Levites were seen as sojourners because they belonged to God, not as being one of the people.

God’s theoretical blueprint as described in the Law of Moses would have produced a strong and fair nation, avoiding the excesses of kingship, satisfying its religious needs, always united and powerful, looking to Yahweh for guidance and deliverance, the perfect theocracy. But unfortunately human beings were involved. Thus the blueprint was in process of time adapted and altered to suit man’s convenience, desires and local customs, until it was only partially recognisable and very much distorted, with the result that it failed in its purpose due to the weakness of its participants.

And this affected no one more than the Levites, men set aside for the service of the Tabernacle and to make the Law known, who retained respect and deference in the community as men of God, but who came far short of the ideal. Indeed, as with this

man, many took advantage of their status to advance their own wealth and position and were not too particular about the legal requirements of the Law.

8 left that town in search of some other place to stay. On his way[c] he came to Micah’s house in the hill country of Ephraim.

BAR ES, "Jonathan’s state without a home gives us vivid picture of what must have been the condition of many Levites.

CLARKE, "To sojourn where he could find - He went about the country seeking for some employment, for the Levites had no inheritance: besides, no secure residence could be found where there was no civil government.

GILL, "And the man departed out of the city from Bethlehemjudah, to sojourn where he could find a place,.... Either being a man that had a rambling head, and of an unsettled mind, and could not easily fix any where; or else there being no supreme magistrate, to take care that the Levites had their due maintenance, for which there was a sufficient provision made by law; and the people being negligent of paying their tithes, there being none to oblige them to it, and they indifferent to the true worship of God, and prone to idolatry; this man was obliged to go abroad, and seek for a livelihood where he could get it, and sojourn in a place the most convenient for him:

and he came to Mount Ephraim, to the house of Micah, as he journeyed: not with a design to stay there, but called by the way, having heard perhaps that Micah was both a wealthy and an hospitable man, and he also might have heard of the new form of worship he had set up in his house.

JAMISO , "the man departed ... to sojourn where he could find a place—A competent provision being secured for every member of the Levitical order, his wandering about showed him to have been a person of a roving disposition or unsettled habits. In the course of his journeying he came to the house of Micah, who, on learning what he was, engaged his permanent services.

ELLICOTT, "Verse 8(8) To sojourn where he could find.—Or, as we should say, to get his living. It may easily be supposed that in the disorganisation of these days, the due support of the Levites would be much neglected. The same neglect occurred in the troubled days of ehemiah: “I perceived that the portions of the Levites had not been given them: for the Levites and the singers, that did the work, were fled every one to his field,” &c. ( ehemiah 13:10-11).

To the house of Micah.—Probably he was induced to go there by the rumour of Micah’s chapel and worship.

PETT, "Verse 8‘And the man departed out of the city, out of Bethlehem-judah, to sojourn where he could find a place, and he came to the hill country of Ephraim, to the house of Micah, as he journeyed.’The Levite went out on his travels as a religious adventurer, looking for opportunities, his first concern his own advancement and prospects. This may have been partly forced on him by the partial failure of the system of tithing as a result of syncretism. Micah was of a wealthy family whose obvious wealth would attract men like this Levite, and he may well have heard on his travels about Micah’s religious innovations Thus the two came together.

TRAPP, "17:8 And the man departed out of the city from Bethlehemjudah to sojourn where he could find [a place]: and he came to mount Ephraim to the house of Micah, as he journeyed.

Ver. 8. To sojourn where he could find a place.] By the iniquity of the times, he was put to his shifts, and forced to seek a subsistence where he could get it. See the like in ehemiah 13:10-11. Ministers are not of the chameleon kind: they cannot live upon the air. It was a sad thing that Luther should be forced to complain, Spoliantur parochiae et scholae non aliter ac si fame necare nos velint: Parishes and schools are robbed, as if they meant to starve up the ministry. It was an ingenuous confession of that Popish priest, but a shame for those that put him to it, We preach the gospel, tantum ut nos pascat et vestiat, only for food and raiment. In many places they allow the ox nothing but the straw for treading out the grain: and so much straw as themselves please. O tempera!

Yet why is he wandering around looking for somewhere to stay. He should have been at the tabernacle. He should have lived in one of the 48 towns throughout Israel God had set aside for Levites. Bethlehem wasn’t one of them. And it wasn’t a town for the descendants of Moses, which we learn later is this man. Maybe Israel weren’t supporting their priests - again falling well short in obeying God’s laws.

guzik An opportunistic Levite looking for a "position"

a. This man, as a Levite, had cities to live in and a place established by God for him to minister - but instead, he wanted to do what was right in his own eyes, and went about offering himself as a "priest for hire," wherever he could find a place

2. (9-11) Micah hires the Levite

a. Why did Micah want him? Because he wanted to legitimize his personal shrine by having an officially recognized priest serving there; deep down he knew that his idolatry was false and meaningless, and hoped this would make it legitimate

b. So, for ten shekels and a suit of clothes, this Levite hires himself out to the idolatry of Micah. The Levite is a perfect example of a hireling, someone who serves God (or an idol) for what it can give him, instead of to glorify the Lord

i. There are many different ways that hirelings get what they want; the monetary hirelings are obvious, but there are also emotional hirelings, who get into the ministry because of their insecurities and their need for approval

c. The arrangements seemed perfect to everyone; the Levite was content to dwell with Micah, and Micah felt he had gained a son

3. (12-13) A false consecration and a false confidence

a. Micah's consecration meant nothing at all; he had no authority from God to declare a renegade Levite as set apart by God to the service of this idolatrous shrine

i. All are guilty of terrible sin, but the Levite more than Micah; the Levite would know the Word of God, and Micah might not

b. Micah's confidence is just as false as his consecration; it is based on superstition, not on God's Word

i. If we can say anything about Micah, we can say he is utterly sincere - but totally wrong. Sincerity is nice, but gets you no where if it is not coupled with truth. A person who sincerely thinks they can swim across the Pacific Ocean will drown just as surely and the person who isn't as sincere

ii. Perhaps Micah's ignorance could be excused - he lived before widespread literacy, before printing, before cassette tapes, before Christian radio, before video tapes; what could possibly be our excuse? Many of us get more practical guidance for our lives from the TV Guide than the Bible

9 Micah asked him, “Where are you from?”

“I’m a Levite from Bethlehem in Judah,” he said, “and I’m looking for a place to stay.”

GILL, "And Micah said unto him, whence comest thou?.... For as he might ask for a meal, or for a night's lodging, it was but natural to put such a question to him, as from whence he came, and what was his business in these parts? or whither he was going?

and he said unto him, I am a Levite of Bethlehemjudah; the tribe he was of was Levi, and so a Levite by tribe and office, and the place he came last from, and where he had sojourned awhile, was Bethlehem, a city in the tribe of Judah:

and I go to sojourn where I may find a place; the most convenient to abide in, where he could get a livelihood.

HE RY 9-10, "What bargain Micah made with him. Had he not been well enough content with his son for his priest, he would have gone or sent abroad to enquire out a Levite, but now he only takes hold of one that drops into his hands, which showed that he had no great zeal in the matter. It is probable that this rambling Levite had heard, in the country, of Micah's house of gods, his graven and molten image, which, if he had had any thing of the spirit of a Levite in him, would have brought him thither to reprove Micah for his idolatry, to tell how directly contrary it was to the law of God, and how it would bring the judgments of God upon him; but instead of this, like a base and degenerate branch of that sacred tribe, thither he goes to offer his service, with, Have you any work for a Levite? for I am out of business, and go to sojourn where I may find a place; all he aimed at was to get bread, not to do good, Jdg_17:9. Micah courts him into his family (v. 10), and promises him, 1. Good preferment: Be unto me a father and a priest. Though a young man, and taken up at the door, yet, if he take him for a priest, he will respect him as a father, so far is he from setting him among his servants. He asks not for his credentials, takes no time to enquire how he behaved in the place of his last settlement, considers not whether, though he was a Levite, yet he might not be of such a bad character as to be a plague and scandal to his family, but thinks, though he should be ever so great a rake, he might serve for a priest to a graven image, like Jeroboam's priest of the lowest of the people, 1Ki_12:31. No marvel if those who can make any thing serve for a god can also make any thing serve for a priest. 2. A tolerable maintenance. He will allow him meat, and drink, and clothes, a double suit, so the word is in the margin, a better and a worse, one for every day's wear and one for holy days, and ten shekels, about twenty-five shillings, a year for spending money - a poor salary in comparison of

what God provided for the Levites that behaved well; but those that forsake God's service will never better themselves, nor find a better master. The ministry is the best calling but the worst trade in the world.

PETT, "Verse 9‘And Micah said to him, “From where have you come?” And he said to him, “I am a Levite of Bethlehem-judah, and I go to sojourn where I may find a place.” ’Micah would be providing hospitality and thus politely enquired as to where the man had come from as a fellow Israelite. And when he learned that the man was a Levite, and was looking for an opportunity to exercise his ministry, he recognised that here was an opportunity to make his house of God more significant and more orthodox.

TRAPP, "Verse 9

17:9 And Micah said unto him, Whence comest thou? And he said unto him, I [am] a Levite of Bethlehemjudah, and I go to sojourn where I may find [a place].

Ver. 9. Whence comest thou?] He should have asked him more questions than this, ere he had agreed with him: as, Can you preach? can you produce a good testimonial? how happens it that you are thus necessitated? &c.

EXPOSITOR'S DICTIO ARY, "Judges 17:9-11

After that first fervour of simple devotion, which his beloved Jesuit priest had inspired in him, speculative theology took but little hold on the young man"s mind. When his early credulity was disturbed, and his saints and virgins taken out of his worship, to rank little higher than the divinities of Olympus, his belief became acquiescence rather than the ardour; and he made his mind up to assume the cassock and bands, as another man does to wear a breastplate and jack-boots, or to mount a merchant"s desk, for a livelihood, and from obedience and necessity, rather than from choice. There were scores of such men in Mr. Esmond"s time at the universities, who were going into the Church with no better calling than his.

—Thackeray, Esmond, chap. IX.

In The Force of Truth, Thomas Scott confesses that his original views in entering the ministry "were these three:—A desire of a less laborious and more comfortable way of procuring a livelihood, than otherwise I had the prospect of; the expectation of more leisure to employ in reading, of which I was inordinately fond; and a proud conceit of my abilities, with a vainglorious imagination that I should sometime distinguish and advance myself in the literary world."

10 Then Micah said to him, “Live with me and be my father and priest, and I’ll give you ten shekels[d] of silver a year, your clothes and your food.”

BAR ES, "Ten shekels - About 25 shillings to 26 shillings (see Exo_38:24).

CLARKE, "Be unto me a father and a priest - Thou shalt be master of my house, as if thou wert my father; and, as priest, thou shalt appear in the presence of God for me. The term father is often used to express honor and reverence.

Ten shekels of silver - About thirty shillings per annum, with board, lodging, and clothes. Very good wages in those early times.

GILL, "And Micah said unto him, dwell with me,.... Hearing that he was a Levite, he thought him a fit man for his purpose, and would give some credit to, and put a better face upon his new form of worship, and therefore, without further inquiry after him and his character, invites him to make his abode with him:

and be unto me a father and a priest; a father to instruct him in the knowledge of divine things; so prophets were called fathers, and their disciples their sons; and a priest to offer sacrifices for him, and to consult before him by his teraphim upon occasion:

and I will give thee ten shekels of silver by the year; or yearly, which was but a small sum, a poor salary for a priest, at most amounting but to twenty five shillings, and scarce so much:

and a suit of apparel; or "an order of apparel" (m); such as was fit for one of his rank and order as a priest to wear, so Jarchi and Abarbinel; or a couple of garments, as the Targum and Septuagint, a double suit of apparel, according to the order of the season, one for summer and another for winter, as Kimchi and Ben Melech:

and thy victuals; his meat and drink:

so thy Levite went in; into his house, and it looks as if the parley was made, and the bargain struck at the door, Micah being at it as the Levite passed by, or came to it upon his knocking at it; he went after his counsel and advice, as Jarchi, or to do his business, as Kimchi.

JAMISO , "Micah said unto him, Dwell with me, and be unto me a father— a spiritual father, to conduct the religious services of my establishment. He was to

receive, in addition to his board, a salary of ten shekels of silver, equal to 25 shillings a year.

a suit of apparel— not only dress for ordinary use, but vestments suitable for the discharge of his priestly functions.

K&D, "Judges 17:10-13

Micah made this proposal to the Levite: “Dwell with me, and become my father and priest; I will give thee ten shekels of silver yearly, and fitting out with clothes and

maintenance.” ב�, father, is an honourable title give to a priest as a paternal friend and spiritual adviser, and is also used with reference to prophets in 2Ki_6:21 and 2Ki_13:14,

and applied to Joseph in Gen_45:8. ל5מים, for the days, sc., for which a person was engaged, i.e., for the year (cf. 1Sa_27:7, and Lev_25:29). “And the Levite went,” i.e., went to Micah's house. This meaning is evident from the context. The repetition of the

subject, “the Levite,” precludes our connecting it with the following verb ו5ואל. - In Jdg_17:11-13 the result is summed up. The Levite resolved (see at Deu_1:5) to dwell with Micah, who treated him as one of his sons, and entrusted him with the priesthood at his house of God. And Micah rejoiced that he had got a Levite as priest, and said, “Now I know that Jehovah will prosper me.” This belief, or, to speak more correctly, superstition, for which Micah was very speedily to atone, proves that at that time the tribe of Levi held the position assigned it in the law of Moses; that is to say, that it was regarded as the tribe elected by God for the performance of divine worship.

ELLICOTT, "Verse 10(10) Be unto me a father and a priest.—The title “father” is here ecclesiastical, like “papa,” “pope,” &c, and this title was given to spiritual directors, as we find in several other passages in the Bible (2 Kings 2:12; 2 Kings 5:13; 2 Kings 6:21; Isaiah 22:21, &c.). Micah knew enough of the law to be aware of the extreme irregularity of his conduct in making one of his own sons his priest.

Ten shekels of silver.—Thus the grandson of Moses became priest of an idolatrous worship at a salary of 25s. a year!

By the year.—Literally, by days. (Comp. Leviticus 25:29.)

A suit of apparel.—The Vulgate renders these words “a double robe.” It seems to mean either “an order of garments” or “the value of garments,” i.e., “your clothes.”

PETT, "Verse 10‘And Micah said to him, “Stay with me, and be to me a father and a priest, and I will give you ten pieces of silver a year, and a suit of clothing, and your keep.” ’This confirms that his religious aims were Yahwistic, and that he sought to conduct his worship in accordance with the Law as he saw it. Indeed he wanted further guidance from an expert who could direct him and guide him and fulfil priestly functions.

Ten pieces of silver, a suit of clothing and keep each year was probably a very satisfactory wage for such a position. Certainly the Levite thought so. The clothing may have been of a priestly nature, although such clothing may have been provided separately, along with the ephod, as belonging to his house of God. Strictly the Levite should have pointed out that he was not qualified to exercise priestly functions (unless of course he was of a priestly family) but he was not going to lose this opportunity over a mere trifle. His dishonesty and opportunism come out all the way through.

TRAPP, "Verse 1017:10 And Micah said unto him, Dwell with me, and be unto me a father and a priest, and I will give thee ten [shekels] of silver by the year, and a suit of apparel, and thy victuals. So the Levite went in.

Ver. 10. Be unto me a father and a priest,] As a father he would respect him, though but a young man, because a priest. The Papists’ respect to their hedge priests, under the name of padres, fathers, will rise up in judgment against us.

And I will give thee ten shekels of silver, &c] A poor slender salary. This man had eleven hundred pieces of silver to bestow upon his idols, but ten shekels is held wages enough for his priest. So Louis XI of France allowed his chaplains twenty shillings a month: but for his physician, (a) one John Cotiers, he allowed him ten thousand crowns a month. In Ireland formerly ministers had no more maintenance than the pasture of two milk cowes, &c. In the whole province of Connaught, the stipend of the incumbent was not above forty shillings, in some places but sixteen shillings. (b) ow, blessed be God, the matter is well amended there, and very good encouragement promised to preachers that shall go over, Stipendia honoraria, with an honourable respect.

So the Levite went in.] Graeculus esuriens. Hunger will snap at anything, where there is not grace to restrain men.

PULPIT,"17:10, 17:11

A father. This is not a common application of the word father in the Old Testament. The prominent idea seems to be one of honour, combined with authority to teach and advise. It is applied to prophets (2 Kings 2:12; 2 Kings 6:21; 2 Kings 13:14), and to Joseph (Genesis 45:8). The idea is implied in the converse phrase of son, applied to those to whom the prophets stood in 'the relation of spiritual fathers (see 2 Kings 8:9; Proverbs 4:10, Proverbs 4:20, and frequently elsewhere). The abuse of the feeling which dictates the term as applied to human teachers is reproved by our Lord (Matthew 23:9). It has been freely used in the Christian Church, as in the titles papa or pope applied to bishops, abbot and abbas, father in God, fathers of the Church, etc. Here there is perhaps a special reference to the function of Micah's

priest to ask counsel of God, and then give that counsel to those who came to inquire (see note to verse 5). It may be added that the idea of counsellor seems to be inherent in the word cohen or priest, as in 2 Samuel 8:18; 1 Kings 4:5, etc. Ten shekels—a little over a pound of our money, but probably equivalent to £20, when considered relatively to articles of consumption. A suit of apparel. There is great doubt as to the exact meaning of the word rendered suit in this connection. The word means anything arranged, i.e. put in a rank, or row, or order. In Exodus 40:23 it is applied to the shewbread: "He ordered the bread in order." Thence it came to mean the estimation or worth of a person or thing—some-what as we use the word rank. From this last sense some interpret the word here to mean the worth or price of his clothes. Others, including St. Jerome and the Septuagint, interpret it a pair of vestments, meaning summer and winter clothing. But perhaps the A.V suit, meaning the whole set of under and upper garments, is after all the best interpretation. The Levite went in. The Hebrew is went, i.e. according to the common use of the word, went his way. And such is probably the meaning here. He went his way to consider the proposal made to him. The result is given in the next verse: And the Levite was content, etc.

LEGGE, "Ten pieces of silver, a suit of clothing and keep each year was probably a very satisfactory wage for such a position. Certainly the Levite thought so. The clothing may have been of a priestly nature, although such clothing may have been provided separately, along with the ephod, as belonging to his house of God. Strictly the Levite should have pointed out that he was not qualified to exercise priestly functions (unless of course he was of a priestly family) but he was not going to lose this opportunity over a mere trifle. His dishonesty and opportunism come out all the way through.

11 So the Levite agreed to live with him, and the young man became like one of his sons to him.

CLARKE, "The Levite was content - He thought the place a good one, and the wages respectable.

GILL, "And the Levite was content to dwell with the man,.... To continue with him; after he had made trial for some time, he liked his service, and his wages, and way of living; it was all agreeable to him:

and the young man was unto him as one of his sons; as dearly beloved by him,

and used as kindly and tenderly, as if he had been one of his own children; so strong were the affections of Micah to him, and so well pleased was he with his service.

HE RY, " The Levite's settlement with him (Jdg_17:11): He was content to dwell with the man; though his work was superstitious and his wages were scandalous, he objected against neither, but thought himself happy that he had lighted on so good a house. Micah, thinking himself holier than any of his neighbours, presumed to consecrate this Levite, v. 12. As if his building, furnishing, and endowing this chapel authorized him, not only to appoint the person that should officiate there, but to confer those orders upon him which he had no right to give nor the other to receive. And now he shows him respect as a father and tenderness as a son, and is willing thus to make up the deficiency of the coin he gave him.

PETT, "Verse 11‘And the Levite was content to dwell with the man, and the young man was to him as one of his sons.’The Levite accepted the offer and was welcomed into the household at the level of a son of the house. Thus he was well treated and shown due respect. He had no reason for showing anything other than loyalty in return.

BE SO , "Verse 11-1217:11-12. The Levite was content — Being infected with the common superstition and idolatry of the times. As one of his sons — That is, treated with the same degree of kindness and affection. Micah consecrated the Levite — To be a priest, for which he thought a consecration necessary, as knowing the Levites were no less excluded from the priest’s office than the people. The young man — Instead of his son, whom he had consecrated, but now it seems restrained from the exercise of that office, devolving it wholly upon the Levite, who was nearer akin to it.

12 Then Micah installed the Levite, and the young man became his priest and lived in his house.

CLARKE, "Micah consecrated the Levite - vayemalle(eth(yad, he filled וימלא)את)ידhis hands, i.e., he gave him an offering to present before the Lord, that he might be accepted by him. He appointed him to be priest; God was to accept and consecrate him; and for this purpose he filled his hand; i.e., furnished him with the proper offering which he was to present on his inauguration.

GILL, "And Micah consecrated the Levite,.... Installed him into, and invested him with the priestly office; in like manner he had consecrated his son before, by filling his hand with sacrifices; see Jdg_17:5.

and the young man became his priest; and did the work and office of one; this was a very daring piece of presumption in them both; in Micah, to take upon him to consecrate a priest, who was himself of the tribe of Ephraim; and in the young man, to suffer himself to be put into such an office, which did not belong to him, for though every priest was a Levite, or of the tribe of Levi, yet every Levite had not a right to be a priest, only those who were of the family of Aaron:

and was in the house of Micah; and continued there.

JAMISO , "Micah consecrated the Levite—Hebrew, “filled his hand.” This act of consecration was not less unlawful for Micah to perform than for this Levite to receive (see on Jdg_18:30).

COFFMA , "Verse 11THE VAI CO FIDE CE OF MICAH

"And the Levite was content to dwell with the man; and the young man was unto him as one of his sons. And Micah consecrated the Levite, and the young man became his priest, and was in the house of Micah. Then said Micah, ow know I that Jehovah will do me good, seeing I have a Levite to my priest."

"The Levite was content to dwell with the man" (Judges 17:11). Boling pointed out that, "Here is an echo of the Moses-Jethro agreement in Exodus 2:21."[26]

" ow know I that Jehovah will do me good" (Judges 17:13). This arrogant superstition for which Micah was so soon to atone, "Proves that at that time (shortly after the death of Joshua) the tribe of Levi held the position assigned to it in the Law of Moses, that is to say, that it was regarded as the tribe elected by God for the performance of divine worship."[27]

PETT, "Verse 12‘And Micah installed (filled the hand of) the Levite, and the young man became his priest, and was in the house of Micah.’The Levite was installed as priest in Micah’s house of God. Strictly of course he should have pointed out where Micah was going amiss, but instead he appears to have gone along with the arrangements, thus confirming to Micah’s satisfaction that Micah was on the right lines. However there are grounds for thinking that the rigid requirements of Yahwism were being softened by the syncretism of the age which may well have affected the Levite’s views.

Can you see what is wrong with this? This Levitical priest is a priest of Micah, and not a priest of God. He is on Micah's payroll, and he must do what Micah wants him

to say and teach. Be very careful when you call anyone your preacher [an hireling], for the only true preacher is the one that is completely led by God. What is your preacher teaching, is it from the entire world of God? Does he document what he says from the Word of God, or do you even check him out? Does he teach you so that you can be saved and grow in the Word of God, or is he trying to make you good boys and girls, depended on him? This is what this chapter is for, God is telling us to be careful who you call a priest, a minister, or an evangelist of God. Is the message from God, or is a message from his own mind? If any preacher is teaching for money to please man [a hireling], and that is the purpose of his ministry, then look out for what he has to say.

The Levite was installed as priest in Micah’s house of God. Strictly of course he should have pointed out where Micah was going amiss, but instead he appears to have gone along with the arrangements, thus confirming to Micah’s satisfaction that Micah was on the right lines. However there are grounds for thinking that the rigid requirements of Yahwism were being softened by the syncretism of the age which may well have affected the Levite’s views.

13 And Micah said, “ ow I know that the Lord will be good to me, since this Levite has become my priest.”

BAR ES, "This shows the ignorance as well as the superstition of the age (compare 2Ki_18:22), and gives a picture of the lawlessness of the times. The incidental testimony to the Levitical priesthood is to be noted; but the idolatrous worship in the immediate neighborhood of Shiloh is passing strange.

CLARKE, "Now know I that the Lord will do me good - As he had already provided an epitome of the tabernacle, a model of the ark, mercy-seat, and cherubim; and had got proper sacerdotal vestments, and a Levite to officiate; he took for granted that all was right, and that he should now have the benediction of God. Some think that he expected great gain from the concourse of the people to his temple; but of this there is no evidence in the text. Micah appears to have been perfectly sincere in all that he did.

I Have already remarked that there is no positive evidence that Micah or his mother intended to establish any idolatrous worship. Though they acted without any Divine

command in what they did; yet they appear, not only to have been perfectly sincere, but also perfectly disinterested. They put themselves to considerable expense to erect this place of worship, and to maintain, at their own proper charges, a priest to officiate there; and without this the place, in all probability, would have been destitute of the worship and knowledge of the true God. His sincerity, disinterestedness, and attachment to the worship of the God of his fathers, are farther seen in the joy which he expressed on finding a Levite who might legally officiate in his house. It is true, he had not a Divine warrant for what he did; but the state of the land, the profligacy of his countrymen, his distance from Shiloh, etc., considered, he appears to deserve more praise than blame, though of the latter he has received a most liberal share from every quarter. This proceeds from that often-noticed propensity in man to take every thing which concerns the character of another by the worst handle. It cannot be considered any particular crime, should these notes be found at any time leaning to the other side.

GILL, "Then said Micah,.... Within himself, pleased with what he had done, and with what he engaged in:

now know I that the Lord will do me good; that I shall enjoy his favour, be a happy man, and prosper; and by this it appears, that notwithstanding the idolatry he had fallen into, he had not utterly forsaken the Lord, but worshipped him in and by his images; there was a mixture of the worship of God, and of the worship of images:

seeing I have a Levite to my priest; who was of the same tribe the priests were, and so the nearest to them of any, and which he thought would be acceptable to God, and an omen of good to himself.

HE RY, " Micah's satisfaction in this (Jdg_17:13): Now know I that the Lord will do me good (that is, he hoped that his new establishment would gain reputation among his neighbours, which would turn to his advantage, for he would share in the profit of his altar; or, rather, he hoped that God would countenance and bless him in all he put his hand unto) because I have a Levite to be my priest. 1. He thought it was a sign of God's favour to him and his images that he had so opportunely sent a Levite to his door. Thus those who please themselves with their own delusions, if Providence unexpectedly bring any thing to their hands that furthers them in their evil way, are too apt to infer thence that God is pleased with them. 2. He thought now that the error of his priesthood was amended all was well, though he still retained his graven and molten image. Note, Many deceive themselves into a good opinion of their state by a partial reformation. They think they are as good as they should be, because, in some one particular instance, they are not so bad as they have been, as if the correcting of one fault would atone for their persisting in all the rest. 3. He thought the making of a Levite into a priest was a very meritorious act, which really was a presumptuous usurpation, and every provoking to God. Men's pride, and ignorance, and self-flattery, will undertake, not only to justify, but magnify and sanctify, the most daring impieties and invasions upon the divine prerogatives. With much reason might Micah have said, “Now may I fear that God will curse me, because I have debauched one of his own tribe, and drawn him into the worship of a graven image;” yet for this he hopes God will do him good. 4. He thought that having a Levite in the house with him would of course entitle him to the divine favour. Carnal hearts are apt to build too much upon their external privileges, and to conclude that God will certainly do them good because they are born of godly parents, dwell in praying families, are linked in society with those that are very good, and sit under a lively ministry;

whereas all this is but like having a Levite to be their priest, which amounts to no security at all that God will do them good, unless they be good themselves, and make a good use of these advantages.

JAMISO , "Now know I that the Lord will do me good— The removal of his son, followed by the installation of this Levite into the priestly office, seems to have satisfied his conscience, that by what he deemed the orderly ministrations of religion he would prosper. This expression of his hope evinces the united influence of ignorance and superstition.

COKE, "Verse 13Judges 17:13. Then said Micah, now know I, &c.— What a strange infatuation! Micah is at the summit of his wishes because the Levite has accepted his offers, and because he sees his chapel consecrated, and a priest of the sacerdotal line minister of the new religion planned out by his mother.

Micah had rendered himself capitally guilty in making a common Levite a priest. See umbers 3:10 and Witsii Egypt. pa. 133.—Idols, teraphim, a prophane altar, an intruded minister,—what noble grounds for self-approbation! The crime of Micah is strongly set forth by Calmet. "He persuades himself," says he, "that the people, seeing his chapel served by a man of the family of Levi, will come thither with greater confidence, and that this concourse, together with the offerings to be brought, will procure him considerable gain. It is evidently this gain, that he here calls the blessings of God. How just a representation is this of those superstitiously covetous persons who would connect religion with the love of riches, and who, as St. Paul expresses it, fancy that piety should serve as a means of enriching themselves!"

REFLECTIO S.—Micah had probably been content with his son's service, if an accident had not brought him a more acceptable chaplain in a Levite of Bethlehem-judah, who was by his mother's side of the tribe of Judah, and had resided at Bethlehem; either, through the neglect of God's worship which now began to take place, he could no longer gain a maintenance from the ministry, and was forced to seek a livelihood; or, perhaps, being of a rambling disposition, unsettled, and uneasy at being confined at home: it may be also, hearing of Micah's house of gods, and hoping for better preferment in his service, abominable as it was, than at the altar of God. ote; (1.) They must be bad times indeed when God's ministers want a maintenance. (2.) The priest who sets out with an eye to preferment is certainly in the high road to perdition. (3.) The ministry is the best calling, but the worst trade in the world.

Micah having inquired whence he came, and learning his profession, invites him in; offers, if he will officiate for him, to treat him with respect as a father, and to provide for him. The Levite consents, the bargain is concluded; and as he found it a good house, though the work was scandalous and the wages mean, he thought himself well settled. ote; (1.) They, whose office and duty it is to rebuke sin, are often, for the sake of their belly and a good table, wicked and mean enough to sit by

and countenance it. (2.) They, who choose their own delusions, would fain flatter themselves that God approves of them. (3.) More, like Micah, derive their hopes from the priest and the altar, their worship, and external devotions, than from spirituality of temper and real purity of heart. (4.) The deeds that the self-righteous boast of, as commending them to God's favour, are those which God most abhors, and which most effectually seal them up under wrath.

ELLICOTT, "(13) That the Lord will do me good.—In this anticipation we find a very little further on that he was rudely undeceived, and we are hardly in a position to know whether it was due to hypocrisy or to mere ignorance. So far as Micah was devout and sincere, we must feel that the Lord did him good by stripping him of his gorgeous instruments of superstition and humbling his pride.

I have a Levite to my priest.—Rather, the Levite. The article may be generic, meaning “one of the Levites;” but Jonathan, as a son of Gershom, has a special right to be called “the Levite,” as a representative of the tribe. It is at least doubtful whether the priestly functions expected of him in this instance included sacrifice; but, in any case, Micah could hardly have been entirely unaware that the Levites were incapable of priestly functions (“Seek ye the priesthood also?”— umbers 16:10), or of the fact that the authorised worship of the nation was to be confined to the place which God should choose, which in this instance was Shiloh. In any case, however, the passage furnishes us with a fresh proof of the utter neglect of the Mosaic law, as represented in the Book of Leviticus, from a very early period. His “house of God” seems to have resembled the high places, which even the faithful kings of Israel were unable or unwilling to clear away. They were ultimately cleared away by Hezekiah, but not without so great a shock to the then established custom, that Rabshakeh actually appeals to the fact in proof of Hezekiah’s impiety, and as a sign that he has forfeited the favour of Jehovah (2 Kings 18:22).

BE SO , "17:13. Do me good — I am assured God will bless me. So blind and grossly partial he was in his judgment, to think that one right circumstance would answer for all his substantial errors, in making and worshipping images against God’s express command, in worshipping God in a forbidden place, by a priest illegally appointed. “He persuades himself,” says Calmet, “that the people, seeing his chapel served by a man of the family of Levi, will come thither with greater confidence, and that this concourse, together with the offerings to be brought, will procure him considerable gain. It is evidently this gain which he here calls the blessing of God. How just a representation is this of those superstitiously covetous persons who would connect religion with the love of riches, and who, as St. Paul expresses it, fancy that piety should serve as a means of enriching themselves.”

WHEDO , "13. ow know I — Micah had not felt easy and safe before. He seems to have feared that he had gone too far, and he evidently knew enough of the law to understand that the tribe of Levi had been set apart to the priesthood and ministry of the sanctuary. But now, having a priest from the divinely chosen tribe, he begins to feel sure of Jehovah’s favour.

TRAPP, "17:13 Then said Micah, ow know I that the LORD will do me good, seeing I have a Levite to [my] priest.

Ver. 13. ow know I that the Lord.] In his blind devotion he promiseth himself prosperity: so do Papists in their priests’ absolution, Pope’s pardon. But it happened otherwise with Micah; [ 18:18-20] like as it did with the riflers of Semiramis’ tomb, who expected rich treasure, but met with a deadly poison.

“ Fallitur augurio spes bona saepe suo. ”

PETT, "Verse 13‘Then said Micah, “ ow I know that Yahweh will do me good, seeing I have a Levite to be my priest.” ’Micah was now even more satisfied with his house of God. He was sure that Yahweh would bless him now because he had a genuine Levite, one set aside as Yahweh’s, as his priest. He was a mixture of piety and self-opinion, but his basic idea was selfish, to make himself prosperous.

Micah comes over as someone wanting to please God, possibly out of worldly motives, but not concerned enough to visit the central sanctuary in order to find out how to go about it. He wanted convenience and prestige. He had not deserted Yahweh for Baalism, but did not want to become too involved with the central sanctuary, and was prepared to introduce idolatrous ideas which would in the end distort the pure religion of Yahweh. The writer sees him as an illustration of what was going wrong with Israel in its downward slide.

SIMEO , "MICAH’S FALSE CO FIDE CE

Judges 17:13. Then said Micah, ow know I that the Lord will do me good, seeing I have a Levite to my priest.

I the history before us we see the commencement of that defection to idolatry, which at no distant period prevailed throughout all the tribes of Israel. The account in point of time precedes the reign of the Judges; for it occurred whilst Phinehas, the grandson of Aaron, was the high-priest, and consequently soon after the death of Joshua [ ote: Judges 20:28.]. And, as being the first step of Israel’s departure from God, it is related more circumstantially than its intrinsic importance seems otherwise to have deserved.

Micah was of the tribe of Ephraim. He had stolen from his mother a large sum of money which she had amassed: but from a dread of the curses which she had imprecated on the head of the guilty person, he had confessed his crime, and restored the money. She, pleased with the repentance of her son, would have given him the money: but he persisting in the refusal of it, she gave two hundred shekels of silver out of the eleven hundred which she had recovered, to form a graven image

and a molten image; which she gave to her son, that he might have them to consult on all occasions. He on his part appropriated to them an apartment of his house for a temple, and consecrated his son to be a priest, to officiate before them with an ephod, which was made for his use [ ote: ver. 2–5.]. But a Levite, who wanted employment, coming that way, Micah engaged him to minister before the idols; and concluded, that now he could not fail of being happy, since he had a duly authorized person for his priest.

Just at that time the Danites, who had not yet gained possession of all the land that had been as signed them, determined to go up to Laish, and seize it for their inheritance. But previous to their attack upon the inhabitants, they sent forth spies to search out the state of the people, in order that they might the better judge what force to send against them, and what prospect there was of ultimate success. These spies coming to Mount Ephraim, where Micah lived, desired him to consult God through the medium of his idols; and received from him an encouraging reply. The report of the spies being favourable, six hundred Danites went forth upon the expedition; and coming to the house of Micah in their way, robbed him of his idols, and bribed his priest to accompany them, and to minister to them, as he had done to Micah. After they had succeeded in destroying the inhabitants of Laish, and in taking possession of their land, they set up these idols for their gods, and thus established idolatry, which in process of time spread over the whole land.

But it is not of idolatry in general that we propose to speak, but only of that particular modification of it which Micah established, and of the confidence which he expressed, when his newly-invented religion was made to bear some faint resemblance to the Mosaic ritual. This so exactly represents the false confidences to which ungodly men of every age resort, that we shall find it a very profitable subject for our present consideration.

We take occasion then from our text to notice,

I. The false confidences of ungodly men—

The worship established by Micah was a mixture of heathenism and of the Jewish ritual: it was heathenism, as far as it had respect to idols; and it was Judaism, as far as the use of an ephod and the ministration of a Levite were concerned. But, faint as its resemblance was to any thing authorized by God, it was sufficient in Micah’s judgment to justify a most assured confidence in the divine favour.

Somewhat of a similar mixture is the religion of the generality in the present day—

[It is a combination of Heathenism, and Judaism, and Christianity. It is in part Heathenism. What are the views which men in general have of God, but such as were entertained by the heathen philosophers? We have, it is true, clearer views of the unity of God: but of his perfections we have scarcely juster apprehensions than the heathen had. Christians in general account of God as a Being who is but little interested about the affairs of this world, either in a way of present control, or of

future retribution. All, in their apprehension, is left either to chance, or to the will of man: and, provided only some of the more heinous sins be not committed by us, the state of our minds and the habits of our lives will pass altogether unnoticed by him. To see the hand of God in every thing; to expect from him the blessings which we ask at his hands; to be sensible of his favour or displeasure; to regard him as pledged to order all things for his people’s good; and to rest assured, that he will fulfil to us his promises; is, in the estimation of the world at large, no better than presumptuous pride and enthusiastic folly: so entirely do they exclude Jehovah from the government of the world, and reduce him to the state of the god of Epicurus. In like manner the morality of men in general is simply that of the wiser heathens; the more refined and exalted requirements of Christianity being deemed unnecessarily precise, and absurdly strict. An entire deadness to the world, and devotedness to God, are never contemplated by them, but as the dictates of ascetic gloom or fanatical conceit.

Whilst in their principles they sink into heathenism, in their adherence to forms they trench on Judaism. Every sect has its favourite forms, which, though of human origin only, are of more weight in the estimation of the generality than either principles or morals. A man may be sceptical in his principles, and licentious in his morals, and yet offend no one: but let him violate the forms which have been established by his own particular sect or party, and he will raise an outcry against him immediately. This is common both with Papists and Protestants, yes, and with Protestants of every description. The rules of their own particular denomination are more to them than the oracles of truth; and a neglect or violation of a human institution is more heinous in their eyes than any departure from the commands of God. Thus it was with the Pharisees of old, who made void the law of God, and regarded only their own self-appointed usages: and thus it is at this day amongst multitudes who name the name of Christ.

A small portion of Christianity is for the most part added to this, to complete the system. Christ is acknowledged to have purchased for us such a relaxation of the divine law as we are pleased to claim, and a power to save ourselves by any measure of obedience which we choose to pay to the code we have devised — — —]

Whilst such is the religion of the generality, it is supposed to constitute a just ground of confidence before God—

[Micah had now no doubts or fears but that all would go well with him both in this world and the next. And similar to this is the confidence which almost universally obtains amongst ungodly men. They have no fears but that God will do them good, because they are free from those crimes which outrage the common feelings of mankind, and serve God according to such rules as they have laid down for themselves. Whosoever dies in such a state, they send to heaven, as a matter of course; thinking, that to entertain a doubt of their safety would be the height of uncharitableness. It is surprising to what an extent their confidence is carried. The bare possibility of such persons having perished in their sins is never once contemplated by them: and, if a doubt were expressed respecting the issue of their

own expectations, they would be quite indignant. Were a truly pious man to express the same confidence as arising from the promises of God, they would inveigh against his presumption: but in their own delusive speculations their confidence is such as to preclude all doubt. We may see this exemplified in the Jews of old. To have Abraham for their father, and the temple of the Lord for their religious services, was in their estimation sufficient ground of hope, though they lived in a constant violation of every known duty [ ote: Matthew 3:9; Jeremiah 7:4; Isaiah 48:1-2.]. And precisely thus it is with the generality of Christians: they have been baptized into the faith of Christ, and they have lived according to a system which the world approves; and therefore they can say without fear, “I know that the Lord will do me good.”]

But whilst ungodly men are buoying themselves up with such delusive hopes, let us contemplate,

II. Their bitter disappointments—

What was the issue of Micah’s confidence? Was it justified by facts? Could his idols help him in the day of adversity? or did Jehovah interpose for his support? o: his idols could not even protect themselves: and when he complained of the spoilers who had robbed him, his pathetic expostulations were of no avail; and he was constrained to submit in silence to the loss of all wherein he had put his trust. Hear to what straits he was reduced: “Ye have taken away my gods; and what have I more [ ote: Judges 18:24.]?” And thus will it be with the ungodly in the last day.

Their “refuges of lies” will be swept away—

[The religion in which they now so confidently trust, will be proved a baseless fabric. o foundation will then stand, but that which God himself has laid: nor will any superstructure endure, but that which is able to abide the fiery test which shall be applied to it [ ote: 1 Corinthians 3:11-13.]. The law, which sinners reduce to their own standard, will be found immutable: the obedience which they pay to it will be found so imperfect, as to be incapable of affording the smallest ground of justification before God. The Lord Jesus Christ will then be seen to have been the only Saviour of sinful men; and his obedience unto death the only hope of a ruined world. The religion of the Bible will then appear to be, what it really is, the only means of a sinner’s access to God, and acceptance with him.]

Their destitution and misery will be then complete—

[“Ye have taken away my gods; and what have I left?” may then be considered as the bitter lamentation of every self-deceived soul. How gladly would they who were once so confident in their expectations of bliss, take refuge, if it were possible, under rocks and mountains! How thankfully would they accept of utter annihilation, instead of a protracted existence under the wrath of God! In vain are now their pleas, “I thought that I was right.” Why did they rest in vain conjectures? Why did they presume to substitute a system of their own in the place of that which God had

revealed? Why would they not submit to be saved in God’s own way? Why would they venture the salvation of their souls on plans and systems of their own devising? Alas! it is now too late to rectify their error: they are gone beyond redemption; and are consigned to those regions of darkness and despair, where not a single ray of hope can ever enter to dispel their gloom. “They have walked in the light of the sparks which they themselves have kindled: and now they lie down in sorrow [ ote: Isaiah 50:11.].”

Thus it will be, whatever men may now say to the contrary [ ote: Job 15:31.]; and, if they will not believe, they shall soon “see whose word shall stand, God’s or theirs [ ote: Jeremiah 44:28.].”]

See then from hence,

1. The importance of having right sentiments in religion—

[If we consider religion only as influencing the mind in this present life, it is no unimportant matter whether we have such a vain system as men form for themselves, or such a grand and glorious system as God has revealed in his word. Compare that of Micah with that of Daniel and the Hebrew Youths, and say, which of the two was the more effectual in the hour of trial? — — — But extend your views to the eternal world; and compare the states of the Pharisee and the Publican, or of the martyred Stephen and his self-applauding murderers; and then say, what principles are most salutary, and, what practice is most conducive to our true happiness. Away with all the systems then of man’s device; and embrace with your whole hearts “the glorious Gospel of the blessed God.”

2. The comfort of having the Lord for our God—

[Who can ever rob us of that? Who can take our God from us? or what can we want, if we have him for our friend? We may be spoiled of all else; but still we shall be rich. With his favour secured to us, and his love shed abroad in our hearts, we shall be truly happy; like Paul, “having nothing, and yet possessing all things.” Seek ye then to have the Lord Jesus Christ abiding with you. Seek to have him for your sacrifice; him for your altar; “him for your Priest;” and you may then be as confident of the divine favour as your hearts can wish. You may then safely adopt the language of Micah, and say, “I know that the Lord will do me good.” God’s favour is then made over to you by an everlasting covenant: it is confirmed to you by promise and by oath, “by two immutable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie.” So that from henceforth you “may have strong consolation, if only you flee for refuge, to lay hold on the hope that is set before you [ ote: Hebrews 6:17-19.].” Then you may look forward also to the day of judgment with assured confidence, that he who has witnessed the desires of your heart, will acknowledge you as his, and “claim you as his own when he shall make up his jewels [ ote: Malachi 3:16-17.].” Then shall it be seen, beyond all contradiction, who was right; the self-confident framer of a human system, or the humble follower of the Lamb: for “then shall all discern between the righteous and the wicked; between him who served

God, and him who served him not [ ote: Malachi 3:18.].”

CHUCK SMITH, "So it was a mercenary thing, you know. I know I'm gonna prosper now because I got a Levite for a priest. And that's the only reason why he wanted the Levite is so he could prosper. In other words, it was the idea of using God for gain.

Paul speaks in the ew Testament of the error of those who think that godliness is a way to gain. He calls it a pernicious doctrine. He said, "turn away from such people who say that godliness is a way to get rich, that godliness is a way to prosperity, that godliness is a way to gain." Paul calls it an evil doctrine. Micah has that concept, "Awe, God's gonna prosper me now I've got a Levite for my priest." So he's buying his way, in a sense, into prosperity in hiring the priest.

Micah was now even more satisfied with his house of God. He was sure that Yahweh would bless him now because he had a genuine Levite, one set aside as Yahweh’s, as his priest. He was a mixture of piety and self-opinion, but his basic idea was selfish, to make himself prosperous.

Micah comes over as someone wanting to please God, possibly out of worldly motives, but not concerned enough to visit the central sanctuary in order to find out how to go about it. He wanted convenience and prestige. He had not deserted Yahweh for Baalism, but did not want to become too involved with the central sanctuary, and was prepared to introduce idolatrous ideas which would in the end distort the pure religion of Yahweh. The writer sees him as an illustration of what was going wrong with Israel in its downward slide.

All was now complete and he had the perfect set up for being super spiritual. The only problem is that it was all contrary to God's written word. Many religious things seem right to people, but the final test is, does it comform to what God has revealed, or is it just okey and right in the eyes of man?

GRA TThen she made it evident that she idolized her son, by telling him she had wholly dedicated this money to the Lord to make a carved image and a molded image for her son (v. 3). She evidently wanted her son to be religious, but was teaching him to refuse to obey the Word of God! The first of the ten commandments sternly forbad idolatry and image making (Ex. 20:3-4), but here this wickedness was rising in the midst of the land of Israel!

Micah’s mother used 200 shekels for the making of the images. Are we like her in

any respect? Do we speak of devoting everything to the Lord, then keep back nine elevenths for ourselves? But of course none of this was really devoted to the Lord, but to an evil purpose.

Micah also had a shrine. Where did he learn of this but from the idolatrous nations in the land? He made an ephod also, copying what was only to be worn by the high priest of Israel (Lev. 8:7). Then to crown his wickedness, he consecrated his son as his priest (v. 5). Scripture had declared plainly that only those of the line of Aaron were priests, and anyone who dared to infringe on this was to be put to death ( um. 18:1-7). Also, a priest was a priest for all Israel, not for a family. But independence is a natural weed of the human heart, and that independence expressed itself everywhere in Israel at the time: ”everyone did what was right in his own eyes” (v. 6).

DU CA ROSS The fact that this religious tribute to Yahweh was wholly inconsistent with the law of God and was in fact an abomination to Him didn’t seem to be a stumbling block to Micah who rounded out his religious activities by consecrating his son to establish his very own priesthood. Later on, (lucky for him) he recruits a wandering Levite who just happens to be looking for a place to hang out his priestly shingle. The author tells us in verse 13, “ ow I know that the LORD will be good to me, since this Levite has become my priest.” Micah and the Levite settle on a mutually agreeable compensation package and the deal is struck. As we leave chapter 17 Micah is sitting pretty with his mother’s blessing, a set of idols, a shrine and a priest to oversee his seemingly blossoming spiritual life.

As much as we might read this and think, “I could never do that kind of thing” we are mistaken if we think that. And the reason is because Micah’s root sin is not all these foolish, self-contradictory things he chooses to do. The root cause was the fact that Micah, like the rest of Israel was not submitting to Yahweh as his King and in the void created by the absence of any authentic, God-centered practice of faith, he creates for himself what we last week called a religion of the flesh. When the Jews walked away from God in their hearts, they did not simply stop practicing their Judaism. They simply found ways to practice a perverted form of Judaism that allowed them on the one hand, to maintain the parts of their faith that had a sentimental or emotional attachment for them. However, in those areas of their religion that required them to deny their self-centered, fleshly appetites, they substituted a set of man made religious practices that would indulge their desire to remain independent from God. That’s what was going on here there is a clear warning to us here. That is, any time we have an area in our hearts or our church where we are not submitting to God, we too find ways to maintain those parts of our religion that have sentimental value to us. But at the same time we can oh so subtly alter those parts of our religious practice that call us to obey God in ways that call us to die to ourselves.

This story provides for us a case study of the religion of the flesh and it contains several of the indicators of when a person or church or nation (in Israel’s case) is guilty of practicing a religion that may in some ways look good, but is in fact full of self-deception and self-centeredness. Last week, we saw that one mark of the religion of the flesh was blindness to internal inconsistencies. Micah, his family and this Levite were blind to the fact that what they were doing was internally inconsistent with God and his law. They thought their religion was just fine but they were blind. We saw that we are not immune from this kind of blindness to internal inconsistencies ourselves and we mentioned several of those last week. This week, we want to highlight another mark of fleshly religion as it is revealed here and ask the Holy Spirit to search our own hearts for any and all any hints of this counterfeit religion.

Micah had this nice god-house set up. He installed one of his sons as a priest to direct the

worship of this portable and compact god. In addition, he added some special touches. He

made copies of the items that the high priest wore, the ephod and other articles, and he

threw in a few small idols to make his own worship center. Now, just so you can get the

picture, the ephod was a special garment worn by the High priest that was supposed to

allow him to make direct contact with God and for God to speak directly with the priest.

Add to this personal worship shrine one more detail. One day a young man from

Bethlehem wandered up to Micah's house. He was a Levite. Now, a Levite is a not a

member of the tribe of Levi, but a person who functions in a priestly role. He is one who

walks closely with God. Now, Micah decides this is even better than having made his son

into a priest he will hire this Levite. Then he will not only have his own god-house but he

will have his own Levite, or a paid pastor of his own. The Levite's name by the way is

Jonathan.

Let me tell you, Bethlehem was not a Levite town. This was obviously a preacher that had

flown the ministry. But, what a great opportunity this was. He could have this personal

pastor's job and Micah would take good care of him. He would supervise the worship of

this mini-shrine, the god-house. Let me give you the irony here: chapter 18 tells us that

this Jonathan is none other than Moses' own grandson.

Yes, his grandfather went up on the holy mountain. He saw the back side of God and

beamed with the glow of the glory of God himself. Now, this young man is the personal

priest for Micah at a shrine with a silver calf cast god. Wearing a mock up of the priest's

ephod, and using idols. Wasn't God enough? Wasn't the worship of the real God enough

for you Jonathan? Why would you do this thing the ten commandments forbid? The Lord

handed over the law to Moses your grandfather

Here we see the ultimate purpose of Micah's plan. He wants God to look with favor on

Him. He wants God to be good to him. He wants God to bless him. Isn't this the ultimate

irony? Let me set up my own god-house, appoint my own priest, make my own god, and

provide worship vestments and all the trimmings. Then God will bless me. This is makes

a mockery of all that God does and is. It is in direct violation of His law and will. How

can Micah think God would bless him? Oh, he done this all for God.

That is where he is wrong. He has done this all for himself. He wants to think God will

bless him and be good to him. But, it is all for himself. This is the way all of us are as

human beings. We want to find a way to gain God's good graces. If we do it our own way,

we will never be satisfied. God is not enough because we believe we can come to him on

our own. On the basis of our own accomplishments. With our own system of gaining His

favor.

You see this led to the cycles of the book of Judges. The people forgot how much they

needed God. They thought their own way would be enough. Micah constructed a religion

of his own thinking it would get him to God. He was wrong. When we do this we will

never be satisfied. God is not enough because we believe we can come to Him by our

own If we approach God in this way we will never have the intimacy with God we desire.

God will never be enough.