Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Judges 17:7
And there was a young man out of Bethlehem-judah of the family of Judah, who [was] a Levite, and he sojourned there.
7. a young man sojourned there ] i.e. in the neighbourhood of Micah’s house. Technically the word sojourner (Hebr. gr) means one who lives under the protection of a tribe to which he does not belong by birth. This young man, a Levite of Judah, was settled in the place where Micah lived, became intimate with him ( Jdg 17:11 b), and was installed as his domestic priest ( Jdg 17:12 a); we hear of the young man again in Jdg 18:3; Jdg 18:15. He cannot be the same person as the wandering Levite, also of Judah, called the man in Jdg 17:8, who, in the course of his journey in search of employment, happened to arrive at Micah’s house, and for a fixed stipend agreed to take up his abode there ( Jdg 17:8-11 a, 12b 13); his subsequent history is given in Jdg 18:4-6; Jdg 18:18-30. It is evident that two parallel narratives are interwoven here without altogether losing their distinctive features.
of Beth-lehem-judah, of the family of Judah a Levite ] Beth-lehem was a centre for Levites at this time, cf. Jdg 17:8, Jdg 19:1; Jdg 19:18. The memory of a connexion between certain Levitical families and the southern clans has been preserved by the genealogies: thus among the Levitical families mentioned in Num 26:58, the Libnites, Hebronites, Korahites are named after places in the territory of Judah (Jos 15:42; Jos 21:13; 1Ch 2:43).
How could the young man have belonged to the family of Judah and at the same time have been a Levite? ( a) Wellhausen and Moore think that at this period Levite was the designation not of a tribe, but of a priestly caste open to any one 1 [61]
[61] So Driver, Exodus, p. 29, in agreement with McNeile, Exodus, p. lxvi. f.
. The young man is described as a Judaean by birth and a Levite by profession; for ‘in early times it was not the pedigree, but the art, that was the essential thing’ (Moore). The old tribe of Levi had been broken up (see Genesis 34; Gen 49:5-7); the scattered members of it followed the priestly calling; out of this nucleus a priestly ‘tribe’ of Levi was created by a genealogical fiction. ( b) There may be some error in the text. The LXX. cod. B omits the first Judah; the Peshitto omits of the family of Judah, merely, no doubt, because the description seemed unintelligible Budde, however, suggests that the text has deliberately been altered: originally it ran of the family of Moses, and this was afterwards modified out of respect for the traditional founder of the priesthood. A certain amount of support for such an alteration is given by Jdg 18:30; but Judah is hardly the name which would obviously occur as a substitute for Moses. It seems best after all to take the text as it stands, and to suppose that there was a time when ‘Levite’ was the official title of one who had received the training of a priest, regardless of the tribe to which he belonged by birth (McNeile). The evidence suggests that the scattered members of the tribe of Levi, like those of Simeon, had attached themselves to the Judaean settlements. The break up of these two tribes is accounted for in Genesis 34; Gen 49:5-7, which refer to an episode apparently in the early days of the occupation of Canaan, and therefore not far removed in date from the present narrative. How the Levi of this ugly story came to be the priestly tribe is one of the obscure problems of Hebrew history; see HDB. s.v. Levi. Judah is here a family, the term applied to the small clan of the Danites (Jdg 13:2 n.). It was not till later, probably not before the time of David, that the family of Judah grew into the tribe; Beth-lehem and the neighbourhood was most likely its ancient seat.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
The Hebrew words for he sojourned there are, ger sham, which words are used Jdg 18:30 in the genealogy of this young Levite, whose name was Jonathan, the son of Gershom ( gereshom). Hence, some read here, the son of Gershom.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 7. Of the family of Judah] The word family may be taken here for tribe; or the young man might have been of the tribe of Judah by his mother, and of the tribe of Levi by his father, for he is called here a Levite; and it is probable that he might have officiated at Shiloh, in the Levitical office. A Levite might marry into any other tribe, providing the woman was not an heiress.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Out of Beth-lehem-judah, or, of Beth-lehem-judah; so called here, as Mat 2:1,5, to difference it from Bethlehem in Zebulun, Jos 19:15. There he was born and bred. Of the family of Judah, i.e. of or belonging to the tribe of Judah; not by birth, for he was a Levite; nor by his mother, for though that might be true, the mothers side is not regarded in genealogies; but by his habitation and ministration. For the Levites, especially in times of confusion and irreligion, were dispersed among all the tribes; and this mans lot fell into the tribe of Judah; which seems to be here noted by way of reflection upon that tribe, and as an evidence of the general defection, that a Levite could not find entertainment in that great and famous tribe, which God had put so much honour upon, Gen 49:8-11, and therefore was forced to wander and seek for subsistence elsewhere.
He sojourned there; so he expresseth it, because this was not the proper nor usual place of his abode, this being no Levitical city.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
7. Beth-lehem-judahso calledin contradistinction to a town of the same name in Zebulun (Jos19:15).
of the familythat is,tribe.
of JudahMen of thetribe of Levi might connect themselves, as Aaron did (Ex6:23), by marriage with another tribe; and this young Levitebelonged to the tribe of Judah, by his mother’s side, which accountsfor his being in Beth-lehem, not one of the Levitical cities.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And there was a young man out of Bethlehemjudah,…. As there were two Bethlehems, one in the tribe of Zebulun, Jos 19:15 and another in the tribe of Judah, the place here designed, Judah is added to it, to distinguish it from the other:
of the family of Judah: which refers either to the young man, who was by his father’s side a Levite, and by his mother’s side, as Jarchi thinks, of the tribe of Judah, which seems very probable, though the genealogies of families were not reckoned from the mother; wherefore he might be so called because he had lived chiefly in the tribe of Judah, and particularly at Bethlehem; but Kimchi, and several other Jewish commentators, refer this to the city of Bethlehem, that was of the tribe of Judah, family being put for the tribe; or belonged to the children of Judah; though one would think there was no need to have added this, since it was fully expressed before by calling it Bethlehemjudah; the former sense therefore seems best:
who was a Levite; his father being, as before observed, of that tribe, though his mother might be of the tribe of Judah: and he sojourned there; that is, at Bethlehem; he was not a native, nor an inhabitant there, but a sojourner, it not being a Levitical city.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
7 And there was a young man out of Beth-lehem-judah of the family of Judah, who was a Levite, and he sojourned there. 8 And the man departed out of the city from Beth-lehem-judah to sojourn where he could find a place: and he came to mount Ephraim to the house of Micah, as he journeyed. 9 And Micah said unto him, Whence comest thou? And he said unto him, I am a Levite of Beth-lehem-judah, and I go to sojourn where I may find a place. 10 And Micah said unto him, Dwell with me, and be unto me a father and a priest, and I will give thee ten shekels of silver by the year, and a suit of apparel, and thy victuals. So the Levite went in. 11 And the Levite was content to dwell with the man; and the young man was unto him as one of his sons. 12 And Micah consecrated the Levite; and the young man became his priest, and was in the house of Micah. 13 Then said Micah, Now know I that the LORD will do me good, seeing I have a Levite to my priest.
We have here an account of Micah’s furnishing himself with a Levite for his chaplain, either thinking his son, because the heir of his estate, too good to officiate, or rather, because not of God’s tribe, not good enough. Observe,
I. What brought this Levite to Micah. By his mother’s side he was of the family of Judah, and lived at Bethlehem among his mother’s relations (for that was not a Levites’ city), or, upon some other account, as a stranger or inmate, sojourned there, v. 7. Thence he went to sojourn where he could find a place, and in his travels came to the house of Micah in Mount Ephraim, v. 8. Now, 1. Some think it was his unhappiness that he was under a necessity of removing, either because he was persecuted and abused, or rather neglected and starved, at Bethlehem. God had made plentiful provision for the Levites, but the people withheld their dues, and did not help them into the possession of the cities assigned to them; so that they were reduced to straits, and no care was taken for their relief. Israel’s forsaking God began with forsaking the Levites, which therefore they are warned against, Deut. xii. 19. It is a sign religion is going to decay when good ministers are neglected and at a loss for a livelihood. But, 2. It seems rather to have been his fault and folly, that he loved to wander, threw himself out where he was, and forfeited the respect of his friends, and, having a roving head, would go to seek his fortune, as we say. We cannot conceive that things had yet come to such a pass among them that a Levite should be poor, unless it was his own fault. As those are fit to be pitied that would fix but may not, so those are fit to be punished that might fix but will not. Unsettledness being, one would think, a constant uneasiness, it is strange that any Israelite, especially any Levite, should affect it.
II. What bargain Micah made with him. Had he not been well enough content with his son for his priest, he would have gone or sent abroad to enquire out a Levite, but now he only takes hold of one that drops into his hands, which showed that he had no great zeal in the matter. It is probable that this rambling Levite had heard, in the country, of Micah’s house of gods, his graven and molten image, which, if he had had any thing of the spirit of a Levite in him, would have brought him thither to reprove Micah for his idolatry, to tell how directly contrary it was to the law of God, and how it would bring the judgments of God upon him; but instead of this, like a base and degenerate branch of that sacred tribe, thither he goes to offer his service, with, Have you any work for a Levite? for I am out of business, and go to sojourn where I may find a place; all he aimed at was to get bread, not to do good, v. 9. Micah courts him into his family (v. 10), and promises him, 1. Good preferment: Be unto me a father and a priest. Though a young man, and taken up at the door, yet, if he take him for a priest, he will respect him as a father, so far is he from setting him among his servants. He asks not for his credentials, takes no time to enquire how he behaved in the place of his last settlement, considers not whether, though he was a Levite, yet he might not be of such a bad character as to be a plague and scandal to his family, but thinks, though he should be ever so great a rake, he might serve for a priest to a graven image, like Jeroboam’s priest of the lowest of the people, 1 Kings xii. 31. No marvel if those who can make any thing serve for a god can also make any thing serve for a priest. 2. A tolerable maintenance. He will allow him meat, and drink, and clothes, a double suit, so the word is in the margin, a better and a worse, one for every day’s wear and one for holy days, and ten shekels, about twenty-five shillings, a year for spending money–a poor salary in comparison of what God provided for the Levites that behaved well; but those that forsake God’s service will never better themselves, nor find a better master. The ministry is the best calling but the worst trade in the world.
III. The Levite’s settlement with him (v. 11): He was content to dwell with the man; though his work was superstitious and his wages were scandalous, he objected against neither, but thought himself happy that he had lighted on so good a house. Micah, thinking himself holier than any of his neighbours, presumed to consecrate this Levite, v. 12. As if his building, furnishing, and endowing this chapel authorized him, not only to appoint the person that should officiate there, but to confer those orders upon him which he had no right to give nor the other to receive. And now he shows him respect as a father and tenderness as a son, and is willing thus to make up the deficiency of the coin he gave him.
IV. Micah’s satisfaction in this (v. 13): Now know I that the Lord will do me good (that is, he hoped that his new establishment would gain reputation among his neighbours, which would turn to his advantage, for he would share in the profit of his altar; or, rather, he hoped that God would countenance and bless him in all he put his hand unto) because I have a Levite to be my priest. 1. He thought it was a sign of God’s favour to him and his images that he had so opportunely sent a Levite to his door. Thus those who please themselves with their own delusions, if Providence unexpectedly bring any thing to their hands that furthers them in their evil way, are too apt to infer thence that God is pleased with them. 2. He thought now that the error of his priesthood was amended all was well, though he still retained his graven and molten image. Note, Many deceive themselves into a good opinion of their state by a partial reformation. They think they are as good as they should be, because, in some one particular instance, they are not so bad as they have been, as if the correcting of one fault would atone for their persisting in all the rest. 3. He thought the making of a Levite into a priest was a very meritorious act, which really was a presumptuous usurpation, and every provoking to God. Men’s pride, and ignorance, and self-flattery, will undertake, not only to justify, but magnify and sanctify, the most daring impieties and invasions upon the divine prerogatives. With much reason might Micah have said, “Now may I fear that God will curse me, because I have debauched one of his own tribe, and drawn him into the worship of a graven image;” yet for this he hopes God will do him good. 4. He thought that having a Levite in the house with him would of course entitle him to the divine favour. Carnal hearts are apt to build too much upon their external privileges, and to conclude that God will certainly do them good because they are born of godly parents, dwell in praying families, are linked in society with those that are very good, and sit under a lively ministry; whereas all this is but like having a Levite to be their priest, which amounts to no security at all that God will do them good, unless they be good themselves, and make a good use of these advantages.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
Micah’s Priest, vs. 7-13
Another character enters the account in the person of a roving Levite from Bethlehem down in the tribe of Judah. It is learned from Jdg 18:30 that his name was Jonathan. Bethlehem was not one of the cities assigned to the Levites from the tribe of Judah, so he had evidently already forsaken his God-appointed domicile. In fact, he was admittedly roaming the country looking for a place he could settle down and evidently do what he wanted instead of what the Lord had for him to do.
When Micah learned the circumstances with the young Levite he saw in him what he considered a chance to enhance his own private house of worship. He offered to hire Jonathan for ten silver shekels a year (actually only about $7.50 today, but a fair amount for those times), one new suit a year, and his food. This pleased the Levite and he accepted the offer. Micah proceeded to consecrate (ordain) his priest and install him favorably in his house, treating him as he did his sons.
The reference Micah made to the Levite as his “father and priest,” means that he should be Micah’s spiritual advisor and mediator with God. This shows the shallow and false concept Micah had concerning the Lord. Verse 13 goes on to show that Micah actually felt that he had somehow obligated the Lord to him and his god-house by employing a Levite as his priest, because the tribe of Levi had been chosen by the Lord to be set apart to His service.
It may be emphasized with reference to chapter 13 that 1) when people go their own way they always go wrong; 2) sincerity in worship is not satisfactory when contrary to the Lord’s appointed way; 3) God’s ministers out of their place are not only wrong themselves, but they cause others to be wrong also.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
Micabs Hired Priest Jdg. 17:7-13
7 And there was a young man out of Beth-lehem-judah of the family of Judah, who was a Levite, and he sojourned there.
8 And the man departed out of the city from Bethlehem-judah to sojourn where he could find a place: and he came to mount Ephraim to the house of Micah as he journeyed.
9 And Micah said unto him, Whence comest thou? And he said unto him, I am a Levite of Beth-lehem-judah, and I go to sojourn where I may find a place.
10 And Micah said unto him, Dwell with me, and be unto me a father and a priest, and I will give thee ten shekels of silver by the year, and a suit of apparel, and thy victuals. So the Levite went in.
11 And the Levite was content to dwell with the man; and the young man was unto him as one of his sons.
12 And Micah consecrated the Levite; and the young man became his priest, and was in the house of Micah.
13 Then said Micah, Now know I that the Lord will do me good, seeing I have a Levite to my priest.
11.
How could the Levite be from Bethlehem-judah? Jdg. 17:7
Levites were given forty-eight cities spread throughout the length and breadth of the Promised Land. They were not given land on which they could plant vineyards and orchards. They did not have extensive fields in which they could sow. grain. Only about 1,000 cubits roundabout each of these forty-eight cities was provided as a place where they could tether their animals and raise gardens of herbs and vegetables. Thus the Levites might live in the land assigned to any one of the twelve tribes. The Levite who came to Micah was from the southern area, the tribe of Judah.
12.
Why was the Levite so poor and so easily contented? Jdg. 17:9-10
He was evidently not needed in the service of the Lord in Bethlehem-judah; and when he left his village, he had no means of making a living. The Israelites were not always faithful to Gods command to give a tithe to support the Levites. In the days of Nehemiah the Levites had been forced to go to labor in the fields. Nehemiah straightened this out and commanded the people to bring a tithe to support the Levites (Neh. 13:10; Neh. 13:14). It is also quite possible that this Levite was inept and rebellious. For this reason he was forced to go elsewhere to find a means of livelihood.
13.
What was the reward for the Levite? Jdg. 17:10
Micah promised the Levite that he would give him ten shekels of silver per year as his salary. By way of comparison, it is good to remember that the founder who made the image was paid 200 shekels of silveran amount equivalent to twenty years of pay for the Levite. The Levite was also promised a place to live and clothing to wear. In other words he was to receive room and board plus a small stipend.
14.
Why did Micah think he would be blessed? Jdg. 17:13
Micah was like many people who follow false religions today. They are superstitious and ignorant of the true meaning of worship. Because Micah had an image, a sanctuary in which to worship, robes for his priest and a priest who was related to the true priests of Israel, he felt that he had everything any religious man could hope to have. He felt that such rituals and forms of religion would bring him a blessing. He was willingly ignorant of the fact that Gods spirit does not dwell in externals. God is more pleased with obedience than with sacrifice (1Sa. 15:22).
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
(7) A young man.Later on in the story we, as it were incidentally, make the astonishing discovery that this young man was no other than a grandson of Moses.
Out of Beth-lehem-judah.So called to distinguish it from the Bethlehem in Zebulon (Jos. 19:15). (See Note on Jdg. 12:8.) In later times, when Bethlehem was famous as Davids birthplace, and the other Bethlehem had sunk into insignificance, the descriptive addition is often dropped.
Of the family of Judah.It may be doubted whether this refers to the young man or to Bethlehem, or whether it ought not, as in some MSS. and versions (LXX., Cod. B, and Syriac), to be omitted. If it applies to the young Levite, it must mean that he did not live in one of the Levitic cities, which belonged to his own family (the family of Gershom), which were in the northern and eastern tribes (Jos. 21:6), but in Judah, and therefore was ranked in civil matters as belonging to that tribe. Homes in the tribe of Judah were assigned to the priests alone (Jos. 21:9-42).
He sojourned there.Comp. Jdg. 19:1. The curse had been pronounced on the tribe of Levi: I will divide them in Jacob, and scatter them in Israel (Gen. 49:7).
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
7. Of the family of Judah This does not mean that this young man was a descendant of Judah, for he is immediately called a Levite, but that he belonged to the Levites who occupied by divine appointment cities within the tribe-territory of Judah. Compare Jos 21:8-16. In Jdg 18:30, this Levite is called “Jonathan the son of Gershom, the son of Manasseh.” He seems from Jdg 18:3, to have been a person of some distinction, known at least to leading persons in the tribe of Dan. See notes on those passages. Beth-lehem-judah was not one of those cities allotted to the Levites, and hence it is added that this young man had only sojourned there, that is, dwelt there for a time as a stranger; it was not his native city nor his permanent home.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘ And there was a young man out of Bethlehem-judah, of the family of Judah, who was a Levite, and he sojourned there.’
There were two Bethlehems, one in the tribe of Zebulun, (Jos 19:15), and this in the tribe of Judah. This Bethlehem occurs twice in the narrative, as a source here of a dishonest Levite and in Jdg 19:1 of a faithless concubine (see also Rth 1:1). They were not good advertisements for the moral state of Bethlehem-judah.
From there came a young man who was a Levite with connections with Judah. The Levites were scattered throughout the whole of Israel and ‘adopted’ into their various tribes, but only as sojourners. Thus this man had become a member of the family of Judah while retaining his Levite identity. The fact that he ‘sojourned’, took up residence among them there (compare Jdg 19:1 of another Levite), when it was not a Levitical city, was a further sign of the state of affairs in the country, although the Levites may have had a ministry of guiding the people (‘to bless in His name’ – Deu 10:8). ‘Sojourner’ strictly referred to a resident alien. But Levites were seen as sojourners because they belonged to God, not as being one of the people.
God’s theoretical blueprint as described in the Law of Moses would have produced a strong and fair nation, avoiding the excesses of kingship, satisfying its religious needs, always united and powerful, looking to Yahweh for guidance and deliverance, the perfect theocracy. But unfortunately human beings were involved. Thus the blueprint was in process of time adapted and altered to suit man’s convenience, desires and local customs, until it was only partially recognisable and very much distorted, with the result that it failed in its purpose due to the weakness of its participants.
And this affected no one more than the Levites, men set aside for the service of the Tabernacle and to make the Law known, who retained respect and deference in the community as men of God, but who came far short of the ideal. Indeed, as with this man, many took advantage of their status to advance their own wealth and position and were not too particular about the legal requirements of the Law.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
A Levite Made the Idol’s Priest
v. 7. And there was a young man out of Bethlehem-judah, v. 8. v. 9. And Micah said unto him, Whence comest thou? And he said unto him, I am a Levite of Bethlehem-judah, and I go to sojourn where I may find a place.
v. 10. And Micah said unto him, Dwell with me, and be unto me a father and a priest, v. 11. And the Levite was content to dwell with the man, v. 12. And Micah consecrated the Levite, v. 13. Then said Micah, Now know I that the Lord will do me good, seeing I have a Levite to my priest.
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
The rambling conduct of this young man, manifests his real principles. The Lord had made all suitable provision for his Levites, while they remained in his service. But when idolatry is set up in Israel, a temporizing Levite who falls in with the corruptions of the people, can find no bread in God’s house.
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Jdg 17:7 And there was a young man out of Bethlehemjudah of the family of Judah, who [was] a Levite, and he sojourned there.
Ver. 7. And there was a young man. ] Puer: so he is called ratione ministerii Exo 33:11 saith Junius. And why not for his folly? as Gen 34:19 . Neque distulit puer? A novice he was, Cereus in vitium flecti, one that would murder souls for a morsel of bread; Eze 13:19 which was the worse in him, because this was Jonathan, the nephew of Moses the man of God: for men are therefore worse than others, because they ought to be better. See Jdg 18:30 .
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
a young man. See note on Jdg 18:30.
Beth-lehem-Judah. To distinguish it from Beth-le-hem in Zebulun (Jos 19:15).
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Beth-lehem-judah, Jdg 19:1, Jdg 19:2, Gen 35:19, Jos 19:15, Rth 1:1, Rth 1:2, Mic 5:2, Mat 2:1, Mat 2:5, Mat 2:6
of the family: That is, of the tribe of Judah by his mother; and of that of Levi by his father.
Reciprocal: 2Ch 11:6 – Bethlehem
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
A Levite who had been living in Bethlehem set out in search of a new place to live and came to the house of Micah. Micah offered to pay him ten shekels of silver a year along with a suit of clothes and food to serve in his house of God. When he agreed to accept, Micah was happy because he believed the Lord would now make him prosper (17:7-13).
Fuente: Gary Hampton Commentary on Selected Books
Jdg 17:7. Beth-lehem-judah So called here, as Mat 2:1; Mat 2:5, to distinguish it from Bethlehem in Zebulun. There he was born and bred. Of Judah That is, of or belonging to the tribe of Judah; not by birth, for he was a Levite; but by his habitation and ministration. For the Levites were dispersed among all the tribes: and this mans lot fell into the tribe of Judah. Sojourned So he expresseth it, because this was not the proper place of his abode, this being no Levitical city.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Jdg 17:7-13. Micah Secures a Levite as Priest.
Jdg 17:7. The young man was a Judan by birth, and a Levite by profession. It is a contradiction to say that he sojourned among his own people. The clause should perhaps stand after a man in Jdg 17:11.
Jdg 17:8. End with to fulfil the purpose of the journey.
Jdg 17:10. Even a young Levite could be a father, the title being given out of respect for himself or his sacred office. Ten pieces of silver is about thirty shillings.
Jdg 17:13. Micah had a priest before (Jdg 17:5), but only a layman, his own son. Now he has a Levite, trained for the sacred office, skilful in using the oracles and interpreting Yahwehs mind.
Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible
17:7 And there was a young man out of Bethlehemjudah {f} of the family of Judah, who [was] a Levite, and he sojourned there.
(f) Which Bethlehem was in the tribe of Judah.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
Micah’s Levite 17:7-13
Jdg 17:1-6 stress the sin of self-styled worship. Jdg 17:7-13 emphasize the folly of self-determined service.
The writer did not call the young Levite who came to live with Micah a priest. He was evidently not a descendant of Aaron, though he was from the tribe of Levi. The Levites were, of course, living throughout Israel having received no tribal allotment of land but only cities within the territories of the other tribes. This young man had been living in Bethlehem of Judah, which was not a Levitical city (Jdg 17:7). His disregard for God’s will is obvious in his choice to live somewhere other than where God told the Levites to live (cf. Jdg 17:6).
"Unlike Abraham, who also set out for an unknown destination but who went with a keen sense of the calling of God, this person is shiftless. He has no passion for God, no sense of divine calling, no burden of responsibility. He is a ’laid back’ professional minister following the path of least resistance and waiting for an opportunity to open up." [Note: Block, Judges . . ., p. 487.]
This young Levite decided to move elsewhere and during his travels met Micah who, desiring to "upgrade" his priesthood, invited him to live with him and become a priest to his family. Micah had been content to have his son function as his family priest, but a genuine Levite would be even better, Micah thought. Family priests had passed out of existence in Israel since God had set the tribe of Levi aside for priestly service (Exo 32:28-29; cf. Num 3:12-13). Since Micah promised to support him financially, the Levite agreed to the arrangement that Micah proposed, which involved being a spiritual adviser to his patron. Micah proceeded to set the young man apart to his service (Jdg 17:12) and superstitiously concluded that Yahweh would bless him since he had a Levite as his priest (Jdg 17:13). He was wrong, as the following chapter shows.
"The apostasy of the Judges period, according to this chapter, was characterized by three observable trends. 1. Religious syncretism (Jdg 17:1-5). . . . 2. Moral relativism (Jdg 17:6). . . . 3. Extreme materialism (Jdg 17:7-13)." [Note: Davis and Whitcomb, pp. 143-45.]