JUDGES 17-18

Judges 17:1-3

v. 1 There is a parallel here to the opening of Judges in which foreign gods are the problem. Here it is domestic gods. Ironically, Micah means “Who is like the LORD?”

v. 2 This reminds us of the same amount of money promised Delilah for betraying Samson (16:5).

vv. 2-4 Two of the 10 Commandments are broken. What kind of mother would bless her son for stealing money from her? He apparently returns it only when she has uttered a curse on the robber. Her blessing neutralizes the curse.

v. 3 How much money was 1100 pieces of silver worth? I assume it was a good chunk of money. If shekels are being referred to here, it can be compared to the 400 shekels Abraham paid for a burial place and 30 shekels for the price of a slave. Centralized worship in Israel is commanded in Deuteronomy 12.

Whatever the nature of the household idols, it was definitely a violation of the 10 Commandments. Other types of idols are mentioned in verse 5 (see below).

Judges 17:4-6

v. 4 She promises 1,100 pieces of silver but only donates 200 (like Ananias and Sapphira).

v. 5 Why a household priest? It is really not that different from English lords who had their own priest and their own chapel in their house. You could demonstrate how godly you were and brag about your possessions.

What would their function be, would this be a full time job? Levites generally had side jobs but Micah in verse 10 gives him “a living” plus 10 pieces of silver a year. The duties probably included prayers and sacrifices on the behalf of Micah and his family and possibly divining the future. Ephod is usually a priestly garment, but here it is probably an idol such as terephim. The terephim may have been an ancestral image or household idol. Installing a non-Levite as a priest violated Exodus 29:9 and Numbers 16:10.

v. 6 The whole phrase is used for the first time. In the book of Samuel, God explains that if the people had relied on Him to be their king (by obeying his commands and listening to His prophets), they would have had no need for an earthly king. God only reluctantly gave them what they asked for.

Judges 17:10-13

vv. 10-11 Why does it say be a father and a priest since it specifically says that the Levite was a young man? He uses the term “father” as a sign of respect, but in fact Micah becomes a father to the Levite. There are hints that Micah is trying to control the priest, and therefore God. This can be a problem in churches today where the pastor always has to be careful not to offend his congregation.

Only 600 soldiers is an indication of the weakness of the tribe (compare the 300 soldiers of Gideon).

v. 13 Why would he believe he would prosper because he had a Levite as a priest? Now that his priest was “legal,” God would bless him. The Levite would offer prayers on Micah's behalf. Micah probably also treated him as a good luck charm, just as we often rely today on the spirituality of the pastor.

Judges 18

v. 1 Part of the refrain is repeated. The inheritance consisted of territory. Danites were allotted territory in the south but could not hold it. Therefore they migrated to the far north.

v. 2 echoes Joshua's sending out of spies.

v. 3 The Danites either knew the priest personally or recognized from his accent that he came from an area close to where they had been living.

v. 7 The people of Laish are living the sort of life Israel should have had.

v. 10 Verse 7 explains who the “unsuspecting people” were. Archaeology shows that the cities in that place and time were unwalled. The people had the general customs of the seafaring Sidonians but were too far away from their settlements to count on them as allies in time of war.

vv. 15-17 Rather than destroying the shrine, they and the Levite steal its religious objects for their own. The same word “take” appears here and for Micah's stealing money from his mother. The origin of the shrine at Dan was thus from a double robbery. The Levite deserts the man who treated him as a son.

v. 19 The Levite is offered a more lucrative field of mini$try.

v. 24 There is obvious irony in the phrase “gods which I had made.”

v. 30 The identity of the Levite is withheld until this point to create shock. It probably means a descendant of Moses rather than grandson. Or, alternatively, the story is presented out of chronological order and actually took place early in the period of the Judges. The Masorites substituted “Manasseh” for “Moses” to preserve Moses' reputation. So a descendant of Moses has now led the entire Northern Territory into apostasy.