Miles de Libros Cristianos Gratis. Accede a nuestra Biblioteca Virtual

Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Judges 18:14

Para un estudio avanzado de: “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Judges 18:14” utilice nuestra app.

Then answered the five men that went to spy out the country of Laish, and said unto their brethren, Do ye know that there is in these houses an ephod, and teraphim, and a graven image, and a molten image? now therefore consider what ye have to do.

14. the country of Laish ] The Hebr. can only be rendered the country, Laish. Obviously the last word is a marginal note, and it is omitted in some mss. of the LXX

in these houses ] Apparently Micah’s establishment was almost a small village, cf. Jdg 18:22.

and a molten image ] See on Jdg 17:3.

consider what ye have to do ] Cf. 1Sa 25:17. The Danites recognize that the God of Micah is none other than their own God.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

14 18. The repetition of identical phrases leads us to suspect that the text has been encumbered by glosses. To some extent, also, the confusion may be due to the double narrative; note the young Levite in Jdg 18:15 and the priest in Jdg 18:17-18; but other criteria fail us, and any clear separation of sources is impossible. The temptation to gloss the passage was no doubt encouraged by the inevitable, but rather clumsy, repetition of defining clauses, such as an ephod and teraphim, the six hundred men, the spies etc. Thus Jdg 18:16 seems to be wholly an addition; in Jdg 18:17 came in thither molten image is simply a doublet from Jdg 18:18.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

In these houses – This agrees with what we saw at Jdg 18:2-3 that the house of God and Jonathans house were detached from Micahs. There were other houses besides Jdg 18:22. The whole settlement was probably called Beth-Micah, contained in one court, and entered by one gate Jdg 18:16.

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

Verse 14. Consider what ye have to do.] They probably had formed the design to carry off the priest and his sacred utensils.

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

Then answered, i.e. spake, the word answering being oft used in Scripture of the first speaker, as 1Ki 1:28; 13:6; Ezr 10:2; Isa 14:10.

In those houses, i.e. in one of these houses, the plural number for the singular, as Jdg 12:7.

Consider what ye have to do, i.e. whether it be not expedient, either,

1. To consult them again for your own satisfaction; or rather,

2. To take them away for your further use, as you shall have occasion; for their action is the best comment upon their words.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

Then they answered the five men that went to spy out the country of Laish,…. That were sent by their brethren, Jud 18:5 and, as it seems from hence, were sent particularly to Laish; they had some notion of that place as proper for them, and therefore sent those men to reconnoitre it; and now as they had passed this way before, when they came within sight of Micah’s house, it put them in mind of what they had seen there; wherefore one in the name of the rest, and with their approbation, acquainted the company with it:

and said unto their brethren, do ye know that there is in those houses; in one of them, pointing to the houses of a village or town in sight:

an ephod and teraphim, and a graven image, and a molten image? of which see Jud 17:4 and no doubt but they acquainted them, only that they had seen them, and so were certain but had consulted them, and that with success:

now therefore consider, say they,

what ye have to do; whether it may not be proper to consult them again, or rather to take them with us, to consult as occasion may require, and as tokens and pledges of God being with us, and so may the rather hope that everything will succeed to our wishes.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

Then the five men who had explored the land, viz., Laish ( Laish is in apposition to , the land), said to their brethren (tribe-mates), “ Know ye that in these houses (the village or place where Micah dwelt) there are an ephod and teraphim, and image and molten work (see at Jdg 17:4-5)? and now know what ye will do. ” The meaning of these last words is very easily explained: do not lose this opportunity of obtaining a worship of our own for our new settlement.

Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament

Micah’s Gods Stolen; Micah’s Attempt to Recover His Idols.

B. C. 1406.

The Danites had sent out their spies to find out a country for them, and they sped well in their search; but here, now that they came to the place (for till this brought it to their mind it does not appear that they had mentioned it to their brethren), they oblige them with a further discovery–they can tell them where there are gods: “Here, in these houses, there are an ephod, and teraphim, and a great many fine things for devotion, such as we have not the like in our country; now therefore consider what you have to do, v. 14. We consulted them, and had a good answer from them; they are worth having, nay, they are worth stealing (that is, having upon the worst terms), and, if we can but make ourselves masters of these gods, we may the better hope to prosper, and make ourselves masters of Laish.” So far they were in the right, that it was desirable to have God’s presence with them, but wretchedly mistaken when they took these images (which were fitter to be used in a puppet-play than in acts of devotion) for tokens of God’s presence. They thought an oracle would be pretty company for them in their enterprise, and instead of a council of war to consult upon every emergency; and, the place they were going to settle in being so far from Shiloh, they thought they had more need of a house of gods among themselves than Micah had that lived so near to it. They might have made as good an ephod and teraphim themselves as these were, and such as would have served their purpose every whit as well; but the reputation which they found them in possession of (though they had had that reputation but a while) amused them into a strange veneration for this house of gods, which they would soon have dropped if they had had so much sense as to enquire into its origin, and examine whether there were any thing divine in its institution. Being determined to take these gods along with them, we are here told how they stole the images, cajoled the priest, and frightened Micah from attempting to rescue them.

I. The five men that knew the house and the avenues to it, and particularly the chapel, went in and fetched out the images, with the ephod, and teraphim, and all the appurtenances, while the 600 kept the priest in talk at the gate, v. 16-18. See what little care this sorry priest took of his gods; while he was sauntering at the gate, and gazing at the strangers, his treasure (such as it was) was gone. See how impotent these sorry gods were, that could not keep themselves from being stolen. It is mentioned as the reproach of idols that they themselves had gone into captivity, Isa. xlvi. 2. O the sottishness of these Danites! How could they imagine those gods should protect them that could not keep themselves from being stolen? Yet because they went by the name of gods, as if it were not enough that they had with them the presence of the invisible God, nor that they stood in relation to the tabernacle, where there were even visible tokens of his presence, nothing will serve them but they must have gods to go before them, not of their own making indeed, but, which was as bad, of their own stealing. Their idolatry began in theft, a proper prologue for such an opera. In order to the breaking of the second commandment, they begin with the eighth, and take their neighbour’s goods to make them their gods. The holy God hates robbery for burnt-offerings, but the devil loves it. Had these Danites seized the images to deface and abolish them, and the priest to punish him, they would have done like Israelites indeed, and would have appeared jealous for their God as their fathers had done (Josh. xxii. 16); but to take them for their own use was such a complicated crime as showed that they neither feared God nor regarded man, but were perfectly lost both to godliness and honesty.

II. They set upon the priest, and flattered him into a good humour, not only to let the gods go, but to go himself along with them; for without him they knew not well how to make use of the gods. Observe, 1. How they tempted him, v. 19. They assured him of better preferment with them than what he now had. It would be more honour and profit to be chaplain to a regiment (for they were no more, though they called themselves a tribe) than to be only a domestic chaplain to a private gentleman. Let him go with them, and he shall have more dependants on him, more sacrifices brought to his altar, and more fees for consulting his teraphim, than he had here. 2. How they won him. A little persuasion served: His heart was glad, v. 20. The proposal took well enough with his rambling fancy, which would never let him stay long at a place, and gratified his covetousness and ambition. He had no reason to say but that he was well off where he was; Micah had not deceived him, nor changed his wages. He was not moved with any remorse of conscience for attending on a graven image: had he gone away to Shiloh to minister to the Lord’s priests, according to the duty of a Levite, he might have been welcome there (Deut. xviii. 6), and his removal would have been commendable; but, instead of this, he takes the images with him, and carries the infection of the idolatry into a whole city. It would have been very unjust and ungrateful to Micah if he had only gone away himself, but it was much more so to take the images along with him, which he knew the heart of Micah was set upon. Yet better could not be expected from a treacherous Levite. What house can be sure of him who has forsaken the house of the Lord? Or what friend will he be true to that has been false to his God? He could not pretend that he was under compulsive force, for he was glad in his heart to go. If ten shekels won him (as bishop Hall expresses it), eleven would lose him; for what can hold those that have made shipwreck of a good conscience? The hireling flees because he is a hireling. The priest and his gods went in the midst of the people. There they placed him, that they might secure him either from going back himself, if his mind should change, or from being fetched back by Micah; or perhaps this post was assigned to him in imitation of the order of Israel’s march through the wilderness, in which the ark and the priests went in the midst of their camp.

III. They frightened Micah back when he pursued them to recover his gods. As soon as ever he perceived that his chapel was plundered, and his chaplain had run away from him, he mustered all the forces he could and pursued the robbers, v. 22. His neighbours, and perhaps tenants, that used to join with him in his devotions, were forward to help him on this occasion; they got together, and pursued the robbers, who, having their children and cattle before them (v. 21), could make no great haste, so that they soon overtook them, hoping by strength of reason to recover what was stolen, for the disproportion of their numbers was such that they could not hope to do it by strength of arm. The pursuers called after them, desiring to speak a word with them; those in the rear (where it is probable they posted the fiercest and strongest of their company, expecting there to be attacked) turned about and asked Micah what ailed him that he was so much concerned, and what he would have, v. 23. He argues with them, and pleads his right, which he thought should prevail; but they, in answer, plead their might, which, it proved, did prevail; for it is common that might overcomes right.

1. He insists upon the wrong they had certainly done him (v. 24): “You have taken away my gods, my images of God, which I have an incontestable title to, for I made them myself, and which I have such an affection for that I am undone if I lose them; for what have I more that will do me any good if these be lost?” Now, (1.) This discovers to us the folly of idolaters, and the power that Satan has over them. What a folly was it for him to call those his gods which he had made, when he only that made us is to be worshipped by us as a God! Folly indeed to set his heart upon such silly idle things, and to look upon himself as undone when he had lost them! (2.) This may discover to us our spiritual idolatry. That creature which we place our happiness in, which we set our affections inordinately upon, and which we can by no means find in our hearts to part with, of which we say, “What have we more?” that we make an idol of. That is put in God’s place, and is a usurper, which we are concerned about as if our life and comfort, our hope and happiness, and our all, were bound up in it. But, (3.) If all people will thus walk in the name of their god, shall we not be in like manner affected towards our God, the true God? Let us reckon the having of an interest in God and communion with him incomparably the richest portion, and the loss of God the sorest loss. Woe unto us if he depart, for what have we more? Deserted souls that are lamenting after the Lord may well wonder, as Micah did, that you should ask what ails them; for the tokens of God’s favour are suspended, his comforts are withdrawn, and what have they more?

2. They insist upon the mischief they would certainly do him if he prosecuted his demand. They would not hear reason, nor do justice, nor so much as offer to pay him the prime cost he had been at upon those images, nor promise to make restitution of what they had taken when they had served their present purpose with them in this expedition and had time to copy them and make others like them for themselves: much less had they any compassion for a loss he so bitterly lamented. They would not so much as give him good words, but resolved to justify their robbery with murder if he did not immediately let fall his claims, v. 25. “Take heed lest angry fellows run upon thee, and thou lose thy life, and that is worse than losing thy gods.” Wicked and unreasonable men reckon it a great provocation to be asked to do justice, and support themselves by their power against right and reason. Micah’s crime is asking his own, yet, for this, he is in danger of losing his life and the lives of his household. Micah has not courage enough to venture his life for the rescue of his gods, so little opinion has he of their being able to protect him and bear him out, and therefore tamely gives them up (v. 26): He turned and went back to his house; and if the loss of his idols did but convince him (as, one would think, it should) of their vanity and impotency, and his own folly in setting his heart upon them, and send him back to the true God from whom he had revolted, he that lost them had a much better bargain than those that by force of arms carried them off. If the loss of our idols cure us of the love of them, and make us say, What have we to do any more with idols? the loss will be unspeakable gain. See Isa 2:20; Isa 30:22.

Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary

(14) Answered.Equivalent to they said, as in Job. 3:2, Zec. 1:10.

Consider what ye have to doi.e., whether, and how, you would possess yourselves of them. We notice in these Danite freebooters the same strange mixture of superstition and lawlessness, robbery, and devotion which has often been observed in Greek and Italian brigands.

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

14. The five men They had spied the land, and acted now as guides to the six hundred.

Consider what ye have to do They meant more than they said, but their meaning was well understood: Let us not miss this opportunity of supplying ourselves with sacred images and a priest for our new settlement.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

‘ Then answered the five men that went to spy out the country of Laish, and said to their brothers, “Do you know that there is in these houses an ephod and teraphim, and a graven image, and a molten image? Now consider what you have to do.”’

The five spies had previously taken full note of the situation and had recognised that they would need a Sanctuary when they established themselves in a new home. And they had realised that here was a God-given opportunity to provide for it fully, even with a priest thrown in, and a priest who had (or so they thought) prophesied their success. Where else would they obtain the accoutrements for a sanctuary with so little effort? And they would need one, for they would be far from the central sanctuary. The tribal confederacy was losing its significance in their eyes, and that meant that the true covenant with Yahweh was being spurned.

“These houses.” Micah’s house and his house of God, and perhaps dwellings of his servants, as well as his neighbours (Jdg 18:22).

“Now consider what you have to do.” The words were ominous for Micah and his house of God. All knew what they meant.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

The Danites, on the way to Laish, pillage the sanctuary of Micah, and persuade his priest to go with them. Micah pursues, but finding the robbers too strong, turns back. The conquest and destruction of Laish, and the building of Dan.

Jdg 18:14-31

14Then answered the five men that went to spy out the country of Laish, and said unto their brethren, Do ye know that there is in these houses an ephod, and teraphim, and a graven image, and a molten image? now therefore consider what ye have to do. 15And they turned thitherward, and came to the house of the young man the Levite, even unto [omit: unto] the house of Micah, and saluted him. 16And the six hundred men appointed [girded] with their weapons of war, which were of the children [sons] of Daniel , 7 stood by the entering of the gate. 17And the five men that went to spy out the land went up, and came in thither [entered the house], and took the graven image, and the ephod, and the teraphim, and the molten image: and the priest stood in the entering of the gate with the six hundred men that were appointed [girded] with weapons of war. 18And these went [when these had gone] into Micahs house, and fetched the carved image, the ephod, and the teraphim, and the molten image. [,] Then [then] said the priest unto them, What do ye? 19And they said unto him, Hold thy peace, lay thine hand upon thy mouth, and go with us, and be to us a father and a priest: Is it better for thee to be a priest unto the house of one man, or that thou be a priest unto a tribe and a family in Israel? 20And the priests heart was glad, and he took the ephod, and the teraphim, and the graven image, and went in the midst of the people. 21So they turned and departed, and put the little ones, and the cattle, and 22the carriage [baggage] before them. And when they were a good way from the house of Micah,8 the men that were in the houses near to Micahs house were gathered together, and overtook the children [sons] of Dan. 23And they cried [called out] unto the children [sons] of Dan. And they turned their faces, and said unto Micah, What aileth [What is the matter with] thee, that thou comest with such a company? 24And he said, Ye have taken away my gods which I made, and the priest, and ye are gone away: and what have I more? and what is this that ye say unto me, What aileth [is the matter with] thee? 25And the children [sons] of Dan said unto him, Let not thy voice be heard among us, lest angry fellows [men fierce of spirit] run [fall] upon thee, and thou lose [destroy] thy life, with [and] the lives of thy household [house]. 26And the children [sons] of Dan went their way: and when [omit: when] Micah saw that they were too strong for him [stronger than he], [and] he turned and went back unto his house. 27And they took the things which Micah had made, and the priest which he had, and came unto [upon] Laish, unto [upon] a people that were at [omit: that were at] quiet and secure: and they smote them with the edge of the sword, and burnt the 28city with fire. And there was no deliverer, because it [i. e., the city,] was far from Zidon, and they had no business with any man [ i. e., no intercourse with other people]; and it [the city] was in the valley that lieth by [extends to] Beth-rehob. And they built a [the] city, and dwelt therein. 29And they called the name of the city Dan, after the name of Dan their father, who was born unto Israel: howbeit the name of the city was Laish at the first. 30And the children [sons] of Dan set up the graven image [for themselves]: and Jonathan, the son of Gershom, the son of Manasseh [Moses], he and his sons were priests to the tribe of Dan until the day of the captivity of the land.9 31And they set them up Micahs graven image which he made, all the time that the house of God was in Shiloh.

TEXTUAL AND GRAMMATICAL

[1 Jdg 18:16. . 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.]

[2 Jdg 18:22. : 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 properly requires a complemental infinitive, , 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.]

EXEGETICAL AND DOCTRINAL

Jdg 18:14. Do ye know that there is in these houses an ephod, teraphim, and image and cast-work? The five men who had reconnoitered Laish, accompany the colony, and form the soul of the whole undertaking. This is manifestly not conceived and carried out in the spirit of the God of Israel. The Danites present us with a military expedition, reckless and violent, such as the history of migrations and conquests is full of. Their road leads them over the mountains, and past the House of Micah. What houses are those? ask the Danites. And their guides inform them (, for the question is only presupposed), that here there is a private sanctuary, fully provided with everything necessary to such an institution. No Roman colony was sent forth without the authority of taking auspices, or without an attendant pullarius. The Danite envoys had asked the priest concerning the mind of Elohim, and had communicated his favorable answer to their brethren. The need of an oracle of their own becomes strongly felt by these warriors, who take the field from wholly subjective motives. The people have not left their hereditary landed possessions in order to lose themselves in a strange land, but to preserve their tribe-consciousness. This consciousness was alive in them, however, only so far as its national character went. They remember Dan, their ancestor, but not Jehovah, their God. They were not unbelieving, but superstitious; and superstition is subjective. It desires to be helped by Elohim, but it has no penitence, so as to serve Jehovah. The Danites desire to have a deity of their own, to direct them by his responses; and think that they can steal him, as gold and property may be stolen. Before Jehovah they could not stand with the thoughts of robbery and death that fill their hearts; but in these houses, they hear, there is an image and cast-work, ephod and teraphim. They conclude to conquer for their future city its appropriate temple service also.

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 , from , heavy, must here undoubtedly be taken of what, like cattle, admits of only slow transportation;10 for many valuables the Danites can scarcely have had with them. Moreoverand this is important herethe meaning valuable, in this word, is only a derivative one from heavy.) Thus they march alongbehind their children, sheep, and beasts of burdenready 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 Abrahams faith, nor Abrahams 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 Micahs anger they perceive that he knows all, theyprobably the five leaderstell him that it were better for him to be quiethe 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 ones 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.11 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 Samsons 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 , 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 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 in , 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 Micahs 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.13

Until the day of the exile of the ark (land). The words 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 , 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, ), 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, ; cf. 2Ki 15:29; 2Ki 18:11). Nor does the verb ,, to take into exile or captivity, or its cognate nouns, ever occur in connection with (land) alone, while in 2Ki 24:15 we find the entirely intelligible expression: he carried away the nobles of the land.

The linguistic improbability of the assumption that the narrator wrote , 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 tosay the death of Eli. For Bertheaus 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 , image, of the tribe of Dan. For this reason, the setting up of the image (,) and the appointment to its priesthood, are first spoken of, in Jdg 18:30, while its permanent preservation and maintenance ( 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 Micahs 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 briefly14 stated be duly considered, it will be felt to be necessary to substitute , the ark of the covenant, for , 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 must be explained as , although naturally they do not speak of another reading. Thus Kimchi: . Abarbanel takes it in a similar manner.15 It was probably under the influence of similar considerations that Houbigant conjecturally read , to which Bleek (Einleitung, p. 347) and Ewald (Alterthmer, 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 more frequently than any other historical book. The wife of the slain priest cries out, while she gives birth to a child, and dies: , gone is glory from Israel16 (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 , 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.17 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 Shilohs existence, the glory of the Levites had become greatly tarnished. The descendants of Aaronas witness the sons of Elihad 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 Aarons 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:

[7][Jdg 18:16. . 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.]

[8][Jdg 18:22. : 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 properly requires a complemental infinitive, , cf. Exo 8:24, but is frequently also, as here, used without it.Tr.]

[9][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.]

[10]R. Judah Hallevi, Kusari, iv. 3, explains it to mean retinue, such as comports with the honor of a king.

[11]Cf. Amo 8:14, and Talmud, Sabbat, 67 b.

[12]And that not with the prefix New with which, for instance, Carthago Nova took the name of the mother city.

[13][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 famili 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 sursum elevata, in signum eam adesse vel abesse posse, et sit filius Menassis vel Mosis; Menassis, studio et imitatione impietatis, Mosis, prosapia. Cf. Buxtorff, Tiber. p. 171. Later Rabbins say the same thing. R. Tanchum calls the writing with suspended, a , and speaks of as Kethibh, and of , 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 is still found, cf. Kennic. Dissert. Gener. in V. T. 21. Jerome also has filii Moysi.Tr.]

[14]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 Hengstenbergs 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, Rylands edit.).Tr.]

[15] , ed. Lips. p. 67.

[16]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.).

[17]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

Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange

What a banditti was Israel become? Had they had zeal for God’s honor, and destroyed those molten images, oh! what a noble spirit would this have been?

Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

Jdg 18:14 Then answered the five men that went to spy out the country of Laish, and said unto their brethren, Do ye know that there is in these houses an ephod, and teraphim, and a graven image, and a molten image? now therefore consider what ye have to do.

Ver. 14. Consider what ye have to do. ] Here they stir up their fellows to theft. There is little difference faveasne sceleri, an illud facias, whether ye hold the bag, or fill it.

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

Do ye know . . . ? Figure of speech Erotesis.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

Then: 1Sa 14:28

in these: Jdg 18:3, Jdg 18:4, Jdg 17:5

now therefore: Pro 19:27, Isa 8:19, Isa 8:20

Reciprocal: Gen 31:19 – images Jos 2:1 – to spy secretly Jdg 8:27 – an ephod Jdg 18:5 – of God Jdg 18:17 – five men 1Sa 19:13 – an image Job 3:2 – spake Eze 21:21 – images Zec 10:2 – the idols

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

18:14 Then answered the five men that went to spy out the country of Laish, and said unto their brethren, {f} Do ye know that there is in these houses an ephod, and teraphim, and a graven image, and a molten image? now therefore consider what ye have to do.

(f) Because before they had had good success, they wanted their brethren to be encouraged by hearing the same tidings.

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

Disfruta de miles de canciones cristianas en exclusiva sólo en Bibles