Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadLange Commentary - Judges 18:14 - 18:31
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Jdg_18:14-31
[2 Jdg_18:22.— äֵîָּä äִøְçִé÷åּ îִáֵּéú îִéëָä : “they had just withdrawn from the house of Micah, when the men,” etc. So Dr. Cassel, but not so well as the E. V. The verb äִøְçִé÷åּ properly requires a complemental infinitive, ìָìֶëֶú , cf. Exo_8:24, but is frequently also, as here, used without it.—Tr.]
[3 Jdg_18:30.—Dr. Cassel adopts here the conjectural reading “ark” instead of “land;” and it certainly seems that if criticism is ever justified in resorting to conjecture, it is so in this passage. See the discussion below.—Tr.]
Jdg_18:15-20. And they came to the house of the young man the Levite, the house of Micah. The manner in which the robbery is accomplished is vividly and beautifully portrayed. The five leaders are, of course, acquainted with the Levite from their former visit. They were also acquainted with the situation. They go to him, and greet him. The priest recognizes them, and permits them, the five, to enter the sanctuary. He himself remains at the gate, where the six hundred, in their warlike array, have placed themselves, while the families, the cattle, and the rest of the train, are already moving off. The five, being alone in the temple, take all its treasures, image and image adornments, ephod and teraphim (another proof that the latter were small), and bring them forth (Jdg_18:18), when the priest addresses them: “What do ye?” Even at this stage, the narrative does not conceal the lukewarmness of the priest. He was not watchful when the people came, sent no information of anything to Micah, and even now raised no alarm to prevent the theft which he could not but know was in progress. He was just an hireling. Hence, when the five propose to him to be priest to them, a whole tribe, rather than to a mere individual, but in that case to keep still, and come along with the idols, without making a noise,—he accepts the offer with joy, takes the idols into his priestly hands, and is for security inclosed in the midst of the warriors. What a strange thing is superstition! This priest has first of all betrayed his God and his office for money, has by his name as priest led many astray, and now, from mere vanity, abandons his benefactor, who has treated him as a son (Jdg_17:11), and leaves him in the lurch; and yet he is eagerly snatched up as something valuable, and it is considered a great point gained when such hands as his carry gods who allow themselves to be taken off by robbers, and to be honored and praised by traitors. It is worthy of notice, that, according to Jdg_18:20, the priest when he joins the warriors, regains custody only of the “ephod, teraphim, and image:” the massekah, the ornament of the image, containing its gold value, the Danites do not trust out of their own hands.
Jdg_18:21-26. They had just departed from the house of Micah. The Danites show themselves well versed in the arts of freebooters. They assume that they may be pursued. Accordingly, they cause everything that cannot defend itself or is difficult of transportation, to proceed in advance of them. (The term ëְּáåּãָּä , from ëָּáֵã , heavy, must here undoubtedly be taken of what, like cattle, admits of only slow transportation; for many valuables the Danites can scarcely have had with them. Moreover—and this is important here—the meaning “valuable,” in this word, is only a derivative one from “heavy.”) Thus they march along—behind their children, sheep, and beasts of burden—ready for instant action. Meanwhile, information of the theft had reached Micah. About his sanctuary a little village had formed itself. The people are quickly collected. They pursue. But there was no Abraham here, who with three hundred and eighteen men smote great armies. Neither Abraham’s faith, nor Abraham’s good cause were here. The Danites, when they hear the outcries of the pursuers, act at first as if nothing had happened. But when by Micah’s anger they perceive that he knows all, they—probably the five leaders—tell him that it were better for him to be quiet—he might otherwise lose more; for the people there, whom he sees, are fierce of disposition, and know no mercy. And Micah was obliged to yield to superior power. The narrative shows strikingly how men, when excited about their property, show their true faces. Micah, who has always talked of Jehovah, as he who did him good, now, forgetting himself entirely, calls out to the Danites: “Ye have taken the gods which I made.” For, of course, only “gods” can be taken away, not Jehovah; and his right to them, is based on the fact that he made them. Strictly speaking, he cannot complain. He had taken, and others have taken from him. He had committed treason, and he has been forsaken. He sees now what sort of fortune the priest and idolatry brought him. That which Micah had set up to lead others astray, became the occasion in consequence of which he was robbed. He carried sorrow back with him into his house; his return was desolate,—without gold, but with the judgment of his conscience. If he was led thereby to repentance, we may be sure that he soon found the Eternal God again, who pardons sinners, even though they have fallen seven and seventy times.
Jdg_18:27-29. And they called the name of the city Dan. As the Messenians changed the name of the city Zankle into Messene, so the Joktanides, who migrated from Yemen into Central Arabia, gave their tribe name to the possessions they conquered, as is proved by the kingdom of the Ghassanides on the borders of Syria (cf. Ritter, xii. 86). It has been the general and constantly recurring usage of all migrating nations. The strange country was embellished with homelike names. It was the opinion of ancient thinkers, that, as Seneca wrote to his mother, the best consolation in exile and emigration was to take along what one had been accustomed to (natura communis), as also one’s peculiar gift (propria virtus). The Danites did this. They held their ground in the new Dan, whose fame had wholly eclipsed that of the old home, had not Samson subsequently arisen in Zorah. But though the new Dan never overshadowed the old, the name certainly took firm root in the North, and in the expression “from Dan to Beer-sheba,” indicated the northern extremity of the actual possessions of the twelve tribes, although the Mosaic boundaries, and sometimes (as under David) even temporary occupation, extended beyond this point.
Nevertheless, whenever the history of Israel was rightly apprehended, in its properly spiritual character, the usurpation of Laish was never approved or justified. It was an arbitrary breaking in upon the given order, and upon the claims of another tribe; for the new Dan settled itself in districts which formed part of the original territories of the Northern tribes, particularly of Naphtali (who, it is true, had also failed to drive out the inhabitants of Beth-anath, i. e., Paneas, cf. ch. i. 33). The new possession was associated with no other memories than such as conflicted with the true service of God: it was dedicated with the idolatrous image of Micah, and it was destroyed with the Calf of Jeroboam. The usurpation, it should be carefully observed, proceeded not from individuals, but from the common will of the whole tribe. The division of Manasseh was contemplated in the plan of the lawgiver; but the self-division of Dan was a sin against the organic constitution of the nation. Hence, when the emigrants, who speak of themselves as a “tribe” and “family” in Israel (Jdg_18:19), succeed in grafting the tribe name, Daniel , 12 on the conquered territory, although the larger part of the tribe remained behind, the result is, that, after the career of Samson, the name became wholly lost from its old home. Even in Samson’s day, the Danites, as such, are no longer spoken of. The tribe Judah already attracts everything to itself. The very remembrance of the families of Dan perished, for which reason we find no lists of them in the Books of Chronicles, while the families of Simeon, whose possessions were also inclosed by those of Judah, are nevertheless dull enumerated (1Ch_4:24 ff.). By appropriating to himself that which did not belong to him Dan lost even that which he had. It is on such spiritual grounds as these, that among the twelve tribes of the Apocalypse (Judges 7), Dan finds no place. For of this tribe alone do we find such a notice as the following:
Jdg_18:30-31. And the sons of Dan set up the graven image for themselves; and Jonathan, the son of Gershom, the son of Moses, he and his sons, were priests to the tribe. Even as late as the last century, expositors (as Lilienthal, Commentat. Critica, p. 192) have defended the reading Manasseh, despite its suspended ð , and found approval in so doing (cf. Ernesti, Theol. Bibliothek, 1771, p. 112). Whoever is able to form a conception of the exegetical scrupulousness of the Jewish transcribers, will readily perceive that if îùä had not stood in the MSS., that reading could never have been introduced. The Talmudic teachers admit this (Baba bathra, 109 a), and ascribe the circumstance that Moses could have such a descendant, to his wife (cf. Jalkut, n. 72). Now, although it be touching to observe the reverential piety which could not bear to have the name of Moses connected with that of an idolatrous priest, and which, therefore, without altering the Hebrew text itself, as early as the time of the Talmudical teachers, read the suspended ð in îðùä , the proceeding stands nevertheless in striking contrast with the admirable frankness of Biblical writers, who without regard to men state facts as they are, and direct the confidence of the faithful people, away from mortals, to the living God alone. The priest would not have been named at all, but for the wish to point out the contrast between his descent from the lawgiver who, in the name of God, condemned all idolatry as mortal sin, and his official position as priest at the shrine of an image. To this contrast alone, Jonathan owes it that his name was not forgotten. Sad, undoubtedly, beyond most similar cases, is this instance of degeneracy. But Scripture, which does not conceal the human weakness of even Moses himself, humbles herewith all vanity based on ancestors and descent. It avails nothing to be a descendant of Moses, if there be no personal worth; and the incomparable greatness and legal purity of the ancestor, give no guaranty that his descendants shall not become apostates. The fate of Moses, in this respect, was equally that of Abraham and Jacob, from whom Dan was descended. Many have called themselves children of Christ, who acted as Micah did. It is, no doubt, remarkable, that while Micah’s priest was a descendant of Moses, he himself was an Ephraimite, consequently of the same tribe with Joshua. The priest is called Jonathan, the son of Gershom, the son of Moses, not as if he were the immediate son of Gershom, but as being descended from Moses through Gershom. The significance of the statement lies in the contrast between descendant and ancestor. It is this also that is made prominent by the Talmudists, when in connection with the change of Moses into Manasseh, they associate the latter name with the idolatrous king of Judah. Since Manasseh, the progenitor of the tribe of the same name, was not a Levite, they could not think of him, as but far this we might suppose.
Until the day of the exile of the ark (land). The words òַãÎéåֹí âְּìåֹú äָàָøֶõ have acquired extraordinary importance for the criticism of the Book of Judges. Had the passage been found less peculiarly adapted to prove the late composition of our Book, bringing it down to a time after the exile under Shalmaneser, the attention of critics would doubtless have been arrested by the singularity of the expression òַã âְּìåֹú äָàָøֶõ , “unto the captivity of the land.” For, properly speaking, there was no such thing as a “captivity of the land.” A captivity of Jerusalem (Jer_1:3), of Judah (Jer_40:1), of Samaria (cf. 2Ki_17:28, îִùֹּׁîְøåֹï ), of Jehoiachin (2Ki_25:27), of Cush (Isa_20:4), is indeed spoken of, for these are historical names, representative of historical nations that were carried into exile. But erets, land, is not an historical, but only a natural name. A “captivity of Canaan” would be intelligible, but not a “captivity of the land.” Moreover, there were no other “captivities” than those of Israel and Judah. Now, since only the former could be intended, and since a definition of time is to be given, we should expect to find it definitely connected either with Samaria or Israel (cf. 2Ki_17:23, åַéִּâֶì éִùְׂøַàֵì ; cf. 2Ki_15:29; 2Ki_18:11). Nor does the verb äִâְìָä , âָּìָä , to take into exile or captivity, or its cognate nouns, ever occur in connection with àֶøֶõ (land) alone, while in 2Ki_24:15 we find the entirely intelligible expression: äָàָøֶõ åַéֶּâֶì àֵú àֵéìֵé “he carried away the nobles of the land.”
The linguistic improbability of the assumption that the narrator wrote äָàָøֶõ , the land, is reinforced by even stronger historical considerations. In the first place, there would arise an irremovable contradiction between Jdg_18:30-31, if according to the one the cultus of the image at Dan continued until the exile of Israel, while according to the other it endured only to—say the death of Eli. For Bertheau’s endeavor to show that no such contradiction arises, cannot stand examination. The descendants of Jonathan are spoken of, not as having been priests in general, but most definitely as having served the ôֶּñֶì , image, of the tribe of Dan. For this reason, the setting up of the image ( åַéָּ÷ִéîåּ ,) and the appointment to its priesthood, are first spoken of, in Jdg_18:30, while its permanent preservation and maintenance ( åַéָּùִׁéîåּ are set forth in Jdg_18:31. This was already seen by Jewish expositors, who were not influenced by what Bertheau calls “pet ideas” of modern times. R. Jesaia says: The exile of Sanherib, cannot be meant; for the time during which the House of God was at Shiloh is spoken of. It must also be considered quite improbable that this separatistic idolatrous worship in Dan should have been allowed to exist unmolested during the time of Samuel, David, and Solomon. The story of Micah’s image is introduced with the words, “in those days there was no king in Israel,” in order to explain the possibility of such an occurrence. Could the author have written thus, if the history of the kings, from Jeroboam to Manasseh, had already been before him? And was not David just such a king as there was not in the time of Micah? Read the history of the first years of Solomon, the eighth chapter of the first Book of Kings among others, and consider whether it seem possible to receive the existence at that time of a separate idolatrous worship in Dan, with a priestly family of its own. And, certainly, if such a worship had still existed when Jeroboam cut himself loose from the house of David, he would not have found it necessary to institute in that very place the new cultus of the calf. Not upon him, would the burden of this sin have rested in that case (cf. 1Ki_14:16). Nor, if in his time there had been a family of Levitical priests in Dan, would he have needed to look for others, “who were not of the sons of Levi” (1Ki_12:31).
If what has here been briefly stated be duly considered, it will be felt to be necessary to substitute çָàָøåֹï , the ark of the covenant, for äָàָøֶõ , the land. This departure from the letter of Scripture is demanded by true reverence for its spirit. It is no wonder, therefore, that even the positive expositors among the Jews maintained that äָàָøֶõ must be explained as äָàָøåֹï , although naturally they do not speak of another reading. Thus Kimchi: çåà éåí ùâìä äàøåï . Abarbanel takes it in a similar manner. It was probably under the influence of similar considerations that Houbigant conjecturally read äָàָøåֹï , to which Bleek (Einleitung, p. 347) and Ewald (Alterthümer, p. 258, 2d ed.) are likewise strongly inclined. The conjecture is so clear and easy, that the refusal to entertain it may well be met with the saying, “the letter killeth.” The statement intended to be made is, that the priests in Dan served at the shrine of the idol until the exile of the ark. It is precisely the Book of Samuel, in which the capture of the ark is related, that uses the word âָּìָä more frequently than any other historical book. The wife of the slain priest cries out, while she gives birth to a child, and dies: éִùְׂøָàֵì âָּìָä ëָáåֹã , “gone is glory from Israel” (1Sa_4:21); and hence, the son whom she bore was called “Ichabod: where is the glory.” The very same word is here used. Now, the removal of the ark, and the death of the sons of Eli, were matters of extraordinary importance, not for the people only, but more especially for the priests. Their pride and sinfulness had been previously delineated by the narrative. They had thought, without repentance, to conquer with the sacred ark. The humiliation touched them with peculiar force. Eli dies from dismay; his sons are slain by the enemy; the ark of the covenant, the precious jewel of the priestly charge, falls into the hands of the heathen. The moral degeneracy of the priestly family is already indicated in the election of Samuel. He, too, was an Ephraimite, but one of a different stamp from Micah. Now, however, the whole fabric of priestly pride falls into ruins, and under the leadership of Samuel, the era of repentance begins. It is only when all this is taken into consideration, that the parallelism of Jdg_18:30-31 stands out in unexpected light. Jonathan and his descendants, sons of Levi and of Moses, continued to officiate as priests in Dan, until the ark went into exile. After this great national calamity, a reformation ensued, including both the head and the members. The priests were terrified, and repented; their vainglorious assumption that wherever they were there the worship of God was also, was thoroughly overthrown, and they retired from the theatre of their evil doing. For this reason it is said of Jonathan and his successors, that “they were priests òַãÎâְּìåֹú äָàָøåֹï , until the exile of the ark.” And as in Jdg_18:30 the duration of their priestly activity corresponds with the time that intervened until the fall of the ark, so in Jdg_18:31, the idolatrous House of Micah stands in contrast with the House of the true God in Shiloh. The same point of time is indicated in both verses. For with the removal of the ark, the significance of Shiloh ceased. Where the ark was, there God could be inquired of. With the fall of the ark, the priests in Dan ceased; when the true sanctuary in Shiloh was broken up, the spurious sanctuary of Micah also was no longer esteemed. The lesson conveyed is, that if the true spirit of devotion to Jehovah had been preserved in connection with Shiloh and the ark of the covenant, such things as were done by Micah and in Dan would have been morally impossible. The priesthood must suffer and repent, before idolatry could be removed. It is true, that while the House of Micah was formerly spoken of as a Beth Elohim, a term applicable to every heathen temple as well, the House at Shiloh is here called Beth ha-Elohim, House of the true and real God; but it is nevertheless very significant that it is not called Beth Jehovah. During Shiloh’s existence, the glory of the Levites had become greatly tarnished. The descendants of Aaron—as witness the sons of Eli—had desecrated their office; the descendants of Moses served the idol in Dan. But when with the fall of the ark the time of repentance had come for the priests of Aaron’s tribe, the sin of the children of Moses also came to an end. Repentance leads the children back to their fathers.
In this way, the necessity of finding in our text a reference to the removal of the ark demonstrates itself both externally and internally. The fact that this exposition is not found indicated in the Masora, is to be explained from the fidelity with which every letter was preserved, but especially from the circumstance that during the exile of the people, the minds of the writers and readers of the ancient manuscripts were naturally full of that sad event, while the historical fact of the exile of the ark of the covenant belonged to the hoary past. In exile, Israel read and found this fate on every page. To their thoughts, “the land,” which they had left, was ever present. The banished reads “home,” in every thing.
Footnotes:
[Jdg_18:16.— àֲùֶׁø îִáְּðֵé ãָï . The unusual position of this clause, separated from the words to which it belongs, may be explained by supposing that at the end of the sentence it occurred to the author that his language might possibly be understood of six hundred men stationing themselves to guard the temple, and prohibit the approach of the Danites, and that he obviates this by adding the present clause. The E. V. places the words where according to the sense they belong.—Tr.]
[Jdg_18:22.— äֵîָּä äִøְçִé÷åּ îִáֵּéú îִéëָä : “they had just withdrawn from the house of Micah, when the men,” etc. So Dr. Cassel, but not so well as the E. V. The verb äִøְçִé÷åּ properly requires a complemental infinitive, ìָìֶëֶú , cf. Exo_8:24, but is frequently also, as here, used without it.—Tr.]
[Jdg_18:30.—Dr. Cassel adopts here the conjectural reading “ark” instead of “land;” and it certainly seems that if criticism is ever justified in resorting to conjecture, it is so in this passage. See the discussion below.—Tr.]
R. Judah Hallevi, Kusari, iv. 3, explains it to mean “retinue,” such as comports with the honor of a king.
Cf. Amo_8:14, and Talmud, Sabbat, 67 b.
And that not with the prefix “New” with which, for instance, Carthago Nova took the name of the mother city.
[Keil has the following note on this subject: “The Talmud remarks, Baba bathra, f. 109 b: An Gersom filius Menassis fuit, et non potius Mosis? sicut scriptum est. Filii Mosis fuerunt Gersom et Elieser (1Ch_23:14), sed propterea quod fecit opera Menassis (the idolatrous son of Hezekiah, 2 Kings 21.), appendit eum scriptura familiœ Manassis. On this Rabba bar Channa observes: prophetam (i. e., the author of the Book of Judges) studio noluisse Gersonum appellare filium Mosis quia ignominiosum fuisset id Mosi, habuisse filium impium, sed vocat eum filium Menassis, litera tamen ð sursum elevata, in signum eam adesse vel abesse posse, et sit filius îְðַùֶּׁä Menassis vel îùֶׁä Mosis; Menassis, studio et imitatione impietatis, Mosis, prosapia. Cf. Buxtorff, Tiber. p. 171. Later Rabbins say the same thing. R. Tanchum calls the writing îðùä with ð suspended, a úִּ÷ּåּï ñåֹôְøִéí , and speaks of áï îùä as Kethibh, and of áï îðùä , on the other hand, as Keri. According to this, ben Mosheh is certainly the original reading, albeit the reading ben Menashsheh is also very old, seeing that it was read by the Targum, the Peshito, and the Septuagint, although in a few codices of the latter the reading õἱïῦ Ìùûóῆ is still found, cf. Kennic. Dissert. Gener. in V. T. § 21. Jerome also has filii Moysi.”—Tr.]
For much of it was long since strongly brought forward (cf. Keil in loco). [Keil, it may be proper to remark, does not propose to change the reading, but quotes approvingly Hengstenberg’s explanation of it, as indicated in the following words: “The historian considers the whole land as carried away into captivity in its sanctuary, which, as it were, formed its kernel and essence” (Pent. i. 191, Ryland’s edit.).—Tr.]
àáì àîøå òì äæîï ùáå âìä äàøåï , ed. Lips. p. 67.
The great significance of the exile of the ark of the covenant, was still fully felt when Psalms 78. was written, compare 18:60-61: “He rejected the tabernacle of Shiloh,” and “He delivered his strength (glory)into captivity.” The whole bearing of the psalm forbids the supposition of a sanctuary in Shiloh until the Assyrian period (Delitzsch, on Psa_78:60 ff.).
This is also clearly proved by Jdg_20:27 : “And the sons of Israel inquired of Jehovah; for the ark of the covenant of God was there in those days”