Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.comKeil and Delitzsch Commentary - Judges 18:17 - 18:17
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
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 בָּאוּ the narrative passes from the aorist or historical tense וַיַּעֲלוּ into 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 הָאֵפֹוד פֶּסֶל (the ephod-pesel), i.e., the image 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 אֹו in the second question is different from אִם, 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 וּלְמִשְׁפָּחָה (unto a family) serves as a more minute definition or limitation of לְשֵׁבֶט (to a tribe).