JUDGES 18 COMME TARYEDITED BY GLE PEASE

The Danites Settle in Laish

1 In those days Israel had no king.

And in those days the tribe of the Danites was seeking a place of their own where they might settle, because they had not yet come into an inheritance among the tribes of Israel.

CLARKE, "There was no king in Israel - See Jdg_17:6 (note). The circumstances related here show that this must have happened about the time of the preceding transactions.

The tribe of the Danites - That is, a part of this tribe; some families of it.

All their inheritance - That is, they had not got an extent of country sufficient for them. Some families were still unprovided for, or had not sufficient territory; for we find from Jos_19:40, etc., that, although the tribe of Dan did receive their inheritance with the rest of the tribes of Israel, yet their coasts went out too little for them, and they went and fought against Leshem, (called here Laish), and took it, etc. This circumstance is marked here more particularly than in the book of Joshua. See on Jos_19:47 (note).

GILL, "In those days there was no king in Israel,.... No supreme magistrate, no judge, for it was before the time of the judges, after the death of Joshua and before Othniel the first judge; this is observed before, Jdg_17:6 and here repeated to account for the evil things done by the Danites, their consulting Micah's oracle, taking away his priest and his gods, and setting up his graven image in Dan, by which means idolatry was spread in Israel, and brought on their servitude to Chushanrishathaim, from which Othniel the first judge was their deliverer:

and in those days the tribe of the Danites sought them an inheritance to dwell in; that is, a family of them, as in the next verse, not the whole tribe; for as a family is sometimes put for a tribe, Jos_7:17 so a tribe for a family, Jdg_20:12.

for unto that day all their inheritance had not fallen to them among the tribes of Israel: we rightly supply the words "all their"; for otherwise an inheritance had fallen to them by lot, as the other tribes. Jos_19:40, but that was not only too little for them, Jos_19:47 but all that was allotted to them did not come into their possession, but a part remained unsubdued; and some they had possession of they could not keep, either through the superior strength of the Amorites, or their own sloth and cowardice, or for want of the help of their brethren; see Jdg_1:34.

HE RY 1-6, "Here is, 1. The eye which these Danites had upon Laish, not the whole tribe of Dan, but one family of them, to whose lot, in the subdivision of Canaan, that city fell. Hitherto this family had sojourned with their brethren, who had taken possession of their lot, which lay between Judah and the Philistines, and had declined going to their own city, because there was no king in Israel to rule over them, Jdg_18:1. It lay a great way off, separate from the rest of their tribe; it was entirely in the enemy's hand, and therefore they would sponge upon their brethren rather than go far to provide for themselves. But at length necessity forced them to arouse themselves, and they began to think of an inheritance to dwell in. It is better to have a little of one's own than always to hang upon others. 2. The enquiry which this family of the Danites made concerning Laish: They sent five men to search the land (Jdg_18:2), that they might know the character of the country, whether it was an inheritance worth going so far for, and the posture of the people, whether the making of themselves masters of it was a thing practicable, what force was necessary in order thereunto, and which was the best way of making an attack upon it. The men they sent were men of valour, who, if they fell into their enemies' hands, knew how to look danger in the face. It is prudent to look before we leap. Dan had the subtlety of a serpent by the way (Gen_49:17), as well as the courage of a lion's whelp, leaping from Bashan, Deu_33:22. 3. The acquaintance which their spies got with Micah's priest, and the use they made of that acquaintance. It seems, they had know this Levite formerly, he having in his rambles been sometimes in their country; and, though his countenance might be altered, they knew him again by his voice, Jdg_18:3. They were surprised to find him so far off, enquired what brought him thither, and he told them (Jdg_18:4) what business he had there, and what encouragement. They, understanding that he had an oracle in his custody, desired he would tell them whether they should prosper in their present undertaking, Jdg_18:5. See their carelessness and regardlessness of God and his providence; they would not have enquired of the Lord at all if this Levite's mentioning the teraphim he had with him had not put it into their heads. Many never think of religion but just when it falls in their way and they cannot avoid it, like chance customers. See their ignorance of the divine law, that they thought God, who had forbidden the religious use of graven images, would yet own them in consulting an image, and give them an answer of peace. Should he be enquired of by them? Eze_14:3. They seem to have had a greater opinion of Micah's teraphim than of God's urim; for they had passed by Shiloh, and, for aught that appears, had not enquired there of God's high priest, but Micah's shabby Levite shall be an oracle to them. He betakes himself to his usual method of consulting his teraphim; and, whether he himself believed it or no, he humoured the thing so well that he made them believe he had an answer from God encouraging them to go on, and assuring them of good success (Jdg_18:6): “Go in peace, you shall be safe, and may be easy, for before the Lord is your way,” that is, “he approves it” (as the Lord is said to know the way of the righteous with acceptation), “and therefore he will make it prosperous, his eye will be upon you for good, he will direct your way, and preserve your going out and coming in.” Note, Our great care should be that our way be such as God approves, and, if it be so, we

may go in peace. If God care for us, on him let us cast our care, and be satisfied that we cannot miss our way if he go before us.

JAMISO , "Jdg_18:1-26. The Danites seek out an inheritance.

In those days ... the Danites sought them an inheritance to dwell in — The Danites had a territory assigned them as well as the other tribes. But either through indolence, or a lack of energy, they did not acquire the full possession of their allotment, but suffered a considerable portion of it to be wrested out of their hands by the encroachments of their powerful neighbors, the Philistines. In consequence, being straitened for room, a considerable number resolved on trying to effect a new and additional settlement in a remote part of the land. A small deputation, being dispatched to reconnoiter the country, arrived on their progress northward at the residence of Micah. Recognizing his priest as one of their former acquaintances, or perhaps by his provincial dialect, they eagerly enlisted his services in ascertaining the result of their present expedition. His answer, though apparently promising, was delusive, and really as ambiguous as those of the heathen oracles. This application brings out still more clearly and fully than the schism of Micah the woeful degeneracy of the times. The Danites expressed no emotions either of surprise or of indignation at a Levite daring to assume the priestly functions, and at the existence of a rival establishment to that of Shiloh. They were ready to seek, through means of the teraphim, the information that could only be lawfully applied for through the high priest’s Urim. Being thus equally erroneous in their views and habits as Micah, they show the low state of religion, and how much superstition prevailed in all parts of the land.

K&D, "This took place at a time when Israel had no king, and the tribe of the Danites sought an inheritance for themselves to dwell in, because until that day no such portion

had fallen to them among the tribes as an inheritance. To the expression נפלה had not) לא

fallen) we must supply נחלה as the subject from the previous clause; and נחלה� signifies in

the character of a nachalah, i.e., of a possession that could be transmitted as hereditary

property from father to son. נפל, to fall, is used with reference to the falling of the lot (vid., Num_34:2; Jos_13:6, etc.). The general statement, that as yet no inheritance had fallen to the tribe of Dan by lot, has its limitation in the context. As the Danites, according to Jdg_18:2, sent out five men from Zorea and Eshtaol, and, according to Jdg_18:11, six hundred men equipped for fight went out to Laish, which the spies had discovered to be a place well fitted for a settlement, and had settled there, it is very evident from this that the Danites were not absolutely without an inheritance, but that hitherto they had not received one sufficient for their wants. The emigrants themselves were already settled in Zorea and Eshtaol, two of the towns that had fallen to the tribe of Dan by lot (Jos_19:41). Moreover, the six hundred equipped Danites, who went out of these towns, were only a very small part of the tribe of Danites, which numbered 64,400 males of twenty years old and upwards at the last census (Num_26:43). For a tribe of this size the land assigned by Joshua to the tribe of Dan, with all the towns that it contained, was amply sufficient. But from Jdg_1:34 we learn that the Amorites forced the Danites into the mountains, and would not allow them to come down into the plain. Consequently they were confined to a few towns situated upon the sides or tops of the mountains, which did not supply all the room they required. Feeling themselves too weak to force back the Canaanites and exterminate them, one portion of the Danites preferred to seek an inheritance for themselves somewhere else in the land. This

enterprise and emigration are described in Jdg_18:2. The time cannot be determined with perfect certainty, as all that can be clearly inferred from Jdg_18:12, as compared with Jdg_13:25, is, that it took place some time before the days of Samson. Many expositors have therefore assigned it to the period immediately following the defeat of Jabin by Barak (Jdg_4:24), because it was not till after the overthrow of this powerful king of the Canaanites that conquests were possible in the north of Canaan, and the tribe of Dan at that time still remained in ships (Jdg_5:17), so that it had not yet left the territory assigned it by the sea-shore (Josh 19). But these arguments have neither of them any force; for there is nothing surprising in the fact that Danites should still be found by the sea-shore in the time of Deborah, even if Danite families from Zorea and Eshtaol had settled in Laish long before, seeing that these emigrants formed but a small fraction of the whole tribe, and the rest remained in the possessions assigned them by Joshua. Moreover, the strengthening of the force of the Canaanites, and the extension of their dominion in the north, did not take place till 150 years after Joshua, in the days of Jabin; so that long before Jabin the town of Laish may have been conquered by the Danites, and taken possession of by them. In all probability this took place shortly after the death of Joshua, as we may infer from Jdg_18:30 (see the exposition of this verse).

COFFMA , "MIGRATIO OF DA A D THEIR APOSTASY

The significance of this chapter is very great. "In the Danite migration, the apostasy

of Micah was expanded to the tribal heresy of Dan, and the establishment of a

Danite city (and its illegal shrine) in the northern border of Israel provided the

framework for the apostasy of the entire orthern Israel under Jeroboam I, whose

idolatrous golden calves were no doubt welcomed in Dan."[1] Furthermore, that

renegade Levite, Jonathan, a grandson or great-grandson of Moses himself, led the

whole tribe of Dan and later the nation of orthern Israel into a syncretistic

worship of Jehovah, contrary to all that God through Moses had revealed to Israel.

It required the ability of God Himself to redeem the Chosen People from the

apostasy which came so near to swallowing them completely.

The date of the events recorded in this chapter, "In all probability took place

SHORTLY AFTER the death of Joshua, as we may infer from Judges 18:30."[2]

THE MISSIO OF THE SPIES

"In those days there was no king in Israel: and in those days the tribe of the Danites

sought them an inheritance to dwell in; for unto that day their inheritance had not

fallen unto them among the tribes of Israel. And the children of Dan sent of their

family five men from their whole number, men of valor, from Zorah, and from

Eshtaol, to spy out the land, and to search it; and they said unto them, Go, search

the land. And they came to the hill-country of Ephraim, unto the house of Micah,

and lodged there. When they were by the house of Micah, they knew the voice of the

young man, the Levite; and they turned aside thither, and said unto him, Who

brought thee hither? and what doest thou in this place? and what hast thou here?

And he said unto them, Thus and thus hath Micah dealt with me, and he hired me,

and I am become his priest. And they said unto him, Ask counsel, we pray thee, of

God, that we may know whether our way which we shall go shall be prosperous.

And the priest said unto them, Go in peace: before Jehovah is your way wherein ye

go."

"The Danites sought them an inheritance" (Judges 18:1). The Danites indeed had

been allotted their inheritance in Canaan, but their distress was due to the

encroachment against their territory: (1) first by the Amorites (Joshua 3:10 and (2)

also by the Philistines (Judges 13:1,5; Judges 14:4; and Judges 15:11). It is a mistake

to hold the Danites guiltless in this situation. "Their failure to drive out the

Amorites was not due to lack of power, but to lack of faith. The Danites had two

choices:

(1) to repent of their unbelief and claim God's promise as they fought against their

enemies; or

(2) to look for new territory where the occupants would be helpless and unprepared

to resist.

The Danites chose the easy way, but it was not the way of faith."[3]

The migration of the Danites is placed shortly after the death of Joshua in the

writings of Josephus,[4] and many conservative scholars agree that this is probably

correct.

We should not be misled by the relatively small number who took part in this first

northward excursion, which seems to have numbered about 2,000, including the 600

fighting men, their wives, and families. Dan was a numerous tribe numbering no

less than, "Sixty-four thousand men twenty years of age and upward," according to

the census mentioned in umbers 26:43. Therefore, we suppose that this first

migration recorded in this chapter was followed by many other Danites who later

joined them.

"They came unto the house of Micah, and lodged there" (Judges 18:2). This

indicates that Micah extended the hospitality of his establishment to aid his fellow

Israelites in their search. His generous hospitality was treacherously betrayed by the

Danites.

"They knew the voice of the young man the Levite" (Judges 18:3). "The most

natural explanation of these words is that the Danites had previously known the

young man, and it is by no means impossible that the author of this story meant to

be so understood."[5] There is no hint in the text of where that acquaintance had

taken place, but the fact of this young man's having been a grandson, great

grandson, or a descendant of Moses himself, suggests that he might possibly have

been rather widely known throughout Israel.

"What doest thou in this place" (Judges 18:3). Apparently, Micah had not shared

with the spies whom he entertained in his home the existence of that shrine. We do

not know why he seems to have made no mention of it, but the fact appears in the

evident surprise of the spies who received all the details, not from Micah, but from

the Levite. Perhaps Micah did not altogether trust his visitors.

"Ask counsel of God, we pray thee" (Judges 18:5). The spies should have sought

God's counsel before leaving on their journey, but finding it so convenient to do so

here, they asked the Levite to seek an answer from God as to whether their journey

would be successful.

"Go in peace" (Judges 18:6). Whether the Levite had a genuine answer from the

Lord or not, he told the spies what they wanted to hear, and they took that

assurance with them on their mission.

COKE, "The Danites seek an inheritance, and in the journey enter into the house of

Micah, and carry off his image and his priest: they take the city Laish, which they

burn, build another in its place, and set up there Micah's graven image.

Before Christ 1426.

Judges 18:1. In those days there was no king in Israel— The exact period here

referred to is uncertain; but it is generally supposed to have been before there was a

judge in Israel, between the death of Joshua and the elders who survived him, and

the time of Othniel, who was the first judge raised up for them by God. See

Josephus, Antiq. lib. 5: cap. 2 and the note on the first verse of the former chapter.

Houbigant renders the latter part of this verse, for not yet, even to this time, they

had sufficient inheritance among the tribes of Israel. Instead of the tribe of the

Danites, some would read a tribe, or family, &c.

ELLICOTT, "Verse 1

(1) In those days . . .—The repetition of the phrase does not necessarily prove the

use of different documents. It may only emphasise the reason for the occurrence of

such disorders and irregularities.

The tribe.—Shebet sometimes means a whole tribe, and sometimes apparently the

division of a tribe (Judges 20:12).

The tribe of the Danites.—There seems to be a difference between “tribe of Dan”

(Shebet Dan) and “tribesmen of the Danites” (Shebet had-Dani). In Judges 18:11

they are called Mishpecath had-Dani; but the distinctions between Mishpecath

(“family”) and Shebet (“tribe”) do not seem to be accurately kept. (See otes on

Judges 18:19 and Judges 20:12.)

Sought them an inheritance.—See Judges 1:34; Joshua 19:47-48.

Unto that day all their inheritance had not fallen unto them.—Their inheritance is

described in Joshua 19:40-46. The inheritance had been assigned to them; but they

had not been able to conquer it, owing to the opposition of the Philistines and the

Amorates. The English Version interpolates the words “all their” before

“inheritance,” apparently to avoid difficulties. But these glosses, however well

meant, are almost always a violation of the primary duty of translation, which is to

be rigidly faithful to the* original. The failure of the Danites to conquer their

allotment, and the low condition to which they dwindled, are the more remarkable

because in the wilderness they were the strongest of all the tribes, numbering 62,700,

and because they received the smallest assignment of land of all the tribes.

BE SO , "18:1. In those days there was no king in Israel — These words seem to

be repeated in order to assign the reason of such enormous practices as are recorded

in this and the preceding chapter. They appear to have taken place not long after

Joshua’s death, probably between his death and that of the elders who survived

him, and the time of Othniel, who was the first judge raised up for them by God.

The tribe of the Danites — A part of that tribe, consisting only of six hundred men

of war, with their families, 18:21. Sought them an inheritance — An inheritance had

been allotted them as well as the rest of the tribes, (Joshua 19:40, &c.,) but partly by

their indolence, and partly for want of that brotherly assistance which ought to have

been afforded them by other tribes, a considerable portion of this inheritance could

not be acquired by them. Wanting room, therefore, for all their people and cattle,

and being unable to contend with the Amorites, they sent some, as it here follows, to

search out a new dwelling elsewhere.

PETT, "Chapter 18. The Sanctuary of Dan.

This chapter describes how the Danites, being unsuccessful in their allotted

inheritance, sent out spies to search the land, and discover if they could find a better

place to settle and expand. These spies returned and reported that Laish was such,

and encouraged the Danites to go with them and possess it. For that purpose they

sent six hundred men to capture it, who on their way called at the house of Micah,

and stole his priests and his gods. Having captured Laish, they set up Micah's

graven image there.

Verse 1

Chapter 18. The Sanctuary of Dan.

This chapter describes how the Danites, being unsuccessful in their allotted

inheritance, sent out spies to search the land, and discover if they could find a better

place to settle and expand. These spies returned and reported that Laish was such,

and encouraged the Danites to go with them and possess it. For that purpose they

sent six hundred men to capture it, who on their way called at the house of Micah,

and stole his priests and his gods. Having captured Laish, they set up Micah's

graven image there.

Judges 18:1

‘In those days there was no king in Israel, and in those days the tribe of the Danites

sought for themselves an inheritance to settle in, for up to that day their inheritance

had not fallen to them among the tribes of Israel.’

The reference to the king is of special importance here. It refers to the fact that Dan

ignored the Kingship of Yahweh and His official allotment of territory to the tribe

of Dan, and without consulting Him went to seek something new. It was an act of

unquestioned disobedience. Here the king must be Yahweh unless the statement is a

platitude.

Dan had had a hard time in trying to settle their allotted inheritance. The Amorites

had combined to keep them out of the best parts of the territory (Judges 1:34-36)

and then the Philistines had infiltrated among them and were seeking to seize power

over them. Had Israel been united, and concerned for every member of the tribal

confederacy, things might have been different, but as it was they were languishing.

Thus a large part of the tribe of Dan opted on their own cognisance to find

somewhere else to settle.

CO STABLE, "Verses 1-6

The messengers from Daniel 18:1-6

This chapter begins with another reference to the fact that there was no king in

Israel then (cf. Judges 17:6). The writer reminded us again that the Israelites were

living unrestrained lives. Abundant evidence of this follows in chapter18.

"The nation needs no king to lead them in battle or into apostasy. They will do both

on their own." [ ote: Block, Judges . . ., p491.]

In Judges 18:1 the ASB and IV translators have implied that the following

incident happened before the Danites had received their tribal inheritance ( Joshua

19:40-48). If true, this statement would date the incident that follows during the

days of Joshua. The AV and KJV versions imply that the Danites had not yet

subdued and fully occupied their allotted tribal territory. In this case the incident

probably happened after Joshua"s death. The Hebrew text reads literally, "there

had not fallen to them by that day in the midst of the tribes of Israel an

inheritance." Many of the commentators prefer the second view. [ ote: E.g, Bush,

p223; Cundall and Morris, p187; Wood, Distressing Days . . ., p148; Keil and

Delitzsch, p434; Inrig, pp277-78; and Block, Judges . . ., pp493-94.] In either case

the incident shows the Danites" dissatisfaction with their condition. They either did

not wait for God to give them what He had promised (cf. Joshua 13:1-7), or they

were unwilling to fight the Amorites so they could inhabit it (cf. Judges 1:34). They

felt that they did not have an adequate inheritance. They then sent a group of five

men to investigate the possibilities of other land that might be available to them in

other parts of Canaan.

"They clearly felt that the boundary lines had not fallen for them "in pleasant

places" ( Psalm 16:6). Their desire to move revealed a lack of faith in the Lord who

had allotted to them their original territory." [ ote: Wolf, p483.]

The center of Danite activity was then between Zorah and Eshtaol, the area where

Samson grew up. However, this incident seems to have antedated Samson"s

judgeship. Previously Moses, and later Joshua , had sent spies before them (

umbers 13; Joshua 2). There are many parallels between chapter18 and umbers

12:16 to umbers 14:45 and Deuteronomy 1:19-46 [ ote: See A. Malamat, "The

Danite Migration and the Pan-Israelite Exodus -Conquest: A Biblical arrative

Pattern," Biblica51 (1970):1-16; and O"Connell, pp235-38.] There is no reference to

God"s leading the Danites to send spies, however. In view of what follows, this

decision seems to have lacked divine initiative or permission.

When these representatives happened to come to Micah"s house, they recognized

the distinctive voice of his Levite ( Judges 18:3). After learning what he was doing

there, the Danites explained their mission and asked the Levite to inquire from

Yahweh whether their journey would be successful ( Judges 18:5). The tabernacle

was just a few miles from Micah"s house, and the Danites should have gone there if

they wanted to know God"s will. The Levite, perhaps using Micah"s ephod,

announced God"s approval of their mission ( Judges 18:6). In view of his own

relationship to God it is doubtful that he really received an answer from Yahweh.

Moreover, in view of what the soldiers proceeded to do, their plan was definitely not

in harmony with God"s will.

PULPIT, "18:1

In those days, etc. See 17:6. The tribe of the Danites sought them an inheritance, etc.

This does not mean that the whole tribe of Dan were still seeking their inheritance.

The bulk of the tribe, as we read in Joshua 19:40-48, did receive their inheritance by

lot before the death of Joshua (Joshua 19:49) and Eleazar (Joshua 19:51). But as

long as any part of the tribe was not settled, the tribe as such, in its unity, was still

seeking a settlement. The land for their inheritance had not yet fallen to the tribe in

its integrity. This is in part accounted for by what we read 1:34, that the Amorites

would not suffer the children of Dan to come down to the valley, so that those who

could not get possession of their land there would be crowded into other parts of the

tribal territory. These Danites, of whom we are here reading, were dwelling in

Zorah and Eshtaol ( 13:1, 13:25), as we see by 1:2, 1:11. Unto that day, etc.

Translate this clause, For unto that day the land (meaning the whole land) had not

fallen unto them in the midst of the tribes of Israel for an inheritance. The words the

land must be supplied after the analogy of umbers 34:2. What follows in this

chapter is a more detailed account of what was briefly mentioned in Joshua 19:47,

where, however, the A.V. went out too little for them is not a translation of the

Hebrew text, which is very difficult to explain. Houbigant, by an ingenious

conjecture, gives the sense was too narrow for them. Prom the mention of this

migration in the Book of Joshua, it is probable that it took place not many years

after Joshua's death.

Donald Campbell makes this interesting association between Jdg17,18:

" It seems apparent there is a direct relationship between the story of Micah & the

story of the migration of the tribe of Dan. The record of Micah's idolatry is

graphically explained in order to show how the tribe of Dan became an idolatrous

tribe."

A D I THOSE DAYS: The plight of the tribe of Dan was first mentioned in

[Judges 1:34,35 which records that the godless...

Amorites forced the sons of Dan into the hill country, for they did not allow them

to come down to the valley; yet the Amorites persisted in living in Mount Heres, in

Aijalon and in Shaalbim; but when the power of the house of Joseph grew strong,

they became forced labor.

Amorites prevented the Danites from taking possession of their rightful

inheritance. Is there some "Amorite" in your life that is preventing you from

taking hold of your blessings in Christ, Paul reminding us that our heavenly

Father has

"blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ."

(Ephesians 1:3)

The Danite allotment was at the west end of the strip of land between Judah and

Ephraim (Joshua 19:41-46), but caught in a squeeze between the Amorites

(Judges1:34) and the Philistines to the west and the territory of Judah to the south,

the Danites refused to lay hold of their inheritance by faith, letting their sight (of

the Amorites) force them to seek out a new homeland. They clearly felt that the

boundary lines had not fallen for them "in pleasant places" (Psalms 16:6). In

short, the Danite's desire to move was a testimony to their lack of faith in the

promises of the Covenant Keeping Lord who had allotted them their original

territory. As detailed in this chapter the Danites instead end up in [Jdg18:30,31]

capturing Laish, renaming it Dan and setting up idolatrous images for worship.

The had sowed the wind, but Israel would reap a whirlwind from this faithless

Danite detour, for years later, the wicked king Jeroboam I made Dan a center for

idolatrous calf worship to keep the northern 10 tribes from wanting to go back to

Jerusalem to worship Jehovah. God has a sure law of reaping what one sows and

so you cannot help but wonder if this "Danite detour" has anything to do with the

failure to find the tribe of Dan to be mentioned in the 144,000 in Revelation 7:4ff?

This thought comes close to home. We sin and we think nothing of it. o

consequence is obvious. Just a twinge of guilt on our conscious. But how

frightening it should be to think about how far reaching the consequences of our

sin can extend and how many people are eventually affected. It behooves us to pay

careful attention to Solomon's warning...

"Because the sentence against an evil deed is not executed quickly, therefore the

hearts of the sons of men among them are given fully to do evil." (Ecclesiastes

8:11)

The wicked man lulls himself to sleep spiritually being deceived by his own heart

which...

says to himself, "I shall not be moved. Throughout all generations I shall not be in

adversity." Psalm 10:6

THE TRIBE OF THE DA ITES WAS SEEKI G A I HERITA CE FOR

THEMSELVES TO LIVE I : Click for a discussion of the tribe of Dan.

Most of the other tribes were able to conquer the enemy, dispossessed them, and

claim their land, but the Danites coveted somebody else’s land instead and took it

in a violent manner.

As mentioned above, the Danites failure to defeat and dispossess the Amorites was

not a matter of not enough strength of numbers ( umbers 26:43 says that the tribe

of Dan had 64,000 men) but of not enough faith in an omnipotent, covenant

keeping God. The Danites had two choices: they could have taken the humble road

and yet the high road of repentance and laying hold of God's promises by faith

that He would go before them and drive out their enemies. God's sovereign

promises always demand man's responsible choice to obey & move out in faith.

The second choice the Danites had was to reject God's promises and seek their

own land, looking for a new territory where the occupants would be unprepared

and vulnerable to attack. God let them have their latter choice but this "success"

does not signify He blessed their efforts. In fact subsequent history of the

abominations set up at Dan suggest that He cursed them rather than blessing

them! Mark it down beloved...

Success does not always signify God's blessing!

Recall too that Samson was from the tribe of Dan. Samson, the strongest man,

came from Dan, the weakest tribe that by sheer numbers should have been one of

the strongest tribes!

FOR U TIL THAT DAY A I HERITA CE HAD OT BEE ALLOTTED

TO THEM AS A POSSESSIO AMO G THE TRIBES OF ISRAEL:

Does this curious statement mean that God had simply forgotten about the tribe of

Dan? That they would have to go it on their own? Clearly that is not the

implication -- The Lord had assigned the tribal allotments under the direction of

Joshua, with the help of Eleazar the high priest and the elders from the tribes at

Shiloh (Joshua 19:41, 51). As He did with the nations (Ac17:26 God

"determined...the boundaries of the habitation" of every nation on the face of the

earth), so He did with the tribes: God put each tribe just where He wanted it. For

the tribe of Dan to reject God’s assigned territory and covet another place was to

oppose His divine will.

Isn’t it this "Danite Defiant" attitude that causes most of the trouble in our society

today? Instead of submitting to God’s will, people want somebody else's "greener

grass" and they are willing to do almost anything to get it (see the caustic

comment by James 4:1-3). Peter labels this universal malady "the corruption that

is in the world by lust." (2 Peter 1:4).

BI 1-31, "The Danites sought them an inheritance . . . They set them up Micah’s graven image.

The image-worship expanding into tribal idolatry

I. The straits to which unbelief reduces the strong (Jdg_18:1).

II. Discontent with a divinely-marked lot leads to evil (Jdg_18:2).

III. Trifling circumstances often lead to the discovery of sinful schemes (Jdg_18:3).

IV. Silent neglect at first, leads afterwards to open rejection of God’s ordinances (Jdg_18:5).

V. The most inoffensive people are not safe from the attacks of evil men (Jdg_18:7; Jdg_18:9-10).

VI. Religion is sometimes invoked to aid the plots of the ungodly (Jdg_18:5).

VII. Indirectness is a character of the world’s counsel (Jdg_18:6).

VIII. False worshippers take refuge in imitating the appearances of the true (Jdg_18:14; Jdg_18:17).

IX. Divine providence often offers no interruption to the execution of the designs of the wicked.

X. The sudden destruction of the man-made religion (Jdg_18:15-20).

XI. Prayer will not secure the Divine blessing on a wrong action (Jdg_18:5-6, also Jdg_18:18-19).

XII. Worldly minds care little for accuracy in spiritual things (Jdg_18:17-19).

XIII. Neither moral principle nor sound reason can be expected of those who deny to God His natural rights.

XIV. Success in evil is no proof of the Divine approval.

XV. True service is not to be expected from a false priest (Jdg_18:20).

XVI. The excessive importance which an idolater Attaches to his gods (Jdg_18:24). (J. P. Millar.)

Ask counsel, we pray thee, of God.

Counsel of God

Seeking counsel of God is the first duty of Christian men.

I. Why we should ask.

1. On account of our ignorance and short-sightedness. The way before us dark, uncertain. So reason would suggest to ask, etc. it is the course God’s people have ever adopted. See Jacob at Bethel (Gen_27:20); Moses (Exo_33:12); David (2Sa_7:29).

2. On account of God’s ability to give. He knows all the way before us.

3. On account of the fact that our best interests are involved in the counsel God can give. It is like the pillar and cloud, the compass of the mariner, light of day, etc.

II. What we may ask.

1. As to our temporal concerns. Duties in the world, engagements, plans, and changes.

2. As to our relative concerns. Families, children, friends, etc. So Abraham and David; so all the truly pious.

3. As to our spiritual concerns. The way of experimental piety, usefulness, etc. Influence for good. The text speaks of the “way being prosperous.”

III. How we must ask.

1. With a deep conviction of our exigency. Not self-sufficient.

2. With believing confidence. The promises are abundant for every scene. To lead, direct, keep, deliver, strengthen, protect, sanctify, save; hence we must calmly look and plead.

3. With a resolution to follow the counsel.

4. Through the person and advocacy of Christ. (J. Burns, D. D.)

We have seen the land, and behold, it is very good.—

Report from the promised land

This was a model report, because it urged the brethren to take advantage of an opportunity that meant benefit to themselves. The believer in Jesus Christ is an explorer, and he brings back a report to his brethren who are unbelievers. Religion, like science, to be exact, must be grounded in truth and fact. We listen to Livingstone and believe him, as we would but few who might tell us of the wastes of Africa, for we know that he has seen. Let your life be a life fragrant with peace, a life unselfish, devoted, Christ-like, a life of beauty, and it will bring a winning report of the land, and your hearers will say, “We will go with you. It will be a good land, for God is with you.” Suppose a man from the cold and cheerless Arctic comes here. He comes from a land of chill and blasts, where the sun’s warmth never falls, where no birds sing, and where flowers never bloom. Suppose a man from this zone of the Arctic were to come to our city and open an office upon Broadway. How many would listen and go back with him to the terrors of that frozen north? But suppose a man from the sunny south should come. He would tell of the birds that sing the whole year round, of the flowers that bloomed season after season, and the bubbling streams that flowed on for ever. Which of the two would repel and which attract? God’s people are weak. Do not attribute their failures to the land from which they come. Do not set your reproof against the land. It is a glorious land. Go and make that land your land, your hope and your eternity. (W. T. Sabine.)

And are ye still?—

Indifference to religion

It may be that we wonder at the slowness of the Danites—wonder that they should hesitate to press forward and possess themselves of such an earthly inheritance; of such an inheritance because it was a part of the land promised by God to their fathers. May we not, however, be the more astonished at ourselves, as we remember our own indifference towards a heavenly inheritance? The habitation we now hold, straitened as it is, and but for time, must be resigned at the call of death, whether we have made any advance towards the heavenly inheritance or not. And why are we still? Is it because we are required to withdraw our affections from the earth? If so, we are to be gainers by it (1Pe_1:4). And we ourselves often profess a desire to possess such a home. And often do we picture to ourselves a home where all that renders this life painful will be found no more. We desire a land which is “very good.” Such a home, such a land, God’s Word speaks of to us, and says that it is laid up for those who seek it (1Co_2:9). Yet few of us really seek this home; and so, in the words of the spies, we are again and again rebuked for our indifference. “Behold the land is very good: and are ye still? be not slothful to go, and to enter to possess the land.” Now the spies declared, concerning the people of Laish: “When ye go, ye shall come unto a people secure, and to a large land.”

1. The security here alluded to was a false security. It was that careless indifference to danger—that want of thought for their own safety—which the people of Laish indulged. There was peace about them. They did not think of the possibility of its being broken. They, in fact, prepared the way for their own destruction. And Holy Scripture tells us who seek the heavenly inheritance: “When ye go ye shall come unto a people secure, and to a large land.” But this security is a true one (2Sa_22:2-3).

2. It is a large land. In it we shall dwell in peace with those who now enjoy its blessedness. Our entrance there will be followed by the gift of our God to us of fuller measures of love. Could we possibly desire a life more blessed than this?—a life passed with angels, and archangels, and all God’s faithful ones. “Behold,” then, “the land is very good, and the people dwell secure: and are ye still?” In order to rouse their countrymen, and to hasten them forward towards Laish, the spies declared, “God hath given it into your hands.” Now these words either set forth the faith of the spies, and mean, “God will give it into your hands,” or they refer to God’s promise of old to Abraham (Gen_15:18), and mean, “Know ye not that it is yours already by promise? God hath given it into your hands, since He sware unto Abraham that he and his seed should possess it.” And we would borrow their words, and say of heaven, “God hath given it into your hands.” For ever since the Saviour shed His blood for you, heaven has been purchased thereby for your everlasting inheritance. Heirs, by promise, thereof, your baptism made you. Citizens of heaven ye are now. Take heed that ye forfeit not, by following the world and its lusts, your citizenship. Moreover, it was not purchased to be bestowed arbitrarily, and after the manner of men, upon a few. And this is evident from the whole of our blessed Lord’s teaching. “In it there are many mansions.” “It is a large country.” And though many have passed from the earth, and are sure to enter it, “yet there is room.” But for whom is their room? Oh, not for the proud and the haughty. Not for those who cry “Lord, Lord,” yet do not the things which He hath commanded. Not for those who love this present world, yet profess to seek a better, but are still! There is room in heaven for the poor and humble in spirit, for those who follow “temperance, soberness, and chastity.” The spies also sought to urge their countrymen on by declaring, concerning Laish, that it was “a place where there is no want of anything that is in the earth.” So tempting a prize as this would, we should think, put away all hesitation, all fear of difficulties. And we declare the same of heaven. The blessings offered to the Danites had respect unto the present life. The blessings offered to us are those of the eternal

life with God in heaven. Do you desire peace? It is there. Heaven is the abode of holiness; and where holiness is, there also is peace. Do you desire joy? It is there. In heaven sorrows and tears are not. Do you desire security? In heaven nothing shall disturb your peace, nothing shall diminish your joy. Do you long to offer unto God a worship holy and undefiled? In heaven you shall offer it. There you will join the sinless angels, and “the just made perfect,” and with them worship and adore your God. (C. P. Longland.)

Be not slothful to go, and to enter to possess the land.—

Practical attention to religion

I. Some considerations to induce an earnest, practical attention to religion.

1. Consider the glory and the grandeur of the inheritance to which you aspire. You see much of the wisdom of God in furnishing figurative descriptions of the blessedness of heaven.

2. Consider the encouraging assurances we have of success in our pursuit.

3. Consider the danger of remissness and indifference where interests so momentous are at stake.

II. Brief suggestions as to the means of promoting spirituality of mind.

1. Endeavour to form a high standard of that holiness of character in which fitness for heaven consists.

2. Serious and devout meditation upon the Word of God should form a part of the business of every day.

3. Cultivate a devotional spirit. (Homiletic Magazine.)

Fetched the carved image, the ephod, and the teraphim.—

The stolen gods

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 a 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. 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.

2. The Levite represents an unworthy, worldly ministry. 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, from Christ?

3. Once more, we have with us to-day, 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. Not 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 heed, 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. (R. A. Watson, M. A.)

Ye have taken away my gods.—

The loss of gods

I. All men have a God.

1. Whatever a man’s god be, he deems it the greatest good.

2. But man’s ideas of God are very deficient and conflicting. Some make a god of the means of gratifying their passions and lusts; others make money and riches their god; others the praise and approbation of their fellow-creatures, and others the outward rites and ceremonies of religion.

3. It is one thing to be religious; another and a very different matter to be godly, worshipping the Father “in spirit and in truth.”

II. False gods can be taken from their devotees.

1. Often in life. Many, long before they die, lose the means of gratifying sense; many, early in life, though lovers of money, become pitifully poor; and many, by some means or other, are deprived of the means to pursue their accustomed mode of attending to religious rites, and therefore lose their gods.

2. In death. Sense cannot be gratified in the grave. No miser has ever been able to take a grain of his adored money to another world. The world’s praise and blame are

equally unimportant when a man feels he is to be ushered before the judgment-seat; and all religious rites and formularies are left behind for ever when we enter a world of spirits.

III. The loss, even of a false god, will be felt to be a great loss. “What have I more?” To tear the thing we have made our god from us is the greatest bereavement. Even though the thing is bad, it has been loved supremely, and the loss of it will create a vacuum and an agony intolerable. But the conscious loss of the true God—this is the climax of suffering. Then the soul is a chaos, an orphan in the universe. (Homilist.)

Micah the Ephraimite

Consider the plan of life he made, and the reason why it turned out so badly.

1. He was not a heathen, though he was an idolater. He thought to serve God through the medium of idols. It was more comfortable to remain at home, and it was more easy to worship by means of what could be seen. He was like people who say that it is not necessary to go to church, because they can read the Bible and say their prayers at home; as if reading the Bible and saying prayers were the whole duty of the man! He was also like those who think that worship must be comfortable: they are not called upon to rise early or to adopt more than a sitting posture. You can see what the influence of idols would become in this man’s life. Micah would gradually forget the unseen world of which they were supposed to remind him, and his image-shop would call for his constant care and attention. What soul he possessed would be centred there, and the presence of the Levite would soothe him with the notion that all was well. Nor was the life a lonely one, for others, it seems, lived near, and took an interest in the carved image, the ephod, the teraphim, and molten image: in fact, there was quite a comfortable little schism formed into which no one was likely to inquire. Such was the plan of Micah’s religious life—a cheap one, you will observe, in spite of the ten shekels of silver and apparel and victuals, for no journeys need now be undertaken to other seats of worship, and no money offered to them.

2. And why did such an inexpensive way of serving God fail? Some rude travellers robbed him of his gods and his priest, and what had he more? It might have been possible to replace them, but the cost would have been much; besides, he had grown fond of these images, and this priest, and his heart was with them. It was too late to begin life again, and such handsome images it would be difficult to make. All might still have been well had he known what worship meant, but unfortunately in his service of God he had left out God. “God is Spirit, and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth,” Is there anything akin to us in the character of this poor man, who began by cheating others and ended by being cheated himself?

1. True religion cannot be easy, at least at first. It never can be cheap. To do God’s will entails the sacrifice of ourselves, soul and body, to the Almighty. And so easy-going religion is popular. Men will not go far to a service. If they have their temple at their door they can drag their wearied limbs so far, but, unlike their forefathers, they do not care to walk a few miles to God’s house. As for time and money, what a little suffices often to soothe the sleepy conscience!

2. Micah’s religion was self-made. Has he not followers in those who teach that we can please ourselves in the manner and method of worship? Is it perfectly immaterial whether our Saviour made a Church or not, whether we continue steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread and in prayer, or not?

And if these things do matter, surely they are worth a little hard thought. “We are all going the same way,” people tell you. Yet it is inconceivable that all can be equally right. Are we not bound to give, each for himself, a reason for the form of the faith we hold?

3. Micah’s religion failed him. His gods were taken away, and his priest, and what had he more? God was left out of sight. We can take the warning to ourselves. Our religion, it may be, has been largely outward: we have said formal prayers morning and evening; we have come to church and gone through services; we have read a few verses of the Bible as a disagreeable duty; we have hoped all was well; and suddenly, a big blow falls—and where are we? Is our religion a comfort? does it help to support us? Not a bit. Why? Because it was only skin-deep. (W. R. Hutton, M. A.)

The stable and the unstable in religion

This story has but a faint analogy with what I wish to speak of—but yet it illustrates a principle applicable in all ages, that essential religion is some thing which cannot be stolen. Now there are all sorts of Danites—real hostile Danites, and men accounted such by timid souls who are not so at all. There are ruthless Danites, whose honest, or dishonest, aim it is to remove what they really seem to think religion is wrapped up in. And then there are friendly Danites, who would remove idol images out of a real love for a more spiritual and vital faith. But whoever the Danites be, this is true—that nobody is afraid of the Danites unless he has gotten a Micah religion; and nobody encourages the raids and raileries of the Danites—“What aileth thee?”—like the man who cries, “What have I more?”

I. Any religion which centres in a form or organisation can be stolen. This is only to say that external aids to devotion, and diverse organisation of God’s host may be changed, and yet destroy none but a Micah faith which is wrapped up in them. But what has seemed so permanent and vital at different times, and to different souls, is just this very thing! The Micah faith of the Jews could be, must be, stolen away. But what was permanent? Reverence and worship of Almighty God. Again, take the New Testament. It was a zeal in God’s name by which Jesus Himself cleansed the temple of His Father! And who ever stole away the Micah elements of religion as did our Lord Himself, in mingled love and indignation for God’s eternal law? Again, have you ever realised that the great argument all through the Epistles of Paul is just this carrying-off process of that system, glorious in its purity and needed for its day, but now to pass, in its essential elements, into a different form of growth? His great contention every where is that there were shadow and substance both in the old Mosaic economy; that form was vanishing, its truth permanent; that Christ had fulfilled, or filled full, those great moral and spiritual needs of men which once were best fed by other means. Did He take away a single element that was permanent?

II. Standards of what is right and wrong in conduct may be stolen, and yet not carry off the eternal obligations of mortality. How often people have been trying to say that this, that, and the other thing is eternally right or wrong for everybody and all nations to do or not to do! It is this spirit which goes to the Bible, and in Leviticus and Ecclesiastes, as well as in John and Romans, would find, on one level of authority, some word to decide, as by a talisman, whether this or that is consistent for everybody everywhere to do or not to do. How this confuses and misrepresents the Bible! The Bible is a book of life, and so it has progressively changed and raised its forms of moral obligation from age to age. Right in the midst of the Old Testament, like a lighthouse in a storm, stand the ten

commandments—true, not because they are there, but there because universally true; and yet even they are not true because that is the best or highest form of moral obligation; for Jesus says of that law, “It says so and so, but ‘I’ say”—carrying those same principles further and higher, and adding entirely new and deeper motives and sanctions. Negative “Thou shalt not“ accomplishes for one man or one age what Jesus’ positive “Thou shalt love” does for another—two forms of the same thing. See the progress in Bible standards!

1. Thou shalt not do wrong.

2. Thou shalt love God and man.

3. Love one another, “as I have loved you.” There is a vast difference between these three ways of looking at one thing.

III. What is true of forms of worship and standards of morals is true also of forms and proportions of theological issues. Judged by the Micah creeds of men we might suppose the Christian world would have nothing left of faith after the Danites of each generation had carried away some things upon which every thing seemed to hang. We are living in a time when hosts of Christian people think the ark of God is in danger as it never was before. But when was there an age in which people did not say the same thing? This is said to be an era of readjustment and revolution. Yes; but so has nearly every age been accounted since Jesus came, if we may judge from the fearful auguries of every century. There are always some people perfectly sure if this or that doctrine is not held just as their fathers, or their Church or themselves hold it, that men are cutting loose from all sure anchorage. The reassuring thing is that that is just what men have always been saying, and yet despite dark doubt and augury, hostile Danites, and men so counted Danites in one age to be canonised in the next, have all stolen only what was either false or only one-sided and temporary. There is not a great fact or essential truth of Christian revelation which is not held as firmly this very day as ever before. (A. R. Merriam.)

The Indian problem

Do we consider that a man situated as this man was a fit object of pity and sympathy or not? The stern, uncompromising iconoclast would certainly say, “No.” He would feel that it was better for such an one to find out by bitter experience how vain and useless were the idols in which he trusted. In and through his desolation he might be brought to seek for help where alone it could be found. The mild, tolerant student of comparative religion would probably say, “Yes.” He would urge on his behalf that at that particular point in the evolution of Jewish religion from its primitive worship of invisible forces it was inevitable that the worshipper should seek to give concrete form and embodiment to the anthropomorphic idea of God which was then being assimilated from the nations around. For such an one to be deprived of his idols was to be put out of rapport and correspondence with his religious environment, and as that meant spiritual death, he clearly deserves our pity in his destitution. Turning, however, from the merely speculative interest which the ancient Israelite’s case presents, I wish to transfer it, “as in a figure,” to the very real and practical interest presented by the parallel situation of a large section of our fellow-subjects in India, and to endeavour to answer the question just raised by considering what our duty to them is. For in the main the plea of the Jew of Mount Ephraim is being echoed now either in unexpressed feeling or in outspoken utterance by thousands of religious-minded Hindus in India. It is only with one portion of the problem that I would attempt to deal; that, namely, which is connected with the

sphere of Christian education. It would be to repeat an oft-told tale to recount at any length what has been and will be increasingly the necessary result of such contact of the West with the East as our rule in India has brought about. That contact is unique and unprecedented in some if not all of its conditions, and must be expected to produce strange and unlooked-for, even contradictory, results. But it is of the moral aspect of them only that I wish to speak. When the Government of India decided that State education must be conducted on the principle of religious neutrality and non-interference, it does not appear whether the disintegrating effect of purely secular instruction was fully realised. What, in short, was not foreseen, but is now being daily found to be the inevitable result of the State system of education, is that while it tends to destroy much that was hurtful and fatal to progress, it fails to supply the place of what it destroys by any new and vital principle of cohesion and solidarity. The son goes back to his home and announces to his parents that he has learnt to rise superior to caste traditions and prejudices, and it is found that what this amounts to practically is, that while he has a veneer of Western learning and science, he has lost his hold of what is the very life and soul of any society, the sense of obedience, of reverence, of duty in the family and in the State. He has gained, indeed, ideas of freedom, of independence, of equality, of self-assertion, but if he has lost or is in danger of losing these other ideas, which surely it is true to say are more fundamental and indispensable for the well-being of the family and the nation, is not the loss likely to be greater than the gain, at any rate for the Indian? If there is any virtue which the caste system can claim to have developed and preserved, it is the instinct of reverence and obedience. And it is this instinct which it is the tendency of our education to weaken if not to destroy. And further, it is precisely in those parts of India which are most advanced in Western knowledge where this tendency is seen in its fullest development. What wonder is it, then, that the parent who hears of the boasted advantages of Western science and education bewails the result of it in words which seem an echo of the cry of the Jew of Mount Ephraim “Ye have taken away my gods which I made, and what have I more? and how then say ye unto me, What aileth thee?” But this is not all. The student, bereft of the moral sanctions of his religion, and supplied with no new motives of obedience and rectitude, is exposed to yet other dangers. If the demon of superstition has been expelled, there are the seven other spirits more wicked than the first, ready to rush in and occupy the vacant, cheerless room. For the mental facilities of the Indian student are far in advance of his moral faculties. This is so naturally; and when the course of education tends almost exclusively to develop the intellectual part of him, the disparsity becomes all the more marked. The moral element in him, already of weakened vitality, is gradually starved out, and the struggle for superiority is rather between the animal and the intellectual. There are many noble exceptions, but they cannot redeem a system which condemns the majority to moral sterility. It is to the Christian Church, and that alone, that we must turn for the assertion and vindication of the principles of true reform, as well as for the moral dynamic which is to energise and embody them in and through an actual visible living society. And it is quite wonderful to notice how India’s need of the gospel is being recognised on all sides and in the most unexpected quarters. The politician looks to the spread of Christianity as one great source of strength and stability for the permanence of British Empire. The educationalist looks to our native Christian women as at present the most hopeful means of making female education effective among the upper classes. Sir W. W. Hunter has lately said, “Christianity holds out advantages of social organisation not offered by Hinduism or Islam. It provides for the education and moral supervision of its people with a pastoral care which Islam, destitute of a regular priesthood, does not pretend to. It receives the new members into its body with a cordiality and a completeness to which Hinduism is a stranger. I believe,” he says, “it is reserved for Christianity to develop the

highest uses of Indian caste, ‘as a system of conservative socialism.’ . . . But it will be Indian caste humanised by a new spiritual life.”Or to take one or two more specific cases. The tahsildar or head native officer of a large country town appeals to a missionary to send a Christian teacher for a Hindu school, because he finds the Hindu teachers have yielded to the prevailing immorality of the town. The municipality of a large city in the Punjab appoints a native Christian minister its chairman because they can find no other man so high-minded and honest for the post. The only great modern religious reformer India has produced bore witness on his death-bed to India’s need of Christ. When the man of Macedonia stood before St. Paul that night in the vision, did not the pathos of the cry, “Come over and help us,” arise from the very fact of its being the unconscious appeal of the heathen world for help? And if the response to that cry was the mission to Europe, which was the origin and cause of all that is highest and best and noblest in our life and thought here to-day, shall the Church’s response to India’s cry be less prompt, less devoted, less full of faith and hope and love, when she has that greatest of all examples to inspire and stimulate her, the experience of the power of the message he bore to support and guide her in her task, the certainty of final victory, not in our time, but in God’s time, to cheer and encourage her till Christ comes to claim the kingdom for His own? (S. S Allnutt, M. A.)

And what have I more?—

The beyond in religion

It was natural that Micah should deplore the loss of his images. We may smile at his grief, and say that he was a very ignorant and a very superstitious man. Doubtless he might have reflected that the loss was not irreparable; doubtless he might have consoled himself with the thought of what remained. And yet we, with our purer faith and nobler creed, need to remind ourselves that such superstition is not altogether unknown amongst us. There has always been a tendency to mistake the outward and visible for the inward and spiritual, to think or to act as if these were all, and to forget the beyond; even to imagine that if these are withdrawn and taken from us, then all is gone and nothing more is left. Idolatry in its grosset forms has passed away, and it is not likely to return; but the tendency still exists to pay undue deference to and to depend upon what is visible and material and transitory, while we ignore those unseen and abiding elements in which alone the true vitality of religion consists. Let us trace this tendency in three directions.

1. Religion is enshrined in ceremonies. Forms may be not only useful in religion, they are to certain extent necessary. In Christian worship there has always been more or less of form, ceremonial, ritual. Men have tried at various times to maintain a religion which should be purely spiritual, but the effort has not in the long run been successful. In early days Christian worship was severely simple. It was so partly by design, in contrast with the sensuous materialism of surrounding idolatry; partly of necessity, because of the poverty of the worshippers. In later times came the elaboration of ceremonial. The question for us is, What have we more? Do our worship, our ceremonies lead us to what is beyond? Are we relying on the accessories, or on the everlasting truths they enshrine? What have we more? I may, for instance, be accustomed to a place of worship where the services are rendered with the most exquisite musical taste, where the art of the sculptor or the painter ministers to my sense of culture and refinement; but what have I more? If altered circumstances should force me to worship with none of those surroundings, could I

know that there in the meanest and poorest temple is no less the presence of God? If I should be condemned as an invalid to pass weary months and even years within the four walls of my sick-room, could I rest in the assurance that still Christ is with me, and that possessing Him I possess all things? This is to penetrate into the kernel of religion; this is to have the power as well as the form of godliness, and it is to this that all form, all ritual, should lead up, and without this they profit nothing.

2. But religion is not only enshrined in form; it is embodied in phrases. Churches have their creeds and their catechisms. Religious truth must find its expression in doctrine, in portable forms which are easily remembered, though the doctrine probably expresses very inadequately the truth it inculcates. A sound creed is the basis of a strong character. Words are the necessary embodiment of truth. But there is always a danger lest the mere framework of words be taken as a substitute for the truth it indicates. There are those who worship, instead of a living Christ, their own wooden and stony forms of theology, which may leave them just as hard and just as narrow and just as loveless as any other form of superstition. The history of Christianity is full of examples. This tendency to depend on words is especially seen in the decadence of any religious movement. Phrases which were at one time pregnant with meaning are repeated with parrot-like accuracy by those who are very far from being animated by their spirit. They think that because they have the words they must also have the truth. “What have I more?” We have our doctrines, our creeds, our catechisms; but do they lead us to what is beyond? Do we reach forth with the strong grasp of a living faith to the unchanging and eternal truths which the words embody? Do you remember that it is one thing to say, “I believe in God,”another to believe in God with heart and soul as the great Factor in our lives? Phrases may change; but God does not change. Truth cannot change, though it may be conveyed through different means. Creed is important, but character is greater than creed. Life is more than orthodoxy, and goodness than correct opinions.

3. Once more, religion is not only enshrined in ceremonies and creeds, but also in persons. When St. Paul says that the Church is the “body of Christ,” he implies that our Lord works through Christian people, and that they are His representatives on earth. As a matter of fact all our earlier impressions, and many of our later impressions, in religion, have come to us through persons. The mother who taught our infant lips to pray, the teacher who first instructed us in the simple truths of the gospel, the pastor at whose feet we sat as children, the friend so noble and so brave on whom we leaned for counsel and guidance—these and others were those who first brought religion to our notice as the great power in the world. And no one can overrate the power and the value of religious training and Christian friendship. But yet even the best and purest and holiest of earthly influences may sometimes be almost the idol, whose removal may be the wreck of our hopes. I sometimes tremble for the religion of the young lad who goes forth from a holy and happy village home into the crowded thoroughfares of the great city. Will he stand fast in the future? Will he be true to the teaching of his boyhood in the presence of increasing temptations? Will he keep to the old faith in the land that is new? He will not, if his faith is merely second-hand. He will not if he has never really made his parents’ belief to be his own belief. The great question is, “What have I more?” I have Christian influence around me, I have religious friends; but what have I more? If God should see fit to take away these, have I learnt to trust in the one Friend from whom neither distance nor death can part? Can I lean on Him when every earthly prop is removed? Some years ago I was called to visit an aged lady who was on her death-bed. She was a very sincere Christian, who had led an exceptionally useful life of active benevolence. But she had

drunk deep of the cup of sorrow; she had been reduced through monetary losses to comparative poverty; her husband had deserted her, and she had few, if any, relatives who could help her. And as I sat by her bedside, a few hours before her death, she talked of her trials, her sorrows, her losses, when, suddenly raising herself, she pointed upward to a text above her bed, and said, “But I have found that true all along.” I looked up and read the text. It was the familiar promise, “I will never leave thee nor forsake thee.” Yes, earthly friends might fail and leave her, but there was One who would never forsake her, the unchanging Friend who had strengthened and supported her in life as in death. Certainly the day will come to us all when all earthly helps will leave us, and we shall have to fall back on the unseen realities, or on—nothing. At such a time, if ever, we shall need to depend on the reality and not the shadow. No forms, no phrases, no friends can help us then. Nothing but the living Christ can then be our strength and stay; He and He only can say, “When thou passest through the waters I will be with thee.” May God keep us from trusting in the shadow rather than the substance. “Whom have I in heaven but Thee? and there is none upon earth that I desire beside Thee. Thou shalt guide me with Thy counsel, and afterward receive me to glory. My flesh and my heart faileth, but God is the strength of my heart and my portion for ever.” (Christian World Pulpit.).

2 So the Danites sent five of their leading men from Zorah and Eshtaol to spy out the land and explore it. These men represented all the Danites. They told them, “Go, explore the land.”

So they entered the hill country of Ephraim and came to the house of Micah, where they spent the night.

BAR ES, "This identity of locality with the scene of Samson’s birth and death indicates that both narratives are drawn from the same source, probably the annals of the tribe of Dan.

CLARKE, "Five men - men of valor - The Hebrew word חיל chayil has been

applied to personal prowess, to mental energy, and to earthly possessions. They sent those in whose courage, judgment, and prudence, they could safely confide.

GILL, "And the children of Dan sent of their family five men,.... According to Abarbinel one out of a family, as Moses sent one out of a tribe to spy the land; and so there must be five families concerned in this affair:

from their coasts, men of valour from Zorah, and from Eshtaol, to spy out the land, and to search it; these men were sent from the borders of the tribe, the extreme parts of it, as the word may signify, where perhaps they were the most pressed and overcrowded: Zorah and Eshtaol are particularly mentioned, and were the first cities in their lot, and were the coast of their inheritance; see Gill on Jos_19:41 some take the phrase rendered "from their coasts" to signify persons of extreme meanness, men of the lowest class among them; but the above mentioned writers interpret it to a quite contrary sense, by "Katzinim", princes, such as Moses sent to spy the land; and this better agrees with the next clause, "men of valour": and the word used signifies not only magnanimity and fortitude of mind, but wealth and riches; and these were sent not to spy the land of Canaan, but such places as fell to this tribe, but were possessed by the Canaanites; and their errand was to observe in what condition they were, and whether fit for their purpose, and easy to obtain, and how they might get the possession of any of them:

and they said unto them, search the land; and see if some convenient place cannot be found out to enlarge their inheritance, and give them more room and liberty for their families, now pent up, and a pasturage for their flocks and herds:

who when they came to Mount Ephraim; which lay upon the borders of them:

to the house of Micah, they lodged there; that is, when they were come near to the house of Micah, as Kimchi and Ben Melech interpret it, they took up their lodging in the neighbourhood of it, perhaps at a public house or inn; for the sense is not, that they lodged in Micah's house, for after this we read of their turning into it, as in the next verse. According to Bunting (r), this place was twenty four miles from Zorah and Eshtaol, from whence these men came.

K&D, "To spy out and explore the land for the object mentioned, the Danites sent out five brave men “out of their (the Danites') ends,” i.e., from their whole body (vid., 1Ki_12:31; 1Ki_13:33, and the commentary on Gen_19:4). They came up to the mountains of Ephraim, and as far as Micah's house, where they passed the night.

ELLICOTT, "Verse 2

(2) From their coasts.—Literally, their ends (Genesis 19:4; 1 Kings 12:31). Some

explain it to mean “from their whole number.”

Men of valour.—Literally, sons of force (Judges 21:10).

To spy out the land.—As in Joshua 2:1.

They came to mount Ephraim.—It would have been an easier journey to pass along

the Shephelah, but that was mainly in the hands of the original inhabitants.

To the house of Micah.—There is no necessity for the supposition that they did not

actually lodge in the house, or, at any rate, in the khan which doubtless formed part

of the settlement. The centre of a new and gorgeous worship was sure to have places

around it where those could lodge who came to consult the pesel-ephod (see Judges

18:18), just as even the ordinary synagogues had lodgings for wayfarers.

PETT, "Verse 2

Judges 18:2 a

‘And the children of Dan sent from their family five men from their whole number,

men of valour from Zorah, and from Eshtaol, to spy out the land, and to search it.

And they said unto them, Go, and search the land.’

The five men each probably represented a clan. They were specially picked men of

outstanding ability and courage sent out to find an area where they might

conveniently settle, where there were no Philistines or Amorites, and where they

would have no difficulty in establishing themselves. It would necessarily have to be

outside the allotments of the other tribes. Zorah and Eshtaol would later be the

hunting ground of Samson, who was of those Danites who did not take advantage of

this movement.

Judges 18:2 b

‘And they came to the hill country of Ephraim, to the house of Micah, and lodged

there.’

The men shortly afterwards arrived on their journey in the hill country of Ephraim

and were offered, and provided with, hospitality by Micah. Sadly it was a bad move.

Things were such in Israel that it was no longer safe to offer hospitality because of

the moral state of the nation.

BE SO , "18:2-5. They lodged there — ot in the same house, but near it. They

knew the voice of the young man — Having been acquainted with him before he

came to live with Micah. Ask counsel, we pray thee, of God — By thine ephod and

teraphim, or image, which they knew he had. This and the following verse show that

this sanctuary of Micah was dedicated to the true God, and not to idols. But how

ignorant were these Danites, to suppose God would be consulted here as well as in

his house at Shiloh!

3 When they were near Micah’s house, they recognized the voice of the young Levite; so they turned in there and asked him, “Who brought you here? What are you doing in this place? Why are you here?”

BAR ES, "It does not follow that they had known him before, and recognized his voice, though it may be so. But the Hebrew equally bears the sense that they heard the voice of the Levite; and, attracted by it, went into the chapel Jdg_18:18 where Jonathan was. They were probably just starting on their journey, but were still within the court or precincts of Micah’s house. Micah had evidently not told them of his house of God, and his Levite. Their questions indicate surprise.

CLARKE, "They knew the voice of the young man - They knew, by his dialect or mode of pronunciation, that he was not an Ephraimite. We have already seen (Jdg_12:6 (note)) that the Ephraimites could not pronounce certain letters.

GILL, "When they were by the house of Micah,.... At their inn, which might be next to it, or as they were passing by it:

they knew the voice of the young man the Levite; who had been in their country, and they had been in his company and conversation, and they knew the tone of his voice when they heard it; a particular brogue he might have. Abarbinel conjectures, that he was singing to Micah's idol, or multiplying his prayers before him:

and they turned in thither; into Micah's house, and into the apartment where the young man was:

and said unto him, who brought thee hither? they knew he was of Bethlehemjudah; they inquire therefore how he came there, who sent for him, and by what means he was brought to that place:

and what makest thou in this place? they knew he was a Levite, and that such an one had no business to minister but at the tabernacle, and therefore they inquire what was his employment here: and what hast thou here? to support himself with, what he had for his maintenance, or how he lived.

K&D 3-6, "When they were at Micah's house and recognised the voice of the young Levite, i.e., heard his voice, and perceived form his dialect that he was not a native of these mountains, they turned aside there, sc., from the road into the house, near to which they rested, and asked him, “Who brought thee hither, and what doest thou at this place? what hast thou to do here?” When he told them his history (“thus and thus,” lit. according to this and that; cf. 2Sa_11:25; 1Ki_14:5), they said to him, “Ask God, we

pray thee, that we may learn whether our way will be prosperous.” אלהים� used for ,ש�לasking the will of God, as in Jdg_1:1, except that here the inquiry was made through the medium of the imitation of the ephod and the worship of an image. And he said to them, sc., after making inquiry of the divine oracle, “Go in peace; straight before Jehovah is your way,” i.e., it is known and well-pleasing to Him (vid., Pro_5:21; Jer_17:16).

ELLICOTT, "Verse 3

(3) By the house of Micah.—Literally, with—i.e., lodging in it, as in Genesis 27:43.

They knew the voice of the young man the Levite.—Again the narrative is too much

compressed to enable us to fill up its details with any certainty. The youthful

Jonathan had lived in Bethlehem. The grandson of Moses could not be wholly

unknown. and at this time there was close intercourse between the tribes of Dan and

Judah. Possibly, therefore they were personally acquainted with him; nor do they

ask (as Micah had done), “Whence cometh thou? They recognised his voice, possibly

by some dialectic peculiarity, but more probably by hearing him performing in the

upper room his service before the pesel. Cassel renders “voice” by “sound,” and

refers it to the bells on the priestly dress, as in Exodus 28:35. We notice that Micah

had been reticent about the ephod, &c., perhaps out of suspicion as to their

intentions.

Turned in thither.— ot necessarily into the house, but into the room—the oratory

(aedicula), or Beth-Elohim (Judges 17:5). It seems to have been a kind of spurious

Shiloh.

What makest thou in this place?—The accent of extreme surprise in their queries

shows that they knew Jonathan, and did not expect to find a Judæan Levite in

Ephraim.

PETT, "Verse 3

‘When they were by the house of Micah, they knew the voice of the young man the

Levite, and they turned aside there, and said to him, “Who brought you here? And

what are you doing in this place? And what have you here?” ’

This may explain why they obtained hospitality from Micah. It was because by some

chance they personally knew the Levite, and he had spoken up for them. And on

hearing his voice on their arrival, they recognised it, and went to renew their

acquaintance. Or it may have been because they recognised the dialect or priestly

accent and were intrigued as to what he was doing there, (but ‘voice’ would not

naturally signify that). They wanted to know how he had got there, what he was

doing there, and whether he had an advantageous position. He then probably

introduced them to Micah who generously offered them hospitality. As so often in

this type of literature something is described (Judges 18:2 b) and then the more

detailed explanation follows. This was their way of writing.

EXPOSITOR'S DICTIO ARY, ""It, is a vain thought," says Dinah Morris in

Adam Bede, "to flee from the work that God appoints us, for the sake of finding a

greater blessing to our own souls, as if we could choose for ourselves where we shall

find the fullness of the Divine Presence, instead of seeking it where alone it is to be

found, in loving obedience."

PULPIT, "When. Rather, while. By the house. Rather, in or at the house. They

knew the voice, having, as some think, known him before he left Bethlehem, or

perceiving a southern accent. But it may merely mean that they discerned his voice

as he was singing or reciting prayers in the house of God. Micah's house seems to

have been a collection of houses (verses 14, 22), approached by one gateway (verse

16), in one of which the Levite dwelt. They turned in thither. This seems to have

been next morning, when they were starting on their journey. Hearing the Levite's

voice, they turned aside into his house. What makest thou, etc. Rather, What doest

thou in this place? and what is thy business here?

4 He told them what Micah had done for him, and said, “He has hired me and I am his priest.”

GILL, "And he said unto them, thus and thus dealeth Micah with me,.... Told them the whole story, how he came to the door of Micah's house, how he inquired of him who he was, and from whence he came, and whither he was going, and then invited him into his house to stay with him:

and hath hired me; by the year, for ten shekels of silver, a suit of clothes, and meat and drink, and by this means he got a livelihood, and was supported:

and I am his priest; and that was his business to offer sacrifice for his family, and to consult his oracle for him, and for whomsoever should apply.

HE RY, "

JAMISO , "

K&D, "

ELLICOTT, "Verse 4

(4) Thus and thus.—Literally, according to this and according to that, as in 2

Samuel 11:25; 1 Kings 14:5.

I am his priest.—See Judges 17:13. Similarly in the dearth of genuine priests

Jeroboam was forced to make even Levites out of the lowest of the people (1 Kings

12:31).

PETT, "Verse 4

‘And he said to them, “In this way and that has Micah dealt with me. And he has

hired me, and I have become his priest. ” ’

The Levite explained to his friends how fortunate he had been, with the result that

he had been employed and made a priest in a private house of God, which included

enquiring of Yahweh on behalf of his patron.

U K OW AUTHOR, "In Deuteronomy 18 God established a procedure for

when a Levite wanted to leave his home to go and be with other priests to minister

in the presence of God (be it in the tabernacle or later, in the temple). But this

idea of a priest wandering the countryside alone looking for a place to ply his

priestly trade was nowhere provided for in the law. He is freelancing here.

Ask yourself, Did God hire this priest? o, Micah worked a deal out with this

priest, and under the agreement, this priest came under the employment of Micah.

When a deacon board is properly selected and meet all the criteria for being on

the deacon board and they follow the instructions within God's Word, then their

decisions are called "of God". Then they select the person that they feel can best

teach and direct the congregation in the ways of God given in the Word of God.

For a Levitical priest to act and administer the priestly office and be a man of

God, he must follow the ways that God had given to Moses for a Levitical priest to

follow. As we read in the last chapter, Micah had built his own church of idols,

and he appointed one of his sons to give order to this new religion that he created.

The center of that religion was Micah's idols, graven images, and a molten image

that Micah bought from the founder with the money that he stole from mother. So

now this super preacher Levitical priest, for the sake of being employed, having

food on the table and clothes on his back, was willing to let Micah dictate how the

worship in God's house should be.

The things of God, His Word and His instructions were set aside for the sake of

pleasing this man, and not God. ow these "five men of valor" from the tribe of

Dan, have observed this so-called religious ceremony, and they desire it for their

tribal families. The religious form was so emotional these men of Dan thought it

was just right for their tribe.

When a minister is called to preach, it is God that is suppose to call him, and not a

group of men. Then that board had better be very careful in their selection process

to make sure that this one their choosing is truly called by God, and not with some

other motive within their own mind. There is a big difference. Be careful of those

that like to play church.

HE HAS HIRED ME: GOD EVER HIRES HIS SERVA TS; they work for him

freely out of love and thanksgiving and He rewards them for faithfulness out of

His grace.

A D I HAVE BECOME HIS PRIEST: Even though he was not of Aaron's line

(as far as we can tell from the text) and had no Biblical basis for assuming the role

of a priest. He was deceived thinking that what was wrong in God's eyes was

really "right" because that's what he believed to be right. This is the ultimate in

willful deception and no man is immune to this spiritual trap when he begins to

wander from the highway of holiness and soon right is wrong and dark is light (cp

Isa5:13,20,21).

J. Vernon McGee writes:

"This is a period of compromise, corruption, and confusion, which are the marks

of apostasy at any time. We are in a state of apostasy today. The church has

compromised. It is in a state of corruption and confusion. Our problem is that it is

not returning to its authority, which is the Word of God, and the Lord Jesus

Christ who is revealed in the Word of God."

This is why it is so critical in what are quite likely the very "last" of the last days

to hold fast to the faithful word so that we "may be able both to exhort in sound

doctrine and to refute those who contradict" (Titus1:9).

5 Then they said to him, “Please inquire of God to learn whether our journey will be successful.”

BAR ES, "The sight of the ephod and teraphim suggested the notion of inquiring of

God.

CLARKE, "Ask counsel - of God - As the Danites use the word אלהים Elohim here for God, we are necessarily led to believe that they meant the true God; especially as the

Levite answers, Jdg_18:6, Before the Lord (יהוה Yehovah) is your way. Though the former word may be sometimes applied to idols, whom their votaries clothed with the attributes of God; yet the latter is never applied but to the true God alone. As the Danites succeeded according to the oracle delivered by the Levite, it is a strong presumption that the worship established by Micah was not of an idolatrous kind. It is really begging the question to assert, as many commentators have done, that the answer was either a trick of the Levite, or suggested by the devil; and that the success of the Danites was merely accidental. This is taking the thing by the worst handle, to support an hypothesis, and to serve a system. See the end of the preceding chapter, Jdg_17:13 (note).

GILL, "And they said unto him, ask counsel, we pray thee, of God,.... They did not reprove him for assuming the priestly office, when they knew he was a Levite, such was the corruption of those times, and the great depravity and declensions they were fallen into; nor even for the idolatry he was guilty of, but encourage him in it, and thought they had got a fine opportunity, which they readily laid hold on, to have counsel asked for them of God, about the success of the errand they were sent about; to this they were led at sight of the ephod, which was like that in the tabernacle, and of the teraphim, images which, according to a notion that prevailed, when consulted, foretold future things; whether by God they meant the true God, who they thought would give an answer by these, or Micah's gods, is not certain; according to the Targum of Jonathan, they meant the true God, which paraphrases it,"ask of the Word of the Lord:"

that we may know whether our way which we go shall be prosperous or no; whether they should find out a proper place to dwell in, and be able to get possession of it.

COKE, "Verse 5

Judges 18:5. They said unto him, ask counsel, we pray thee, of God— These two

verses prove, what we have before observed on the 5th verse of the foregoing

chapter, that this sanctuary of Micah was dedicated to the true God, and not to

idols. Before the Lord is your way signifies you are under the immediate guidance

and protection of the Lord; under his eye: an answer framed, no doubt, by the

Levite, as we cannot conceive that he could, in such a case, have any answer from

God. Strange folly! to ask direction of idols, when Shiloh was so nigh; and prefer an

intruding self-made priest to the anointed of the Lord. Thus still the blind lead the

blind, and the people love to have it so.

ELLICOTT, "Verse 5

(5) Ask counsel . . . of God.—Doubtless Jonathan showed them the glittering ephod.

There were no prophets of whom to inquire, as in 1 Kings 22:5; but their

unauthorised inquiry was liable to the strong censure expressed in Isaiah 30:1,

Hosea 4:12. They might have at least consulted the high priest Phinehas, or some

other national representative.

PETT, "Verse 5

‘And they said to him, “Ask counsel, we pray you, of God, that we may know

whether our way in which we go will be prosperous.” ’

When they heard what his position was they asked him to make enquiry of God on

their behalf whether they would prosper in what they were trying to do. It is

noteworthy that they accepted his position without demur. Such was the state of

Israel’s response to the covenant and its stipulations at the time. ote also that they

spoke of ‘God’. The writer would not use Yahweh because the venture they were on

was contrary to the covenant.

DU CA ROSS

One of the striking elements of this story is the fact that these Danite scouts who

go looking for additional living space for their growing tribe appear to express

genuine faith in their endeavor. We see this in a couple of places. First, shortly

after they begin their journey to their potential new northern city, they are quick

to ask this Levite in verse five, “Please inquire of God to learn whether our

journey will be successful.” They meet a Levite and here they are getting what

they believe is God’s word on this matter. They appear to be genuinely interested

in discovering the will of God here as they meet this priest.

A second expression of sincere faith is when they return to report back to the

other Danites what they have seen up north. In verse eight the tribe asks, “How

did you find things?” They answered, "Come on, let's attack them! We have seen

that the land is very good. Aren't you going to do something? Don't hesitate to go

there and take it over. 10When you get there, you will find an unsuspecting people

and a spacious land that God has put into your hands, a land that lacks nothing

whatever." These people are trusting God—they say right here that God has put

this land into their hands—they are trusting Him to deliver and it almost makes

you wonder what would have happened if the nation of Israel under Moses would

have shown this kind of faith when he led them to conquer the Promised Land

back in umbers 14. These people are asking for God’s direction and are trusting

that God will give them success as they march over100 miles from home to

conquer what archaeologists have recently discovered to have been a very well

fortified city. Do you hear that faith—that appeal to God?

The author, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit wants us to hear that, to feel

that. But he also wants us to see what’s underneath these expressions of sincere,

but false faith. First, this land up north they were spying out was OT part of

their tribe’s inheritance. God had not allotted this land to the tribe of Dan.

Joshua 19:40-46 records the inheritance of Dan,

What I did not read to you was verse 47 which says, “(But the Danites had

difficulty taking possession of their territory, so they went up and attacked

Leshem, [otherwise known as Laish] took it, put it to the sword and occupied it.

They settled in Leshem and named it Dan after their forefather.) Judges 1:34-36

records this in more detail, “The Amorites confined the Danites to the hill country,

not allowing them to come down into the plain. 35And the Amorites were

determined also to hold out in Mount Heres, Aijalon and Shaalbim, but when the

power of the house of Joseph increased, they too were pressed into forced labor.

That sheds a bit of a different light on things, doesn’t it? The truth of the

matter is, God had given to the tribe of Dan a fine inheritance consisting of about

17 towns and villages, but they did not trust God to work through them to drive

the Ammorites out of much of that area. So, as the tribe grew and they were

unable to conquer the land God had given to them, they got cramped for space.

So, instead of going to God and confessing their faithlessness to him and asking

him to reinvigorate them to go out and conquer the land God had already given to

them, they do an end run around God’s revealed will. They instead look beyond

those stubborn, neighboring Amorites who were squatting on their actual

inheritance and went looking for some other place that would require less effort

and less faith from them. This is the religion of the flesh on display here.

We see more of this perverse, shallow conception of the priesthood when the

scouts from Dan ask this priest for direction from God in 18:5. “Then they said to

him, “Please inquire of God to learn whether our journey will be successful.” The

priest answered them, “Go in peace. Your journey has the LORD’S approval.”

Remember, these Danites were looking for a way to establish a new satellite

community for their tribe because they were cramped for space but had failed to

displace the Amorites who stubbornly refused to give up the land that God had

allotted as an inheritance for the tribe. They were doing an end-run around God’s

plan and they ask this priest to inquire whether this was the Lord’s will. The

Lord’s ACTUAL will was clear—“go back home, repent of your presumptuous sin

and fight for and win the land I have already given you for your inheritance.”

This Levite however doesn’t bother asking the scouts any questions about the

reason for their mission. He doesn’t rebuke them for their unbelief in not

defeating the Amorites. He doesn’t pray and ask God for any clear direction in

response to their request. He just answers them immediately in verse six, “Go in

peace. Your journey has the LORD’S approval.”

We shouldn’t be surprised by that rather predictable piece of guidance. He’s

already established he doesn’t care about the Lord’s will. If he had, he would

have lived his life as a Levite entirely differently. God’s will was not on his radar

screen. These men come to his master’s house already en route to Laish, scouting

out a place for themselves. They hadn’t asked for God’s blessing or direction up

to this point. They come to Micah’s house, meet the Levite and figure it might be

a good idea to consult God since this priest happens to be so handy for them. The

Levite is no fool as a businessman. Because he is more concerned about making a

living than he is about God, from a business point of view there is only one

possible response. There is nothing to be gained materially by him saying

anything other than, “Go in peace. Your journey has the LORD’S approval.”

Because he was man-centered, he naturally tells them what they wanted to hear.

Everyone is perversely happy. Micah has tickled their ears with what they wanted

to hear and is doubtless feeling good about making these scouts happy and the

scouts are feeling good because they have a priestly assurance of God’s blessing on

something they were going to do anyway. This is a truly “win-win” situation on a

purely commercial level—which is the only level this Levite cared anything about.

The fact that all of this is an utter sham and these people are so incredibly

deceived by their self-centered desires should be sobering for us as we seek to

discover God’s will for our lives.

A D THEY SAID TO HIM, I QUIRE OF GOD, PLEASE: God had already

revealed his will by the allotments given to the various tribes (Jos19:40,41). They

were searching for an oracle that would guarantee the success of their journey.

Isn't this the tendency of each of our desperately sick hearts to seek opinions until

we hear what we want to hear?

THAT WE MAY K OW WHETHER OUR WAY O WHICH WE ARE GOI G

WILL BE PROSPEROUS: Unable to possess their allotment of land, because they

failed to drive out the enemy, the Danites sought God's blessing on their search for

other territory. Jonathan, the pseudo-priest, told them what they wanted to hear

(a "priest for hire" spouting pious platitudes to pander, please and placate).

6 The priest answered them, “Go in peace. Your journey has the Lord’s approval.”

BAR ES, "Before the Lord ... - i. e. He looks favorably upon it. (Compare Ezr_8:21-22.)

GILL, "And the priest said to them, go in peace,.... After he had consulted the oracle, or had asked counsel by the ephod and teraphim; either of his own head, or by a voice he had heard, which Satan might be permitted of God to deliver, he very roundly told them that they might proceed on in their journey with their minds quite easy, and with full assurance of success:

before the Lord is your way wherein ye go; it is seen, observed, and taken notice of by him, and he approves of it; it is according to his will, and under his direction and protection, and success from him may be depended upon; though some observe that this

answer is delivered in ambiguous terms, as generally the oracles of demons were, and might be taken in a good or bad sense, as the event should be; as that their way was before the Lord, and was seen by him either with pleasure or displeasure, with approbation or disapprobation, for their good, or for their harm: so that let it fall out as it might, the credit of the oracle was saved.

ELLICOTT, "Verse 6

(6) Before the Lord is your way—i.e., Jehovah looks favourably upon it. (Comp.

Proverbs 5:21; Ezra 8:21.) The answer had, however, some of the oracular

ambiguity. Jonathan did not stake his own credit or that of his ephod on any

definite details, or even on any distinct promise.

PETT, "Verse 6

‘And the priest said to them, “Go in peace. The way in which you go is before

Yahweh.” ’

Having used his methods of divination the priest supplied an answer. But we have

already been warned by the writer not to take it at its face value. He assured them

that Yahweh was watching over their progress. But their way would lead them

outside the covenant land and result in their setting up a false sanctuary. There was

no way in which this was God’s doing.

The priest’s reply was typical of a false oracle. It could have two interpretations. If

they prospered he could say that that was what Yahweh had meant. If they failed he

could say that He had watched what they were doing and had disapproved. The

oracle could never be wrong.

TRAPP, "Verse 6

18:6 And the priest said unto them, Go in peace: before the LORD [is] your way

wherein ye go.

Ver. 6. Go in peace: before the Lord is your way.] A doubtful answer; as the wary

devil useth to be λοξις, equivocal, in his oracles: (a) that, which way soever things

go, he may save his credit; as 1 Kings 22:12, "For the Lord shall deliver it into the

hands of the king." Yea, but of which king, thou lying spirit? - the king of Israel, or

the king of Syria? So, Croesus Halyn penetrans magnam disperdet opum vim. And,

Aio te Aeacida Romanos vicere posse, &c. So here, "Before the Lord is your way,"

may be interpreted, either, God seeth what you are going about: or, God will see to

your safety, and give you good success. Satan vero et si semel videatur verax, millies

est mendax, et semper fallax.

BE SO , "18:6. The priest said, Before the Lord is your way — Your design is

under the eye of God; that is, under his direction, protection, and care. The priest

undoubtedly feigned this answer; for it is not to be imagined that he could, in such a

case, have any answer from God, either through his ephod and teraphim, or in any

other way. From hence, however, we may infer, Micah and his priest gave out that

God might be inquired of by their means as well as at his oracle at Shiloh.

They are asking this ignorant Levitical priest that doesn't know the ways of God

from the stupid idol standing before him, for counsel on following the ways of God

and being prosperous in those ways. This super preacher is definitely not in tune

with God, and he will tell them exactly what his boss Micah would have him say.

Micah has told this priest to get these boys on the road and out of his land.

You can almost hear the sweet tones of this priest telling these Danites; "Go in

peace, the Lord God be with you on your journey." This priest even used the

sacred name of the Lord to send them on their way. This sounded so religious that

you could almost pass the plate as they waltzed out the door.

A D THE PRIEST SAID TO THEM, "GO I PEACE: The pseudo-priest gave

them the message they wanted to hear. He was even careful to use the name of

Jehovah to give the message credibility and authority. This is the sweet talk of a

hired preacher who says what people want to hear, reminding us of Paul's

warning that...

"the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to

have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance

to their own desires and will turn away their ears from the truth, and will turn

aside to myths." (2Ti 4:3-4)

Jeremiah also recorded this lamentable state writing that Jerusalem's...

"prophets have seen for you false and foolish visions; and they have not exposed

your iniquity so as to restore you from captivity, but they have seen for you false

and misleading oracles." (Lamentations 2:14)

YOUR WAY I WHICH YOU ARE GOI G HAS THE LORD'S APPROVAL:

literally "your way is before the LORD." He would view their actions with favor,

which was the opposite of the truth. The Levite sent them on their way with a

blessing, claiming their journey was "before/in front of the Lord." Though he uses

the Lord's name in formulating his blessing, the text makes no mention of his

inquiring of the Lord. His oracle is actually ambiguous. The phrase "before/in

front of the Lord" does not necessarily convey a positive idea. In its only other use

in the Hebrew Bible (Pr 5:21) it simply means that one's actions are in full view of

Yahweh, who examines their ethical quality

7 So the five men left and came to Laish, where

they saw that the people were living in safety, like the Sidonians, at peace and secure. And since their land lacked nothing, they were prosperous.[a] Also, they lived a long way from the Sidonians and had no relationship with anyone else.[b]

BAR ES, "Laish - Afterward called “Dan” Jdg_18:29. The exact site has not been identified, but it was the northern extremity of Israel, near the sources of the Jordan, and about four miles from Panium, or Caesarea-Philippi. It is thought to have stood where the village Tell-el-Kadi now stands.

After the manner of the Zidonians - The genius of the Zidonians being mechanical and commercial, not military, their colonists were apt to neglect fortifications and similar warlike precautions. In Solomon’s time the Zidonians were especially skillful in hewing timber 1Ki_5:6; 1Ch_22:4, and it is highly probable, from their proximity to Lebanon, that such was the occupation of the men of Laish.

Quiet and secure ... - This is a very obscure and difficult passage. Translate thus: “Quiet and secure, and none of them doing any injury in the land, possessing wealth,” or “dominion.”

CLARKE, "After the manner of the Zidonians - Probably the people of Laish or Leshem were originally a colony of the Sidonians, who, it appears, were an opulent people; and, being in possession of a strong city, lived in a state of security, not being afraid of their neighbors. In this the Leshemites imitated them, though the sequel proves they had not the same reason for their confidence.

They were far from the Zidonians - Being, as above supposed, a Sidonian colony, they might naturally expect help from their countrymen; but, as they dwelt a considerable distance from Sidon, the Danites saw that they could strike the blow before the news of invasion could reach Sidon; and, consequently, before the people of Laish could receive any succours from that city.

And had no business with any man - In the most correct copies of the Septuagint,

this clause is thus translated: Και$λογος$ουκ$ην$αυτοις$µετα$Συριας; and they had no

transactions with Syria. Now it is most evident that, instead of אדם adam, Man, they read

aram, Syria; words which are so nearly similar that the difference which exists is ארם

only between the ר resh and ד daleth, and this, both in MSS. and printed books, is often

indiscernible. This reading is found in the Codex Alexandrinus, in the Complutensian Polyglot, in the Spanish Polyglot, and in the edition of the Septuagint published by Aldus. It may be proper to observe, that Laish was on the frontiers of Syria; but as they had no intercourse with the Syrians, from whom they might have received the promptest

assistance, this was an additional reason why the Danites might expect success.

GILL, "And the five men departed,.... From Mount Ephraim, and Micah's house there:

and came to Laish; which, according to Bunting (s), was one hundred and four miles from Mount Ephraim, and so many he makes it to be from Jerusalem; it lay at the furthest northern border of the land of Canaan, at the foot of Mount Lebanon, near the fountain of Jordan; it was four miles from Paneas, as Jerom says (t), as you go to Tyre; it is the Caesarea Philippi of the New Testament, and the same that is called Leshem; see Gill on Jos_19:47,

and saw the people that were therein; went into the city, and made their observations on the inhabitants of it, their number, strength, and manner of living:

how they dwelt careless, after the manner of the Zidonians, quiet and secure; the inhabitants of Zidon, whose customs they might imitate, whose laws they might use, and might be under their government, since they are said to have no magistrate within themselves; and their carelessness and confidence might arise from their strong fortresses; or rather because they thought their city, and the land adjacent to it, did not belong to the land of Israel, and did not know that the Israelites made any pretensions to it, and therefore were quite easy, and in no fear of them; had no watchmen to guard their city, and did not take care to furnish themselves with weapons of war for their defence, even as the Zidonians; who, besides their city being a strong and fortified one, were in no fear of the Israelites, because their city was not in the land of Canaan, only the border of it reached to it:

and there was no magistrate in the land that might put them to shame in anything; to restrain them from vice, and punish them for it, or even to reprove and correct them, and so put them to shame; or put any mark of infamy and disgrace upon them in a public manner, that might shame them; hence they lived in a disorderly and dissolute manner, whereby they became the more easy prey to others: or the sense is, there was no king, nor an heir of the kingdom, as Kimchi interprets it, so that there were none to contest his right to the government of the place, or to accuse another, and put him to shame for taking it away from him. Jarchi takes the sense to be, that none needed to turn back his neighbour empty, when he asked anything of him for his relief, since there was no want of anything in the land, as after observed; but the first sense seems best:

and they were far from the Zidonians; who were the only people that could help them, being in friendship with them; and it may be they were under their government, as before observed; they are said (u) to be about eleven miles from them; Josephus (w)says, a day's journey:

and had no business with any man; no trade or commerce, but lived independent of others, and within themselves, their land affording them everything sufficient for them. Some understand it of their not being in any league or alliance with any other people, and so had none to call in to their assistance in case of any attack upon them.

HE RY, "Here is, I. The observation which the spies made upon the city of Laish, and the posture of its inhabitants, Jdg_18:7. Never was place so ill governed and so ill guarded, which would make it a very easy prey to the invader.

1. It was ill governed, for every man might be as bad as he would, and there was no magistrate, no heir of restraint (as the word is), that might so much as put them to shame in any thing, much less put them to death, so that by the most impudent immoralities they provoked God's wrath, and by all manner of mutual mischiefs weakened and consumed one another. See here, (1.) What the office of magistrates is. They are to be heirs of restraint, that is, to preserve a constant entail of power, as heirs to an inheritance, in the places where they are, for the restraining of that which is evil. They are possessors of restraint, entrusted with their authority for this end, that they may check and suppress every thing that is vicious and be a terror to evil doers. It is only God's grace that can renew men's depraved minds and turn their hearts; but the magistrate's power may restrain their bad practices and tie their hands, so that the wickedness of the wicked may not be either so injurious or so infectious as otherwise it would be. Though the sword of justice cannot cut up the root of bitterness, it may cut off its branches and hinder its growth and spreading, that vice may not go without a check, for then it becomes daring and dangerous, and the community shares in the guilt. (2.) See what method must be used for the restraint of wickedness. Sinners must be put to shame, that those who will not be restrained by the shamefulness of the sin before God and their own consciences may be restrained by the shamefulness of the punishment before men. All ways must be tried to dash sin out of countenance and cover it with contempt, to make people ashamed of their idleness, drunkenness, cheating, lying, and other sins, by making reputation always appear on virtue's side. (3.) See how miserable, and how near to ruin, those places are that either have no magistrates or none that bear the sword to any purpose; the wicked then walk on every side, Psa_12:8. And how happy we are in good laws and a good government.

2. It was ill guarded. The people of Laish were careless, quiet, and secure, their gates left open, their walls out of repair, because under no apprehension of danger in any way, though their wickedness was so great that they had reason to fear divine vengeance every day. It was a sign that the Israelites, through their sloth and cowardice, were not now such a terror to the Canaanites as they were when they first came among them, else the city of Laish, which probably knew itself to be assigned to them, would not have been so very secure. Though they were an open and inland town, they lived secure, like the Zidonians (who were surrounded with the sea and were well fortified both by art and nature), but were far from the Zidonians, who therefore could not come in to their assistance, nor help to defend them from the danger which, by debauching their manners, they had helped to bring them into. And, lastly, they had no business with any man, which bespeaks either the idleness they affected (they followed no trade, and so grew lazy and luxurious, and utterly unable to defend themselves) or the independency they affected: they scorned to be either in subjection to or alliance with any of their neighbours, and so they had none to protect them nor bring in any aid to them. They cared for nobody and therefore nobody cared for them. Such as these were the men of Laish.

JAMISO 7-10, "the five men departed, and came to Laish — or, “Leshem” (Jos_19:47), supposed to have been peopled by a colony of Zidonians. The place was very secluded - the soil rich in the abundance and variety of its produce, and the inhabitants, following the peaceful pursuits of agriculture, lived in their fertile and sequestered valley, according to the Zidonian style of ease and security, happy among

themselves, and maintaining little or no communication with the rest of the world. The discovery of this northern paradise seemed, to the delight of the Danite spies, an accomplishment of the priest’s prediction. They hastened back to inform their brethren in the south both of the value of their prize, and how easily it could be made their prey.

K&D, "Thus the five men proceeded to Laish, which is called Leshem in Jos_19:47, and was named Dan after the conquest by the Danites-a place on the central source of the Jordan, the present Tell el Kadi (see at Jos_19:47)-and saw the people of the town dwelling securely after the manner of the Sidonians, who lived by trade and commerce,

and did not go out to war. יושבת is the predicate to את־העם, and the feminine is to be

explained from the fact that the writer had the population before his mind (see Ewald, §

174, b.); and the use of the masculine in the following words $ובטח which are in ,שקט

apposition, is not at variance with this. The connection of יושבת with @�קר�, which Bertheau revives from the earlier commentators, is opposed to the genius of the Hebrew

language. $ובטח וגו ”.living quietly and safely there“ ,שקט and no one who“ ,ואין־מכלים

seized the government to himself did any harm to them in the land.” הכלים, to shame,

then to do an injury (1Sa_25:7). ברE shaming with regard to a thing, i.e., doing any ,מכלים

kind of injury. עצר, dominion, namely tyrannical rule, from עצר, imperio coercere. The

rendering “riches” (θησαυρός, lxx), which some give to this word, is founded simply upon

a confounding of עצר with ירש .אוצר does not mean “to possess,” but “to take possession

of,” and that by force (as in 1Ki_21:18). “And they were far from the Sidonians,” so that in the event of a hostile invasion they could not obtain any assistance from this powerful city. Grotius draws the very probable conclusion from these words, that Laish may have been a colony of the Sidonians. “And they had nothing to do with (other) men,” i.e., they did not live in any close association with the inhabitants of other towns, so as to be able to obtain assistance from any other quarter.

COFFMA , "Verse 7

THE SPIES COMPLETE THEIR MISSIO

"Then the five men departed, and came to Laish, and saw the people that were

therein, how they dwelt in security, after the manner of the Sidonians, quiet and

secure; for there was none in the land possessing authority, that might put them to

shame in anything; and they were far from the Sidonians, and had no dealings with

any man. And they came unto their brethren to Zorah and Eshtaol: and their

brethren said unto them, What say ye? And they said, Arise, and let us go up

against them; for we have seen the land, and behold, it is very good: and are ye still?

be not slothful to go and to enter in to possess the land. When ye go, ye shall come

unto a people secure, and the land is large; for our God hath given it into your hand,

a place where there is no want of anything that is in the earth."

"The five men ... came to Laish" (Judges 18:7). "Laish, mentioned in Joshua 19:47

as Leshem, is the same as the modern Tell el Qadi, some 26 air-miles due east of

Tyre."[6] "One of the largest fountains in the world, called El Leddan, which,

according to Josephus, is the source of the lesser Jordan, is at Laish."[7] Also,

Campbell, a frequent visitor to this area, gave this quotation from a fellow visitor:

"Water comes from every rock and hill, pouring down from the nearby mountains

of Lebanon. Like Scotland, this part of Galilee is green and overgrown with all

forms of vegetation. The tribe of Dan had seized upon a veritable paradise on

earth."[8]

"They dwelt in security, quiet and secure" (Judges 18:7). Despite the obscurity and

difficulty of the text which seems to be somewhat damaged here, it is clear enough

that the citizens were a peaceable, prosperous, quiet and non-violent people,

occupying what they no doubt considered to be an isolated part of the earth where

no one would bother them.

We must remark here that God did not authorize the brutal and murderous assault

of the Danites against this helpless village. God had given them their land in another

part of Canaan, and the false words of the idolatrous Levite assuring the Danites

that God was with them cannot take away the shame of this merciless land-grab on

the part of the Danites.

"The land is large ... God has given it into your hand" (Judges 18:10). The spies

probably based this claim upon the words of "the Levite," but we are not at liberty

to believe that his words were the truth, despite their turning out to be accurate in

the events which followed.

COKE, "Verse 7

Judges 18:7. Came to Laish— See on Joshua 19:47 where this history is briefly told

by way of anticipation. The Zidonians were a powerful people in a strong city; and

therefore they indulged securely in peace and luxury, and in these particulars were

imitated by the men of Laish, who had not the same reasons for their security. The

people of Laish were probably a colony of the Zidonians.

ELLICOTT, "Verse 7

(7) Laish.—It is called Leshem in Joshua 19:47, and is now called Tel el-Kadi, “the

mound of the judge,” possibly (though not probably) with some reference to the

name of Dan (Genesis 49:16). It is four miles from Paneas and Cæsarea Philippi,

and was the northernmost city of Palestine (Judges 20:1). As such, its name recurs

in Isaiah 10:30, if our version is there correct. It is sometimes called el-Leddan,

because it is at the source of the Leddan, the chief stream of the Jordan. The

position of the town, on a round hill girt with trees, is very striking, and fully bears

out the description of this chapter (Robinson, Bible Res. 3:392). The name “Dan” in

Genesis 14:14 may have been altered from Laish at a later date (Ewald, Gesch.

1:73).

After the manner of the Zidonians—i.e., in luxurious commercial ease. There can be

little doubt that they were a colony from Zidon.

Quiet and secure . . . There are three peculiarities in this clause:—(1) Although the

word for “people” (am) is masculine, yet the word for “dwelling” (yoshebeth) is

feminine, perhaps because the writer had the word “city” in his mind, just as αὺτὴν

is feminine in Acts 27:14, though the word for “ship” has been neuter, because the

writer has ναῦς in his mind. (2) The word for “careless” and the word for “secure”

are from the same root, and are tautological. (3) The clause “no magistrate,” &c., is

curiously expressed. It is difficult not to suppose that the text is in some way

corrupt.

There was no magistrate . . . This difficult clause seems to mean, “no one possessing

wealth” (LXX., “heir of treasure”) “among them doing harm in the land in any

matter.” The various versions differ widely from each other, and the text is almost

certainly corrupt.

They were far from the Zidonians.—As Josephus says, the town is a day’s journey

distant from Zidon.

o business with any man.—The reading of some MSS. of the LXX., “They had no

business with Syria,” rises from reading Aram for Adam.

PETT, "Verse 7

‘And the five men departed, and came to Laish and saw the people who were in it,

how they dwelt in security, after the manner of the Zidonians, quiet and secure. For

there was no one in the land possessing power of restraint who might harm them,

and they were far from the Zidonians and had no dealings with any man.’

The men came to Laish and thought that they had found a Paradise. It was

inhabited by an isolated people. They kept themselves to themselves, there was no

one to restrain them or make demands on them or seek tribute from them, they

considered that they enjoyed similar security to the Zidonians in their coastal

fortress and were Zidonians themselves. But they were foolish They were far from

their fellow-Zidonians, separated by a mountain range, and because they felt quite

at peace and secure, did not feel any need for treaties with anyone. Thus they were

ripe for plucking, for they were full of optimism and totally unaware of the dangers

that were looming, and yet were mainly defenceless.

It has been suggested that ‘with any man (adam)’ should be ‘with Aram’ to the

north (‘r’ and ‘d’ are very similar in Hebrew) but such an emendation, while always

possible, is unnecessary.

Laish (Leshem - Joshua 19:47) was at the foot of Mount Hermon by the source of

the River Jordan, on the northern borders of Israel. Even at that time it was four

thousand years old. It was seemingly wealthy for it had well furnished tombs. It was

a prosperous urban centre with an arched three metre high gateway (found intact)

and earthen ramparts, but not walls. And it thought that it dwelt securely. But the

men from Dan had surveyed the city, assessed its population and fighting ability and

would report back their recommendations to their tribal leaders.

TRAPP, "18:7 Then the five men departed, and came to Laish, and saw the people

that [were] therein, how they dwelt careless, after the manner of the Zidonians,

quiet and secure; and [there was] no magistrate in the land, that might put [them] to

shame in [any] thing; and they [were] far from the Zidonians, and had no business

with [any] man.

Ver. 7. Careless, … quiet and secure.] And so, ripe for ruin. See Jeremiah 49:31.

They lived in all pleasure, plenty, and prosperity, like so many Sodomites or

Sybarites; or as those Roman nobles at Caprea, which Augustus was wont to call

Aπραγοπολις, the city of Do-noughts; or lastly, as the nobles of aples at this day,

who are said of all men to live the most idle and careless lives; having, like the tyrant

Polycrates, nothing to trouble them, but that they are troubled with nothing. (a)

And there was no magistrate in the land.] Heb., o heir of restraint to repress

wickedness, to turn the wheel over the enormous: no officer, but such as they could

make and unmake at pleasure.

That might put them to shame in anything.] Shame is instanced, because many

stand more upon shame, than upon either sin or smart.

And they were far from the Zidonians.] Who should have been their protectors, but

could not save them from a sudden surprise, because far remote.

BE SO , "18:7. After the manner of the Zidonians — Who, dwelling in a very

strong place, and abounding in wealth, lived securely in peace and luxury, and were

imitated therein by the people of Laish, who were grown secure and careless,

because they perceived that the Israelites never attempted any thing against them.

There was no magistrate that might put them to shame — That is, rebuke or punish

them for any thing they did. Putting to shame seems to be used for inflicting civil

punishment, because shame is generally the effect of it. They were far from the

Zidonians — Who otherwise could have succoured them, and would have been

ready to do it. Had no business with any man — o commercial connection, or any

alliance with the neighbouring nations, nor much intercourse or converse with other

cities, the place being in a pleasant and plentiful soil, between the two rivulets of Jor

and Dan; not needing supplies from others, and therefore minding only their own

ease and pleasure.

CO STABLE, "Verses 7-10

The report of the spies18:7-10

The five Danites continued northward about100 miles and finally came upon an

area they felt would be ideal for their needs. They discovered the isolated town of

Laish (Leshem, Joshua 19:47) that they believed they could capture fairly easily.

[ ote: See John C. H. Laughlin, " Daniel ," Biblical Illustrator9:4

(Summer1983):40-46; and "Avraham Biram-Twenty Years of Digging at Tell Daniel

," Biblical Archaeology Review13:4 (July-August1987):12-25.] It occupied a

beautiful location on the southwestern foothills of Mt. Hermon.

"Unlike most Canaanite cities of the time, Laish was not defended by stone walls but

by huge ramparts consisting of alternating layers of soil from the surrounding

region and debris from previous settlements." [ ote: Block, Judges . . ., p501.]

"The Bible refers to the country as Phoenicia only in the ew Testament ( Mark

7:26; Acts 11:19; Acts 15:3; Acts 21:2). The Old Testament regularly uses merely

the name of either or both of its principal two cities, Tyre and Sidon. These two

cities, both prominent in merchandising activity, continue to the present day and are

only twenty miles apart. They never seem to have enjoyed any real political

cohesion, however, which means that the country never did either. In fact, the

boundaries of the country, at any given time, are difficult to fix because this was

true. The people often are called simply "Sidonians" in the Old Testament (

Deuteronomy 3:9 : Joshua 13:4; Joshua 13:6; Judges 3:3; Judges 18:7; 1 Kings 5:6;

etc.). This is because Sidon was more important than Tyre in early history." [ ote:

Wood, Distressing Days . . ., p79.]

Encouraged by the Levite"s report these spies persuaded their fellow Danites to

believe that God would give them this new "promised land." Its advantages were

three ( Judges 18:7). It was a "quiet and secure" site (cf. Judges 18:27). There was

no dominating ruler under whom the Danites would have to submit; they could

continue to do as they pleased. Third, it enjoyed an isolated location that also

suggested no interference from people who might object to the Danites" practices.

Obviously the Danites wanted to continue to live as they chose rather than

submitting to God"s will for His people. The name "Dan" is similar to the Hebrew

word that means "justice." How ironic it was that the tribe that was to judge Israel (

Genesis 49:16) should participate is such a miscarriage of justice.

One writer suggested the following translation of Judges 18:7 on the basis of the

Arabic cognate of the Hebrew word translated "humiliating" in the ASB: "there

was no one speaking with authority in the land, no one in possession of control."

[ ote: A. A. MacIntosh, "The Meaning of MKLYM in Judges XVIII:7 ," Vetus

Testamentum35:1 (1985):76.] This translation is possible but probably not as

accurate as the ASB marginal reading that suggests that there was no ruler who

exercised restraining influence in that area.

The spies" use of the phrase "to possess the land" ( Judges 18:9) appears to have

been a pious ploy to convince their brethren that this self-seeking plan was God"s

will. Moses and Joshua had repeatedly urged the Israelites to "possess the land,"

but only the land that was God"s will for them to possess. The Danite spies were

trying to provide security for their tribe contrary to God"s previous directions.

Likewise the phrase "for God has given it into your hand" ( Judges 18:10) had

previously been Joshua"s battle cry (cf. Joshua 6:16; et al.).

"Although the use of spies recalls umbers 13 , the report of the spies in Judges 18

differs significantly. Whereas the spies in umbers 13had encountered intimidating

giants, the spies in Judges 18 suggest that the inhabitants of Laish are a pushover.

The effect of the report in umbers 13is to affirm the people"s need for God"s help

against a superior opponent. There is no such need in Judges 18; and this difference

is in keeping with the Danites" orientation throughout the story." [ ote: McCann,

p123.]

"There are a number of elements common to the two accounts: the sending of spies;

the mustering of fighting men; the named places where the Danites camped along

the way; the capture and renaming of a non-Israelite city at the end. But everything

about this exodus and conquest is wrong: the Danites are unscrupulous plunderers,

their cult is corrupt, and they destroy an innocent people." [ ote: Satterthwaite,

p84.]

The Danites were unable, or unwilling, to claim their God-appointed territory in

which no city was larger than Laish. But they were eager to march miles north and

battle other Canaanites for a town that suited them better. The fact that Laish lay

within the Promised Land, the full extent of the land that God had said He would

give the Israelites, does not justify the Danites" action. It was God"s will for His

people first to settle in their appointed tribal allotments. Then He would give them

the rest of the land later.

EXPOSITOR'S DICTIO ARY, "Judges 18:7

A man"s own safety is a god that sometimes makes very grim demands.

—George Eliot.

Security, as commonly understood, is the state in which one fears no danger, where

one is cheerful and hopes the best. We all begin our life in security.... We are all

born optimists.

—Martensen.

There are a multitude of persons who go through life in a safe, uninteresting

mediocrity. They have never been exposed to temptation; they are not troubled with

violent passions; they have nothing to try them; they have never attempted great

things for the glory of God; they have never been thrown upon the world; they live

at home in the bosom of their families, or in quiet situations... and when their life is

closed, people cannot help speaking well of them, as harmless, decent, correct

persons, whom it is impossible to blame, impossible not to regret. Yet, after all, how

different their lives are from that described as a Christian"s life in St. Paul"s

Epistles!

— ewman.

PULPIT, "To Laish. Called in Joshua 19:47 Leshem, which is perhaps a corruption

caused by the statement that they called it after the name (Ke-shem) of Dan, or it

may be only another form. The name is strangely corrupted in the Septuagint of

Joshua 19:29 of this chapter into Oulamais, and in Joshua 19:47 into Lesem-dan. St.

Jerome, misled by the Septuagint, has Lesem Dan. Laish was situated four Roman

miles from Bahias, on the road to. Tyre, on one of the sources of the Jordan.

Robinson identifies it unhesitatingly with Tell-el-Kady, "the mount of the judge"

(where Kady has the same meaning as Dan), close to the great fountain, "one of the

largest fountains in the world," called el-Leddan, which is the source of the lesser

Jordan (Josephus), and which may very possibly be the ultimate form of ed-Dan,

corrupted into Eddan, el-Eddan, Led-dan, el-Leddan, by successive incorporations

of the article el into the word itself, of which there are other examples. The

remainder of this verse is exceedingly obscure; a probable translation is as follows:

"And they saw the people that was in the midst of it dwelling in security after the

manner of the Zidonians, 'quiet and secure, and none doing any injury to any one in

the land, possessing wealth;' and they were far from the Zidonians, and had no

business with any man." The words in italics are probably a poetical quotation,

descriptive of the people of Laish, which would account for the peculiar diction and

the grammatical changes; for whereas the word dwelling is in the feminine gender,

agreeing with people, the words quiet and secure and possessing are in the

masculine, which can be readily accounted for if they are a quotation. This would

also account for the tautology, "dwelling in security," "quiet and secure," and for

the poetical character of the phrase "possessing wealth," and for the unusual form

of the word here rendered wealth ('etzer with an ain, instead of the usual otzar with

an aleph), in accordance with the Septuagint and Vulgate and Gesenius, who derive

the meaning of wealth from collecting, from which the common word atzereth

derives its meaning of a collection or congregation of people.

When these five men came to the city of Laish [Lion], they were taken back by

these Zidonians and how they lived. Though it seemed that it was quiet and secure,

the people lived a careless life, with no form of law and order in the land. There

was no person to give direction and show them the wrong that they were doing,

but every person did what seemed right to them, in their own eyes. This

community was full of confusion and disorder. These Zidonians were farmers

living far from their people and they just didn't want anything to do with any

other man. They lived to themselves and for themselves.

Remember that the purpose that these spies are here in the first place, is to spy out

a land so that the tribe of Dan can take and settle in for their own tribe. These

Zidonians have kept to themselves and they have no form of defense for

themselves, and this is what these five spies are observing and plotting out. These

five spies must find the best method of overpowering these Zidonians.

Fortunately, they found a city nearby that was not occupied by Israelites, but by a

colony of the Sidonians, a group that God had told Israel to drive out of the land

of Canaan (Joshua 13:4)

A D SAW THE PEOPLE WHO WERE I IT LIVI G I SECURITY: The five

spies had traveled 100 miles north from their encampment at Zorah to Laish

(“Leshem” in Jos19:47), a town inhabited by the Sidonians, about 30 mi E of the

Med Sea. These were a peaceful people who minded their own business and had

no treaties with anybody. They were “unsuspecting and secure” and “prosperous”

( IV), an isolated people, who were a perfect target for the warlike tribe of Dan.

Their town was also isolated from the Sidonians by the Lebanon range of

mountains, and from Syria by Mt Hermon and the Anti-Lebanon range, so that

they were without close military allies.

AFTER THE MA ER OF THE SIDO IA S, QUIET (“rest” as in Jdg 3:11)

A D SECURE: These folks were "quiet and secure" but in the days of the judges

it was a false sense of security.

Arthur Lewis comments on the beauty of the area around the modern day tourist

site of Tell Dan which includes a replica of pagan altar:

"Travelers who have visited the Huleh Valley and the vicinity of Dan expound on

the natural resources and the fertility of the area. Water comes from every rock

and hill, pouring down from the nearby mountains of Lebanon. Like Scotland,

this part of Galilee is green and overgrown with all forms of vegetation. The tribe

of Dan had seized upon a veritable paradise on earth!"

FOR THERE WAS O RULER HUMILIATI G THEM FOR A YTHI G I

THE LA D, A D THEY WERE FAR FROM THE SIDO IA S A D HAD O

DEALI GS WITH A YO E: There, at the foot of beautiful snow capped Mt

Hermon, they discovered a highly desirable location, a long distance from

potential enemies and furnished with an excellent supply of water--springs that

formed one of the sources of the Jordan River. The Lebanon range protected it

from interference from either Syria or Phoenicia. The residents of Laish enjoyed

their secure position and had not built any defenses against invaders. It was an

ideal situation for the land-hungry Danites

8 When they returned to Zorah and Eshtaol, their fellow Danites asked them, “How did you find things?”

GILL, "And they came unto their brethren to Zorah and Eshtaol,.... After they had well viewed the city, and made their remarks on the inhabitants of it, the condition and circumstances in which they were, and took notice of the goodness of the land about it, they returned to their brethren that sent them, particularly those that dwelt at the two places mentioned:

and their brethren said unto them, what say ye? what tidings do you bring? what account of the place and country where you have been?

HE RY 8-10, ". The encouragement which they consequently gave to their countrymen that sent them to prosecute their design upon this city, Jdg_18:8-10. Probably the Danites had formed notions of the insuperable difficulties of the enterprise, thought it impossible ever to make themselves masters of Laish, and therefore had kept themselves so long out of the possession of it, perhaps suggesting likewise to one another, in their unbelief, that it was not a country worth going so far and running such a risk for, which jealousies the spies (and they were not, in this, evil spies) had an eye to in their report. 1. They represent the place as desirable: “If you will trust our judgments, we have seen the land, and we are agreed in our verdict upon the view, that, behold, it is very good (Jdg_18:9), better than this mountainous country into which we are here crowded by the Philistines. You need not doubt of living comfortably in it, for it is a place where there is no want of any thing,” Jdg_18:10. See what a good land Canaan was, that this city which lay furthest of all northward, in the utmost corner of the country, stood on such a fruitful spot. 2. They represent it as attainable. They do not at all question but, with God's blessing, they may soon get possession of it; for the people are secure, Jdg_18:10. And the more secure always the less safe. “God has given it into your hands, and you may have it for the taking.” They stir them up to the undertaking: “Arise, that we may go up against them, let us go about it speedily and resolutely.” They expostulate with them for their delays, and chide them out of their sluggishness: Are you still? Be not slothful to go. Men need to be thus stirred up to mind even their interest. Heaven is a very good land, where there is no want of any thing; our God has, by the promise, given it into our hands; let us not then be slothful in making it sure, and laying hold on eternal life,but strive to enter.

K&D, "On their return, the spies said to their fellow-citizens, in reply to the question

�Jם What have you accomplished?” “Up, let us go up against them (the inhabitants“ ,מה

of Laish), for the land is very good, and ye are silent,” i.e., standing inactive (1Ki_22:3; 2Ki_7:9). “Be not slothful to go (to proceed thither), to come and take possession of the land!”

PETT, "Verse 8

‘And they came to their brothers, to Zorah and Eshtaol, and their brothers said to

them, “What have you to report?”

Having surveyed Laish and recognised that it was just what they were looking for

they reported back to their tribe, who questioned them about what they had

discovered.

9 They answered, “Come on, let’s attack them! We have seen the land, and it is very good. Aren’t you going to do something? Don’t hesitate to go there and take it over.

CLARKE, "Arise, etc. - This is a very plain and nervous address; full of good sense, and well adapted to the purpose. It seems to have produced an instantaneous effect.

GILL, "And they said, arise, that me may go up against them,.... That is, prepare for war, and go up in an hostile manner against the present possessors of the land, not doubting of being masters of it easily:

for we have seen the land, and, behold, it is very good. Adrichomius (x) says it was very good pasture land, and fertile, abounding with fruits of all kinds; and the same is attested by Josephus (y):

and are ye still? can ye sit still, and be easy, and not bestir yourselves to go up and possess so good a country, of which an easy conquest may be made? or, affirmatively, "ye are still or silent" (z); ye make no answer to what we say, and seem careless and indifferent about the matter; or by way of exhortation, "be silent", either that the people may remain in their quiet, easy, careless state, and lest, on hearing designs against them, should prepare for their defence; or, as Abarbinel, lest any of the other tribes of Israel should hear of it, and go take it before them:

be not slothful to go, and to enter to possess the land; they suggest that there was scarce anything more to be done than to go and take possession, and that it would be altogether owing to their sloth and indolence if they did not.

COKE, "Verse 9-10

Judges 18:9-10. And they said, Arise, &c.— There cannot be a more infallible

presage of the ruin of any people or nation, of the immediate destruction of a city or

a kingdom, than when they dwell quiet and secure, when they are careless, as if

nothing could befal them; when the magistrates are as careless as the people, or care

not to put the people to shame for any thing. As good to be without any magistrates,

as to have such as will neither instruct nor punish those who do amiss. They who

were sent from the children of Dan to spy out the land, and to search out an

inheritance to dwell in, (Judges 18:1-2.) thought that they need go no farther, when

they had found in what condition and manner the people of Laish lived; that they

dwelt careless, quiet, and secure, and that there was no magistrate in the land that

might put them to shame in any thing: there was no more to be done, than to return

to those who sent them, with the advertisement, Arise, &c.

ote; (1.) If there be no magistrate to bear the sword, or negligence let it sleep in the

scabbard, barefaced iniquity will quickly walk in triumph. (2.) Shame is a great

restraint on sin; when that is lost, men grow utterly abandoned. (3.) The security of

sinners is their ruin.

ELLICOTT, "Verse 9

(9) Behold, it is very good.—Comp. umbers 14:7; Joshua 2:23-24. The beauty of

the site well bears out the description—“the rich and beautiful seclusion of that

loveliest of the scenes of Palestine” (Stanley). It was by a similar statement that

Anaxilaus of Rhegium persuaded the Messenians to seize Zankle (Pausan. 4:23,

quoted by Cassel).

Are ye still?—1 Kings 22:3; 2 Kings 7:9.

PETT, "Verse 9

‘And they said, “Arise, and let us go up against them, for we have seen the land,

and, behold, it is very good. And are you still? Do not be slothful to go, and to enter

in to possess the land.”

They gave the strongest encouragement to their tribal leaders to act at once and go

and take possession of the land they had surveyed, and when they noted hesitation,

pressed the need to act quickly. They pointed out that the land was very suitable for

their needs, and all that was needed was to possess it. This was no time for

hesitation.

TRAPP, "Verse 9

18:9 And they said, Arise, that we may go up against them: for we have seen the

land, and, behold, it [is] very good: and [are] ye still? be not slothful to go, [and] to

enter to possess the land.

Ver. 9. Be not slothful to go, &c.] Thus do these spies notably and manfully

encourage their contribules to set upon Laish, to secure a city. Captain Gam in like

sort bespake our Henry V before the battle at Agincourt, If the French be so

numerous, there will be enough to be killed, enough to be taken prisoners, and

enough to run away. It proved accordingly, though the French were so confident of

a victory, that they sent to King Henry, to know what ransom he would give. (a)

10 When you get there, you will find an unsuspecting people and a spacious land that God has put into your hands, a land that lacks nothing whatever.”

GILL, "When ye go, ye shall come to a people secure, and to a large land,.... For though it was but one city, the territories of it were large, and the villages belonging to it might be many; which, with the security of the people, might easily be surprised and taken, not being upon their guard, are the arguments used by the spies to encourage their countrymen to go up and take it, to which they add others:

for God hath given it into your hands; which they concluded from the state and condition they found the people in, thoughtless and defenceless; or it may be on account of the oracle in Micah's house they had consulted, and to which they gave credit; though some think their faith was grounded upon this place being given by lot to the tribe of Dan, but this does not appear:

a place where there is no want of anything that is in the earth; in the land of Canaan; meaning, that there was nothing in the whole land but might be found there, as wheat and barley, vines, fig trees, pomegranates, olives, and honey, with all other necessaries and conveniences of life.

K&D, "“When ye arrive, ye will come to a secure people (i.e., a people living in careless security, and therefore very easy to overcome); and the land is broad on both sides (i.e., furnishes space to dwell in, and also to extend: vid., Gen_34:21; 1Ch_4:40); for God has given it into your hand.” They infer this from the oracular reply they had received from the Levite (Jdg_18:6). “A place where there is no want of anything that is in the land (of Canaan).”

PETT, "Verse 10

“When you go, you will come to a people living securely, and to a land that is ample,

for God has given it into your hands, a place where there is no want of anything that

is in the earth.”

They pointed out that there they would be both secure and able to expand and

prosper for it was a land of plenty and large enough to contain them all. Further,

they stressed, God had given it into their hands. Had not the priest told them so?

ote again that it is God and not Yahweh. Yahweh was not in this venture. They

were going in disobedience to His will.

TRAPP, "Verse 10

18:10 When ye go, ye shall come unto a people secure, and to a large land: for God

hath given it into your hands; a place where [there is] no want of any thing that [is]

in the earth.

Ver. 10. A place where there is no want of anything.] And might therefore have been

called Macaria, or Blessed; as the island Cyprus was of old, because of the

abundance of commodities which it sendeth to other countries, of whom it craveth

no help again. (a) The people therein generally lived so at ease and pleasure, that

therefore the island was dedicated to Venus, who was therehence called Cypria.

Sextus Rufus, writing thereof, saith, Cyprus, famous for its wealth, solicited the

poverty of the people of Rome to seize upon it. Ita ut ius eius insulae avarius magis

quam iustius simus assecuti: so that we got that island more covetously than justly.

So did the Danites this city of Laish, if at least, as some will have it, it belonged to

the tribe of Asher, and not to them.

11 Then six hundred men of the Danites, armed for battle, set out from Zorah and Eshtaol.

CLARKE, "Six hundred men - These were not the whole, for we find they had children, etc., Jdg_18:21; but these appear to have been six hundred armed men.

GILL, "And there went from thence of the family of the Danites,.... Or families, the singular being put for the plural; for it can hardly be thought that such a number of men, as after mentioned, went out of one family:

out of Zorah, and out of Eshtaol; the two places the spies were sent from, and now had returned unto: and upon their report, and at their instigation, and by the encouragement they gave, there were

six hundred men appointed with weapons of war; that set out armed from the above places, on the expedition to take Laish.

HE RY, 11-13, "The Danites' expedition against Laish. This particular family of them, to whose lot that city fell, now at length make towards it, Jdg_18:11-13. The military men were but 600 in all, not a hundredth part of that tribe, for when they

entered Canaan the Danites were above 64,000, Num_26:43. It was strange that none of their brethren of their own tribe, much less of any other, came in to their assistance; but it was long after Israel came to Canaan before there appeared among them any thing of a public spirit, or concern for a common interest, which was the reason why they seldom united in a common head, and this kept them low and inconsiderable. It appears (by Jdg_18:21) that these 600 were the whole number that went to settle there, for they had their families and effects with them, their little ones and cattle, so confident were they of success. The other tribes gave them a free passage through their country. Their first day's march brought them to Kirjath-jearim (Jdg_18:12), and such rare things had military encampments now become in Israel that the place where they rested that night was thence called Mahaneh-dan, the camp of Dan, and probably the place whence they began their march between Zorah and Eshtaol was called by the same name, and is meant, Jdg_13:25. The second day's march brought them to Mount Ephraim, near Micah's house (Jdg_18:13), and there we must pause awhile.

JAMISO 11-21, "there went from thence of the family of the Danites ... six hundred men — This was the collective number of the men who were equipped with arms to carry out this expeditionary enterprise, without including the families and furniture of the emigrants (Jdg_18:21). Their journey led them through the territory of Judah, and their first halting place was “behind,” that is, on the west of Kirjath-jearim, on a spot called afterwards “the camp of Dan.” Prosecuting the northern route, they skirted the base of the Ephraimite hills. On approaching the neighborhood of Micah’s residence, the spies having given information that a private sanctuary was kept there, the priest of which had rendered them important service when on their exploring expedition, it was unanimously agreed that both he and the furniture of the establishment would be a valuable acquisition to their proposed settlement. A plan of spoliation was immediately formed. While the armed men stood sentinels at the gates, the five spies broke into the chapel, pillaged the images and vestments, and succeeded in bribing the priest also by a tempting offer to transfer his services to their new colony. Taking charge of the ephod, the teraphim, and the graven image, he “went in the midst of the people” - a central position assigned him in the march, perhaps for his personal security; but more probably in imitation of the place appointed for the priests and the ark, in the middle of the congregated tribes, on the marches through the wilderness. This theft presents a curious medley of low morality and strong religious feeling. The Danites exemplified a deep-seated principle of our nature - that men have religious affections, which must have an object on which these may be exercised, while they are often not very discriminating in the choice of the objects. In proportion to the slender influence religion wields over the heart, the greater is the importance attached to external rites; and in the exact observance of these, the conscience is fully satisfied, and seldom or never molested by reflections on the breach of minor morals.

COFFMA , "Verse 11

THE DA ITES AGAI COME TO MICAH

"And there set forth from thence of the family of the Danites, out of Zorah and out

of Eshtaol, six hundred men girt with the weapons of war. And they went up and

camped in Kiriath-Jearim in Judah: wherefore they called the place Mahanehdan

unto this day; behold, it is behind Kiriath-Jearim. And they passed thence unto the

hill-country of Ephraim, and came unto the house of Micah."

"Six hundred men girt with the weapons of war" (Judges 18:11). We later learn that

the wives and families of these six hundred men accompanied them, also their cattle

and livestock. In all, it must have been a company of two thousand or more. The fact

of that place where this company camped behind Kiriath-Jearim being named

MahanehDA would seem to indicate that the Danites might have stayed there for a

considerable period of time.

"They ... came unto the house of Micah" (Judges 18:13). This time, they would rob

Micah of his "gods" and threaten to exterminate him and his whole family if he

decided to resist their depredations against their former host and benefactor. In the

list of the redeemed from each of the "Twelve Tribes of Israel," mentioned in

Revelation 7, it appears as a mystery that the name of Dan is conspicuously omitted

from that sacred list. We cannot resist the thought that that omission might have

something to do with what is recorded here.

ELLICOTT, "Verse 11

(11) Appointed.—Literally, girded. This was not a mere raid of warriors, but the

migration of a section from the tribe, accompanied by their wives and children, and

carrying their possessions with them (Judges 18:21). The numbers of the whole tribe

at the last census had been 64,400 ( umbers 26:43).

PETT, "Verse 11

‘And there set out from there of the family of the Danites, out of Zorah, and out of

Eshtaol, six hundred men armed with weapons of war.’

The decision having been made a powerful contingent of ‘six hundred’ men set out

in order to accomplish the conquest of the land in mind. They were accompanied by

their wives, children and possessions, for their object was to secure a permanent

settlement (see Judges 18:21). Thus they would be accompanied by oxcarts carrying

all that they needed. A similar migration of people is described in the temple of

Medinet Hebu where Raamses III described the approach of invaders accompanied

by their wives and children in two-wheeled oxcarts, only in their case to face total

defeat.

TRAPP, "Verse 11

18:11 And there went from thence of the family of the Danites, out of Zorah and out

of Eshtaol, six hundred men appointed with weapons of war.

Ver. 11. Six hundred men.] Picked out for the purpose, and very well appointed:

they and their families, a whole colony of them, set forward for Laish, by the

persuasion of the spies. Oh that we could as easily prevail with people to take God’s

kingdom by force, to storm heaven, and to lay hold upon eternal life! Plutarch (a)

telleth of the Gauls, that after they had once tasted of the grapes that grew in Italy,

they never rested till they had possessed themselves of that country. Oh that we

would do so for heaven!

CO STABLE, "Verses 11-20

The theft of Micah"s images and Levite18:11-20

An army of600 Danites proceeded from Zorah and Eshtaol eastward up the Kesalon

Valley to Kiriath-jearim and then northward into the Hill Country of Ephraim.

They stopped at Micah"s house, noted his images and ephod, and pondered what

they should do ( Judges 18:14). What they should have done was execute Micah and

the Levite since they were idolaters ( Deuteronomy 13:6-11), but they too had

departed from God. Instead they stole Micah"s images and his priest. They

convinced his Levite that it would be better for him to serve a whole tribe than just

one family. They made him an offer that this upwardly mobile apostate could not

refuse. Here was an opportunity for a larger ministry. It did not matter to him that

it involved violating God"s will concerning ordinary Levites serving as priests.

"The question the Danites posed to him is asked every day by pastoral search

committees: "Which is better, to be the pastor of a small family or to be the pastor

of a megachurch?" The contemporary problem of ambition and opportunism in the

ministry has at least a three-thousand-year history." [ ote: Block, Judges . . .,

p515.]

"His fickle and mercenary attitude reflects the state of the priesthood during this

period. Equally deplorable is the fact that one tribe would steal from another with

apparent impunity. The treacherous behavior of the tribe of Dan in dealing with

Micah and the city of Laish illustrates the "serpent" nature predicted by Jacob in

Genesis 49:17." [ ote: Wolf, p486.]

The Danites" theft and intimidation were actions contrary to God"s will ( Exodus

20:15). Apparently the writer wanted to highlight the theft since he referred to it

five times in this chapter ( Judges 18:17-18; Judges 18:20; Judges 18:24; Judges

18:27; cf. Judges 17:2; cf. Judges 17:4). The bullying tactics of the soldiers further

identify their selfishness (cf. Judges 18:25).

12 On their way they set up camp near Kiriath Jearim in Judah. This is why the place west of Kiriath Jearim is called Mahaneh Dan[c] to this day.

BAR ES, "Kurjath-jearim - “City of forests,” otherwise called “Kirjath-Baal” (marginal reference.), identified by Robinson with the modern “Kurit-el-Enab,” on the road from Jaffa to Jerusalem and by Conder with Soba.

CLARKE, "Mahaneh-dan - “The camp of Dan;” so called from the circumstance of this armament encamping there. See Jdg_13:25 (note), which affords some proof that this transaction was previous to the days of Samson.

GILL, "And they went up and pitched in Kirjathjearim in Judah,.... Of which place see Jos_15:9. According to Bunting (a) it was sixteen miles from Zorah and Eshtaol, and this was their first day's march:

wherefore they called the name of that place Mahanehdan unto this day; which signifies the camp of Dan, or of the Danites; so it was called in the times of Samson, Jdg_13:25 and is a proof that this expedition was before his time; and it was so called, it seems, in the time of Samuel, the writer of this book:

behold, it is behind Kirjathjearim; to the west of it; for though they are said to pitch in that place, the meaning is, that they pitched near it, in the fields adjacent to it, which were the most proper and convenient for a camp.

ELLICOTT, "Verse 12

(12) In Kirjath-jearim.—Joshua 9:17. The name means “city of forests.” The

modern name is “city of grapes” (Kuriet el Enab). It is nine miles from Jerusalem,

on the Jaffa road. Its original names were Baalah and Kirjath-Baal (Joshua 15:9;

Joshua 15:60). It was here that the ark remained for twenty years when sent back

by the Philistines (1 Samuel 6:20-21; 1 Samuel 7:2). “We found it in the fields of the

wood” (Psalms 132:6).

Mahaneh – dan—i.e., the camp of Dan (Judges 13:25). They must have probably

encamped here for some little time, as we can hardly suppose that the place would

have received the name permanently from the bivouac of one night.

Behind—i.e., to the west of. So “the hinder sea” is the western or Mediterranean Sea

(Deuteronomy 9:24; Zechariah 14:8). The site of Mahaneh-dan cannot be identified

with certainty, as the position of Eshtaol is unknown.

PETT, "Verse 12

‘And they went up and pitched in Kiriath-jearim in Judah, which is why they called

the name of that place Mahaneh-dan to this day. Behold, it is behind Kiriath-

jearim.’

We came across this place in the story of Samson (see Judges 13:25) as the place

where the Spirit first stirred up Samson, possibly as a result of remembering this

great trek of his forefathers. Mahaneh-dan means ‘the camp of Dan’. It was near

Kiriath-jearim (city of forests) on the Judah/Benjaminite border.

Interestingly Kiriath-jearim is where the Ark of the Covenant would rest when it

was recovered from the Philistines, after its capture at the Battle of Aphek (1

Samuel 4). It was there for twenty years. From Kiriath-jearim the Danites went out

to establish a rival Sanctuary, and there Yahweh would re-establish the Ark of the

Covenant.

BE SO , "Verses 12-14

18:12-14. Mahaneh-dan — That is, the camp of Dan. They came unto the house of

Micah — That is, to the town in which his house was, for they had not yet entered

into it. Then answered the five men — That is, they spake; the word answering

being often used in Scripture of the first speaker. There is in these houses — That is,

in one of these houses. Consider what ye have to do — Whether it be not expedient

to take them for your further use. Perhaps the remembrance of the ark being

carried before their ancestors in former times, in all their expeditions, as a mark of

God’s presence being among them, might incline them to the foolish and impious

thought of taking with them Micah’s ephod and teraphim.

PULPIT, "Kirjath-jearim (city of forests), otherwise called Kirjath-Baal and

Baalah, in the hill country of Judah (Joshua 15:60). It, lay on the border of

Benjamin (Joshua 18:14, Joshua 18:15). Its modern representative in all probability

is Kurit-el-enab, nine miles from Jerusalem, on the road to Joppa. The district is

still very woody. Mahaneh-dan, i.e. the camp of Dan (see 13:25). Behind, i.e. to the

west of. The exact site of Mahaneh-dan has not been identified with certainty. Mr.

Williams was shown a site called Beit-Mahanem in the Wady Ismail which answers

well in position, but it has not been noticed by any other traveller ('Dictionary of

Bible').

13 From there they went on to the hill country of Ephraim and came to Micah’s house.

GILL, "And they passed thence unto Mount Ephraim,.... Steering their coast still northward; this, according to Bunting (b), was eight miles from Kirjathjearim, or Mahanehdan, in which Micah's house was, for as yet they were not come to it, see Jdg_18:15.

K&D, "From this point they went across to the mountains of Ephraim, and came to Micah's house, i.e., to a place near it.

PETT, "Verse 13

‘And they passed from there to the hill country of Ephraim, and came to the house

of Micah.’

Coming to the house of Micah was no doubt by deliberate design of the five guides.

But this was a breach of hosiptality. They had eaten at Micah’s table which was a

profession of friendship. ow they were betraying him. All decency had ceased

because every man was doing what was right in his own eyes.

TRAPP, "Verse 13

18:13 And they passed thence unto mount Ephraim, and came unto the house of

Micah.

Ver. 13. And came unto the house of Micah.] Whom the five spies ill requited for his

former hospitality and courtesy: Perraro grati reperiuntur, saith Cicero. A thankful

man is a rare bird. Ungrateful persons are but like a mouse in a satchel or a snake

in one’s bosom, who do ill repay their hosts for their lodging. Xerxes dealt

barbarously with the sons of Pythias, who gave free quarter to that whole huge

army of his. See 18:2.

14 Then the five men who had spied out the land of Laish said to their fellow Danites, “Do you know that one of these houses has an ephod, some household gods and an image overlaid with silver? ow you know what to do.”

BAR ES, "In these houses - This agrees with what we saw at Jdg_18:2-3 that the “house of God” and Jonathan’s house were detached from Micah’s. There were other houses besides Jdg_18:22. The whole settlement was probably called Beth-Micah, contained in one court, and entered by one gate Jdg_18:16.

CLARKE, "Consider what ye have to do - They probably had formed the design to carry off the priest and his sacred utensils.

GILL, "Then they answered the five men that went to spy out the country of Laish,.... That were sent by their brethren, Jdg_18:5 and, as it seems from hence, were sent particularly to Laish; they had some notion of that place as proper for them, and therefore sent those men to reconnoitre it; and now as they had passed this way before, when they came within sight of Micah's house, it put them in mind of what they had seen there; wherefore one in the name of the rest, and with their approbation, acquainted the company with it:

and said unto their brethren, do ye know that there is in those houses; in one of them, pointing to the houses of a village or town in sight:

an ephod and teraphim, and a graven image, and a molten image? of which see Jdg_17:4 and no doubt but they acquainted them, only that they had seen them, and so were certain but had consulted them, and that with success:

now therefore consider, say they:

what ye have to do; whether it may not be proper to consult them again, or rather to take them with us, to consult as occasion may require, and as tokens and pledges of God being with us, and so may the rather hope that everything will succeed to our wishes.

HE RY, "The Danites had sent out their spies to find out a country for them, and they sped well in their search; but here, now that they came to the place (for till this brought it to their mind it does not appear that they had mentioned it to their brethren), they oblige them with a further discovery - they can tell them where there are gods: “Here, in these houses, there are an ephod, and teraphim, and a great many fine things for devotion, such as we have not the like in our country; now therefore consider what you have to do, Jdg_18:14. We consulted them, and had a good answer from them; they are worth having, nay, they are worth stealing (that is, having upon the worst terms), and, if we can but make ourselves masters of these gods, we may the better hope to prosper, and make ourselves masters of Laish.” So far they were in the right, that it was desirable to have God's presence with them, but wretchedly mistaken when they took these images (which were fitter to be used in a puppet-play than in acts of devotion) for tokens of God's presence. They thought an oracle would be pretty company for them in their enterprise, and instead of a council of war to consult upon every emergency; and, the place they were going to settle in being so far from Shiloh, they thought they had more need of a house of gods among themselves than Micah had that lived so near to it. They might have made as good an ephod and teraphim themselves as these were, and such as would have served their purpose every whit as well; but the reputation which they found them in possession of (though they had had that reputation but a while) amused them into a strange veneration for this house of gods, which they would soon have dropped if they had had so much sense as to enquire into its origin, and examine whether there were any thing divine in its institution. Being determined to take these gods along with them, we are here told how they stole the images, cajoled the priest, and

frightened Micah from attempting to rescue them.

K&D, "Then the five men who had explored the land, viz., Laish (Laish is in

apposition to רץLה, the land), said to their brethren (tribe-mates), “Know ye that in these

houses (the village or place where Micah dwelt) there are an ephod and teraphim, and image and molten work (see at Jdg_17:4-5)? and now know what ye will do.” The meaning of these last words is very easily explained: do not lose this opportunity of obtaining a worship of our own for our new settlement.

COFFMA , "Verse 14

THE DA ITES ROB THEIR BE EFACTOR; MICAH

"Then answered the five men that went to spy out the country of Laish, and said

unto their brethren, Do ye know that there is in these houses an ephod, and a

teraphim, and a graven image, and a molten image? now therefore consider what ye

have to do. And they turned aside thither, and came to the house of the young man

the Levite, even unto the house of Micah, and asked him of his welfare. And the six

hundred men girt with their weapons of war, who were of the children of Dan, stood

by the entrance of the gate. And the five men who went to spy out the land went up,

and came in thither, and took the graven image, and the ephod, and the teraphim,

and the molten image: and the priest stood by the entrance of the gate with the six

hundred men girt with weapons of war. And when these went into Micah's house,

and fetched the graven image, and the ephod, and the teraphim, and the molten

image, the priest said unto them, What do ye? And they said unto him, Hold thy

peace, lay thy hand upon thy mouth, and go with us, and be to us a father and a

priest: is it better for thee to be a priest unto the house of one man, or to be priest

unto a tribe and a family in Israel? And the priest's heart was glad, and he took the

ephod, and the teraphim, and the graven image, and went in the midst of the

people."

This remarkable description of the outrageous robbery of Micah is its own

commentary. The intimidating presence of six hundred armed men at the gate of

Micah's compound, the bold raid of the five spies to carry off the sacred loot, the

timid question of the young man the Levite, the order of six hundred armed men for

him to keep his mouth shut, their offer to him of permanent employment as their

priest, the evident fact that Micah was not present, being perhaps in the fields with

his men, or, if aware of what was happening afraid to interfere, and the departure

of the six hundred armed men, carrying away not only all the sacred articles of

Micah's shrine, but the happy young priest also, who was delighted with his

"promotion"! - what a thumbnail picture we have here of the whole raid!

The fact that Micah himself was a gross impenitent sinner does not mitigate the

unscrupulous transgression by the Danites of all the laws of hospitality and

brotherhood as exhibited in this selfish looting of Micah's illegal shrine.

It is significant that in this account, there does indeed seem to be both a graven

image and a molten image, which might be explained by the supposition that, in the

meanwhile, Micah's mother had deceased, leaving all of that silver to Micah, and

that he had completed what was probably the original plan of making two images,

not merely one.

"And the priest took the ephod, and the teraphim, and the graven image, and went

in the midst of the people" (Judges 18:20). Judges 18:17-18 declare that the religious

items were taken by the five former spies, but the statement here that the priest

"took them" does not contradict that. The five took them from Micah's house of

gods, and the priest took them from the Danites when he accepted their invitation to

go with them as their priest.

ELLICOTT, "Verse 14

(14) Answered.—Equivalent to they said, as in Job 3:2, Zechariah 1:10.

Consider what ye have to do—i.e., whether, and how, you would possess yourselves

of them. We notice in these Danite freebooters the same strange mixture of

superstition and lawlessness, robbery, and devotion which has often been observed

in Greek and Italian brigands.

PETT, "Verse 14

‘Then answered the five men that went to spy out the country of Laish, and said to

their brothers, “Do you know that there is in these houses an ephod and teraphim,

and a graven image, and a molten image? ow consider what you have to do.”’

The five spies had previously taken full note of the situation and had recognised that

they would need a Sanctuary when they established themselves in a new home. And

they had realised that here was a God-given opportunity to provide for it fully, even

with a priest thrown in, and a priest who had (or so they thought) prophesied their

success. Where else would they obtain the accoutrements for a sanctuary with so

little effort? And they would need one, for they would be far from the central

sanctuary. The tribal confederacy was losing its significance in their eyes, and that

meant that the true covenant with Yahweh was being spurned.

“These houses.” Micah’s house and his house of God, and perhaps dwellings of his

servants, as well as his neighbours (Judges 18:22).

“ ow consider what you have to do.” The words were ominous for Micah and his

house of God. All knew what they meant.

TRAPP, "Verse 14

18:14 Then answered the five men that went to spy out the country of Laish, and

said unto their brethren, Do ye know that there is in these houses an ephod, and

teraphim, and a graven image, and a molten image? now therefore consider what ye

have to do.

Ver. 14. Consider what ye have to do.] Here they stir up their fellows to theft. There

is little difference faveasne sceleri, an illud facias, whether ye hold the bag, or fill it.

15 So they turned in there and went to the house of the young Levite at Micah’s place and greeted him.

GILL, "And they turned thitherward,.... It seems as if the house lay a little out of their way, and therefore they turned on one hand to go unto it:

and came to the house of the young man the Levite, even unto the house of Micah; for the young man's house was only an apartment of Micah's, and lay very probably next to that in which the images, and oracle were; and they made up to the young man's apartment, rather than to Micah's, because the above things were under his care:

and saluted him; asked him of his welfa

K&D, "Then they turned from the road thither, and went to the house of the young Levite, the house of Micah, and asked him (the Levite) concerning his health, i.e., saluted him in a friendly manner (see Gen_43:27; Exo_18:7, etc.).

ELLICOTT, "Verses 15-18

(15-18) In these verses we have a graphic description of the whole nefarious

proceeding. The five spies, knowing Jonathan, salute him, and inveigle him to the

entrance of the court to talk to their six hundred companions. While the chiefs of

this little army detain him in conversation, without any show of violence the five slip

away unobserved to the alîyah, or upper room, which serves as the chapel, and steal

all the essentials of the worship—namely, (1) the ephod; (2) the teraphim; (3) the

graven image; (4) the molten image. It is true that in Judges 18:20-30 the massecah

is not mentioned; but it may be regarded as belonging to the pesel. It is only when he

sees them in actual possession of these that Jonathan asks the alarmed question,

“What do ye?”

PETT, "Verse 15

‘And they turned aside to it, and came to the house of the young man the Levite,

even to the house of Micah, and asked him of his welfare.’

So they made a diversion and came to Micah’s house and pretended that they had

come to see the young Levite. Micah would happily receive them They had eaten at

his table, thus he knew them to be friends. Once they were with the Levite, they

asked him how he was faring. His reply would determine their next move.

TRAPP, "Verse 15

18:15 And they turned thitherward, and came to the house of the young man the

Levite, [even] unto the house of Micah, and saluted him.

Ver. 15. The house of the young man the Levite.] {See Trapp on " 18:3"}

And saluted him.] And so did soon insinuate into him who - levitate plus quam

desultoria - might be won with an apple, and lost with a nut. These Danites, with

their salutations and fair promises, win this hireling Levite insalutato hero suo

dacedere, to leave Micah his master without leave taken of him; who yet had used

him as one of his sons.

16 The six hundred Danites, armed for battle, stood at the entrance of the gate.

GILL, "And the six hundred men appointed with their weapons of war,.... Who were armed men, and marched with their armour about them:

which were of the children of Dan; for no other were concerned in this expedition: stood by the entering of the gate; not of Micah's house, but of the city in which his house was; here they stood while the five men went up to the house.

HE RY 16-18, " The five men that knew the house and the avenues to it, and particularly the chapel, went in and fetched out the images, with the ephod, and teraphim, and all the appurtenances, while the 600 kept the priest in talk at the gate, Jdg_18:16-18. See what little care this sorry priest took of his gods; while he was sauntering at the gate, and gazing at the strangers, his treasure (such as it was) was

gone. See how impotent these sorry gods were, that could not keep themselves from being stolen. It is mentioned as the reproach of idols that they themselves had gone into captivity, Isa_46:2. O the sottishness of these Danites! How could they imagine those gods should protect them that could not keep themselves from being stolen? Yet because they went by the name of gods, as if it were not enough that they had with them the presence of the invisible God, nor that they stood in relation to the tabernacle, where there were even visible tokens of his presence, nothing will serve them but they must have gods to go before them, not of their own making indeed, but, which was as bad, of their own stealing. Their idolatry began in theft, a proper prologue for such an opera. In order to the breaking of the second commandment, they begin with the eighth, and take their neighbour's goods to make them their gods. The holy God hates robbery for burnt-offerings, but the devil loves it. Had these Danites seized the images to deface and abolish them, and the priest to punish him, they would have done like Israelites indeed, and would have appeared jealous for their God as their fathers had done (Jos_22:16); but to take them for their own use was such a complicated crime as showed that they neither feared God nor regarded man, but were perfectly lost both to godliness and honesty.

K&D, "The 600 men, however, placed themselves before the door.

PETT, "Verse 16

‘And the six hundred men armed with their weapons of war, who were of the

children of Dan, stood by the entering of the gate.’

Meanwhile the six hundred warriors were waiting at ‘the entering of the gate’. This

may have been the gate of the city, so as not to frighten the inhabitants, or possibly a

gate leading to Micah’s property which would thus seem to have been fairly

extensive, a small township in itself, for we note that no name of a town is given in

the narrative. The six hundred wanted their presence to be noted in case of any

trouble.

TRAPP, "Verse 16

18:16 And the six hundred men appointed with their weapons of war, which [were]

of the children of Dan, stood by the entering of the gate.

Ver. 16. Stood by the entering of the gate.] To aid the thieves, if there should be any

opposition made against them. So that here met those two ways of theft mentioned

by azianzen, επιβουλη, or crafty contrivance, and επιβολη, rapine and violence.

17 The five men who had spied out the land went inside and took the idol, the ephod and the

household gods while the priest and the six hundred armed men stood at the entrance of the gate.

BAR ES, "The five went back to Micah’s chapel (Micah’s house, Jdg_18:18) and took the ephod, teraphim, etc., and brought them to the gate where the priest was talking to the 600 men.

GILL, "And the five men that went out to spy the land went up and came thither,.... They first came to Micah's house, and saluted the young man, and after that salutation told him there was such a number of their brethren at the gate of the city, very probably, who would be glad to see him; and the young man being desirous also of seeing them, and paying his respects to them, went with them thither, and after they had introduced him, left him discoursing with them, and then returned to his apartment:

and took the graven image, and the ephod, and the teraphim, and the molten image; and brought them away with them; and from hence it appears plainly that there were two images, the one graven, and the other molten, since they are so manifestly distinguished, and the ephod and teraphim are spoken of between them:

and the priest stood in the entering of the gate, with the six hundred men that were appointed with the weapons of war; who kept him in talk, while the five men went and stole the above things.

K&D 17-19, "Then the five spies went up, sc., into Micah's house of God, which must therefore have been in an upper room of the building (see 2Ki_23:12; Jer_19:13), and took the image, ephod, etc., whilst the priest stood before the door with the 600 armed

men. With the words וגו וMעלו the narrative passes from the aorist or historical tense �אוinto the perfect. “The perfects do not denote the coming and taking on the part of the five men as a continuation of the previous account, but place the coming and taking in the same sphere of time as that to which the following clause, 'and the priest stood,' etc., belongs” (Bertheau). But in order to explain what appears very surprising, viz., that the priest should have stood before the gate whilst his house of God was being robbed, the course which the affair took is explained more clearly afterwards in Jdg_18:18, Jdg_18:19, in the form of a circumstantial clause. Consequently the verbs in these verses ought to be rendered as pluperfects, and the different clauses comprised in one period, Jdg_18:18 forming the protasis, and Jdg_18:19 the apodosis. “Namely, when those(five) men had come into Micah's house, and had taken the image of the ephod, etc., and the priest had said to them, What are ye doing? they had said to him, Be silent, lay thy hand upon thy mouth and go with us, and become a father and priest to us (see Jdg_17:10). Is it better to be a priest to the house of a single man, or to a tribe and

family in Israel?” The combination האפוד O (the ephod-pesel), i.e., the imageסל

belonging to the ephod, may be explained on the ground, that the use of the ephod as a means of ascertaining the will of God presupposes the existence of an image of Jehovah,

and does not prove that the ephod served as a covering for the Pesel. The priest put on

the ephod when he was about to inquire of God. The או in the second question is

different from אם, and signifies “or rather” (see Gen_24:55), indicating an improvement

upon the first question (see Ewald, §352, a.). Consequently it is not a sign of a later

usage of speech, as Bertheau supposes. The word חהOולמש (unto a family) serves as a

more minute definition or limitation of לשבט (to a tribe).

PETT, "Verse 17

‘And the five men who went out to spy the land went up and came in there, and took

the graven image, and the ephod, and the teraphim, and the molten image, and the

priest stood in the entering of the gate, with the six hundred men who were armed

with the weapons of war.’

The five men then went up to the house of God and entered it and stole the ephod,

the teraphim, the graven image and the molten image. Meanwhile the priest stood at

the gate with the six hundred. The five men had taken him and introduced him to

the leaders of the six hundred and they had detained him there talking. He probably

thought that the five were going up to worship or to thank God for his good oracle.

It is significant that the Danites do not appear to have had their own means of

worship. This would confirm that they used the central sanctuary. But now they

were going north, outside the promised land, and felt that they would need their

own sanctuary. This would seem to confirm that, while non-orthodox, these

religious objects of Micah’s were compatible with Yahwism.

TRAPP, "Verse 17

18:17 And the five men that went to spy out the land went up, [and] came in thither,

[and] took the graven image, and the ephod, and the teraphim, and the molten

image: and the priest stood in the entering of the gate with the six hundred men

[that were] appointed with weapons of war.

Ver. 17. And took the graven image, &c.] ot out of any hatred of idolatry - as

neither did Cambyses when he destroyed the Egyptian idols, nor Dionysius when he

spoiled the temple of Jupiter - but to set up those monuments elsewhere, in case they

should prosper in their expedition.

BE SO , "Verses 17-19

18:17-19. The five men came in thither — Into the house and that part of it where

the things were. The priest stood in the gate — Whither they had drawn him forth,

that they might without noise or hinderance take the things away. And these went

into Micah’s house — amely, the five men, to whom when they were fetching out

the image, &c., the priest said, What do ye? And they said, Lay thy hand upon thy

mouth — That is, be silent. A priest unto a tribe and a family — A tribe or family.

PULPIT, "Went up, viz; into the upper chamber, where it appears the chapel wan

So we read in 2 Kings 23:12 that there were altars on the roof of the upper chamber

of Ahaz (cf. Jeremiah 19:13). And came up, and took. There is no and in the

Hebrew, and the tense of the verb is changed. A fuller stop must be put after went

up. And then the account proceeds, with a certain solemnity of diction, They came

in thither; they took the graven image, and the ephod, and the teraphim, and the

molten image (full stop). The narrative goes on, ow the priest was standing in the

entering of the gate, etc. But these five went into Micah's house, etc; as just related,

and of course brought them out to the gate where the priest was standing with the

600 Danites.

The five men then went up to the house of God and entered it and stole the ephod,

the teraphim, the graven image and the molten image. Meanwhile the priest stood

at the gate with the six hundred. The five men had taken him and introduced him

to the leaders of the six hundred and they had detained him there talking. He

probably thought that the five were going up to worship or to thank God for his

good oracle.

It is significant that the Danites do not appear to have had their own means of

worship. This would confirm that they used the central sanctuary. But now they

were going north, outside the promised land, and felt that they would need their

own sanctuary. This would seem to confirm that, while non-orthodox, these

religious objects of Micah’s were compatible with Yahwism.

18 When the five men went into Micah’s house and took the idol, the ephod and the household gods, the priest said to them, “What are you doing?”

CLARKE, "These went unto Micah’s house - The five men went in, while the six

hundred armed men stood at the gate.

GILL, "And these went into Micah's house,.... Into that part of it where his gods were; not the six hundred men last mentioned, but the five men who knew the house, and the chapel where the things were:

and fetched the carved image, the ephod, and the teraphim, and the molten image; and brought them away in their hands to their brethren at the gate, where the priest also was: and when he saw them:

then said the priest to them, what do ye? what do you mean by this? is this your kindness to me, to take away what are my care and charge, and on which my livelihood depends? and do you consider the wickedness, the sin of sacrilege you are guilty of, to take away these sacred things, these objects of religious devotion?

ELLICOTT, "Verse 18

(18) The carved image, the ephod.—In the Hebrew this is pesel ha-ephod—i.e., the

“pesel-ephod.” Very possibly, however, the ephod may, as a rule, have hung on the

carved image, so that to carry off the pesel was also to carry off the ephod, which

ordinarily covered it.

PETT, "Verse 18

‘And when these went into Micah's house, and fetched the graven image, the ephod,

and the teraphim, and the molten image, the priest said to them, “What are you

doing?” ’

Up to this point the priest had been innocent and when he saw on their arrival that

they were carrying the religious objects from the house of God he was surprised. He

asked them what they thought they were doing. ote the repetition of ‘the graven

image, and the ephod, and the teraphim, and the molten image’ emphasising what

their main purpose was and bringing out their sacrilege.

PULPIT, "The carved image. It should be the graven image, as elsewhere. The

Hebrew text here has the graven image of the ephod, as was noticed in 17:3, note.

But it is very possible that the vav, and, has fallen out of the text by accident, and it

does not seem likely that a different phrase should be adopted in this one place from

that followed throughout in the enumeration of the articles in Micah's chapel, so

that the A.V. is probably right. Then said the priest, etc. When he saw the idols and

teraphim in the hands of the five men he cried out in alarm. It is remarkable that

here and in the preceding verse he is styled the priest.

They kidnapped his gods and was he mad, but he could not do anything about it,

and neither could his gods for they were even less powerful than he was. It is hard

on an idolater to lose his gods, for that is all he has, and it is nothing. The

foundation of his life is built on gods who can do nothing when they are stolen.

They are weak and worthless and yet everything to him. These gods are not very

grateful to the man who made them, for they up and leave with anyone who comes

along and takes them. You would think he would become suspecious that they

might not really be very powerful and able to answer any of his prayers if they

cannot even save themselves.

19 They answered him, “Be quiet! Don’t say a word. Come with us, and be our father and priest. Isn’t it better that you serve a tribe and clan in Israel as priest rather than just one man’s household?”

CLARKE, "Lay thine hand upon thy mouth - This was the token of silence. The god of silence, Harpocrates, is represented on ancient statues with his finger pressed on his lips.

GILL, "And they said unto him, hold thy peace,.... Be silent, make no disturbance, be quiet and easy:

lay thy hand upon thy mouth; as a token of silence; so the Egyptians used to paint Harpocrates, the god of silence, with his fingers pressing his lips:

and go with us; for they wanted him as well as his gods, not knowing well how to make use of them without him:

and be to us a father and a priest; to direct them, instruct them, perform acts of devotion for them, and ask counsel on their account; it seems as if it was common in those days to call a priest a father, see Jdg_17:10.

is it better for thee to be a priest unto the house of one man, or that thou be a priest unto a tribe and a family in Israel? suggesting, that it must be much more honourable for him, and more to his advantage, to officiate as a priest to a body of people, that might be called a tribe, or to a family consisting of various houses, than in the house of a private person; this they left him to consider and judge of.

HE RY 19-20, " They set upon the priest, and flattered him into a good humour, not only to let the gods go, but to go himself along with them; for without him they knew not well how to make use of the gods. Observe, 1. How they tempted him, Jdg_18:19. They assured him of better preferment with them than what he now had. It would be more honour and profit to be chaplain to a regiment (for they were no more, though they called themselves a tribe) than to be only a domestic chaplain to a private gentleman. Let him go with them, and he shall have more dependants on him, more sacrifices brought to his altar, and more fees for consulting his teraphim, than he had here. 2. How they won him. A little persuasion served: His heart was glad, Jdg_18:20. The proposal took well enough with his rambling fancy, which would never let him stay long at a place, and gratified his covetousness and ambition. He had no reason to say but that he was well off where he was; Micah had not deceived him, nor changed his wages. He was not moved with any remorse of conscience for attending on a graven image: had he gone away to Shiloh to minister to the Lord's priests, according to the duty of a Levite, he might have been welcome there (Deu_18:6), and his removal would have been commendable; but, instead of this, he takes the images with him, and carries the infection of the idolatry into a whole city. It would have been very unjust and ungrateful to Micah if he had only gone away himself, but it was much more so to take the images along with him, which he knew the heart of Micah was set upon. Yet better could not be expected from a treacherous Levite. What house can be sure of him who has forsaken the house of the Lord? Or what friend will he be true to that has been false to his God? He could not pretend that he was under compulsive force, for he was glad in his heart to go. If ten shekels won him (as bishop Hall expresses it), eleven would lose him; for what can hold those that have made shipwreck of a good conscience? The hireling flees because he is a hireling. The priest and his gods went in the midst of the people. There they placed him, that they might secure him either from going back himself, if his mind should change, or from being fetched back by Micah; or perhaps this post was assigned to him in imitation of the order of Israel's march through the wilderness, in which the ark and the priests went in the midst of their camp.

ELLICOTT, "Verse 19

(19) Hold thy peace, lay thine hand upon thy mouth.—Comp. Job 21:5; Job 29:9;

Proverbs 30:32. The laying of the finger on the lip is one of the most universal of

gestures. It is the attitude of Horus, the Egyptian god of silence. (See Apul.

Metamorph. 1: at ille digitum, a pollice proximum ori suo admovens . . . tace. tace,

inquit.)

A father and a priest.—Judges 17:10.

Unto a tribe and a family.—Both to a shebet and a mishpecah. (See ote on Judges

18:1.)

PETT, "Verse 19

‘And they said to him, “Hold your peace. Put your hand on your mouth and come

with us, and be to us a father and a priest. Is it better for you to be a priest to the

house of one man, or that you be a priest to a tribe and a family in Israel?” ’

Their reply to his question was that he should say nothing and come with them to

act as spiritual father and priest to them. They pointed out how much more

important and significant he would be as priest to a sub-tribe, that is ‘a clan’ in

Israel, than to just a family home, however large.

This reply is very significant. It firstly stresses that while they were a substantial

clan (although not the whole tribe of Dan) they had no priest with them. Even in

those days of apathy no priest had been willing to leave the land of promise and the

central sanctuary to accompany them. For outside that land they would lose their

priestly privileges. It confirms the centrality of worship even in days of laxness.

Secondly it brings out the low level of morality of the times. They seemed to have no

thought of the fact that they were stealing the very things through which they aimed

to worship God. It is clear that God’s command ‘you shall not steal’ meant little to

them. Every time they came to the house of God they would see the religious objects

they had stolen. What kind of worship could that be? It was a rejection of Yahweh.

Thirdly, they clearly expected the priest to feel the same, and to sell out his faith for

promotion and privilege. And sadly they were right. His honour, his obedience to

Yahweh and his loyalty to the man who had treated him as a son were all forgotten

in the light of this wonderful offer. He may not have been able to prevent them from

stealing the objects, but he did not need to go with them and acquiesce in what they

were doing. But he coveted honour and prestige.

TRAPP, "Verse 19

18:19 And they said unto him, Hold thy peace, lay thine hand upon thy mouth, and

go with us, and be to us a father and a priest: [is it] better for thee to be a priest unto

the house of one man, or that thou be a priest unto a tribe and a family in Israel?

Ver. 19. Lay thine hand upon thy mouth.] Digito compesce labellum. See Job 21:5;

Job 29:9.

Or that thou be a priest unto a tribe.] Thus the Papists offered Luther a

cardinalship to be quiet: they sent unto him Vergerius, to put him in mind of the

example of Aeneas Sylvius, who following his own opinions, with much slavery and

labour, could get no further preferment than to be canon of Trent, but being

changed to the better, became bishop, cardinal, and finally Pope Pius II. He called to

his memory also Bessarion of ice, who by complying with the Church of Rome,

wanted not much of being Pope. But he answered, I care neither for Rome’s favour

nor fury. (a)

EXPOSITOR'S DICTIO ARY, "Judges 18:19

Song of Solomon , in almost the same words, was the like bribe offered by one of the

great religious houses of England to the monk who guarded the shrine of one of the

most sacred relics in the adjacent cathedral of Canterbury—"Give us the portion of

St. Thomas"s skull which is in thy custody, and thou shalt cease to be a simple

monk; thou shalt be Abbot of St. Augustine"s." As Roger accepted the bait in the

twelfth century after the Christian era, so did the Levite of Micah"s house in the

fifteenth century before it.—Stanley.

ROSS The lives of Micah, Jonathan and the tribe of Dan intersect when, on

their way to spy out this northern city that later became known as “Dan,” the

tribal spies stop in to stay with Micah and noticed his “impressive” collection of

idols and other pagan paraphernalia. Later on, they return with 600 warriors and

steal not only all of Micah’s idols, but also his priest. The men of Dan persuade

Micah’s priest that it would be a good career move for him if he were to leave

Micah where he was just a “household priest” and go with them to be their tribal

priest. This unexpected prospect of career advancement thrilled the young Levite

and he went with them to this new northern city they had conquered.

Their reply to his question was that he should say nothing and come with them to

act as spiritual father and priest to them. They pointed out how much more

important and significant he would be as priest to a sub-tribe, that is ‘a clan’ in

Israel.

This city of Dan later on became one of two major pagan cult worship centers

in Israel under the reign of the evil king Jeroboam and the roots of that pagan

center are right here in Judges 17-18. This story, like the one after it in Judges is

obviously riddled with sin that characterized not only the characters in this story

but the entire paganized nation of Israel during the Judges. These two chapters

expose how corrupt the religion of Yahweh was during this time. The author tells

us in 17:6 that what was behind all this self-deceived, godless behavior from both

the people and the priesthood was, “In those days, Israel had no king; everyone

did as he saw fit.” The people were religious—still named God, prayed to God

and at least outwardly sought God’s guidance. The problem was that their

religious practice was ultimately motivated by what they selfishly considered was

in their own best interest. Their religion, rather than encouraging them to know

and serve Yahweh in the joy of the Lord, had degenerated into this kind of man-

centered, Ophrah Winfrey spirituality that is today more and more influencing

evangelicalism. Micah exemplifies this when, after contracting this Levite to be

his very own household priest he says in 17:13, “ ow I know God will prosper me

(be good to me) since this Levite has become my priest.” Its clear that, when you

got right down to it, Micah’s expectation of God was that He existed to prosper

him. Micah’s part was to pull the right chain or push the right button so this

divine slot machine would pay out to him. As we said, this is a temptation for all

of us.

This reply is very significant. It firstly stresses that while they were a substantial

clan (although not the whole tribe of Dan) they had no priest with them. Even in

those days of apathy no priest had been willing to leave the land of promise and

the central sanctuary to accompany them. For outside that land they would lose

their priestly privileges. It confirms the centrality of worship even in days of

laxness.

Secondly it brings out the low level of morality of the times. They seemed to have

no thought of the fact that they were stealing the very things through which they

aimed to worship God. It is clear that God’s command ‘you shall not steal’ meant

little to them. Every time they came to the house of God they would see the

religious objects they had stolen. What kind of worship could that be? It was a

rejection of Yahweh.

Thirdly, they clearly expected the priest to feel the same, and to sell out his faith

for promotion and privilege. And sadly they were right. His honour, his obedience

to Yahweh and his loyalty to the man who had treated him as a son were all

forgotten in the light of this wonderful offer. He may not have been able to prevent

them from stealing the objects, but he did not need to go with them and acquiesce

in what they were doing. But he coveted honour and prestige.

Here is a strange combination of low morality and strong religious feeling; like

feeling that you really want to get into God's Word, so you steal someone's Bible

GUZIK, "The Danites told this priest to shut his mouth and just keep quiet. Then

they gave this Levite priest a offer that he just couldn't refuse; They were going to

make a super preacher out of this Levite priest. They are asking this Levitical

priest, aren't you better off being a priest over an entire tribe of Israel, then just

one man's family? They are offering him a job of leading the whole tribe of Dan.

Remember, in a prophecy of Revelation 7 that Dan is not mentioned in the entire

group of the 144,000. The act of what they are doing here as well as other similar

actions of idolatry, caused the tribe of Dan to lose favor with the True God. These

people wouldn't follow God's way but went into idol worship.

The message to us today is that we become aware of those super-preachers they

say that they have something religiously special to draw us to them. They come

with all their religious forms, singing their songs that sound so good, and go

through their actions that look so spiritual, yet the words that come from their

mouth is from their own mind, and not from God's Word. Yes, they may recite

scripture, but what they say is tailored to captivate your mind and pocket book,

and it is taken out of context. They say that what they are saying was given them

was by the Holy Spirit, but how intelligent are you? The Holy Spirit never says

anything that goes against God's own Word.

So these men of Dan are promising to fix this Levitical priest up, and give him

honor and position if he will lead them.

20 The priest was very pleased. He took the ephod, the household gods and the idol and went along with the people.

CLARKE, "Went to the midst of the people - He was glad to be employed by the Danites; and went into the crowd, that he might not be discovered by Micah or his family.

GILL, "And the priest's heart was glad,.... He rejoiced that such an opportunity offered; it suited well with his covetous, ambitious, rambling, and unsettled disposition of mind:

and he took the ephod, and the teraphim, and the graven image; and no doubt the molten image also, out of the hands of the five men into his own, agreeing to go with them, and officiate for them:

and went in the midst of the people; the six hundred armed men, either for the security of himself, if Micah should raise his servants, and his neighbours, to pursue after him, and fetch him back, with his images; or, as others think, in imitation of the priests bearing the ark, who in journeying marched in the middle of the camp.

K&D, "Then was the priest's heart glad (merry; cf. Jdg_19:6, Jdg_19:9; Rth_3:7), and he took the ephod, etc., and came amongst the people (the Danites). The first clause of this verse is attached to the supplementary statement in Jdg_18:18, Jdg_18:19, for the purpose of linking on the further progress of the affair, which is given in the second clause; for, according to Jdg_18:17, the priest could only receive the ephod, etc., into his charge from the hands of the Danites, since they had taken them out of Micah's God's house.

ELLICOTT, "Verse 20

(20) The priest’s heart was glad.—Judges 19:6; Judges 19:9; Ruth 3:7. The

disgraceful alacrity with which he sanctions the theft, and abandons for self-interest

the cause of Micah, is very unworthy of a grandson of Moses. Dean Stanley

appositely compares the bribe offered in 1176 to the monk Roger of Canterbury:—

“Give us the portion of St. Thomas’s skull which is in thy custody, and thou shalt

cease to be a simple monk; thou shalt be Abbot of St. Augustine’s.”

In the midst of the people.—That they might guard his person. It is not necessarily

implied that he carried all these sacred objects himself; he may have done so, for the

molten image, which was perhaps the heaviest object, is not here mentioned.

PETT, "Verse 20

‘And the priest's heart was glad, and he took the ephod, and the teraphim, and the

graven image and went in the midst of the people.’

The priest did not go because he was forced or because he had no alternative. He

was glad. These people got the priest that they deserved. And he picked up three of

the stolen objects and carried them happily. He was a thief, and covetous, and an

ingrate. Such were the morals of Israel, and such was the obedience to the covenant.

Who carried the fourth, the molten image, we are not told. (But he only had two

hands).

“He went in the midst of the people.” Probably as the representative of God among

them! This may point to the graven image as representing the Ark, with him

carrying it forward among them as they went forward to meet the enemy ( umbers

2:17; umbers 10:33-34), wearing the ephod and also bearing the teraphim, in

imitation of the Tabernacle of God among them. This was being represented as a

new exodus.

As mentioned previously the fact that he did not carry the molten image instead of

the teraphim demonstrates that the former was of the least importance, and

therefore possibly a decorated base.

TRAPP, "Verse 20

18:20 And the priest’s heart was glad, and he took the ephod, and the teraphim, and

the graven image, and went in the midst of the people.

Ver. 20. And the priest’s heart was glad.] Every wind can raise a bubble: profit and

preferment carry those any way that are worldly minded in the ministry. It was

therefore excellent counsel Luther gave preachers, to see to it, that these three dogs

did not follow them into the pulpit, - ambition, covetousness, and envy or

contentiousness.

And went in the midst of the people.] With all his trash and trinkets; either for his

own greater security, or else in an apish imitation of the ark’s marching in the midst

of the tribes.

BE SO , "Verse 20-21

18:20-21. The priest’s heart was glad — As he was promised promotion, he not only

consented to the fact, but assisted them in it, being wholly governed by a regard to

his own secular interest. He went in the midst of the people — Both for the greater

security of such precious things, and that Micah might not be able to come near him

to injure or upbraid him; and, perhaps, also, because that was the place where the

ark used to be carried. They put the little ones, and the cattle, &c., before them —

For their greater security, if Micah should pursue them.

21 Putting their little children, their livestock and their possessions in front of them, they turned away and left.

BAR ES, "And put the little ones, etc., before them - They expected a pursuit from Micah’s people, and arranged their order of march accordingly.

The carriage - Rather, “the valuables.” Some interpret it “the heavy baggage.”

CLARKE, "The little ones and the cattle, etc. - These men were so confident of success that they removed their whole families, household goods, cattle, and all.

And the carriage - ;kebudah, their substance, precious things, or valuables כבודהomne quod erat pretiosum, Vulgate: or rather the luggage or baggage; what Caesar calls

in his commentaries impedimenta; and what the Septuagint here translate βαρος, weight or baggage. We are not to suppose that any wheel carriage is meant.

GILL, "So they turned and departed,.... Turned from the gate of the city where Micah dwelt, and marched forward to Laish:

and put the little ones, and the cattle, and the carriage, before them; partly for safety from Micah, and his friends and neighbours, and partly that they might not be overdriven: their wives, who doubtless were with them, though not mentioned, and their children, and also their flocks and herds, they brought with them from Zorah and Eshtaol, as never intending to return again thither, and being fully assured they should take Laish, and the country about, and settle there; and also all their wealth and substance, as the Targum renders the word for "carriage", whatever they were possessed of that was movable; their vessels, silver and gold, and other movables, as Kimchi interprets it, whatever was weighty, valuable and glorious, as the word signifies, or that was of any importance and worth.

K&D, "The 600 Danites then set out upon their road again and went away; and they put the children, the cattle, and the valuable possessions in front, because they were

afraid of being attacked by Micah and his people from behind. ףVה, “the little ones,” includes both women and children, as the members of the family who were in need of

protection (see at Exo_12:37). כבודה is literally an adjective, signifying splendid; but here it is a neuter substantive: the valuables, not the heavy baggage. The 600 men had emigrated with their families and possessions.

COFFMA , "Verse 21

MICAH'S FUTILE ATTEMPT TO RECOVER HIS TREASURE

"So they turned and departed, and put the little ones and the cattle and the goods

before them. When they were a good way from the house of Micah, the men that

were in the houses near to Micah's house were gathered together, and overtook the

children of Dan. And they cried unto the children of Dan. And they turned their

faces, and said unto Micah, What aileth thee, that thou comest with such a

company? And he said, Ye have taken away my gods, which I made, and the priest,

and are gone away, and what have I more? and how then say ye unto me, What

aileth thee? And the children of Dan said unto him, Let not thy voice be heard

among us, lest angry fellows fall upon you, and thou lose thy life, with the lives of

thy household. And the children of Dan went their way: and when Micah saw that

they were too strong for him, he turned and went back into his house."

"They put the little ones and the cattle and the goods before them" (Judges 18:21).

This meant that the six hundred armed men provided the rear-guard, indicating

that they expected Micah to pursue them and that they were determined to fight him

if he did so.

"They were a good way from the house of Micah" (Judges 18:22). It had taken

Micah some time to round up all of his neighbors and put together a company for

the pursuit of the Danites, but the Danites were easily overtaken due to the nature of

their group, which included wives, little children, cattle, baggage, etc.

"Ye have taken away the gods which I made" (Judges 18:24). "How sad that an

Israelite should assume that he could make a god; and how strange that a man

should have to rescue his god! How deplorable that Micah's life was so wrapped up

in his so-called gods that he considered that he had nothing left when they were

taken away from him."[9]

"Let not thy voice be heard among us" (Judges 18:25). This was indeed a brutal

answer. What the Danites said, if we may paraphrase it, was, "Look, Bud, you had

better keep your mouth shut and quit crying after us, and if you don't, we shall

simply knock you down and kill you and then return to your residence and

exterminate your whole generation!"

"Micah realized his helplessness against an armed force of six hundred fighting

men; and with a heavy heart he returned to his empty house and empty life. He was

a disillusioned and misguided Israelite who had forsaken the faith of his fathers and

justly suffered the consequences of his grievous apostasy."[10]

"Lest angry fellows fall upon you" (Judges 18:25). "In the Hebrew, the literal words

from which the words angry fellows are translated are literally, `men of acid

temper.' It is suicidal folly to provoke such men."[11]

"And thou lose thy life, with the lives of thy household" (Judges 18:25). "Literally

(from the Hebrew) this reads `You will gather in your life and the lives of your

household,' the same being the equivalent of, `you will cash in your chips.'"[12]

The shameful deeds of the Danites here exactly fulfilled Jacob's prophecy when he

bestowed this blessing upon him:

"Dan shall judge his people,

As one of the tribes of Israel.

Dan shall be a serpent in the way,

An adder in the path,

That biteth the horse's heels,

So that his rider falleth backward.

I have waited for thy salvation, O Jehovah." (Genesis 49:16-18)

Paraphrasing this "blessing," we read the prophecy of Jacob as a declaration that

Dan would not only be a snake, but a POISO OUS one at that, who would bring

disaster to those whom he might encounter, concluding that Jacob had prayed and

waited for God to bring salvation to Dan.

"This blessing of Jacob is the mirror image of this prose account (in Judges) of

Dan's instrumentality in heaven's justice for Micah, on the way to Dan's own

treacherous achievements elsewhere."[13]

ELLICOTT, "Verse 21

(21) The little ones and the cattle.—It is only in this incidental way that the fact of

this being a regular migration is brought out. (Comp. Exodus 12:37.) The women

are, of course, included, though not mentioned (Genesis 34:29; 2 Chronicles 20:13).

And the carriage—i.e., “the baggage.” (Comp. Acts 21:15.) The word is

hakkebodah, which the LXX. (Cod. A) render “their glorious possession,” and the

Vulg. “everything which was precious,” i.e., the valuables. But as cabîd means “to

be heavy,” the rendering of the Vatican MS. of the LXX.—“the weight,” i.e., “the

heavy baggage” (impedimenta)—may be right. The word has no connection with

that similarly rendered in 1 Samuel 17:22.

Before them.—Because they expected pursuit.

PETT, "Verse 21

‘So they turned and departed, and put the little ones, and the cattle, and the goods

before them.’

They put the vulnerable ones in front of them because they anticipated that any

danger would be from behind, from any forces that Micah could gather. The wives

are not mentioned but can be assumed.

TRAPP, "Verse 21

18:21 So they turned and departed, and put the little ones and the cattle and the

carriage before them.

Ver. 21. And the cattle and the carriage before them.] For they feared Micah’s

pursuit more than any other enemy that was before them. For "carriage" some

render preciosa, the precious things, and interpret it of household stuff, according to

that of Solomon, "Thy house shall be full of all precious and pleasant riches."

CO STABLE, "Verses 21-26

Micah"s attempt to recover his losses18:21-26

Micah gathered some of his neighbors and pursued the Danites, hoping to force

them to return what they had taken from him. However the Danites proved stronger

than he anticipated, and he had to withdraw without a fight (cf. Genesis 14). Here is

another example of the Israelites fighting among themselves rather than uniting to

combat their common foe.

It is comical to read Micah"s sniveling complaint that the Danite soldiers had taken

his gods "which I made" ( Judges 18:24). Obviously they had no power to protect

him from his enemies. The fact that he had made them should have made this clear

to him. His pathetic question, "What do I have besides?" reflects the emptiness of

idolatry.

"His failure is in marked contrast to the stunning victory gained by Abraham and

his small army when they overtook the coalition of kings who had captured Lot and

the wealth of Sodom and Gomorrah ( Genesis 14:10-16). The God of Abraham

proved stronger than the idol deities fashioned by Micah. Like the gods of Babylon,

Micah"s gods were taken captive, unable to effect their own escape (cf. Judges 6:31;

Isaiah 46:1-2)." [ ote: Ibid, p487.]

Likewise Micah"s priest, whom he had treated as a Song of Solomon , turned

against him. one of the characters in this story shows any integrity.

PULPIT, "They turned, i.e. turned their backs upon Beth-Micah, and went on their

way to the north. The little ones. The term necessarily includes the women of the

emigrant party. Compare Jacob's care for his wives and children (Genesis 33:1-5);

only Jacob expected an attack from Esau in front, the Danites an attack from Micah

from behind. The carriage. It is the same word as is translated in Genesis 31:1 glory;

it might be rendered valuables. It would no doubt include the precious images and

ephod which they had just stolen.

22 When they had gone some distance from Micah’s house, the men who lived near Micah were called together and overtook the Danites.

BAR ES, "Were gathered together - literally, “were called together.” The men, who were all Micah’s workmen, were probably in the fields with their master at the time of the robbery. When the women saw what was done they gave the alarm, and Micah called the men together as quickly as possible, and pursued the Danites and overtook them.

GILL, "And when they were a good way from the house of Micah,.... For it might be some time before Micah knew that his gods were stolen, and his priest was decoyed from him; and it must take up more time still to get his servants and neighbours together to pursue after those that injured him:

the men that were in the houses near to Micah's house were gathered together; no doubt at the request of Micah, who informed them of what had happened to him: and they being not only his neighbours, but deeply involved in the same superstition and idolatry, and closely addicted to it, and to whom it might in some respects be advantageous at it brought people from various parts to worship, or to consult the oracle: these being got together in a body, pursued

and overtook the children of Dan; who were obliged to move but slowly, because of their wives, little ones, and heavy substance they carried with them.

HE RY 22-23, "They frightened Micah back when he pursued them to recover his gods. As soon as ever he perceived that his chapel was plundered, and his chaplain had

run away from him, he mustered all the forces he could and pursued the robbers, Jdg_18:22. His neighbours, and perhaps tenants, that used to join with him in his devotions, were forward to help him on this occasion; they got together, and pursued the robbers, who, having their children and cattle before them (Jdg_18:21), could make no great haste, so that they soon overtook them, hoping by strength of reason to recover what was stolen, for the disproportion of their numbers was such that they could not hope to do it by strength of arm. The pursuers called after them, desiring to speak a word with them; those in the rear (where it is probable they posted the fiercest and strongest of their company, expecting there to be attacked) turned about and asked Micah what ailed him that he was so much concerned, and what he would have, Jdg_18:23. He argues with them, and pleads his right, which he thought should prevail; but they, in answer, plead their might, which, it proved, did prevail; for it is common that might overcomes right

JAMISO 22-26, "the men that were in the houses near to Micah’s house were gathered together — The robbers of the chapel being soon detected, a hot pursuit was forthwith commenced by Micah, at the head of a considerable body of followers. The readiness with which they joined in the attempt to recover the stolen articles affords a presumption that the advantages of the chapel had been open to all in the neighborhood; and the importance which Micah, like Laban, attached to his teraphim, is seen by the urgency with which he pursued the thieves, and the risk of his life in attempting to procure their restoration. Finding his party, however, not a match for the Danites, he thought it prudent to desist, well knowing the rule which was then prevalent in the land, that

“They should take who had the power,And they should keep who could.”

K&D 22-23, "The two clauses of Jdg_18:22 are circumstantial clauses: “When they(the 600) had got to some distance from Micah's house, and the men who were in the houses by Micah's house were called together, and had overtaken the Danites, they(i.e., Micah and his people, whom he had called together from the neighbourhood to pursue the emigrants) called to the Danites; and they turned their faces, and said to Micah, What is to thee (what is the matter), that thou hast gathered together?”

ELLICOTT, "Verse 22

(22) A good way from the house of Micah.—It took some time to raise the alarm and

collect a sufficient force. The Beth-Micah was probably strong enough to resist any

ordinary robbers, but no one could have expected a raid of 600 men. Yet they would

easily overtake the Danites, because their march was delayed and encumbered with

women, children, and cattle.

Were gathered together.—See Judges 6:34.

PETT, "Verse 22

‘When they were a good way from the house of Micah, the men who were in the

houses near to Micah's house were gathered together, and overtook the children of

Dan.’

Once Micah discovered that his sacred religious objects had been stolen he gathered

as many of his servants and neighbours as he could and gave chase. He did not

know for certain how many were in the party who had stolen them and carried off

his priest. When he overtook them he probably had a very unpleasant surprise. He

had not been expecting such a large force. He would gradually overtake them

because they were hindered by their families and flocks and herds.

TRAPP, "Verse 22

18:22 [And] when they were a good way from the house of Micah, the men that

[were] in the houses near to Micah’s house were gathered together, and overtook the

children of Dan.

Ver. 22. The men that were in the houses near to Micah’s.] The whole

neighbourhood; and those were not a few, by reason of the idol temple there causing

great resort, as now at Loretto and Sichem.

And overtook the children of Dan.] Heb., Clave unto them, Conglutinati sunt cum

filiis Dan, were even at the heels of them; Amor addidit alas.

Once Micah discovered that his sacred religious objects had been stolen he

gathered as many of his servants and neighbours as he could and gave chase. He

did not know for certain how many were in the party who had stolen them and

carried off his priest. When he overtook them he probably had a very unpleasant

surprise. He had not been expecting such a large force. He would gradually

overtake them because they were hindered by their families and flocks and herds.

23 As they shouted after them, the Danites turned and said to Micah, “What’s the matter with you that you called out your men to fight?”

GILL, "And they cried unto the children of Dan,.... When they had got pretty

near them, and in their hearing, they called to them aloud, and desired they would stop, having something to say to them:

and they turned their faces; that is, the Danites turned and looked at them, and stopped to hear what they had to say to them; these were they who were in the rear in marching:

and said unto Micah; who was at the head of them:

what aileth thee that thou comest with such a company? as if he intended to attack them in an hostile way, and therefore asks what should be the occasion of it? what affront had been given him, what injury had been done him, that had provoked him to come out and follow them in such a manner?

ELLICOTT, "Verse 23

(23) What aileth thee?—There is again a certain grim humour in the narrative, with

some sense of irony for the total discomfiture and pathetic outcries of Micah. Dan

showed himself in this proceeding like “a serpent on the way, an adder in the path”

(Genesis 49:17). (Comp. Deuteronomy 33:22.)

PETT, "Verse 23

‘And they called out to the children of Dan, and they turned their faces and said to

Micah, “What ails you that you come with such a company?” ’

When they got near enough to the Danites Micah’s force called out to them. The

Danites then sent representatives to find out their purpose, pretending total

innocence. They wished to give the impression that they could not understand why

anyone should wish to challenge them. Their question was, what should such an

obviously belligerent group want with them? What was their problem?

TRAPP, "Verse 23

18:23 And they cried unto the children of Dan. And they turned their faces, and said

unto Micah, What aileth thee, that thou comest with such a company?

Ver. 23. What aileth thee, that thou comest?] They knew well enough what ailed

him, and yet they expostulate an injury. This is one of the miseries of war, that

might overcometh right. Sic cedit viribus aequum, poor men must suffer wrongs

and be thankful.

PULPIT, "That thou comest, etc.—literally, that thou art gathered together, the

same word as in 18:22. It is the idea of the clan, or family, or tribe which causes the

phrase. Just as Israel or Judah designates the whole nation, or the whole tribe,

under the name of their patriarch, so here Micah would include all the clan who

dwelt in Micah's house; and hence the Danites speak of Micah being gathered

together.

When they got near enough to the Danites Micah’s force called out to them. The

Danites then sent representatives to find out their purpose, pretending total

innocence. They wished to give the impression that they could not understand why

anyone should wish to challenge them. Their question was, what should such an

obviously belligerent group want with them? What was their problem?

24 He replied, “You took the gods I made, and my priest, and went away. What else do I have? How can you ask, ‘What’s the matter with you?’”

CLARKE, "Ye have taken away my gods - As Micah was a worshipper of the true

God, as we have seen, he cannot mean any kind of idols by the word אלהי elohai here used. He undoubtedly means those representations of Divine things, and symbols of the Divine presence such as the teraphim, ephod, etc.; for they are all evidently included

under the word elohai, which we translate my gods.

GILL, "And he said, ye have taken away my gods that I made,.... Meaning his graven and molten images, which he had made, or caused to be made, out of the silver his mother gave him, or however had paid for the making of; and though this might be an argument proving his right unto them, it was a very poor one in favour of their deity; and it is astonishing he should call them gods he knew the making of, and who could not save themselves from being stolen and carried off:

and the priest and ye are gone away; they had not only took away his gods, but the priest that sacrificed for him unto them, and assisted him in acts of devotion to them, or to God by them, and were gone off with both:

and what have I more? signifying, that all he had in the world, wife, children, and substance, were all nothing in comparison of these; there was nothing he so much valued as he did these, nor could he take any pleasure or comfort in anything, being deprived of them, so much was his heart set on them:

and what is this that ye say unto me, what aileth thee? what a question is this

you ask, as if the injury done me was none at all, and that I had no reason to complain; that it was a trifling insignificant thing, worthy of no regard, when it was a matter of the greater moment and importance to him in life.

HE RY, "He insists upon the wrong they had certainly done him (Jdg_18:24): “You have taken away my gods, my images of God, which I have an incontestable title to, for I made them myself, and which I have such an affection for that I am undone if I lose them; for what have I more that will do me any good if these be lost?” Now, (1.) This discovers to us the folly of idolaters, and the power that Satan has over them. What a folly was it for him to call those his gods which he had made, when he only that made us is to be worshipped by us as a God! Folly indeed to set his heart upon such silly idle things, and to look upon himself as undone when he had lost them! (2.) This may discover to us our spiritual idolatry. That creature which we place our happiness in, which we set our affections inordinately upon, and which we can by no means find in our hearts to part with, of which we say, “What have we more?” that we make an idol of. That is put in God's place, and is a usurper, which we are concerned about as if our life and comfort, our hope and happiness, and our all, were bound up in it. But, (3.) If all people will thus walk in the name of their god, shall we not be in like manner affected towards our God, the true God? Let us reckon the having of an interest in God and communion with him incomparably the richest portion, and the loss of God the sorest loss. Woe unto us if he depart, for what have we more? Deserted souls that are lamenting after the Lord may well wonder, as Micah did, that you should ask what ails them; for the tokens of God's favour are suspended, his comforts are withdrawn, and what have they more?

K&D 24-25, "And when he replied, “Ye have taken away my gods which I made, and the priest, and have departed; what is there still to me (what have I left)? and how can ye say to me, What is to thee?” they ordered him to be silent, lest he should forfeit his

life: “Let not thy voice be heard among us, lest men of savage disposition (נפש as in מרי2Sa_17:8) should fall upon thee (vid., Jdg_15:12; Jdg_8:21, etc.), and thou shouldst not save thy life and that of thy household,” i.e., shouldst bring death upon thyself and thy

family. הJספLו is also dependent upon ןO.

COKE, "Verse 24

Judges 18:24. Ye have taken away my gods, &c.— The word rendered gods is

elohim, which, as in other places, would be more properly rendered, my god; and

must, undoubtedly, mean the symbol of the Divine presence; as we cannot conceive

that Micah, who was a worshipper of Jehovah, could have been so absurd as to

think that he could make his god.

REFLECTIO S.—The priest, surprised to see the men return with his treasure,

expostulates with them against the theft; but his complaints are easily silenced: no

sooner do they propose to him to go along with them, and set in his view better

wages and greater preferment, than he very readily consents to follow, and leave a

private cure for a fee, little concerning himself about the charge, or the infamous

means of his advancement. ote; (1.) When a priest's heart is more anxious after his

preferment, than concerned about the weight of his office, it is a sure sign that he

serves an idol god. (2.) When a man chooses to minister for the salary, not the souls,

he must scandalize his profession.

ELLICOTT, "Verse 24

(24) My gods which I made.—He does not scruple to call the pesel and teraphim

“gods” (his Elohim), any more than the idolater Laban had done (Genesis 30:31).

The expression seems to be intended to show scorn for Micah; and perhaps it is

from missing this element that the LXX. soften it down into “my graven image,” and

the Chaldee to “my fear.” “My gods which I made” would be a very ordinary

expression for the Greeks, who called a sculptor a “god-maker” (theopoios), but was

startling on the lips of an Israelite. Micah pathetically asks “What have I more?”

but we may well hope that his present loss was his ultimate gain, and that he found

the true God in place of the lost gods which he had made.

PETT, "Verse 24

‘And he said, “You have taken away my elohim that I made, and the priest, and you

have gone away, and what have I more? And how then do you say to me, ‘What ails

you?’ ” ’

Micah’s reply was bitter. He felt that he had lost everything. ‘Elohim’ probably

means here ‘holy religious objects’. We remember how Laban called his teraphim

‘elohim’ (Genesis 31:30), but it is doubtful if he saw them as strictly ‘gods’ in the

strict sense. They were probably means of divination. We must also recognise that

the writer disapproved of these religious objects of Micah’s, whatever they were,

and would thus convey the idea of them in this way as false gods.

Micah also mentioned the priest. He felt as though he had lost a son. He probably

did not know that the priest had betrayed him and left of his own accord. And he

was annoyed at their provocative and nonchalant challenge.

It is clear that his house of God had been his whole life, even though he would

shortly recognise that there was more to life than that. It is a warning that we

should never let anything possess us but God Himself.

TRAPP, "Verse 24

18:24 And he said, Ye have taken away my gods which I made, and the priest, and

ye are gone away: and what have I more? and what [is] this [that] ye say unto me,

What aileth thee?

Ver. 24. My gods which I made.] Goodly gods that were made by man, and could

not save themselves from being stolen! See Isaiah 44:9. So the breaden god among

the Papists: together with their images, those carpenters’ chips, as Mrs. Cotismore

called them. (a)

And what have I more?] The Vulgate hath it, All that I have: that is, all that I make

any account of. He reckoned all the rest of his goods as nothing, having lost his gods;

and came forth to fight for them, velut pro aris et focis. This superstitious zealot

shall rise up in judgment against our lukewarm Laodiceans, our neuter passive

professors, that care not what becomes of true religion, - modo ferveat olla, so the

pot boil. God hath many such cold friends now-a-days. [1 Kings 18:21]

BE SO , "18:24. My gods which I made — Or, rather, my god, as the Hebrew

word generally signifies, meaning the image, which he considered as a symbol of

God’s presence with him; for he could not be so stupid as to think it to be the great

Jehovah, who made heaven and earth, and whom he professed to worship, but

merely as a medium through which he offered up his worship to him, as many of the

heathen did. What have I more? — I value nothing I have in comparison of what

you have taken away. Which zeal for idolatrous trash may shame multitudes that

call themselves Christians, and yet value their worldly conveniences more than all

the concerns of their own salvation. Is Micah thus fond of his false gods? And how

ought we to be affected toward the true God? Let us reckon our communion with

God our greatest gain; and the loss of God the sorest loss. Wo unto us, if He depart.

For what have we more?

Judges 18:24

F B Meyer

Our Daily Homily

Ye have taken away my gods, and the priest.

Whatever can be taken from us has the mark and signature of man upon it. Since

the Jewish priests were not permitted to continue, by reason of death, it was

evident that they were men at the best; and nothing that man makes is adequate to

supply the immortal cravings of the soul which, having come from God, craves for

God.

Change cannot take away our High Priest. — All around us is in a state of flux. o

two days in the most brilliant summer are quite the same. The hues are deepening

towards autumnal decay. But He continueth ever, and hath an unchangeable

priesthood. All that He was years ago, He is still, and will be. What to our

forefathers, that to us — “the same yesterday, and today, and for ever.”

The concerns of other souls cannot take Him away. — It is not difficult to conceive

of the attention of a human priest being diverted from those who once claimed all

his help, to fresh interests and younger generations. But, however many they be

who flock as doves to the windows of Christ’s mercy, they will never be able to

divert an atom of his love and sympathy from us.

Sins and failure cannot rob us of Him. — Indeed, they make Him nearer, dearer,

more absolutely necessary. The bands of Danites left Micah wailing when he

wanted the comfort of his priest most, lo, he was gone; but neither principalities,

nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any

other creature, can separate us from Him who ever liveth to make intercession.

“Having a High Priest over the house of God, let us draw near with a true heart in

full assurance of faith.”

GUZIK Why does Micah have to rescue his own god? Shouldn't his god be able

to take care of himself? But Micah's god is nothing; perhaps he sensed the irony

when he said, You have taken away my gods which I made

i. Each of us will either worship a god of our own making, or we will worship the

true God who made us. But the gods we make are always less than us; it's all a

way of worshipping ourselves

b. The foolishness of Micah's elaborate idolatry is exposed by his complaint, ow

what more do I have? His life lived after false gods made him empty; his false god

didn't bring him any lasting good

The army of the tribe of Dan refuses to give Micah his god back, so Micah goes

home empty handed

eedless to say Micah is greatly upset. He and some neighbours give chase.

And isn’t it pathetic - you took my gods. Some gods. They can’t even protect

themselves, how on earth can they look after Micah, or Dan? Micah’s trust is in

futile, helpless, useless images and idols. In the end he loses it all - so much for his

mother’s blessing, so much for his religious system.

Micah’s reply was bitter. He felt that he had lost everything. ‘Elohim’ probably

means here ‘holy religious objects’. We remember how Laban called his teraphim

‘elohim’ (Genesis 31.30), but it is doubtful if he saw them as strictly ‘gods’ in the

strict sense. They were probably means of divination. We must also recognise that

the writer disapproved of these religious objects of Micah’s, whatever they were,

and would thus convey the idea of them in this way as false gods.

Micah also mentioned the priest. He felt as though he had lost a son. He probably

did not know that the priest had betrayed him. And he was annoyed at their

provocative and nonchalant challenge.

It is clear that his house of God had been his whole life, even though he would

shortly recognise that there was more to life than that. It is a warning that we

should never let anything possess us but God Himself.

LEROE, "Israel at this point has a semblance of formal religion, but without a

foundation in God’s word. When the Danites capture Micah’s idols and priest, he

whines in protest, “I have nothing left!” (18:24). He has no idea that his priest has

betrayed him, has left for a “better offer”. What Micah had was a perversion of

religion—a fusion of pagan idolatry and Judaism. Had he lived today, Micah

would have likely consulted his horoscope or called a psychic. Long before

Micah’s assets were stolen, he had next to nothing; he just didn’t realize it. The

irony in all this is that Micah’s name means “Who is like God?”, yet God is absent

from his life. Micah had long lost God before he lost his idols. Why is he even

surprised at the theft when he’s living in an age of lawlessness?

Even today it’s possible to have a form of religion without much substance. This

pretence, which I call “churchianity”, is empty, devoid of genuine faith. When

churches reject the word of God, they become mere social clubs, lacking spiritual

power. Churches die when they cease to proclaim God’s truth. God expects us to

live out our beliefs; He expects us to seek and follow His will. He will say to those

with inauthentic faith on the Day of Judgment, “I never knew you” (Mt 18:24).

25 The Danites answered, “Don’t argue with us, or some of the men may get angry and attack you, and you and your family will lose your lives.”

CLARKE, "And thou lose thy life - This was argumentum ad hominem; he must put up with the loss of his substance, or else lose his life! It was the mere language of a modern highwayman: Your life or your money.

GILL, "And the children of Dan said unto him, let not thy voice be heard among us,.... Complaining of us as having done an unjust thing, charging and reproaching us with theft and sacrilege, insisting upon a restoration of the things taken, and abusing with odious names and characters:

lest angry fellows run upon thee: lest men of bitter and passionate spirits, provoked by ill language given them, should draw their swords and fall upon thee:

and thou lose thy life, and the life of thy household; the life of himself, his family, servants, tenants, and neighbours with him, which ought to have been more precious and valuable than his gods; of which there was great danger in demanding his gods, which by this they let him know they would not part with.

HE RY 25-26, "They insist upon the mischief they would certainly do him if he prosecuted his demand. They would not hear reason, nor do justice, nor so much as offer to pay him the prime cost he had been at upon those images, nor promise to make

restitution of what they had taken when they had served their present purpose with them in this expedition and had time to copy them and make others like them for themselves: much less had they any compassion for a loss he so bitterly lamented. They would not so much as give him good words, but resolved to justify their robbery with murder if he did not immediately let fall his claims, Jdg_18:25. “Take heed lest angry fellows run upon thee, and thou lose thy life, and that is worse than losing thy gods.” Wicked and unreasonable men reckon it a great provocation to be asked to do justice, and support themselves by their power against right and reason. Micah's crime is asking his own, yet, for this, he is in danger of losing his life and the lives of his household. Micah has not courage enough to venture his life for the rescue of his gods, so little opinion has he of their being able to protect him and bear him out, and therefore tamely gives them up (Jdg_18:26): He turned and went back to his house; and if the loss of his idols did but convince him (as, one would think, it should) of their vanity and impotency, and his own folly in setting his heart upon them, and send him back to the true God from whom he had revolted, he that lost them had a much better bargain than those that by force of arms carried them off. If the loss of our idols cure us of the love of them, and make us say, What have we to do any more with idols? the loss will be unspeakable gain. See Isa_2:20; Isa_30:22.

PETT, "Verse 25

‘And the children of Dan said to him, “Do not let your voice be heard among us, lest

angry fellows fall upon you and you lose your life, with the lives of your household.”

’

The Danites made no excuses. They were unashamed. They merely pointed to their

strength and suggested he be careful in case some of them lost their tempers. They

had been patient up to now. Let him be grateful for that. For there was little doubt

who would win if there was a fight. It was a case where might was right. ot that

they probably wanted a fight for they would want to preserve themselves for the

coming invasion.

TRAPP, "Verse 25

18:25 And the children of Dan said unto him, Let not thy voice be heard among us,

lest angry fellows run upon thee, and thou lose thy life, with the lives of thy

household.

Ver. 25. Let not thy voice be heard.] Tace, si sapis. The noise of weapons drowns the

voice of right. [Lamentations 2:9] The law is no more.

Lest angry fellows run upon thee.] Irati et irritati, biliosi et bellicosi. Heb., Men

bitter of soul. Gallice, Gens de cholere.

And thou lose thy life, &c.] Heb., e recolligas animam tuam: that is, lest God take

thy soul to himself, as Vatablus rendereth it: lest thou be sent to heaven the sooner

for thy devotion.

BE SO , "18:25. Let not thy voice be heard — Thy complaints and reproaches.

Lest angry fellows run upon thee — The soldiers, who are sharp and fierce and will

soon be inflamed by thy provoking words. And thou lose thy life — Which,

notwithstanding all thy pretences, thou valuest more than thy image, teraphim, and

ephod.

ROSS More basic than that is the fact that when the spies go back and get

600 warriors to go with them up to Dan, they make a return visit to Micah’s house

and this time they are not just looking for a place to stay. With 600 of them

garrisoned around the gate, they go into Micah’s house and brazenly steal from

him all this religious gear he had been collecting and his priest to boot—this one

who had become like one of his sons according to 17:11. These men who had

seemingly shown such sincere faith in Yahweh had earlier spied out Micah’s

impressive religious collection and made a note of it. On their return trip when

they brought their “muscle” with them, they relieve this pathetic Micah character

of his idols and even his own personal priest. They have this humorous exchange

with Micah where they basically tell Micah and his supporters to shut up and go

home—they had what they wanted, thank you, and this hapless man returns home

without his gods or any of the other spiritual accoutrements he had managed to

accumulate.

They made no excuses. They merely pointed to their strength and suggested he be

careful in case some of them lost their tempers. They had been patient up to now.

Let him be grateful for that. For there was little doubt who would win if there was

a fight. It was a case where might was right. ot that they probably wanted a fight

for they would want to preserve themselves for the coming invasion.

LEST FIERCE ME : "Fierce" = lit "bitter of soul." Used to describe those on the

verge of perishing. This expression (lit., "bitter of soul") is also used in 2 Sam.

17:8 of David and his warriors, who are compared there to a bear robbed of her

cubs. When combined with nepesh, "soul," the term mar, "bitter," suggests strong

emotions.

LOSE YOUR LIFE: To "lose your lives" is actually to "gather up your soul."

This same idiom is often used of one who is "gathered to his people" in death

( u20:24). If Micah wanted to die a natural death, retreat was the best policy.

The response of the Danites amounts to blatant extortion, the obtaining of

something of value from a person by force, intimidation, or undue or illegal power

& suggests a wringing or wresting from one who resists strongly. Once again,

moral principle is irrelevant; the Danites possess the power to enforce their theft if

necessary and make no attempt to be subtle in their threat to use this force.

Covenant disobedience, religious syncretism, and social anarchy go hand in hand.

26 So the Danites went their way, and Micah, seeing that they were too strong for him, turned around and went back home.

GILL, "And the children of Dan went their way,.... Went on their way, would not stay to have any further talk with him, as being an impertinent man, and unworthy of their regard, bidding him defiance, and do his worst, having nothing to fear from him:

and when Micah saw they were too strong for him; that he could not prevail upon them by words and arguments; to take up arms, and use them, he perceived it was to no purpose, since they were more numerous and more mighty than he and his neighbours:

he turned and went unto his own house; and if he returned from his idolatry to the true God, and the right worship of him, having lost his gods, it was well for him they were taken away.

K&D, "Then the Danites went their way; but Micah, seeing that they were stronger than he, turned back and returned home.

PETT, "Verse 26

‘And the children of Dan went their way, and when Micah saw that they were too

strong for him he turned and went back to his house.’

The thief had been outdone by greater thieves. They all deserved each other. So the

children of Dan carried on, and Micah returned chastened to his house. He had not

bargained on so strong a company.

TRAPP, "Verse 26

18:26 And the children of Dan went their way: and when Micah saw that they

[were] too strong for him, he turned and went back unto his house.

Ver. 26. He turned and went back unto his house.] But took no notice that God

punished him for his idolatry by those injurious Danites. "Lord, when thy hand is

lifted up, they will not see; but they shall see and be ashamed." [Isaiah 26:11]

PULPIT, "The verse tells us what the two parties did, but not in the Order in which

an English writer would express it; for no doubt the Danites, encumbered with their

women, and children, and baggage, did not go on their way till Micah and his party

had turned back, though in English the contrary order is rather implied. The

Hebrew merely puts the actions side by side, and leaves the order to be inferred.

27 Then they took what Micah had made, and his priest, and went on to Laish, against a people at peace and secure. They attacked them with the sword and burned down their city.

BAR ES, "The things which Micah had made - Rather, from Jdg_18:24, “the gods which Micah had made.” See Jdg_18:31; Deu_27:15; Exo_20:4.

CLARKE, "Unto a people - at quiet and secure - They found the report given by the spies to be correct. The people were apprehensive of no danger, and were unprepared for resistance; hence they were all put to the sword, and their city burnt up.

GILL, "And they took the things which Micah had made,.... The ephod, teraphim, and the two images, the Danites took them, or having taken them kept them, and went on with them:

and the priest which he had; him also they took, and who was willing enough to go with them:

and came unto Laish, unto a people that were quiet and secure; having no sentinels placed at any distance to give them warning of an enemy, nor any watchmen on their walls to discover one; and perhaps their gates not shut, nor any guard at any of their passes and avenues, having no apprehension at all of being visited by an enemy, especially from Israel, not being apprized that they had any pretensions to their city, and the land about it:

and they smote them with the edge of the sword; entered their city, and fell on them suddenly, and cut them to pieces:

and burnt the city with fire; to strike terror to all about; or it may be only they set fire to some part of it, as they entered, only to frighten the inhabitants, and throw them into the greater confusion, that they might become a more easy prey to them; for their intention was to inhabit it, and it seems to be the same city still, though they rebuilt it, and called it by another name.

HE RY 27-29, "Here is, I. Laish conquered by the Danites. They proceeded on their march, and, because they met with no disaster, perhaps concluded they had not done amiss in robbing Micah. Many justify themselves in their impiety by their prosperity. Observe, 1. What posture they found the people of Laish in, both those of the city and those of the country about. They were quiet and secure, not jealous of the five spies that had been among them to search out the land, nor had they any intelligence of the approach of this enemy, which made them a very easy prey to this little handful of men that came upon them, Jdg_18:27. Note, Many are brought to destruction by their security. Satan gets advantage against us when we are careless and off our watch. Happy therefore is the man that feareth always. 2. What a complete victory they obtained over them: They put all the people to the sword, and burnt down so much of the city as they thought fit to rebuild (Jdg_18:27, Jdg_18:28), and, for aught that appears, herein they met with no resistance; for the measure of the iniquity of the Canaanites was full, that of the Danites was but beginning to fill. 3. How the conquerors settled themselves in their room, Jdg_18:28, Jdg_18:29. They built the city, or much of it, anew (the old buildings having gone to decay), and called the name of it Dan, to be a witness for them that, though separated so far off from their brethren, they were nevertheless Danites by birth, which might hereafter, by reason of their distance, be called in question. We should feel concerned not to lose the privilege of our relation to God's Israel, and therefore should take all occasions to own it and preserve the remembrance of it to ours after us.

JAMISO , "Jdg_18:27-29. The win Laish.

they ... came unto Laish ... smote them — the inhabitants.

and burnt the city — “We are revolted by this inroad and massacre of a quiet and secure people. Nevertheless, if the original grant of Canaan to the Israelites gave them the warrant of a divine commission and command for this enterprise, that sanctifies all and legalizes all” [Chalmers]. This place seems to have been a dependency of Zidon, the distance of which, however, rendered it impossible to obtain aid thence in the sudden emergency.

K&D 27-29, "And they (the Danites) had taken what Micah had made, i.e., his idols

and his priest, and they fell upon Laish (על ,W, to come over a person, to fall upon himוא

as in Gen_34:25), a people living quietly and free from care (vid., Jdg_18:7), smote them with the edge of the sword (see at Gen_34:26), and burned down the city (cf. Jos_6:24), as it had no deliverer in its isolated condition (Jdg_18:28; cf. Jdg_18:7). It was situated “in the valley which stretches to Beth-rehob.” This valley is the upper part of the Hulehlowland, through which the central source of the Jordan (Leddan) flows, and by which Laish-Dan, the present Tell el Kadi, stood (see at Jos_19:47). Beth-rehob is most probably the same place as the Rehob mentioned in Num_13:21, and the Beth-rehob of 2Sa_10:6, which is there used to designate a part of Syria, and for which Rehob only is also used in Jdg_18:8. Robinson (Bibl. Res. pp. 371ff.) supposes it to be the castle of Hunin or Honin, on the south-west of Tell el Kadi; but this is hardly correct (see the

remarks on Num_13:21, Pent. p. 709). The city, which lay in ashes, was afterwards rebuilt by the Danites, and called Dan, from the name of the founder of their tribe; and the ruins are still to be seen, as already affirmed, on the southern slope of the Tell el Kadi(see Rob. Bibl. Res. pp. 391-2, and the comm. on Jos_19:47).

COFFMA , "Verse 27

THE DA ITES TAKE LAISH A D DESTROY IT

"And they took that which Micah had made, and the priest whom he had, and came

to Laish, unto a people quiet and secure, and smote them with the edge of the sword;

and they burnt the city with fire. And there was no deliverer, because it was far

from Sidon, and they had no dealings with any man; and it was in the valley that

lieth by Beth-rehob. And they built the city and dwelt therein. And they called the

name of the city Dan, their father, who was born unto Israel: howbeit the name of

the city was Laish at the first. And the children of Dan set up for themselves the

graven image; and Jonathan the son of Gershom, the son of Moses, he and his sons

were the priests to the tribe of the Danites until the day of the captivity of the land.

So they set them up Micah's graven image which he made, all the time that the

house of God was in Shiloh."

"They ... smote them with the edge of the sword" (Judges 18:27). This is a reference

to the wholesale slaughter of men, women, children and infants, and the burning of

the city with fire might also have been an instrument in the annihilation of the

population of that quiet and peaceful little city.

"They had no dealings with any man" (Judges 18:28). The citizens of that quiet

little city had not made any treaties or alliances with others who might have been

able to help them in such a disaster. "There was no deliverer."

"It was in the valley ... by Beth-rehob" (Judges 18:28). This place was the northern

limit of the penetration of Canaan by the twelve spies sent out by Moses ( umbers

13:21).

"And they called the name of the city Dan" (Judges 18:29). They built their city on

the ruins of the destroyed Laish. ote that Dan is referred to here as "their father,"

meaning their "ancestor." The proverbial expression, "From Dan to Beersheba,"

carried the meaning of, "from one end of Israel to the other."

"Jonathan ... son of Gershom, son of Moses, he and his sons were priests to ... the

Danites" (Judges 18:30). The apostasy of this grandson of Moses (the same word,

[~ben], means great grandson) was an embarrassment to the Jews, and they wrote

the word "Manasseh" above the word Moses but did not change the text, so that in

reading it aloud they did not have to mention this shameful development in the

posterity of Moses.[14] Of course, the connection of the distinguished family of

Moses with this apostate shrine in Dan added to its prestige and acceptance by the

Israelites.

"Until the day of the captivity of the land" (Judges 18:30). It is amazing to this

writer that the same radical scholars who can find thirty `interpolations' or `glosses'

in a single chapter are absolutely blind to such a thing when they actually encounter

one. That there are indeed editorial additions to the sacred text here and there

cannot be denied, as for example in those places where the sacred writer's death and

burial are recorded. An example is found in Joshua 24:29-30, and another is in

Deuteronomy 34:5-8).

The phrase noted here is possibly an editorial addition at a later time than that of

Samuel's narration. If these words mean "after the Assyrian captivity," then

Samuel who died centuries earlier could not have written them. Baigent stated that,

"`Until the day of the captivity' is a later editorial insertion, and the date indicated

here is probably that of the fall of the orthern Israel (circa 721 B.C.)."[15]

Furthermore, this appears to mean that the apostasy of Dan was never healed but

continued until the Assyrians captured and depopulated orthern Israel.

"During the time that the house of God was in Shiloh" (Judges 18:31). The

continuity of that particular installation of Micah's `god' in Dan did not last until

the Assyrian invasion in 722 B.C., because Judges 18:31 indicates that it continued

only "during the time that the house of God" remained in Shiloh. "The sanctuary at

Shiloh was destroyed in 1050 B.C."[16] If Samuel had written the words indicating

the use of that shrine "until the captivity of the land," then the words, "all the time

that the house of God was in Shiloh" would have been robbed of their meaning. For

this reason, we receive the words "until the time of the captivity" as possibly an

editorial insertion, true indeed as for their intended meaning, but nevertheless

confusing in the text as they stand.

"Until the days of the captivity of the land" (Judges 18:30). Keil did not accept the

view that this is an editorial insertion, but accepted it as a legitimate part of the text.

Keil also refused to apply the words either to the Assyrian captivity in 721 B.C. or to

the Babylonian captivity later, basing that conclusion on the basis that, "If that

Danite shrine had still existed in the days of Jeroboam I, that monarch would

certainly not have established a second worship in Dan of the same kind under a

priesthood that was not Levitical ... The words, therefore, can only refer to some

event that took place in the last years of Samuel, or the first part of the reign of

Saul."[17] We accept this alternative explanation as absolutely satisfactory and as

also avoiding the allegation of an "editorial comment." The only problem with it is

the fact that the Bible does not reveal any "captivity of the land" until a time long

afterward. Even this, however, is not a fatal objection to Keil's explanation, because

there are many, many things which happened in the history of Israel that are OT

recorded.

"Archaeological excavations in 1826,1928 show that there was an extensive

settlement in Shiloh in the twelfth and early eleventh centuries B.C. until its

destruction circa 1050 B.C."[18] Of course, there could well have been at that time a

"captivity of the land," which was left unmentioned in the sacred text.

Hervey also pointed out that, "The original image made by Micah may have been

destroyed by Saul or David ... Others think that `the captivity of the land' is a

reference to some deportation of the Danites by the Syrians or other neighboring

enemies not recorded in the Bible. This would enable us to give what is surely the

natural meaning to the words, `the captivity of the land.'"[19]

However one may interpret this difficult passage, there is certainly nothing in it that

contradicts the probability of Samuel's authorship of Judges. Again, from Hervey,

"Certainty regarding the interpretation here cannot be arrived at without more

actual knowledge."[20]

ELLICOTT, "Verse 27

(27) Burnt the city with fire.—This was unusual, for we are told that Hazor was the

only city which Joshua burnt (Joshua 11:13). Perhaps they had devoted the city by a

ban, as Jericho was devoted (Joshua 6:24); or the burning may have been due to

policy or to accident. Probably the notion that such conduct was cruel and

unjustifiable never occurred to them; nor must we judge them by the standard of

Christian times. But Dan was no gainer. His name disappears from the records of 1

Chronicles 4:1, and he is not mentioned among the elected tribes in Revelation 7.

Blunt (Undesigned Coincidences, pt. 2, 4) conjectures, from 2 Chronicles 2:14, that

the cause of their disappearance from Israelite records—the latest mention of them

as a tribe being in 1 Chronicles 27:22—was due to their intermarriages with the

Phœnicians.

PETT, "Verse 27-28

Judges 18:27-28 a

‘And they took the things which Micah had made, and the priest which he had had,

and came to Laish, to a people who were quiet and secure, and smote them with the

edge of the sword. And they burned the city with fire. And there was no deliverer,

because it was far from Zidon, and they had no dealings with any man.’

So the people of Dan reached Laish and found it unprepared and weakly defended,

totally unsuspecting. The people of Laish had no one to turn to because they had no

treaties, and their fellow-Zidonians were far away across the mountains. There is a

strong hint here of the importance of the covenant relationship. This too was why

Israel were having such problems, because they neglected the tribal confederacy.

Let them learn a lesson from these people. Without allies they were vulnerable.

“They took the things which Micah had made, and the priest which he had had.”

otice the emphasis on this. The writer had nothing but contempt for the Sanctuary

at Dan, and wants his readers to know it. Their religious objects were merely one

man’s creation, and the priest one man’s priest, in contrast with the Yahweh given

Ark, Tabernacle and priesthood. And they were also stolen objects which belonged

rightly to Micah, stolen by men who had accepted hospitality, and by a priest who

had betrayed his ‘father’. What kind of worship was this going to be? And yet it

would last for over a hundred years.

“They burned the city with fire.” Presumably in the fierce battle that ensued, or as a

warning for any neighbours to keep away. But as they were going to live there they

would want to preserve it as far as possible. Perhaps the phrase is to emphasise the

greatness of the victory.

Judges 18:28 b

‘And it was in the valley that lies by Beth-rehob. And they rebuilt the city and dwelt

in it’

In umbers 13:21 we learn that Rehob was ‘at the entering in of Hamath’ (or ‘near

Lebo-hamath’), on the farthest northern borders of Canaan.

Then the Danites rebuilt the city, possibly enlarging it, and took up their dwelling

there. They had found their new home. Their crime here was not so much the

capturing of a peaceful city, they had seen that happen all their lives and had of

necessity participated in it, but that they had opted out of the covenant and would

set up their own Sanctuary.

TRAPP, "Verse 27

18:27 And they took [the things] which Micah had made, and the priest which he

had, and came unto Laish, unto a people [that were] at quiet and secure: and they

smote them with the edge of the sword, and burnt the city with fire.

Ver. 27. And they took the things.] Chuckering themselves, to think what happiness

they should have in them, and little considering that there would be "bitterness in

the end." [Jeremiah 2:19]

Unto a people that were at quiet and secure.] See 18:10. This is often repeated, as

the root of their wretchedness. Security ushereth in destruction. [1 Thessalonians

5:3]

And they smote them.] God oft punisheth the wicked by the wicked: and when he

hath worn his rod to the stumps, as that martyr said, he casteth it into the fire. Vice

may correct sin.

And burnt the city with fire.] Here we have much in few: as in that of Virgil, so

much admired by Macrobius for fulness of matter in fewness of words, Iam seges est

ubi Troia fuit.

BE SO , "Verses 27-29

18:27-29. And burned the city with fire — ot wholly, but in a great measure, to

make their conquest more easy. They built a city — Or, rather, repaired and

enlarged that which they found there. After the name of Dan — That it might be

manifest they belonged to the tribe of Dan, though they were settled at a great

distance from them in the most northerly part of the land; whereas the lot of their

tribe was in the southern part of Canaan.

CO STABLE, "Verses 27-31

The establishment of idolatry at Daniel 18:27-31

The Danites" defeat of the inhabitants of Laish appears cruel and unjustified (cf.

Judges 9:45-49), though Laish was a Canaanite village. The town that seemed so

desirable to the spies was really vulnerable and isolated. Its advantages proved to be

weaknesses. Since God had adequate territory for the Danites in southern Canaan

this whole expedition was displeasing to God in spite of the Levite"s blessing (

Judges 18:6). Some of the Danites remained in their original southern tribal

allotment and did not move north. The new Danite territory in the north was really

a section of the Promised Land that Joshua had formerly apportioned to the tribe of

Manasseh or possibly aphtali ( Joshua 13:29-31; Joshua 19:32-33).

ote in Judges 18:27 that the Danites took three things: the "gods" that Micah had

made (cf. Judges 18:14), a priest whom they could buy, and a town that its

inhabitants could not defend. On these flimsy foundations the Danites built their

future in the orth.

Definitely contrary to God"s will was the setting up of Micah"s graven image in

their newly named town. Jonathan was the Levite the writer referred to previously.

Only now did the writer identify him by name, probably as a final forceful shock for

us, the readers. He was, of all people, a direct descendant of Moses (marginal

reading, Judges 18:30)!

"It is universally agreed that the reference [to Manasseh] was originally to Moses.

The reason for the amendment may have been to safeguard the reputation of this

great leader by excluding him from the pedigree of this time-serving and idolatrous

Levite." [ ote: Cundall and Morris, p191.]

The revelation of the identity of this apostate Levite as Moses" descendant at the

end of this already shocking story brings it to an almost unbelievable climax. A

direct descendant of the man most responsible for securing Israel"s unswerving

commitment to Yahweh played a major role in leading the Israelites away from

God!

"The problem of religious syncretism is so deeply rooted it has infected the most

sacred institutions and the most revered household.... If ben means "son" rather

than "grandson" or "descendant," then these events must have happened within a

hundred years of the arrival of the Israelites." [ ote: Block, Judges . . ., p512.]

The captivity referred to ( Judges 18:30) may be that of the Philistines ( 1 Samuel

4:11; 1 Samuel 4:22) or the Arameans ( 2 Chronicles 28:5). [ ote: Lewis, p93.] Some

scholars believe that it was the Assyrian Captivity of Israel that began in734 B.C. ( 2

Kings 15:29), [ ote: Block, Judges . . ., p513; and Bush, p232.] but if so this

statement was a later editorial insertion in the text. Idolatry that centered in Dan

did plague Israel for over600 years, and the Danites were initially responsible for it.

"In the book of1Chronicles, when the list of the tribes and families of Israel is given,

Dan is the only tribe which is totally ignored. Zebulun"s genealogy is also not

chronicled, but it is mentioned elsewhere ( 1 Chronicles 6:63; 1 Chronicles 6:77; 1

Chronicles 12:33; 1 Chronicles 12:40). Dan appears only as a geographical name,

not as a tribe. They had vanished into obscurity, probably because of intermarriage

with the Philistines. (E.g, 2 Chronicles 2:14.) Dan did not take what God had given

to them, and they took what God had not given them. In the process, they lost all

that they had." [ ote: Inrig, p279.]

The last verse of the story makes the most important point. The writer contrasted

"Micah"s graven image that he had made" with "the house of God" that He had

ordained.

"I suggest the writer places these two sanctuaries [Micah"s house of gods,

translated "shrine" in Judges 17:5, and the tabernacle], the false and the true, over

against one another. There is the true house of God at Shiloh and then there is

Micah"s collection of cultic Tinkertoys." [ ote: Davis, p201.]

"The narrator"s point is that throughout the period of the judges the cult site at

Dan functioned as an apostate challenge to the true worship of Yahweh." [ ote:

Block, Judges . . ., p514.]

The Danites were the first tribe to establish idolatry publicly in Israel. Perhaps this

is why their tribe also does not appear in the list of12tribes that will each produce12

,000 godly Israelite witnesses during the Tribulation Period ( Revelation 7:5-8).

". . . the tribe of Dan was one of the first to go into idolatry, was small in number,

and probably was thereafter classified with the tribe of aphtali..." [ ote: John

Walvoord, The Revelation of Jesus Christ, p141. See also Walter Scott, Exposition

of the Revelation of Jesus Christ, p166.]

This whole story of Micah and the Danites illustrates the terrible spiritual apostasy

that corrupted Israel during the age of the judges. Even the grandson (or

descendant) of Moses took leadership in it. It was no wonder that Israel had trouble

with her external enemies (chs3-16) since she was so spiritually corrupt internally

(chs17-18).

"The general theme pervading the whole narrative is its concern over false

religion..." [ ote: Dale Ralph Davis, "Comic Literature-Tragic Theology: A Study

of Judges 17-18 ," Westminster Theological Journal46 (Spring1984):162.]

"Indeed, things are so wrong in Judges 18 , and the Danites" behavior is so

repulsive, that it is hard not to conclude that Judges 18 is an intentional polemic

against Daniel , probably because Dan and Bethel became the two northern cultic

sites that rivaled Jerusalem." [ ote: McCann, pp124-25.]

There may be a polemic against Bethel in the reference to Ephraim in Judges 17:1.

[ ote: See Yairah Amit, "Hidden Polemic in the Conquest of Dan: Judges XVII-

XVIII," Vetus Testamentum40 (1990):4-20.]

These two chapters teach us important lessons. We should obey God"s Word, not

disregard it, as Micah did. We should serve God faithfully as He directs, not

advance ourselves at the cost of disobedience, as Jonathan did. We should also wait

for God and engage our spiritual enemy, not rush ahead or run away to establish

our own security, as the Danites did. Micah"s error was self-styled worship,

Jonathan"s was self-determined service, and the Danites" was self-seeking security.

"In this portrayal of the events the narrator provides another challenge to the

traditional scholarly understanding of Deuteronomism, which insists that sin brings

on the curse, but blessing follows obedience. Here sin succeeds! Ironically, and

perhaps tragically, the agendas people set for themselves are sometimes achieved-

which sends a solemn warning to the church at the close of the twentieth century.

Success is not necessarily a sign of righteousness or an indication that we must be

doing something right. It may in fact be the opposite. God does not stifle every

corrupt thought and scheme of the human heart." [ ote: Block, Judges . . ., pp514-

15.]

PULPIT, "And they. In the Hebrew the they is emphatic. It would be better

expressed in English by repeating The children of Dan. The repetition of the

epithets quiet and secure, as applied to the people of Laish, rather seems to indicate

the writer's reprobation of the deed as cruel, like that of Simeon and Levi in slaying

Hamor and Shechem. They smote them with the edge of the sword—a phrase

denoting an exterminating slaughter (Exodus 34:26; Joshua 19:47; 1 Samuel 15:8,

etc.). And they burnt the city, etc. Perhaps they had made the people and city a

cherem, a devoted thing, and therefore slew the one and burnt the other (cf.

umbers 21:3; Joshua 8:19; Joshua 11:11, etc.); or the burning of the city may have

been one of the means by which they destroyed the people.

28 There was no one to rescue them because they lived a long way from Sidon and had no relationship with anyone else. The city was in a

valley near Beth Rehob.

The Danites rebuilt the city and settled there.

BAR ES, "Rehob (as Dan afterward) is mentioned as the northernmost point of the land of Canaan Num_13:21, and its position is defined with reference to the entering in of Hamath.

A city - Rather, “the” city. They rebuilt Laish, which they had burned down Jdg_18:29.

CLARKE, "There was no deliverer - They had no succor, because the Sidonians, from whom they might have expected it, were at too great a distance.

GILL, "And there was no deliverer, because it was far from Zidon,.... Under whose government and protection they seem to have been; and that city being at a distance from them, and the Danites coming upon them suddenly, there was no time to send to them for help, or any to come in to their assistance, and save them from their enemies, see Jdg_18:7.

and they had no business with any man; that could have given them notice of the design of the children of Dan against them, nor to the Zidonians to come soon enough for their protection and defence; none there were in alliance with them except them:

and it was in the valley that lieth by Bethrehob; which lay in the northern border of the land of Canaan, as you go to Hamath of Syria; see Gill on Num_13:21.

and they built a city to dwell there; not a new one altogether, but they rebuilt and enlarged Laish, and made it convenient for them to dwell in.

JAMISO , "they built a city, and ... call the name of that city Dan — It was in the northern extremity of the land, and hence the origin of the phrase, “from Dan to Beer-sheba.”

ELLICOTT, "Verse 28

(28) In the valley that lieth by Beth-rehob.—At the foot of the lowest range of

Lebanon, and at the sources of the Jordan ( umbers 13:21), north of Lake Huleh. It

is probably the Rehob of Judges 1:31, Joshua 19:30; and later it belonged to Syria (2

Samuel 10:6) The name means “house of spaciousness.” Robinson (Bibl. Res. Iii.

371) identifies it with Hunîn, a fortress which commands the plain of Huleh.

TRAPP, "Verse 29

18:29 And they called the name of the city Dan, after the name of Dan their father,

who was born unto Israel: howbeit the name of the city [was] Laish at the first.

Ver. 29. The name of the city was Laish at the first.] Laish, or Leshem. [Joshua

19:47] Afterwards it was called Cesarea Paneadis, and Cesarea Philippi, because

rebuilt and beautified by Philip, brother to Herod the Tetrarch, in honour of

Augustus Caesar.

PULPIT, "Because it was far, etc. He reverts again to the description given in 18:7.

That lieth by Beth-Rehob. It is literally, which belongeth to Beth-Rehob, i.e. the

valley here spoken of was part of the territory of the Syrians of Beth-Rehob in the

time of David (and very likely earlier), as we read in 2 Samuel 10:6. It seems to have

taken its name, House of Rehob, from Rehob the father of Hadadezer, king of

Zobah (2 Samuel 8:12), and to have been called Beth-Rehob very much as Micah's

settlement was called Beth-Micah. It was also called for shortness Rehob, as

umbers 13:21; 1:31; 2 Samuel 10:8. It was situated, as we learn from 1:31, in the

bounds of the tribe of Asher, in the extreme north of the Holy Land, near the

entering in of Hamath, the site of which, however, is unknown (see umbers 13:21).

The valley is that through which the Leddan fountain flows ( 1:7, note), and is the

upper part of the plain called el-Hulleh, which is the northern continuation of the

Jordan valley. They built a city. Rather, they rebuilt the city.

29 They named it Dan after their ancestor Dan, who was born to Israel—though the city used to be called Laish.

CLARKE, "Called the name of the city Dan - This city was afterwards very remarkable as one of the extremities of the promised land. The extent of the Jewish territories was generally expressed by the phrase, From Dan to Beer-Sheba; that is, From the most northern to the southern extremity.

GILL, "And they called the name of the city Dan,.... The name of their tribe, and to show that though they were at the furthest part of the land northward, and at such a distance from their tribe, which lay to the southwest, yet they belonged to it:

after the name of Dan their father, who was born unto Israel; one of the twelve sons of Jacob or Israel:

however, the name of the city was Laish at first; which signifies a "lion", and might be so called from its being infested with lions, which might come from the mountain of Lebanon, near to which it was, and whither Dan, as a lion's whelp, leaped, Deu_33:22 and now the prophecy had its accomplishment. This place was also called Leshem, Jos_19:47 and it is remarkable that Leshem is the name of the precious stone in the high priest's breastplate, on which the name of Dan was engraved, which was done many years before this city fell into the hands of the Danites, though that might portend

PETT, "Verse 29

‘And they called the name of the city Dan, after the name of Dan their father, who

was born in Israel. However, the name of the city was Laish at first.’

They renamed the city Dan after the name of Jacob’s son Dan, their ancestor,

although previously it had always been called Laish. It is interesting that Laish

means ‘a lion’ and that Dan was ‘a lion’s whelp’ (Deuteronomy 33:22) although the

word for lion is different demonstrating that the two are not directly connected.

“Born in Israel.” There may be a hint here that they were seeking to opt out of

Israel.

That’s the sorry story of Judges 17-18. Moral and spiritual decline, because of

rampant idolatry, all in the name of God, but without any regard for the true God.

And that’s what is so horrible - these weren’t the pagan nations; these were all

God’s people. They had been saved by God, blessed by God, given a unique

revelation of God. They were his special people - who stole, dishonoured their

parents, didn’t love their neighbours, set up other gods and false idols. This is

what is appalling. God sees and hates Israel’s false religion.

They renamed the city Dan after the name of Jacob’s son Dan, their ancestor,

although previously it had always been called Laish. It is interesting that Laish

means ‘a lion’ and that Dan was ‘a lion’s whelp’ (Deuteronomy 33.22) although

the word for lion is different demonstrating that the two are not directly

connected.

‘Born in Israel.’ There may be a hint here that they were seeking to opt out of

Israel.

Then they rebuilt it and proudly called it Dan, after the name of the founder of

their tribe. Click to read about the city of Dan situated at the northern

extremity of the land of Canaan, in a beautiful and fertile plain, at the foot of

mount Hermon, on the springs of Jordan, and, according to Eusebius, four miles

from Cesarea Philippi, or Paneas towards Tyre. Dan was Israel's northernmost

settlement which gave rise to the expression "from Dan to Beersheba" to describe

the extent of the land (cf. Jdg20:1; 1Sa3:20; 2Sa3:10).

This city was afterwards very remarkable as one of the extremities of the promised

land. The extent of the Jewish territories was generally expressed by the phrase,

From DA to BEER-SHEBA; that is, From the most northern to the southern

extremity.

30 There the Danites set up for themselves the idol, and Jonathan son of Gershom, the son of Moses,[d] and his sons were priests for the tribe of Dan until the time of the captivity of the land.

BAR ES 30-31, "In the Hebrew text the name here rendered Manasseh is written MN)- SH. Without the “N” (nun) suspended over the line, the word may be read: Moses, whose son was Gershom Exo_2:22, whose son or descendant Jonathan clearly was. The Masoretes, probably grieved that a descendant of Moses should have been implicated in idolatrous worship, adopted this expedient for disguising the fact without absolutely falsifying the text. The Vulgate has “Moses”, the Septuagint “Manasses”.

These verses seem to tell us that Jonathan’s descendants were priests to the tribe of Dan until the captivity 2Ki_15:29; 2Ki_17:6; and that the graven image was in their custody until David’s time, by whose order, perhaps, it was destroyed, though the idolatrous worship continued, or was revived, at Dan.

CLARKE, "The children of Dan set up the graven image - They erected a chapel, or temple, among themselves, as Micah had done before; having the same implements and the same priest.

And Jonathan the son of Gershom - Either this was the name of the young Levite; or they had turned him off, and got this Jonathan in his place.

The son Manasseh - Who this Manasseh was, none can tell; nor does the reading appear to be genuine. He could not be Manasseh the son of Joseph, for he had no son called Gershom nor could it be Manasseh king of Israel, for he lived eight hundred years

afterwards. Instead of מנשה Manasseh, the word should be read משה Mosheh, Moses, as it

is found in some MSS., in the Vulgate, and in the concessions of the most intelligent

Jews. The Jews, as R. D. Kimchi acknowledges, have suspended the letter: נ nun, over

the word משה, thus,

נ

משה

which, by the addition of the points, they have changed into Manasseh, because they think it would be a great reproach to their legislator to have had a grandson who was an idolater. That Gershom the son of Moses is here intended, is very probable. See the arguments urged by Dr. Kennicott, Dissertation I., p. 55, etc.; and see the Var. Lect. of De Rossi on this place.

Until the day of the captivity of the land - Calmet observes, “The posterity of this Jonathan executed the office of priest in the city of Dan, all the time that the idol of Micah (the teraphim, ephod, etc). was there. But this was only while the house of the Lord was at Shiloh; and, consequently, the sons of Jonathan were priests at Dan only till the time in which the ark was taken by the Philistines, which was the last year of Eli, the high priest; for after that the ark no more returned to Shiloh.” This is evident; and on

this very ground Houbigant contends that, instead of הארץ haarets, the Land, we should

read הארן haaron, the Ark; for nothing is easier than the ו vau and final nun to be

mistaken for the ץ final tsade, which is the only difference between the captivity of the Land and the captivity of the Ark. And this conjecture is the more likely, because the next verse tells us that Micah’s graven image, etc., continued at Dan all the time that the house of God was at Shiloh; which was, till the ark was taken by the Philistines. Those who wish to see more on this subject may consult Calmet, and the writers in Pool’s Synopsis. This chapter is an important supplement to the conclusion of the 19th chapter of Joshua, on which it casts considerable light.

The Danites were properly the first dissenters from the public established worship of the Jews; but they seem to have departed as little as possible from the Jewish forms, their worship being conducted in the same way, but not in the same place. Surely it was better to have had this, allowing it to be unconstitutional worship, than to have been wholly destitute of the ordinances of God. I think we have not sufficient ground from the text to call these persons idolaters; I believe they worshipped the true God according to their light and circumstances, from a conviction that they could not prosper without his approbation, and that they could not expect that approbation if they did not offer to him a religious worship. They endeavored to please him, though the means they adopted were not the most proper.

GILL, "And the children of Dan set up the graven image,.... In their new city Dan, and very probably had a house built for it, peculiar to it, in the same place where Jeroboam, in later times, set up one of his golden calves. The Danites having succeeded, according to the oracle in Micah's house, they had a very great veneration for the images they brought away with them from thence, and set them up for religious worship in a proper place; for though only mention is made of the graven image, yet no doubt the molten image, and the teraphim, with the ephod, were all placed together for devotion and consultation:

and Jonathan the son of Gershom, the son of Manasseh, he and his sons were priests to the tribe of Dan: not to the whole tribe, but to that part of it which resided in this city, called Dan; and this Jonathan seems to be no other than the Levite Micah took into his house, and made a priest of; and whom the Danites took with them to Laish, to be their priest, who is said to be the son of Gershom, the son of Manasseh: now Gershom was the son of Moses, and this man is thought by some to be a grandson of his; and with this agrees the time in which he lived, for as Phinehas the grandson of Aaron was now living, Jdg_20:28 so might a grandson of Moses; and though he is called a young man, he might be a younger son of Gershom's; nor is his being a Levite any objection, since it is a clear case that Moses made no provision for his family, so disinterested was he, which may be observed against the deists: and it is remarkable that the "nun", or "N" in Manasseh, is suspended over the other letters in our printed copies of the Hebrew Bible, and so without it may be read, Moses; and the Jews (c) have a notion, that this was done for the honour of Moses, and to observe that he was more like

a son of Manasseh than of Moses; though rather this being the first letter of נשה, "to forget", may suggest, as Alting (d) observes, that he had forgot the virtues of his grandfather; and the Vulgate Latin version reads, the son of Moses; and some (e) are of opinion that this is the true reading of the text; though it may be that another Gershom than the son of Moses, and another Manasseh we know nothing of, are here intended, so Marcus Marinus (f): however, this man, and his sons in succession after him, were priests in Dan:

until the day of the captivity of the land; not till the captivity of Sennacherib or Salmaneser, when Dan, with the rest of the ten tribes, were carried captives, as Jarchi; for this idolatry, and these idolatrous priests, can hardly be thought to be continued here through the times of Samuel, David, and Solomon: nor is it to be understood of the captivity of Israel by Jabin king of Canaan, as Ben Gersom; for as the other is too long a time, this is too short, since it is clear, by the next verse, that this idolatry continued all the time the house of God was at Shiloh; and which directs us to the captivity here spoken of, when the ark was carried captive by the Philistines, and the house of Shiloh was forsaken; which is the sense of Kimchi, R. Isaiah, and Abarbinel; and may be illustrated and confirmed by some passages in Psa_78:58.

HE RY, " Idolatry immediately set up there. God had graciously performed his promise, in putting them in possession of that which fell to their lot, obliging them thereby to be faithful to him who had been so to them. They inherited the labour of the people, that they might observe his statues, Psa_105:44, Psa_105:45. But the first thing they do after they are settled is to break his statues. As soon as they began to settle themselves they set up the graven image (Jdg_18:30), perversely attributing their success to that idol which, if God had not been infinitely patient, would have been their ruin. Thus a prosperous idolater goes on to offend, imputing this his power unto his god,Hab_1:11. Their Levite, who officiated as priest, is at length named here -Jonathan, the son of Gershom, the son of Manasseh. The word Manasseh, in the original, has the letter n, set over the head, which, some of the Jewish rabbin say, is an intimation that it should be left out, and then Manasseh will be Moses, and this Levite, they say, was grandson to the famous Moses, who indeed had a son named Gershom; but, say they, the historian, in honour of Moses, by a half interposition of that letter, turned the name into Manasseh. The vulgar Latin reads it Moses. And if indeed Moses had a grandson that was rakish, and was picked up as a fit tool to be made use of in the

setting up of idolatry, it is not the only instance (would to God it were!) of the unhappy degenerating of the posterity of great and good men. Children's children are not always the crown of old men. But the learned bishop Patrick takes this to be an idle conceit of the rabbin, and supposes this Jonathan to be of some other family of the Levites. How long these corruptions continued we are told in the close. 1. That the posterity of this Jonathan continued to act as priests to this family of Dan that was seated at Laish, and in the country about, till the captivity, Jdg_18:30. After Micah's image was removed this family retained the character of priests, and had respect paid them as such by that city, and it is very probable that Jeroboam had an eye to them when he set up one of his calves there (which they could welcome at Can, and put some reputation upon, when the priests of the Lord would have nothing to do with them), and that this family officiated as some of his priests. 2. That these images continued till Samuel's time, for so long the ark of God was at Shiloh; and it is probable that in him time effectual care was taken to suppress and abolish this idolatry. See how dangerous it is to admit an infection, for spiritual distempers are not so soon cured as caught.

JAMISO , "Jdg_18:30, Jdg_18:31. They set up idolatry.

the children of Dan set up the graven image — Their distance secluded them from the rest of the Israelites, and doubtless this, which was their apology for not going to Shiloh, was the cause of perpetuating idolatry among them for many generations.

K&D 30-31, "Establishment of the Image-worship in Dan. - After the rebuilding of Laish under the name of Dan, the Danites set up the pesel or image of Jehovah, which they had taken with them out of Micah's house of God. “And Jehonathan, the son of Gershom, the son of Moses, he and his sons were priests to the tribe of the Danites till the day of the captivity of the land.” As the Danites had taken the Levite whom Micah had engaged for his private worship with them to Dan, and had promised him the priesthood (Jdg_18:19 and Jdg_18:27), Jehonathan can hardly be any other than this Levite. He was a son of Gershom, the son of Moses (Exo_2:22; Exo_18:3; 1Ch_23:14-

15). Instead of ן־משה�, our Masoretic text has הZן־מנ� with a hanging נ. With regard to this

reading, the Talmud (Baba bathr.f. 109b) observes: “Was he a son of Gershom, or was he not rather a son of Moses? as it is written, the sons of Moses were Gershom and Eliezer (1Ch_23:14), but because he did the deeds of Manasseh (the idolatrous son of Hezekiah, 2 Kings 21) the Scripture assigns him to the family of Manasseh.” On this Rabbabar bar Channa observes, that “the prophet (i.e., the author of our book) studiously avoided calling Gershom the son of Moses, because it would have been ignominious to Moses to have had an ungodly son; but he calls him the son of Manasseh, raising the n, however, above the line, to show that it might either be inserted or omitted, and that he was the

son of either הZמנ (Manasseh) or משה (Moses), - of Manasseh through imitating his

impiety, of Moses by descent” (cf. Buxtorfi Tiber. p. 171). Later Rabbins say just the

same. R. Tanchum calls the writing Menasseh, with a hanging nun, a סופרים and ,ת]וןspeaks of ben Mosheh as Kethibh, and ben Menasseh as Keri. Ben Mosheh is therefore unquestionably the original reading, although the other reading ben Menasseh is also very old, as it is to be found in the Targums and the Syriac and Sept. versions, although some Codd. of the lxx have the reading uhiou' Moou'see' (vid., Kennic. dissert. gener. in V. T. §21).

(Note: These two readings of the lxx seem to be fused together in the text given by

Theodoret (quaest. xxvi.): \ωνάθαν$γάρ$φησίν$υabς$Μανασσd,$υaοf$Γερσhµ$υaοf$Μωσd)

Jerome also has filii Moysi. At the same time, it does not follow with certainty from the reading ben Gershom that Jehonathan was actually a son of Gershom, as ben frequently denotes a grandson in such genealogical accounts, unknown fathers being passed over in the genealogies. There is very little probability of his having been a son, for the simple reason, that if Jehonathan was the same person as Micah's high priest - and there is no

ground for doubting this - he is described as נער in Jdg_17:7; Jdg_18:3, Jdg_18:15, and therefore was at any rate a young man, whereas the son of Gershom and grandson of Moses would certainly have passed the age of youth by a few years after the death of Joshua. This Jehonathan and his sons performed the duties of the priesthood at Dan

הLרץ iלות eru.$הLרץ .This statement is obscure .עד־יום i can hardly mean anything elseלות

than the carrying away of the people of the land into exile, that is to say, of the

inhabitants of Dan and the neighbourhood at least, since להi is the standing expression for this. Most of the commentators suppose the allusion to be to the Assyrian captivity, or primarily to the carrying away by Tiglath-Pileser of the northern tribes of Israel, viz., the population of Gilead, Galilee, and the tribe of Naphtali, in the midst of which Laish-Dan was situated (2Ki_15:29). But the statement in Jdg_18:31, “And they set them up Micah's graven image, which he made, all the time that the house of God was in Shiloh,” is by no means reconcilable with such a conclusion. We find the house of God, i.e., the Mosaic tabernacle, which the congregation had erected at Shiloh in the days of Joshua (Jos_18:1), still standing there in the time of Eli and Samuel (1Sa_1:3., Jdg_3:21; Jdg_4:3); but in the time of Saul it was at Nob (1Sa_21:1-15), and during the reign of David at Gibeon (1Ch_16:39; 1Ch_21:29). Consequently “the house of God” only stood in Shiloh till the reign of Saul, and was never taken there again. If therefore Micah's image, which the Danites set up in Dan, remained there as long as the house of God was at Shiloh, Jonathan's sons can only have been there till Saul's time at the longest, and certainly cannot have been priests at this sanctuary in Dan till the time of the Assyrian captivity.

(Note: The impossibility of reconciling the statement as to time in Jdg_18:31 with the idea that “the captivity of the land” refers to the Assyrian captivity, is admitted

even by Bleek (Einl. p. 349), who adopts Houbigant's conjecture, viz., רוןLה i, “theלותcarrying away of the ark.”)

There are also other historical facts to be considered, which render the continuance of this Danite image-worship until the Assyrian captivity extremely improbable, or rather preclude it altogether. Even if we should not lay any stress upon the fact that the Israelites under Samuel put away the Baalim and Astartes in consequence of his appeal to them to turn to the Lord (1Sa_7:4), it is hardly credible that in the time of David the image-worship should have continued at Dan by the side of the lawful worship of Jehovah which he restored and organized, and should not have been observed and suppressed by this king, who carried on repeated wars in the northern part of his kingdom. Still more incredible would the continuance of this image-worship appear after the erection of Solomon's temple, when all the men of Israel, and all the elders and heads of tribes, came to Jerusalem, at the summons of Solomon, to celebrate the consecration of this splendid national sanctuary (1 Kings 5-7). Lastly, the supposition that the image-worship established by the Danites at Dan still continued to exist, is thoroughly irreconcilable with the fact, that when Jeroboam established the kingdom of the ten tribes he had two golden calves made as images of Jehovah for the subjects of his kingdom, and set up one of them at Dan, and appointed priests out of the whole nation

who were not of the sons of Levi. If an image-worship of Jehovah had been still in existence in Dan, and conducted by Levitical priests. Jeroboam would certainly not have established a second worship of the same kind under priests who were not Levitical. All these difficulties preclude our explaining the expression, “the day of the captivity of the land,” as referring to either the Assyrian or Babylonian captivity. It can only refer to some event which took place in the last years of Samuel, or the first part of the reign of Saul. David Kimchi and many others have interpreted the expression as relating to the

carrying away of the ark by the Philistines, for which the words שראלMמ כבוד i are usedלהin 1Sa_4:21-22 (e.g., Hengstenberg, Beitr. vol. ii. pp. 153ff.; Hävernick, Einl. ii. 1, p. 109; O. v. Gerlach, and others). With the carrying away of the ark of the covenant, the tabernacle lost its significance as a sanctuary of Jehovah. We learn from Psa_78:59-64how the godly in Israel regarded that event. They not only looked upon it as a casting away of the dwelling-lace of God at Shiloh; but in the fact that Jehovah gave up His might and glory (i.e., the ark) into captivity, they discerned a surrender of the nation into the full power of its foes which resembled a carrying away into captivity. For, apart altogether form the description in Psa_78:62-64, we may infer with certainty from the account of the tyranny which these foes still exercised over the Israelites in the time of Saul (1Sa_13:19-23), that, after this victory, the Philistines may have completely subjugated the Israelites, and treated them as their prisoners. We may therefore affirm with Hengstenberg, that “the author looked upon the whole land as carried away into captivity in its sanctuary, which formed as it were its kernel and essence.” If, however,

this figurative explanation of רץLה i should not be accepted, there is no valid objectionלותto our concluding that the words refer to some event with which we have no further acquaintance, in which the city of Dan was conquered by the neighbouring Syrians, and the inhabitants carried away into captivity. For it is evident enough from the fact of the kings of Zoba being mentioned, in 1Sa_14:47, among the different enemies of Israel against whom Saul carried on war, that the Syrians also invaded Israel in the tie of the Philistine supremacy, and carried Israelites away out of the conquered towns and districts. The Danite image-worship, however, was probably suppressed and abolished when Samuel purified the land and people from idolatry, after the ark had been brought back by the Philistines (1 Sam. 2 ff.).

COKE, "Verse 30

Judges 18:30. The son of Gershom, the son of Manasseh— As this Manasseh

certainly cannot mean him who was the head of the tribe so called; it is generally

thought, that some other Manasseh of the tribe of Levi is understood. Dr. Kennicott,

however, strongly contends for the reading of the Vulgate, the son of Moses. "We

know," says he, "that Gershom was the son of Moses; and there are strong reasons

for believing that the word here was Moses, and not Manasseh. For, first, Saint

Jerome has expressed it Moses, and so has the Vulgate likewise; and farther, that

the Septuagint, as well as the Vulgate, formerly read Moses, we may infer from

Theodoret, who reads the verse thus: 'Jonathan, the son of Manasseh, the son of

Gershom;' and from the existence of both these words we may infer, that some

copies read the latter, and some the former; while others, that they might be sure of

the right word, inserted both. The Jews, as Kimchi and Aben-dana confess, struck

with deep concern for the honour of their law-giver, and distressed to think that a

grandson of Moses should be the first priest of idolatry, have ventured upon a pious

fraud; placing over the word משה Moseh, Moses, the letter נ nun, which might

intimate it to be מנשה Manasseh. This additional letter, being variously placed over

the word, has at length slipped down into the same rank with the original letters;

and the word Manasseh, which was designed to be read, has now supplanted Moses.

We are told, indeed, that this relation is figurative, meant of a similitude in idolatry,

and not of natural consanguinity: but that any man who lived eight hundred years

before Manasseh should be called a descendant of Manasseh, because Manasseh

acted like him eight hundred years afterwards, is absurd. That this word should

mean Manasseh the son of Joseph, is impossible, because that Manasseh had no son

called Gershom; but that Gershom was the son of Manasseh is certain from many

texts of Scripture. And lastly, the time of this first apostacy to idolatry farther

confirms the present argument. It is allowed, that the events recorded in the five last

chapters of Judges happened soon after the death of Joshua, and are prior to those

recorded in the former chapter; and as this idolatrous establishment in Dan was

soon after Joshua's death, that will be perfectly coincident with the life of Jonathan,

the son of Gershom, the son of Moses; for Joshua, being in the vigour of life at the

death of Moses, must be cotemporary with Gershom, the son of Moses; and would at

his death leave Jonathan the son of Gershom in the vigour of life, or at least capable,

in point of age, of being an idolatrous priest, at such a time as the sacred history

here most impartially represents him." See his Diss. p. 51-55, and p. 559.

Until the day of the captivity of the land— All the later Jews agree, that this passage

refers to the captivity of the ark of the covenant, which happened after the

Philistines had subdued the Israelites.

REFLECTIO S.—Proceeding on their expedition, the Danites arrive at Laish,

where, according to the report of the spies, the people were in perfect security; but

when sinners cry, Peace, peace, then cometh the sword.

1. They smote them without any resistance, put the people to the sword, and burnt

the city, which they afterwards rebuilt, and called it Dan, to preserve their

connection with their brethren, lest, by their distance from them, they might

afterwards be disowned.

2. They set up Micah's images there, probably imputing their success to their

presence; and the Levite and his sons were priests there till the ark was taken by the

Philistines in the time of Eli. And though this worship seems to have been

suppressed during the days of Samuel, David, and Solomon, yet enough of the old

leaven remained to make Jeroboam's calves welcome. ote; (1.) Prosperity in an evil

way encourages the heart to persevere in it. (2.) If pious parents could look out of

their graves upon their degenerate children, it would shock and grieve them to see

their ways. (3.) When bad habits are long indulged, it is very hard to eradicate

them; and if, for a season, they are restrained, yet relapses are greatly to be feared.

ELLICOTT, "Verse 30

(30) Set up the graven image.—If this pesel was in the form of a calf, the tradition of

this cult may have given greater facility to the daring innovation of Jeroboam (1

Kings 12:30). In any case, it would make the inhabitants more ready to accept a

cherubic symbol of Jehovah; for we may fairly assume that the “image” was not

dissociated from the worship of God, whether as Elohim or Jehovah. Jonathan and

the Danites both acknowledged Him under the name Elohim (Judges 18:5; Judges

18:10), and Micah, in spite of his images, acknowledged God as Jehovah (Judges

17:2; Judges 17:13; Judges 18:6), to whom, indeed, the very name of Jonathan (“gift

of Jehovah”) bore witness. Whether this, or rather the smallness of Dan, is the

reason for its exclusion from Revelation 7:4 must remain uncertain. The Fathers

thought, for this reason, that Antichrist would spring from the tribe of Dan.

Jonathan, the son of Gershom, the son of Manasseh.—The extreme reluctance to

admit this fact—the disgrace involved against the memory of Moses by this rapid

and total degeneracy of his grandson—is probably the reason why up to this point

in the narrative the name has been withheld. There can, however, be no doubt that

Jonathan was the young Levite who has all along been spoken of. The reading of

MA ASSEH for MOSES is by the confession of the Jews themselves due to the

same cause. Moses is in Hebrew משה , Manasseh is מנשה. It will thus be seen that

(without the points) the names only differ by the letter n ( נ). But in what is called

the Masoretic text—i.e., the text edited by the Jewish scribes—the נ is not boldly

inserted, but is timidly and furtively suspended—thus MSSH—and is called nun

thaîûyah (n suspended). This was done to conceal from the uninitiated the painful

fact. It was known to St. Jerome, and accordingly the Vulg. reads “son of Moses,”

which is also found in some MSS. of the LXX. Theodoret has “son of Manasseh, son

of Gershom, son of Moses.” The Jews distinguish between the “text” (Kethib

“written”) and the margin (Keri “read”), and Rabbi Tanchum admits that here

“Moses” is written, though “Manasseh” is read. The Talmud says that he was

grandson of Moses; but “because he did the deeds of Manasseh” (the idolatrous

king, 2 Kings 21), “the Scripture assigns him to the family of Manasseh” (Babha

Bathra, f. 109, 2); and on this a later Rabbi remarks that “the prophet”—i.e., the

sacred author—“studiously avoided calling Gershom the son of Moses, because it

would have been ignominious to Moses to have had an ungodly son; but he calls him

the son of Manasseh, suspending the n above the line to show that he was the son of

Manasseh (in a metaphorical sense) by imitating his impiety, though a son of Moses

by descent.” The Talmudists account for the distasteful tact by saying that the

degeneracy was due to the wife

of Moses, who was a Midianite, so that there was a taint in the blood of the family. It

is not, however, the sacred author who is guilty of this “pious fraud,” but the

Masoretic editors. The rarity of the name Gershom (which means “a stranger

there,” Exodus 2:22) would alone be sufficient to betray the secret. The extravagant

and superstitious letter-worship of the scribes did not suffice to prevent them from

tampering with the letter, any more than it prevented the Rabbis from entirely

explaining away the obvious spirit of the Law which they professed to adore. The

only uncertainty in the matter is whether this wandering Levite, this young

Jonathan who for less than thirty shillings a year becomes the priest of an idolatrous

worship, was the actual grandson, or only a later descendant of Moses, since the

Jews often omit steps in their genealogies. There is, however, no reason why he

should not have been the actual grandson, since he is contemporary with Phinehas

(Judges 20:28), who was, without any question, the actual grandson of Aaron. This

rapid degeneracy may perhaps account for the obscuration of the family of Moses,

which never seems to have subsequently risen into any importance, and of which no

more names are preserved. Jonathan’s name is excluded, perhaps deliberately, from

1 Chronicles 23:15-16. Or is he indeed Shebuel, as St. Jerome avers, probably from

Jewish tradition?—and has his name been purposely altered? It is probably from a

similar dislike to reveal the disgrace which thus fell on the family of the great law-

giver that Josephus entirely omits the story. It is impossible that he should not have

been perfectly acquainted with it. The identity of Jonathan with Shebuel in 1

Chronicles 23:16 is asserted in the Targum, which says that “Shebuel, that is,

Jonathan, the son of Gershom, the son of Moses, returned to the fear of Jehovah,

and when David saw that he was skilful in money matters, he appointed him chief

over the treasures.”

Until the day of the captivity of the land.—(1) If the expression meant “the

captivity,” as ordinarily understood, the meaning could only be that these

descendants of Moses continued also to be priests of the calf-worship for nearly two

centuries, until the ten tribes were carried captive by Shalmaneser and Tiglath-

pileser. (Comp. 1 Chronicles 5:22.) If so, there would be a strong additional reason

for identifying this worship with the calf-worship, and the fact might then be

supposed to account for there being no mention of non-Levitic priests at Dan, but

only at Bethel (1 Kings 12:33). (2) Some suppose that we should read “ark” (aron)

for “land” (arets). (See 1 Samuel 4:21-22.) But this conjecture of Houbigant is not

supported by a single MS. or version. (3) It is far from impossible that “the

captivity” may mean the Philistine captivity, which resulted from their terrible sack

of Shiloh after the battle of Aphek (1 Samuel 4:11; 1 Samuel 4:22). It is called “a

captivity” in the passage which so graphically describes the scene in Ps. 88:58-61.

Otherwise we may suppose (4) that “the land” has here a circumscribed sense, and

that “the captivity” alluded to is one inflicted on the Danites by the kings of Zobah.

or some other Syrian invasion (1 Samuel 14:47). The third explanation is, however,

rendered almost certain by the following verse.

PETT, "Verse 30-31

‘And the children of Dan set up for themselves the graven image, and Jonathan the

son of Gershom, the son of Moses, he and his sons were priests to the tribe of the

Danites until the day of the captivity of the land. And they set up for themselves

Micah's graven image, which he made, all the time that the house of God was in

Shiloh.’

Presumably Dan built a house of God or erected a Tabernacle and in it they set up

the graven image. This demonstrates that the graven image was the central object.

Thus, as suggested at the beginning (Judges 17:3), it may well have been a miniature

replica of the Ark of the Covenant, the throne of Yahweh, with the covering

cherubim.

It was set up ‘all the time that the house of God was at Shiloh’. This suggests that

this sub-tribe of Dan did not see themselves at that time as still part of the tribal

confederacy. Rather they worshipped at their own rival sanctuary. These were the

depths to which they had sunk. They were no longer part of the covenant. It may be

that this reference to Shiloh signifies that they did later return to the covenant and

loyalty to the central sanctuary after Samuel’s great victory over the Philistines.

Certainly they were later a part of Israel.

“Jonathan the son of Gershom, the son of Moses, he and his sons were priests to the

tribe of the Danites until the day of the captivity of the land.” We probably learn

here who the Levite was who had been installed as priest by Micah. His name was

Jonathan and he claimed direct descent from Moses. In view of the shortness of the

time that had passed this could probably be verified. Thus the Danite sanctuary

claimed Moses as the source of their priesthood. It was a sad reflection on the state

of things when a descendant of Moses could behave as he had done, setting up as a

priest, contrary to the Law of Moses, aiding the theft of the religious objects, and

deserting his patron.

“Son of Gershom” means ‘descended from Gershom’ in accordance with ancient

usage. He may not have been directly his son, possibly his grandson or great

grandson, for this was early in the Judges period. Compare how Phinehas, Aaron’s

grandson, seems to have been still living (Judges 20:28) around this time. But he was

not a young man.

“Until the day of the captivity of the land.” This probably refers to the Philistine

invasion when the house of God at Shiloh ceased (1 Samuel 4 see Jeremiah 7:12) and

the Philistines for a time controlled large parts of Israel west of Jordan. If this is so

it confirms the idea that they at that stage, or not long afterwards, rejoined the

tribal confederacy.

Other suggestions have been the destruction of the north by Tiglath Pileser around

734 BC (2 Kings 15:20) or the Assyrian invasion which resulted in the capture of

Samaria in c. 721 BC. But this is unlikely. It is very questionable whether David

would have allowed the Sanctuary to continue, for the sake of unification if nothing

else, once he established Jerusalem as the central sanctuary, and even less so

Solomon in his early years, although it may be that it would have been allowed to

continue as a local sanctuary. And it is clear that Dan did again become a part of the

tribal confederacy for it featured as part of Jeroboam’s kingdom when Israel split

from Judah.

The setting up in Dan of a sanctuary by Jeroboam when Israel split from Judah (1

Kings 12:29-30) may have been the taking over, and improvement, of this sanctuary.

That may then explain the reference to the captivity of the land as relating to the

end of the sanctuary as relating to the one continued and improved by Jeroboam.

(The comment about the captivity of the land would then be an interpolated note).

But it is far more likely that the reference was to the time when they returned to the

covenant.

“All the time that the house of God was in Shiloh.” The Philistine invasion and

capture of the Ark would signal the end of Shiloh as the central sanctuary,

combined with the death of Eli, the judge of Israel and priest of the Tabernacle (1

Samuel 4:12-18). After the Ark was later returned it was in Kiriath-jearim for

twenty years (1 Samuel 7:1), with Eleazar, the son of Abinadab, as priest. But

eventually, after Samuel’s great victories over the Philistines, the Tabernacle and

the central sanctuary, together with the Ark, were established at ob (1 Samuel

21:1). This may have been when Dan rejoined the covenant.

So the chapter ends with the setting up of a rival to the central sanctuary, the

withdrawal of a sub-tribe from the covenant, the establishment of an official

priesthood not descended from the Aaronic priesthood, and all based on theft and

disloyalty. Truly there was no King in Israel. It did not bode well for the future of

Israel or the tribal confederacy.

TRAPP, "Verse 30

18:30 And the children of Dan set up the graven image: and 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.

Ver. 30. And the children of Dan set up the graven image.] Animated, doubtless, by

their good success against Laish, foretold them by that oracle. See 2 Thessalonians

2:10. {See Trapp on "2 Thessalonians 2:10"}

And Jonathan, the son of Gershom, the son of Manasseh.] Of Moses by nature, but

of Manasseh that notorious idolater, by imitation: In accuratissimis libris un in

"Manasseh" suspensum est supra alias literas, saith learned Buxtorf. (a) To save the

honour of Moses; lest it should reflect upon so good a man to have so bad a

grandson, as would rather have beseemed Manasseh than Moses. Manasseh is

written in the Hebrew here with un elevated above the other letters, and this

mark, o, upon the top, and a note in the margin. {Hebrew Text ote}

Until the day of the captivity of the land,] viz., By the Philistines, when the ark was

taken. [1 Samuel 4:10-11] Compare Psalms 78:60-62; Psalms 78:66.

BE SO , "18:30. The children of Dan set up the graven image — Having

succeeded in their expedition, according to the prediction they supposed they had

through the image, they had a great veneration for it. And as soon as they had

completed their city, they set it up, and chose a minister to officiate for them,

probably the Levite who had acted as priest for Micah, and is, at length, named

here, Jonathan, the son of Gershom, the son of Manasseh: not of that Manasseh who

was the head of the tribe so called, for he had no son named Gershom, but, as is

generally thought, of some other Manasseh of the tribe of Levi; Gershom and

Manasseh being names common in Israel. Until the day of the captivity — When the

whole land of the ten tribes, whereof Dan was one, was conquered, and the people

carried captive by the Assyrians, (2 Kings 17:6; 2 Kings 17:23,) which is called, by

way of eminence, the captivity. The Jewish rabbis, however, Kimchi and Ralbeg,

argue, that it is altogether unlikely this image should be suffered to continue in the

days of David, who was sedulous to destroy idolatry, and advance true religion to

the utmost of his power, all the country over from Dan to Beer-sheba, and who is

therefore said to be a man after God’s own heart. Hence, they conclude, that by the

captivity of the land here is meant the taking of the ark by the Philistines, and

carrying it captive into the temple of Dagon. The later Jews, in general, approve of

understanding the words in this sense; and “it is surprising,” says Houbigant, “that

they have not seen that הארון haaron, the ark, should have been read here for הארצ

haarets, the land.” But it ought to be observed, that it is not said here, the graven

image was there till the captivity of the land, but only that Jonathan’s posterity were

priests till that time, to this tribe or family of Dan. This they might be, under all the

changes which took place, even till the Assyrian captivity, sometimes more openly,

sometimes more secretly, sometimes in one way of idolatry, and sometimes in

another. In the mean time, it is only affirmed, that the Danites had the graven image

with them while the house of God was in Shiloh, which was removed thence when

the ark of God was taken, 1 Samuel 4. So that the captivity of the land, here spoken

of, may be that by Shalmaneser, as stated above, and yet David, during his reign,

may have destroyed all idols out of the land.

PULPIT, "18:30, 18:31

And the children of Dan, etc. It was probably the long existence of this semi-

idolatrous worship of the graven image at Dan that induced King Jeroboam to set

up one of his golden calves at Dan, as we read 1 Kings 12:28-30. And Jonathan, the

son of Gershom, the son of Manasseh. The Hebrew text really has the son of Moses.

But a little n is written above the line between the M and the S of Moses (Mosheh),

so as to be read Manasseh, as thus: MSH; so that they avoided the pain of reading

aloud that the grandson or descendant of Moses was an idolatrous priest, without

actually altering the written text. It is indeed most sad that it should have been so,

though like examples are not wanting, as, e.g; the sons of Eli and of Samuel. For

Gershom the son of Moses see Exodus 2:22; Exodus 18:3; 1 Chronicles 23:14-16. It

does not follow that Jonathan, the priest of the Danites, was literally the son of

Gershom. It may merely mean that he was of the family of which Gershom was the

head. Until the day of the captivity of the land. There is great diversity of opinion as

to the meaning of this phrase. Many understand it, as is the obvious meaning of the

words, of the Assyrian captivity (2 Kings 15:29; 2 Kings 17:6). But some of the best

commentators, as Kimchi among the Jews, and many moderns, think it refers to the

taking captive of the ark by the Philistines in the days of Eli, because this is the time

indicated in the next verse by the mention of the house of God in Shiloh. The ark of

God never returned to Shiloh after it was taken thence (1 Samuel 4:3, 1 Samuel 4:4)

and captured by the Philistines (ibid. 1 Chronicles 23:11). It is also noticed that the

expression, The ark of God is gone into captivity (is taken, A.V.), occurs in 1 Samuel

4:21, 1 Samuel 4:22. It certainly would be strange that one verse (30) should speak

of the worship of the graven image lasting till the Assyrian conquest of the land, and

the next verse (31) limit it to the time that the house of God was in Shiloh, some 300

years earlier. At the same time it should be noticed that verse 30 speaks of the time

that Jonathan's sons were priests to the tribe of Dan, and verse 31 of the worship of

Micah's image. It is quite possible that the descendants of Jonathan may have been

appointed priests at Dan to Jeroboam's golden-calf worship, though the original

graven image of Micah may have been destroyed by Saul or David; and in the

interval between such destruction of Micah's image and the setting up of

Jeroboam's calves they may have been the priests of an irregular worship on a high

place at Tell-el-Kady. And this would enable us to give what is certainly its natural

meaning to the words, "the captivity of the land." But no certainty can be arrived at

without more actual knowledge. Many commentators adopt Houbigant's conjecture

to read ark for land at the end of verse 30 (aron for aretz). Others think that some

deportation of the Danites by the Syrians or other neighbouring people not recorded

in history is here spoken of. All the time the house of God, etc. This must have been

written not earlier than the time of Samuel, and possibly much later. The house of

God, i.e. the tabernacle, was in Shiloh from the days of Joshua (Joshua 18:1) till the

days of Eli (1 Samuel 1:3), after which we have no account of where the house of

God was till the ark was brought up to Jerusalem by King David from the house of

Obed-edom the Gittite (2 Samuel 6:12), and placed in the tabernacle that David had

pitched for it (2 Samuel 6:17); but whether this was the tabernacle that had been

pitched at Shiloh or a new one does not appear. It is not improbable that Samuel

may have moved the tabernacle from Shiloh to Ramah (1 Samuel 7:17). The ark had

rested in the house of Abinadab at Baaleh or Kirjath-jearim for twenty years (1

Samuel 7:2) previous to its removal by David.

JOH MCARTHUR, JR

Back in Judges 17, we are introduced to a young Levite who had left Bethlehem

and was searching for a place to stay. He is shrouded in mystery because we are

not told anything else about him in that chapter. This priest's story continues in

chapter 18 and for most of the chapter, he is referred to as "the young Levite."

Then, the author of the book of Judges makes a startling revelation in chapter 18,

verse 30:

"There the Danites set up for themselves the idols, and Jonathan son of Gershom,

the son of Moses, and his sons were priests for the tribe of Dan until the time of

the captivity of the land."

This young Levite, who willingly served as a priest in a household where they used

idols and graven images in their worship and who quickly left that house to work

for the tribe of Dan because they paid better, was Moses' grandson! o wonder

the one writing this narrative was a little embarrassed to mention that earlier.

In fact, the Hebrew text of this passage doesn't even include the name. Where we

read, "Jonathan son of Gershom, the son of Moses," the Hebrew scripture says,

"Jonathan son of Gershom, the son of (in the Hebrew alphabet equivalent) MS."

It is kind of like how older books and writings never spelled out cuss words or

vulgar slang. Instead they would print the first letter of the bad word followed by

a series of dashes because it was too embarrassing to actually print the word. That

is what the author of Judges does here.

As a result of disguising the name, some English translations read: "Jonathan son

of Gershom, the son of Manasseh." Because those two Hebrew letters could stand

for the name Manasseh. But that doesn't make sense. People from Manasseh

weren't priests or Levites and as far as we can tell from scripture, Manasseh never

had a son named Gershom. But Moses did.

If this young Levite was Moses' grandson, the stories here make more sense. o

wonder Micah wanted this traveling stranger to be his priest. He had already

spent a lot of money on idols and ephods to impress his neighbors and make

everyone want to worship at his house. ow, if he had the grandson of Moses as

his personal priest, no one could question his motives. And if this young Levite

was the grandson of Moses it explains why in chapter 18, verse 3 the spies heard

his voice and recognized it. And it also explains why in this chapter they were so

interested in having him come to serve them. They wanted the recognition and

honor having Moses' grandson as their priest would give them.

31 They continued to use the idol Micah had made, all the time the house of God was in Shiloh.

BAR ES, "In the Hebrew text the name here rendered Manasseh is written MN)-SH. Without the “N” (nun) suspended over the line, the word may be read: Moses, whose son was Gershom Exo_2:22, whose son or descendant Jonathan clearly was. The Masoretes, probably grieved that a descendant of Moses should have been implicated in idolatrous worship, adopted this expedient for disguising the fact without absolutely falsifying the text. The Vulgate has “Moses”, the Septuagint “Manasses”.

These verses seem to tell us that Jonathan’s descendants were priests to the tribe of Dan until the captivity 2Ki_15:29; 2Ki_17:6; and that the graven image was in their custody until David’s time, by whose order, perhaps, it was destroyed, though the idolatrous worship continued, or was revived, at Dan.

GILL, "And they set them up Micah's graven image, which he made,.... Which is repeated for the sake of the time of its continuance next expressed:

all the time the house of God was in Shiloh; which, according to some Jewish writers (g), was three hundred and sixty years; that is, so long as the tabernacle was

there, which was afterwards removed to Nob.

ELLICOTT, "Verse 31

(31) And they set them up Micah’s graven image.—Rather, entrusted to them, i.e., to

Jonathan’s descendants. The phrase “set them up” can only have been used by

inadvertence by our translators in this verse, since the verb used, yasîmo (LXX.,

etaxan heautois; but Vulg., mansitque apud eos, i.e., there remained with them the

descendants of Jonathan), is wholly different from the verb yakîmû, rendered “set

up” (LXX., anestésan) in Judges 18:30.

All the time that the house of God was in Shiloh—i.e., till Samuel’s early manhood,

when the Philistines sacked Shiloh, to which place the Ark and Tabernacle never

returned (1 Samuel 4:3, 1 Samuel 6:21, 1 Samuel 7:1). This verse may probably have

been added by a later hand to prevent any mistake in the interpretation of the

former. It may have been written in Saul’s reign, when the Tabernacle and ephod

had been removed to ob for greater safety. The last mention of the town of Dan is

in 2 Chronicles 16:4

Remember Micah's mother who set aside eleven hundred pieces of silver to be

given to the Lord? Micah came along and stole it and mother placed a curse on

him and the money. When Micah told his mother he stole the money, the money

became diverted from God to the founder, who was hired to pour the images and

make the things that went to form Micah and his mother's new religion. "Eleven"

is the number in biblical numerics that stands for "defective administration", and

that is exactly what happened to the Lord's money. Do you consider what happens

to the tithe you give to the Lord, and what it is going to promote?

Micah had his images but not his priest, and when the first hireling came down the

road Micah bought himself a priest. Though this priest told Micah that he was a

Levite, come to find out much later the man was not even from the tribe of Levi,

but the offspring of the lineage of Manasseh, the son of Joseph. It didn't matter to

Micah, just as it didn't matter to these Danites that there super preacher was a

fake. What mattered to each of them was that this fake priest would tell them

what they wanted to hear, and that he would set up whatever religious form that

pleased them.

What a way to find a new home! The Danites kidnapped the hireling priest of the

false religion and stole the idols. Then they killed innocent people who were living

in ignorant isolation, a dangerous thing in that day. The climax came when they

set up their own center of idolatrous worship, in open disobedience to the Word of

God.

They were living in a place where there was “no lack of anything that is on the

earth” (v10); yet they lacked everything that God wanted to give them from

heaven! Their false prosperity gave them false security that could not last.

The account of Micah, Jonathan, and the Danites is more than a story from

ancient history. It's a revelation of the wickedness of the human heart and the

hopelessness of human society without God. Our modern world has substituted

idols for the true and living God and has devised its own humanistic religion,

complete with "priests"-the experts who tell us that the Bible is wrong but their

way is right. But neither their idols nor their priests have any power against the

violence of the human heart.

This chapter is like a preview of coming attractions for America. The home, the

ministry, and society are disintegrating before our eyes, and people don't want to

hear the truth! But whether they want it or not, the world must be told that Jesus

Christ died for lost sinners, and that the power of Christ can transform hearts,

homes, churches, and society if people will only trust Him.

English preacher John Donne wrote

"Christ beats His drum, but He does not press men. Christ is served with

voluntaries."

Are you available?

SHILOH: Click for discussion of Shiloh. Shiloh was a small village about 20 miles

north of Jerusalem and was important because it served as the religious center for

Israel during the period of the judges before the kingdom was united under the

leadership of David. umerous references are made to Shiloh during this period

as the city where the “house of God” was located (Jdg18:31). These references are

probably to the tabernacle with its ark of the Testimony—or perhaps a permanent

building that housed the tabernacle—because the temple was not constructed until

about 960 b.c. during Solomon’s time. Hannah prayed for a son at Shiloh. God

granted this request by sending Samuel. During his boyhood, Samuel worked with

the high priest Eli at Shiloh.

One of the most beautiful stories of the Old Testament is about Samuel’s response

to the voice of the Lord. Thinking his master Eli was calling him, he awakened the

high priest to find out what the high priest wanted (see illustration). Finally, it

dawned on both that God was calling Samuel in a unique revelation of His will for

the boy. Samuel’s response to God’s next call was, “Speak, Lord, for Your servant

hears” (1 Sa3:1–10). Samuel eventually succeeded Eli.

The tabernacle was located in Shiloh during Samuel’s early years as priest (1 Sam.

1:9; 4:3, 4). However, during a battle with the Philistines, the ark of the Testimony

was captured by Israel’s enemies because God had forsaken Shiloh as the center of

worship (Ps78:60). When the ark was returned to Israel by the Philistines, it was

not placed at Shiloh (2 Sa 6:2–17). It was lodged instead at Kirjath Jearim (1 Chr.

13:3–14).After the ark was moved to another city, Shiloh gradually lost its

importance. This loss was made complete when Jerusalem was established as

capital of the kingdom in David’s time. In the days of the prophet Jeremiah,

Shiloh was in ruin (Jer 7:12, 14). It became an inhabited town again in the days of

the Greeks and Romans several centuries later.

**************************

Judges 18.31

G Campbell Morgan

So they set them up Micah's graven image which he made, all the time that the

house of God was in Shiloh. Judges 18.31.

Whether intentionally on the part of the writer or no, there is a touch of satire in

this declaration. There, at Shiloh, was the true centre of the national life, the house

of God. In connection with its worship, all the resources of national strength were

to be found. evertheless, at Dan they gathered about the false, and rendered a

worship which was destructive. The terrible decadence of the religious idea is very

startlingly revealed in this whole story. The consciousness of the importance of

religion was deeply embedded in the mind of the people. Micah must worship, and

the Danites felt the necessity of maintaining some kind of relationship with God.

Then why did .they turn from the true, to a perversion which was utterly false?

The answer is found in the revelation of motive. In each case there was a prosti-

tution of religion to purposes of personal prosperity. Micah hoped by the mainte-

nance of some form of worship, and the presence of a priest, that Jehovah would

do him good, by which he evidently meant that material prosperity would come to

him. The Danites, going forth on the enterprise of providing more territory for

themselves, were anxious for the maintenance of religion. Whenever religion is

acknowledged and adopted merely in order to ensure material prosperity, it

suffers degradation. Thus do men try to serve God and Mammon. It cannot be

done. The attempt always fails. All history proves the folly of leaving the true God

for the false, in the ruin which results to those who do so. God is not mocked.

(Morgan, G. C. Life Applications from Every Chapter of the Bible)

John D. McArthur, Jr.

There are many reasons why God shouldn't call you. But don't worry, you're in

good company. Moses stuttered. David's armor didn't fit. John Mark was rejected

by Paul. Timothy had ulcers. Hosea's wife was a prostitute. Amos' only training

was in the school of fig-tree pruning. Jacob was a liar. David had an affair.

Solomon was too rich. Jesus was too poor. Abraham was too old. David was too

young. Peter was a coward. Lazarus was dead. John was self-righteous. aomi

was a widow. Paul was a murderer. So was Moses. Jonah ran away. Miriam was a

gossip. Gideon and Thomas both doubted. Jeremiah was depressed and suicidal.

Elijah was burned out. John the Baptist was a loudmouth. Martha was a

worrywart. Mary was lazy. Samson had long hair. oah got drunk.

Did I mention that Moses had a short fuse? So did Peter, Paul -- well, lots of folks

did. But God doesn't require a job interview. He doesn't hire and fire like most

bosses because he's more like our Dad than our Boss.