Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Judges 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.
30. The object of the whole story has been to trace the origin of the famous sanctuary at Dan. In this and the next verse the setting up of Micah’s image is told twice over, and a double note of time is given. The repetition suggests that we have here the two conclusions of the two narratives which have been woven together in the story. Moore thinks that Jdg 18:30 belongs to the narrative which alludes to the man the Levite the priest (Jdg 17:8; Jdg 17:11 a, Jdg 18:12 b, Jdg 18:3 b, Jdg 18:4-6; Jdg 18:18 b etc.), whose name now turns out to have been Jonathan, a grandson of Moses, and that Jdg 18:31 closes the other document, of which a characteristic feature is the young Levite (Jdg 17:7; Jdg 17:11 b, 12 a, Jdg 18:3; Jdg 18:15 etc.). This may be so, but no kind of certainty is possible. The name of the Levite comes rather oddly at the end, instead of at the beginning of the story. If the original narrator had wished to mention it, he would have done so at Jdg 17:8; the omission is now supplied, apparently by a later hand. Thus the second half of Jdg 18:30 seems to be an editorial addition.
the graven image ] Only one image is mentioned in the sequel; see on Jdg 17:3.
Jonathan Moses ] The Levite and his descendants, the priests of Dan, claimed descent from Moses. The margin notes another reading; in the Hebr. text the letter n is ‘suspended,’ or inserted above the line, thus turning Mosheh ( ) into Manasseh ( ). The Jews admit that the text was altered in order to repudiate the Levite’s claim; he acted, not like a son of Moses, but like the impious king Manasseh, to whom the Rabbis apply the principle, ‘every corruption is fastened upon (i.e. is named after) him who started it’; Talm. Bab. Baba Bathra 109b. Possibly the Jewish scribes had another Manasseh in their minds, the renegade priest who first ministered in the Samaritan temple on Mt Gerizim; Josephus, Ant. xi. 8, 2 ff. The LXX reads Manasseh (a group of cursives both Moses and Manasseh); the Vulgate Moysi; the Syr . Manasseh. For Gershom see Exo 2:22; Exo 18:3.
until the day of the captivity of the land ] Either the captivity of N. Israel under Tiglath-pileser in 734 b.c., 2Ki 15:29; or the exile after the fall of Samaria in 722 b.c., ib. Jdg 17:6 ff.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
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 Jonathans 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 Davids time, by whose order, perhaps, it was destroyed, though the idolatrous worship continued, or was revived, at Dan.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 30. 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 Manasseh, the word should be read 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: nun, over the word , thus,
– 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, c. 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, c.) 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 haarets, the LAND, we should read haaron, the ARK; for nothing is easier than the vau and final nun to be mistaken for the 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, c., 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 endeavoured to please him, though the means they adopted were not the most proper.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Having succeeded in their expedition according to the prediction which, as they supposed, they had from this image, they had a great veneration for it.
Until the day of the captivity of the land; either,
1. When the ark and the Israelites were taken captives by the Philistines, 1Sa 4:10,11; though there is no mention of any who were then taken captives, or that the Philistines did pursue the victory, and conquer the land at that time, for their victory was quickly damped, and turned to mourning, 1Sa 5. Or,
2. After that time, when the Philistines slew Saul and Jonathan, and discomfited the whole host of Israel, and made the rest of the people flee out of their cities, and took possession of their cities and land. Or,
3. When the whole land of the ten tribes, whereof Dan was one, was conquered, and the people carried captive by the Assyrian, 2Ki 17:6,23. which is called by way of eminency the captivity, 1Ch 5:22. But against this it is objected, that it is not probable that this idolatry should continue so long in such a public place and manner; or that David and Solomon would suffer it.
Answ. It is not said that the graven image was there so long, for that is restrained to a shorter date, even to the continuance of the ark in Shiloh, Jdg 18:31, which was removed thence, 1Sa 4; but only that Jonathans posterity were priests to this tribe or family of Dan, which they might be under all the changes, even till the Assyrian captivity, sometimes more openly and allowedly, sometimes more cunningly, sometimes more secretly, sometimes in one way of superstition or idolatry, and sometimes in another; and in and after Jeroboams time, in the worship of the calves, for which service, though he did make priests of the meanest of the people, 1Ki 12:31, yet that was not by choice, but out of necessity, because the priests and Levites generally forsook him, 2Ch 11:13,14; and therefore when he could engage any of the priests or Levites in that service, he was doubtless very glad of them to gain reputation to his impious and absurd device.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
30, 31. the children of Dan set upthe graven imageTheir distance secluded them from the rest ofthe Israelites, and doubtless this, which was their apology for notgoing to Shiloh, was the cause of perpetuating idolatry among themfor many generations.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
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, Jud 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 , “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
Ps 78:58.
c T. Bab. Bava Bathra, fol. 109. 2. d Shiloh, l. 4. c. 28. p. 334. e See Dr. Kennicott’s Dissertation 2. p. 51, &c. f Apud Glassium in Philolog. Sacr. l. 1. tract. 1. sect. 2.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
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 , our Masoretic text has with a hanging . With regard to this reading, the Talmud (Baba bathr.f. 109 b) 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 (Manasseh) or (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 , and speaks 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.): , )
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 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 . This statement is obscure. .eru can hardly mean anything else 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 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., , “the carrying 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 are used in 1Sa 4:21-22 (e.g., Hengstenberg, Beitr. vol. ii. pp. 153ff.; Hvernick, 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 78:59-64 how 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 should not be accepted, there is no valid objection to 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.).
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
(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 (1Ki. 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 (Jdg. 18:5; Jdg. 18:10), and Micah, in spite of his images, acknowledged God as Jehovah (Jdg. 17:2; Jdg. 17:13; Jdg. 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 Rev. 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 factthe disgrace involved against the memory of Moses by this rapid and total degeneracy of his grandsonis 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 MANASSEH for MOSES is by the confession of the Jews themselves due to the same cause. Moses is in Hebrew , Manasseh is . It will thus be seen that (without the points) the names only differ by the letter n (). But in what is called the Masoretic texti.e., the text edited by the Jewish scribesthe is not boldly inserted, but is timidly and furtively suspendedthus MSSHand is called nun thayah (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 propheti.e., the sacred authorstudiously 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, Exo. 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 (Jdg. 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. Jonathans name is excluded, perhaps deliberately, from 1Ch. 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 1Ch. 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. 1Ch. 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 (1Ki. 12:33). (2) Some suppose that we should read ark (aron) for land (arets). (See 1Sa. 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 (1Sa. 4:11; 1Sa. 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 (1Sa. 14:47). The third explanation is, however, rendered almost certain by the following verse.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
30. Jonathan, the son of Gershom Here, at length, comes out the name of the Levite of whom already we have heard so much.
Son of Manasseh But Gershom was the son of Moses, (Exo 2:22; Exo 18:3; 1Ch 23:15,) not of Manasseh; and son of Moses is the reading of some Hebrews MSS. of the Vulgate, and of some codices of the Septuagint. The Masoretic text has with a hanging , and one of the Rabbins says: “The prophet 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 nun, however, above the line, to show that it might either be inserted or omitted, and that he was the son of Manasseh through imitating his impiety, (2Ki 21:1-16,) of Moses by descent.” Here, then, has doubtless been a wilful corruption of the sacred text, made with the pious design of shielding the venerable name and character of Moses. Jewish zeal thought it detrimental to Moses to have a near descendant so far gone aside from the Law as this Levite was, and therefore attempted to substitute the hated name of Manasseh, the idolatrous son of Hezekiah. As the Levite was a young man, (Jdg 18:3-15,) it is probable that he was not strictly the grandson of Moses, but a near descendant, probably a great-grandson, for the word , son, is often used in this sense. Such a near descendant of Moses would very naturally be widely known in Israel, and hence his recognition by the Danites. Jdg 18:3. But such was the looseness of the age, and the want of a powerful central government, that this descendant of the great Lawgiver was a homeless wanderer, and became one of the first ministers of an illegal sanctuary service.
The day of the captivity of the land That Philistine captivity which reached its darkest night of horror when the ark was captured, (1Sa 4:11,) and Jehovah “forsook the tabernacle of Shiloh, and delivered his strength into captivity, and his glory into the enemies’ hand.” Psa 78:61. Houbigant and others propose to read , the ark, instead of , the land; but this is unnecessary, for we may well believe that the terrible calamity of the nation in the loss of the ark was regarded by the sacred writer as a most wretched captivity of the whole land. See note on 1Sa 2:32. Many interpreters have thought that the reference here was to the Assyrian captivity under Tiglath-pileser. 2Ki 15:29. But it is hardly credible that the image worship and illegal service of these Danites were tolerated all through the reigns of David and Solomon, especially after the latter built the temple, and gathered all the tribes to Jerusalem to witness its dedication as the central seat of the national worship. Nor would Jeroboam have been likely to set up one of his golden calves at Dan (1Ki 12:29) had this illegal worship been still existing there.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘ 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 (Jdg 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 (Jdg 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 Jer 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 (2Ki 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 (1Ki 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 (1Sa 4:12-18). After the Ark was later returned it was in Kiriath-jearim for twenty years (1Sa 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 Nob (1Sa 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.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Jdg 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 Moseh, Moses, the letter nun, which might intimate it to be 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.
REFLECTIONS.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. Note; (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.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Jdg 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 2Th 2:10 . See Trapp on “ 2Th 2:10 “
And Jonathan, the son of Gershom, the son of Manasseh.
Until the day of the captivity of the land,
a In signum eam adesse vel abesse posse ut sit et filius et , istius prosapia, huius imitatione. – Buxtorf.
set up. On account of this, Dan is not named in Rev 7, and Ephraim is there merged in Joseph.
Manasseh. This word is one of the four that has a suspended letter. Here the letter, nun (n), is written partly in the line and partly above the line, to show that originally it formed no part of the word, but was put in to make it spell “Manasseh” instead of “Moses”. Jonathan was the grandson of Moses (his contemporary Phinehas, the grandson of Aaron, being mentioned in Jdg 20:28). This was done for two reasons: (1) to spare the honour of Moses’ memory and name; (2) to put the sin upon one who committed so gross a sin. The Talmud gives this latter as the reason. Jonathan’s name is omitted in 1Ch 23:15, 1Ch 23:16, and 1Ch 26:24. The Chaldee paraphrase says that “Shebuel”, there substituted, is meant for Jonathan after his repentance and restoration. Shebuel = “he returned to God”. The Authorized Version follows Septuagint and Chaldee by putting “Manasseh” in the text; Revised Version follows Vulgate, and those codices and early editions which have “n” suspended, by putting “Moses” in the text and “Manasseh” in the margin.
set up: Exo 20:4, Lev 26:1, Deu 17:2-7, Deu 27:15, Deu 31:16, Deu 31:29, Jos 19:40-48, Psa 78:58-61, God had graciously performed his promise, in putting these Danites 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 laws, by setting up the graven image, 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. Instead of Manasseh, some would read Moses; as it is found in some manuscripts, in the Vulgate and in the concessions of the most intelligent Jews. But Bp. Patrick takes this to be an idle conceit of the Rabbins, and supposes this Jonathan to be of some other family of the Levites. Yet Kimchi acknowledges, that the Jews, deeply concerned for the honour of their lawgiver, to whom they thought it would be a great dishonour to have a grandson who was an idolater, suspended the letter, , noon, over the word [Strong’s H4872], [Strong’s H4873], Moses, thus [Strong’s H4519], as it is found in the Hebrew Bibles; which, by means of the points, they have changed into Manasseh.
until: Jdg 13:1; 1Sa 4:2-3, 1Sa 4:10-11; Psa 78:60-62
the land: Houbigant contends, that, instead of haaretz, “the land,” we should read haaron, “the ark;” for the , wav, and , noon final, might easily be mistaken for , tzadday final; which is the only difference between the two words. This conjecture is the more likely, as the next verse tells us, that Micah’s graven image continued at Dan “all the time that the house of God was at Shiloh;” which was till the ark was taken by the Philistines.
Reciprocal: Jdg 17:12 – his priest Psa 78:61 – his strength
Jdg 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, (2Ki 17:6; 2Ki 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 Gods 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 haaron, the ark, should have been read here for 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 Jonathans 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.
18:30 And the children of Dan set up the {n} 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 {o} captivity of the land.
(n) Thus instead of giving glory to God, they attributed the victory to their idols, and honoured them therefore.
(o) That is, till the Ark was taken, 1Sa 5:1.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes