Deeper Commentary

Jdg 17:1 There was a man of the hill country of Ephraim whose name was Micah-
Jud. 17-21 contain various pictures of and insights into the apostacy of the tribe of Dan, providing the backdrop for a character study of Samson. These chapters seem chronologically out of place; they belong before the Samson story. Jud. 18:30 speaks of Jonathan the grandson of Moses, and Jud. 20:28 of Phinehas the grandson of Aaron (cp. Num. 25:11), which would place these events at the beginning of the period of the Judges, once Israel had first settled in the land. Dan's apostacy is suggested by the way in which he is omitted from the tribes of the new Israel in Rev. 7. Zorah, Samson's home town, was originally Judah's inheritance (Josh. 15:33-36), but they spurned it, and passed it to Dan (Josh. 19:41), who also weren't interested; for they migrated to the north and too over the land belonging to the less warlike Sidonians (Jud. 18:2,7-10). Their selfishness is reflected by the way they chide with him: "What is this that you have done unto us?" (Jud. 15:11). See on Jud. 13:1.

However, my considered take is that although there was an earlier migration of Danites from their inheritance as mentioned earlier in Judges, we will now read in Jud. 17,18 of the migration northward of just those Danites who lived in Samson's home area of Eshtaol. This is tacit acceptance that Samson had failed to liberate his local area, although God had set him up potentially to achieve this. So the record continues directly in the context of the Samson history. We note that in Deborah's time, the tribe of Dan at that time still remained in ships (Jud. 5:17), suggesting the Danites generally at that time had not yet left the territory assigned it by the sea.

Jdg 17:2 He said to his mother, The eleven hundred pieces of silver that were taken from you, about which I heard you utter a curse - I took them. His mother said, Yahweh bless you my son-
One theme of the history of Dan is the mixture between flesh and spirit, and this was to come to full term in the life of Samson. His idolatrous mother blesses him by Yahweh, and she is an idolater. 1100 pieces of silver would imply that this woman was very wealthy, for 10 pieces of silver a year was a good salary (:10), and so the apostacy we are to read of would likely have been amongst the wealthy leadership class. She had cursed the thief, but when she found it was her son, she turns the curse into a blessing. We compare this with how Jephthah didn't feel he could change such an oath once uttered. 1100 pieces of silver was exactly the amount of money which each prince of the Philistines was to pay Delilah for Samson's betrayal (Jud. 16:5). We wonder whether this woman may have been Delilah, or connected with her; for I gave some reasons for believing she was perhaps an Israelitess. Women typically didn't have money of their own; but this woman does, and Jud. 16 explains just how this may have come about. Sorek was on the border between Israelite and Philistine territory; and Samson grew up in Zorah and Eshtaol, on the northern sides of that valley. She refers to "the Philistines be upon you, Samson" as if neither she nor Samson were Philistines. Jud. 16:5 says that the Philistine leaders “went up” to her. We note that the camp of Dan, Zorah and Eshtaol are mentioned in Jud. 18:2,8,11,12, just as they are in Jud. 13. This also suggests that the storyline continues after Samson's death. Both Micah and Samson were from the tribe of Dan. We note too that the Hebrew translated "that were taken from you" could as well be rendered "that were taken by you". This would be so appropriate to Delilah. Yet they had been apparently stolen- and Micah admits to being the thief. It is quite credible that he would have been revolted by his mother's behaviour and therefore stole one of the 1100 shekel payments.

If indeed the woman here was Delilah, it is also possible that Micah was the son of Samson and Delilah. It is psychologically credible that he resented what his mother had done to his father, and therefore stole the money paid to her. 'Delilah' uses the Yahweh Name, and Micah means 'Who is like Yah?'. The engraved and molten image[s] made with the money appear to be teraphim, and such family gods were usually made in memory of a dead father or ancestor; they were thought to be representations of their deceased spirits. Teraphim are associated with household worship in Gen. 31:19,34,35 (Rachel) and 1 Sam. 19:13,16 (Saul's daughter had teraphim in the form and size of a man, and placed it in a bed to double as her husband). It seems reasonable to guess that Micah's father had recently died... again inviting us to see the father as Samson, and the story of Jud. 17 following right on from the death of Samson in Jud. 16. The claim is often made that Jud. 17-21 come after Jud. 16, largely based on the account of Dan migrating northwards earlier in Judges. I suggest not all of them did, and the Danites around Samson did so only in Jud. 18. Higher critical theory is always seeking to argue for dislocation of Biblical texts, but careful reading usually shows this is all totally unnecessary. On the contrary, we see Jud. 17 and the rest of the story following on in perfect context from Jud. 16.

Micah stole money to make a molten image, but that image was in turn to be stolen from him by his Levite, one he trusted as his spiritual father and who was to him as a son (:11).

Jdg 17:3 He returned the eleven hundred pieces of silver to his mother and she said, I solemnly dedicate my silver to Yahweh for my son to make an engraved image and a molten image. Then I will give it back to you-
The grammar is ambiguous. It could be a past perfect, “I indeed had dedicated”, or a performative perfect “I hereby solemnly dedicate". She had cursed her own son, although inadvertently, not knowing he was the thief. And curses were held to be of absolute power and veracity. This would explain why she immediately wants to spend the money on Yahweh and also on a molten image- to somehow reverse her curse she had placed on her own beloved son. Her comment in :2 "May Yahweh bless you" was a way of saying that she wished Yahweh to reverse her curse she had placed on her son, and replace it with a blessing. And yet in the end she only gives 200 of the silver pieces to this project. There are many Greek and Roman stories of a thief being cursed, fearing the oath and returning the stolen property- a part of which is then dedicated to a god. This could explain the ambiguity of "I solemnly dedicate / I had solemnly dedicated" the silver to Yahweh. She had dedicated 1100 to Yahweh, but her son stole it, she cursed him, he returned it- and so she now gives part of the sum to idol worship. And presumably the other 900 to Yahweh. We see how mixed were her motives and loyalties. Which is exactly the theme of the Samson story and this last section of Judges [Jud. 17-21].

It seems the idol was made from melting down the 200 silver pieces. The idol was therefore made from stolen silver, immediately casting a cloud over whether it could ever be legitimate in any religious context.

The idea seems to be that she would dedicate the money but somehow retain it within her power. His repentance therefore cost him nothing, and neither really did her supposed sacrifice to Yahweh; whereas it is a principle of sacrifice that it must cost us something, we must be left in deficit after it, in real terms (2 Sam. 24:24). We see how deeply Israel had fallen into thinking that idolatry was justified, because it was a form of Yahweh worship. Their later placing of idols in the temple of Yahweh could only really have happened on that basis. And this has been the abiding temptation and tendency for God's people; to mix the flesh and the Spirit, to have a little of both, rather than making wholehearted commitment to Him. And it is seen too in the mixture of paganism with Biblical truths in the theology of standard Christianity. 

Jdg 17:4 So he returned the money to his mother and she took two hundred pieces of it and gave them to the silversmith, who made it into an engraved image and a molten image, and they were put into Micah’s house-
And then the rest of the money she returned to Micah (see on :3). "Micah" means 'who is like Yah!'. His mother had named him like this and he probably would have agreed with his name, hence he kept it; but this was the mere externality of religious devotion. For clearly they were idolaters, wrongly claiming to serve Yahweh through serving idols. See on :3.

Or we can translate: "So he restored the money to his mother (and his mother took two hundred shekels), and she gave it to the founder". The 200 would be roughly one fifth of 1100, which means he may have given this to his mother in obedience to the Mosaic command of Lev. 6:5 for a thief to return the stolen goods with a one fifth restitution. In which case we see how confused they all were, keeping parts of God's law and having a genuine conscience towards God; whilst being idolaters and very ignorant of His ways.

Another reading is that the woman said she would give the 1100 shekels to make an image, but in reality she only gave two hundred shekels for this and kept the rest. There is a connection with how Achan keeps Babylonian idol paraphernalia and also 200 shekels of silver (Josh. 7:21).

The Hebrew word for "Micah" in :1 and :4 is Micayahu, who is like Yah. But after he has established his shrine / house of gods, he is called Mica, without the 'yah' suffix. His best efforts to apparently serve Yahweh meant that in fact Yahweh was removed from him. And that is the paradox of so much religiosity.

Jdg 17:5 This man Micah had a shrine, and he made an ephod and household gods and consecrated one of his sons to be his priest-
Micah was clearly a passionate religionist. The apostacy of such people was partly due to the failure of the priesthood. He therefore consecrated one of his sons to be a priest. Part of his apostacy, making his own holy place and ephod, was perhaps due to the fact that the sanctuary of Yahweh wasn't functioning properly. It was still in Shiloh (Jud. 18:31), but perhaps being abused as it was at the time of Eli, so that people didn't wish to attend it. Individual failure is always personally culpable, but this isn't to say that spiritual leaders aren't also to be held accountable by God for it.

"Had a shrine" could suggest Micah already had a place for his idols, and he added the ephod and teraphim constructed with the stolen money. "A shrine" is better as AV "an house of gods". But a bait elohim could as well mean "a house of God" as "an house of gods". The very same phrase is found in Jud. 18:31 "the house of God that was at Shiloh". This ambiguity continues that noted earlier on :3. He worships both Yahweh and many gods, in the same house. "And he made..." suggests that in addition to the 200 pieces of silver melted down to make an idol, he additionally made an ephod and teraphim. Quite possibly with his mum's money. Bethel and Shiloh were nearby, famed for their sanctuaries, and Jud. 20:18-28 shows that the sanctuary at Bethel was in use at the time. But Micah wanted his own sanctuary and priest.

The record is clearly allusive to Dt. 27:14,15: "The Levites shall proclaim aloud to all the men of Israel, “Cursed is the man who makes a statue and molten image, an abomination to Yahweh, the work of an artificer’s hand, and places it in an occult place!”. All the people will respond and say, “Amen”". The Levite instead is blessing and participating in worship using a statue and molten image. Nah. 1:14 likewise refers to an idolatrous 'statue and molten image' within a 'house of god / elohim'. We recall that the Levites were chosen because they alone in Israel had killed Israelites who worshipped a molten image (Ex. 32:4,8). The Levite was a far cry from the intention for the Levites in Dt. 33.10: "They will teach Your decrees to Jacob and Your law to Israel, they place incense under Your nostrils, and a sacrifice on Your altar", at the place Yahweh chose- not the altar of an idol shrine.

Jdg 17:6 In those days there was no king in Israel; every man did what was right in his own eyes-
The contrast is with how they did evil in the eyes of Yahweh (Jud. 3:7). Their eyes were seeing the opposite of God's eyes. And that is exactly what we are reading here in this story of Micah. What they thought was right in their eyes was evil in God's eyes.

This implies that the book of Judges as we have it was edited, under Divine inspiration, some time after Israel began to have kings. Perhaps during the exile, when again they had no king; and therefore the book becomes a warning to the exiles about likely apostacy. The lament may be that there was no authority, no teacher, no modelling of Godly living; because every man did what was right in his own eyes, rather than doing what was right in the eyes of Yahweh. For so often we read of Israel being condemned for doing what was wrong in His eyes. This is clear enough evidence that 'just follow your heart' is poor advice. For what is right in our own eyes results in the Godless confusion of what we find now at the time of the Judges. However it could be argued that having no human king was a good thing; for God didn't want them to have one. And therefore a situation where everyone judges things by their own judgment is in fact good; the problem was that the people didn't base their view upon God's word, His "eyes" or perspective, but solely upon their own unenlightened opinions. 

Jdg 17:7 There was a young Levite who had been living in Bethlehem Judah-
Note the triple mention of the fact this Levite was from Bethlehem Judah, which wasn't a priestly city. Nor is he presented as living near any of the noted sanctuaries of Yahweh: Shechem, Shiloh, Gilgal, Mizpah, Bethel, Penuel or Hebron. We note the surprise of the Danites when they learn he is a Levite: "Who led you here? What are you doing in this place? What do you have here?” (Jud. 18:3).  They are surprised to find a Levite not in a Levitical city nor at a sanctuary. He is repeatedly characterized in the record as not really being a Levite in practice. We could render "from the tribe of Judah". Yet he was also a Levite, a potential king-priest, seen as of great significance. And yet we will learn in Jud. 18:31 he was descended not from Aaron but from Moses, and therfore unqualified to act as a Levite.

I suggested on :3-5 that the apostacy of Micah and others like him was partly a result of the Levites to teach them a better way. And the absence of Levitical teachers, and the apparent non functioning of the sanctuary, would in turn have been a result of the people not paying tithes to the Levites so that they could do this teaching work. And so everything had spiraled downwards. Bethlehem was not a priestly city, and so this Levite had been living there but not working as a Levite. Presumably because his home city was a place where the tithes were not paid, this Levite had gone to live in Bethlehem looking for work. 

Jdg 17:8 and he left the city to find a better place, and came to the hill country of Ephraim to the house of Micah-
A Levite leaving Bethlehem is exactly what we have in Jud. 19. The clear connection is perhaps to suggest that in fact nothing was learnt from these tragic events in Jud. 17,18, and the mistakes were repeated.

The Levites had no inheritance of land, and so life was extremely difficult for them when they were not paid tithes by the other Israelites. They became like this man, wandering labourers who went looking for any kind of work just to keep them alive. He perhaps went to the house of Micah because he was evidently wealthy; for his mother had 1100 pieces of silver to spend on religion, when  a good salary was 10 pieces / year. That money was 110 years of good salary. The Levite likely went there in the hope of finding work in the house of a rich man.

Jdg 17:9 Micah said to him, Where have you come from? He said to him, I am a Levite of Bethlehem Judah, and I am looking for a place to live-
Not having their own land, the Levites were homeless when the tithes weren't paid, or if their priestly allotment was taken from them by the tribe where the priestly city was. I noted on the distribution of the priestly cities in Joshua that many were in areas not subdued by Israel, or in remote, peripheral regions. So the Levites became landless labourers, often homeless.

Quite possibly there is the intended contrast with the command for the Levite to travel to the place Yahweh would choose, and serve there: "If a Levite comes from any of your gates out of all Israel, where he lives as a foreigner, and comes with all the desire of his soul to the place which Yahweh shall choose, then he shall minister in the name of Yahweh" (Dt. 18:6,7). This Levite is just wandering around looking for a job in any place. Time and again, this Levite is presented as doing and being the exact opposite of what a Levite was intended to do. The implication of the record is that he was looking for a paid position as a priest, whereas the Levites were to live from the tithes of the people.

The allusion is to how Eli's descendants would beg for a piece of silver in return for priestly work (1 Sam. 2:36). This man was not blessed. The priests were intended to live from their portion of the sacrifices, but clearly they wanted payment in cash not kind and so had departed from those commands. 

Jdg 17:10 Micah said to him, Live with me and be unto me a father and a priest, and I will give you ten pieces of silver per year, a suit of clothing and your food. So the Levite agreed-
Micah asked the young Levite, who was “unto him as one of his sons”, to “be unto me a father and a priest” (Jud. 17:10,11- note the paradox), resulting in others likewise asking him to “be unto us a father and a priest” (Jud. 18:19). The point is, no matter how unqualified a person may be for the job, they may be pressed into being leaders because that’s what nominally religious people so desperately need. They need someone to call 'father'; and it seems Pharaoh treated Joseph in the same way (Gen. 45:8). It is very noticeable amongst those who are themselves senior or heads of some kind of group, be it domestically or in the workplace. The way the Lord forbad this (Mt. 23:9) was therefore tantamount to disallowing any merely 'religious' approach to God. He personally was to be understood as Father, and a personal relationship developed with Him. 

The priests were to be from the line of Aaron, whereas this Levite was a descendant of Moses (Jud. 18:30). Not all Levites were priests. Again we see how the whole situation was only an appearance of obedience to Mosaic law when in fact they were all being totally disobedient. It's not hard to see the similarities with various forms of high church Christian religions. But we need to look at our own lives and possibilities of being the same. For this is the difference between religion and spirituality. The prophets condemn priests selling their services (Hos. 4:4-10, Mic. 3:5-8). But Micah's hiring of the Levite was seen by him as his generosity to Yahweh. Again and again we see this mixture of flesh and Spirit.

Jdg 17:11 The young Levite was content to dwell with the man and became unto him as one of his sons-
The paradox is that this young man was wanted by Micah as a father to him. Even though he was of an age and maturity to merely be Micah's son. It was as if Micah's religious impulse led him to by all means want someone to be his spiritual senior, no matter how young or unqualified they were. And we see precisely this mentality in all cultures of our world today. 

These words are an exact quotation of Ex. 2:21: “And it pleased Moses to dwell with the man”. The Levite was a descendant of Moses (Jud. 18:30). We are again given the impression of a man externally imitating a righteous man, but out of context- and in fact going against the spirit of that righteous man.

Jdg 17:12 Micah consecrated the Levite, and the young man became his priest, living in his house-
It was priests who were to consecrate Levites; but Micah is just taking bits and pieces from God's true religion and making them part of his own do it yourself religious system. And we see this going on all the time, both now and historically. Biblical verses and precedents are taken quite out of context, and mixed in with paganism and human ways. And every reference to consecration of priests so far in the Bible have referred to consecration of the descendants of Aaron (Ex. 28:41; 29:9,33,35; Lev. 8:33; 16:32; 21:10; Num. 3:3). But the Levite was descended from Moses not Aaron (Jud. 18:30). He was also of mixed stock, also being from Judah. He wasn't even a pure Levite. But he lived in Micah's house, probably meaning he was accepted as part of Micah's household. The record often speaks of Micah's "house", whereas worship was meant to be in God's house.

Jdg 17:13 Then Micah said, Now know I that Yahweh will do good to me, since I have a Levite as my priest-
We feel almost sorry for Micah. He had a basic conscience, feeling struck by guilt that he had stolen a huge sum from his mother, equivalent to 110 years of good salary. He wants Yahweh in his life and His blessings, but he thinks it can be attained by mere externalities, and through worshipping other gods. He was desperate for teaching; and the Levite failed him in this, perhaps because he too had not been taught God's ways and law. This relief that he is now blessed by God is as noted on :3- a relief that now his mother's curse on him as a thief has been cancelled out by Yahweh. Or so he thinks, because he predicates the removal of the curse upon Yahweh accepting his idol shrine now he has a Levite as a priest. The curse had no real power, and neither did his scheme to have it reversed. If he had believed solely in Yahweh, rather than in Yahweh plus evil powers and gods, he would have made less mistakes and had far greater peace. Just as for many today. But in this case, both the Levite and the molten image were removed from Micah- in God's higher purpose, to try to lead him to repentance before God, and trusting in Yahweh's directly mediated blessing. There is intentionally no comment as to whether this achieved the intended end. We are left to ponder that, because that is one of the intended lessons of the story.