Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Judges 18:27
And they took [the things] which Micah had made, and the priest which he had, and came unto Laish, unto a people [that were] at quiet and secure: and they smote them with the edge of the sword, and burnt the city with fire.
27. that which Micah had made ] Perhaps originally the God which as in Jdg 18:24. The form of the sentence suggests that the objectionable expression has been modified.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
The things which Micah had made – Rather, from Jdg 18:24, the gods which Micah had made. See Jdg 18:31; Deu 27:15; Exo 20:4.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 27. Unto a people – at quiet and secure] They found the report given by the spies to be correct. The people were apprehensive of no danger, and were unprepared for resistance; hence they were all put to the sword, and their city burnt up.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Not wholly, but in great measure, to strike the greater terror into the inhabitants, and to make their conquest of the place more easy.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
27. they . . . came unto Laish . . .smote themthe inhabitants.
and burnt the city“Weare revolted by this inroad and massacre of a quiet and securepeople. Nevertheless, if the original grant of Canaan to theIsraelites gave them the warrant of a divine commission and commandfor this enterprise, that sanctifies all and legalizes all”[CHALMERS]. This placeseems to have been a dependency of Zidon, the distance of which,however, rendered it impossible to obtain aid thence in the suddenemergency.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And they took the things which Micah had made,…. The ephod, teraphim, and the two images, the Danites took them, or having taken them kept them, and went on with them:
and the priest which he had; him also they took, and who was willing enough to go with them:
and came unto Laish, unto a people that were quiet and secure; having no sentinels placed at any distance to give them warning of an enemy, nor any watchmen on their walls to discover one; and perhaps their gates not shut, nor any guard at any of their passes and avenues, having no apprehension at all of being visited by an enemy, especially from Israel, not being apprized that they had any pretensions to their city, and the land about it:
and they smote them with the edge of the sword; entered their city, and fell on them suddenly, and cut them to pieces:
and burnt the city with fire; to strike terror to all about; or it may be only they set fire to some part of it, as they entered, only to frighten the inhabitants, and throw them into the greater confusion, that they might become a more easy prey to them; for their intention was to inhabit it, and it seems to be the same city still, though they rebuilt it, and called it by another name.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
And they (the Danites) had taken what Micah had made, i.e., his idols and his priest, and they fell upon Laish ( , to come over a person, to fall upon him, as in Gen 34:25), a people living quietly and free from care (vid., Jdg 18:7), smote them with the edge of the sword (see at Gen 34:26), and burned down the city (cf. Jos 6:24), as it had no deliverer in its isolated condition ( Jdg 18:28; cf. Jdg 18:7). It was situated “ in the valley which stretches to Beth-rehob. ” This valley is the upper part of the Huleh lowland, through which the central source of the Jordan ( Leddan) flows, and by which Laish-Dan, the present Tell el Kadi, stood (see at Jos 19:47). Beth-rehob is most probably the same place as the Rehob mentioned in Num 13:21, and the Beth-rehob of 2Sa 10:6, which is there used to designate a part of Syria, and for which Rehob only is also used in Jdg 18:8. Robinson (Bibl. Res. pp. 371ff.) supposes it to be the castle of Hunin or Honin, on the south-west of Tell el Kadi; but this is hardly correct (see the remarks on Num 13:21, Pent. p. 709). The city, which lay in ashes, was afterwards rebuilt by the Danites, and called Dan, from the name of the founder of their tribe; and the ruins are still to be seen, as already affirmed, on the southern slope of the Tell el Kadi (see Rob. Bibl. Res. pp. 391-2, and the comm. on Jos 19:47).
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
| The Conquest of Laish. | B. C. 1406. |
27 And they took the things which Micah had made, and the priest which he had, and came unto Laish, unto a people that were at quiet and secure: and they smote them with the edge of the sword, and burnt the city with fire. 28 And there was no deliverer, because it was far from Zidon, and they had no business with any man; and it was in the valley that lieth by Beth-rehob. And they built a city, and dwelt therein. 29 And 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. 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. 31 And they set them up Micah’s graven image, which he made, all the time that the house of God was in Shiloh.
Here is, I. Laish conquered by the Danites. They proceeded on their march, and, because they met with no disaster, perhaps concluded they had not done amiss in robbing Micah. Many justify themselves in their impiety by their prosperity. Observe, 1. What posture they found the people of Laish in, both those of the city and those of the country about. They were quiet and secure, not jealous of the five spies that had been among them to search out the land, nor had they any intelligence of the approach of this enemy, which made them a very easy prey to this little handful of men that came upon them, v. 27. Note, Many are brought to destruction by their security. Satan gets advantage against us when we are careless and off our watch. Happy therefore is the man that feareth always. 2. What a complete victory they obtained over them: They put all the people to the sword, and burnt down so much of the city as they thought fit to rebuild (Jdg 18:27; Jdg 18:28), and, for aught that appears, herein they met with no resistance; for the measure of the iniquity of the Canaanites was full, that of the Danites was but beginning to fill. 3. How the conquerors settled themselves in their room, Jdg 18:28; Jdg 18:29. They built the city, or much of it, anew (the old buildings having gone to decay), and called the name of it Dan, to be a witness for them that, though separated so far off from their brethren, they were nevertheless Danites by birth, which might hereafter, by reason of their distance, be called in question. We should feel concerned not to lose the privilege of our relation to God’s Israel, and therefore should take all occasions to own it and preserve the remembrance of it to ours after us.
II. Idolatry immediately set up there. God had graciously performed his promise, in putting them 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 statues. As soon as they began to settle themselves they set up the graven image (v. 30), perversely 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, Hab. i. 11. Their Levite, who officiated as priest, is at length named here–Jonathan, the son of Gershom, the son of Manasseh. The word Manasseh, in the original, has the letter n, set over the head, which, some of the Jewish rabbin say, is an intimation that it should be left out, and then Manasseh will be Moses, and this Levite, they say, was grandson to the famous Moses, who indeed had a son named Gershom; but, say they, the historian, in honour of Moses, by a half interposition of that letter, turned the name into Manasseh. The vulgar Latin reads it Moses. And if indeed Moses had a grandson that was rakish, and was picked up as a fit tool to be made use of in the setting up of idolatry, it is not the only instance (would to God it were!) of the unhappy degenerating of the posterity of great and good men. Children’s children are not always the crown of old men. But the learned bishop Patrick takes this to be an idle conceit of the rabbin, and supposes this Jonathan to be of some other family of the Levites. How long these corruptions continued we are told in the close. 1. That the posterity of this Jonathan continued to act as priests to this family of Dan that was seated at Laish, and in the country about, till the captivity, v. 30. After Micah’s image was removed this family retained the character of priests, and had respect paid them as such by that city, and it is very probable that Jeroboam had an eye to them when he set up one of his calves there (which they could welcome at Can, and put some reputation upon, when the priests of the Lord would have nothing to do with them), and that this family officiated as some of his priests. 2. That these images continued till Samuel’s time, for so long the ark of God was at Shiloh; and it is probable that in him time effectual care was taken to suppress and abolish this idolatry. See how dangerous it is to admit an infection, for spiritual distempers are not so soon cured as caught.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
(27) Burnt the city with fire.This was unusual, for we are told that Hazor was the only city which Joshua burnt (Jos. 11:13). Perhaps they had devoted the city by a ban, as Jericho was devoted (Jos. 6:24); or the burning may have been due to policy or to accident. Probably the notion that such conduct was cruel and unjustifiable never occurred to them; nor must we judge them by the standard of Christian times. But Dan was no gainer. His name disappears from the records of 1Ch. 4:1, and he is not mentioned among the elected tribes in Revelation 7. Blunt (Undesigned Coincidences, pt. 2, 4) conjectures, from 2Ch. 2:14, that the cause of their disappearance from Israelite recordsthe latest mention of them as a tribe being in 1Ch. 27:22was due to their intermarriages with the Phnicians.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
Jdg 18:27-28 a
‘And they took the things which Micah had made, and the priest which he had had, and came to Laish, to a people who were quiet and secure, and smote them with the edge of the sword. And they burned the city with fire. And there was no deliverer, because it was far from Zidon, and they had no dealings with any man.’
So the people of Dan reached Laish and found it unprepared and weakly defended, totally unsuspecting. The people of Laish had no one to turn to because they had no treaties, and their fellow-Zidonians were far away across the mountains. There is a strong hint here of the importance of the covenant relationship. This too was why Israel were having such problems, because they neglected the tribal confederacy. Let them learn a lesson from these people. Without allies they were vulnerable.
“They took the things which Micah had made, and the priest which he had had.” Notice the emphasis on this. The writer had nothing but contempt for the Sanctuary at Dan, and wants his readers to know it. Their religious objects were merely one man’s creation, and the priest one man’s priest, in contrast with the Yahweh given Ark, Tabernacle and priesthood. And they were also stolen objects which belonged rightly to Micah, stolen by men who had accepted hospitality, and by a priest who had betrayed his ‘father’. What kind of worship was this going to be? And yet it would last for over a hundred years.
“They burned the city with fire.” Presumably in the fierce battle that ensued, or as a warning for any neighbours to keep away. But as they were going to live there they would want to preserve it as far as possible. Perhaps the phrase is to emphasise the greatness of the victory.
Jdg 18:28 b
‘And it was in the valley that lies by Beth-rehob. And they rebuilt the city and dwelt in it’
In Num 13:21 we learn that Rehob was ‘at the entering in of Hamath’ (or ‘near Lebo-hamath’), on the farthest northern borders of Canaan.
Then the Danites rebuilt the city, possibly enlarging it, and took up their dwelling there. They had found their new home. Their crime here was not so much the capturing of a peaceful city, they had seen that happen all their lives and had of necessity participated in it, but that they had opted out of the covenant and would set up their own Sanctuary.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
I hasten to close the awful account of this tribe, for nothing can give a more horrible description of their degeneracy, than that as soon as they had conquered Laish, and settled themselves in their new city of Dan, they set up public idolatry. Whether this Jonathan was the Levite of Micah, and now called for the first time by his name, is not said. But I rather incline to think not. It is not probable, that the Holy Ghost would close his character with the record of his name, who had thus become the wretched instrument of establishing idolatry in one of the tribes of Israel. Of all such little mention is made in the sacred word, for the most part their memorial is perished with them.
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Jdg 18:27 And they took [the things] which Micah had made, and the priest which he had, and came unto Laish, unto a people [that were] at quiet and secure: and they smote them with the edge of the sword, and burnt the city with fire.
Ver. 27. And they took the things. ] Chuckering themselves, to think what happiness they should have in them, and little considering that there would be “bitterness in the end.” Jer 2:19
Unto a people that were at quiet and secure.
And they smote them.
And burnt the city with fire. unto. Some codices, with one early printed edition, and Septuagint read “as far as”.
Laish: Jdg 18:7, Jdg 18:10
they smote: Deu 33:22, Jos 19:47
burnt: Jos 11:11
Reciprocal: Jdg 8:11 – secure Isa 47:8 – given Jer 49:31 – that Eze 38:11 – go to 1Th 5:3 – Peace
The people of Dan took the things that had belonged to Micah and went on to Laish. They defeated the people with the sword and burned their city which lay in the valley which was the source of the Jordan river. They rebuilt the city and renamed it Dan. Jonathan, who was the grandson of Gershom the son of Moses, served with his descendants as priests of the people until they were taken captive ( Jdg 18:27-31 ; 1Ch 23:14-15 ).
Jdg 18:27-29. And burned the city with fire Not wholly, but in a great measure, to make their conquest more easy. They built a city Or, rather, repaired and enlarged that which they found there. After the name of Dan That it might be manifest they belonged to the tribe of Dan, though they were settled at a great distance from them in the most northerly part of the land; whereas the lot of their tribe was in the southern part of Canaan.
18:27 And they took [the {l} things] which Micah had made, and the priest which he had, and came unto Laish, unto a people [that were] at quiet and secure: and they smote them with the edge of the sword, and burnt the city with fire.
(l) Meaning, the idols, as in Jud 18:18.
The establishment of idolatry at Dan 18:27-31
The Danites’ defeat of the inhabitants of Laish appears cruel and unjustified (cf. Jdg 9:45-49), though Laish was a Canaanite village. The town that seemed so desirable to the spies was really vulnerable and isolated. Its advantages proved to be weaknesses. Since God had adequate territory for the Danites in southern Canaan this whole expedition was displeasing to God in spite of the Levite’s blessing (Jdg 18:6). Some of the Danites remained in their original southern tribal allotment and did not move north. The new Danite territory in the north was really a section of the Promised Land that Joshua had formerly apportioned to the tribe of Manasseh or possibly Naphtali (Jos 13:29-31; Jos 19:32-33).
Note in Jdg 18:27 that the Danites took three things: the "gods" that Micah had made (cf. Jdg 18:14), a priest whom they could buy, and a town that its inhabitants could not defend. On these flimsy foundations the Danites built their future in the North.
Definitely contrary to God’s will was the setting up of Micah’s graven image in their newly named town. Jonathan was the Levite the writer referred to previously. Only now did the writer identify him by name, probably as a final forceful shock for us, the readers. He was, of all people, a direct descendant of Moses (marginal reading, Jdg 18:30)!
"It is universally agreed that the reference [to Manasseh] was originally to Moses. The reason for the amendment may have been to safeguard the reputation of this great leader by excluding him from the pedigree of this time-serving and idolatrous Levite." [Note: Cundall and Morris, p. 191.]
The revelation of the identity of this apostate Levite as Moses’ descendant at the end of this already shocking story brings it to an almost unbelievable climax. A direct descendant of the man most responsible for securing Israel’s unswerving commitment to Yahweh played a major role in leading the Israelites away from God!
"The problem of religious syncretism is so deeply rooted it has infected the most sacred institutions and the most revered household. . . . If ben means ’son’ rather than ’grandson’ or ’descendant,’ then these events must have happened within a hundred years of the arrival of the Israelites." [Note: Block, Judges . . ., p. 512.]
The captivity referred to (Jdg 18:30) may be that of the Philistines (1Sa 4:11; 1Sa 4:22) or the Arameans (2Ch 28:5). [Note: Lewis, p. 93.] Some scholars believe that it was the Assyrian Captivity of Israel that began in 734 B.C. (2Ki 15:29), [Note: Block, Judges . . ., p. 513; and Bush, p. 232.] but if so this statement was a later editorial insertion in the text. Idolatry that centered in Dan did plague Israel for over 600 years, and the Danites were initially responsible for it.
"In the book of 1 Chronicles, when the list of the tribes and families of Israel is given, Dan is the only tribe which is totally ignored. Zebulun’s genealogy is also not chronicled, but it is mentioned elsewhere (1Ch 6:63; 1Ch 6:77; 1Ch 12:33; 1Ch 12:40). Dan appears only as a geographical name, not as a tribe. They had vanished into obscurity, probably because of intermarriage with the Philistines. (E.g., 2Ch 2:14.) Dan did not take what God had given to them, and they took what God had not given them. In the process, they lost all that they had." [Note: Inrig, p. 279.]
The last verse of the story makes the most important point. The writer contrasted "Micah’s graven image that he had made" with "the house of God" that He had ordained.
"I suggest the writer places these two sanctuaries [Micah’s house of gods, translated "shrine" in Jdg 17:5, and the tabernacle], the false and the true, over against one another. There is the true house of God at Shiloh and then there is Micah’s collection of cultic Tinkertoys." [Note: Davis, p. 201.]
"The narrator’s point is that throughout the period of the judges the cult site at Dan functioned as an apostate challenge to the true worship of Yahweh." [Note: Block, Judges . . ., p. 514.]
The Danites were the first tribe to establish idolatry publicly in Israel. Perhaps this is why their tribe also does not appear in the list of 12 tribes that will each produce 12,000 godly Israelite witnesses during the Tribulation Period (Rev 7:5-8).
". . . the tribe of Dan was one of the first to go into idolatry, was small in number, and probably was thereafter classified with the tribe of Naphtali . . ." [Note: John Walvoord, The Revelation of Jesus Christ, p. 141. See also Walter Scott, Exposition of the Revelation of Jesus Christ, p. 166.]
This whole story of Micah and the Danites illustrates the terrible spiritual apostasy that corrupted Israel during the age of the judges. Even the grandson (or descendant) of Moses took leadership in it. It was no wonder that Israel had trouble with her external enemies (chs. 3-16) since she was so spiritually corrupt internally (chs. 17-18).
"The general theme pervading the whole narrative is its concern over false religion . . ." [Note: Dale Ralph Davis, "Comic Literature-Tragic Theology: A Study of Judges 17-18," Westminster Theological Journal 46 (Spring 1984):162.]
"Indeed, things are so wrong in Judges 18, and the Danites’ behavior is so repulsive, that it is hard not to conclude that Judges 18 is an intentional polemic against Dan, probably because Dan and Bethel became the two northern cultic sites that rivaled Jerusalem." [Note: McCann, pp. 124-25.]
There may be a polemic against Bethel in the reference to Ephraim in Jdg 17:1. [Note: See Yairah Amit, "Hidden Polemic in the Conquest of Dan: Judges XVII-XVIII," Vetus Testamentum 40 (1990):4-20.]
These two chapters teach us important lessons. We should obey God’s Word, not disregard it, as Micah did. We should serve God faithfully as He directs, not advance ourselves at the cost of disobedience, as Jonathan did. We should also wait for God and engage our spiritual enemy, not rush ahead or run away to establish our own security, as the Danites did. Micah’s error was self-styled worship, Jonathan’s was self-determined service, and the Danites’ was self-seeking security.
"In this portrayal of the events the narrator provides another challenge to the traditional scholarly understanding of Deuteronomism, which insists that sin brings on the curse, but blessing follows obedience. Here sin succeeds! Ironically, and perhaps tragically, the agendas people set for themselves are sometimes achieved-which sends a solemn warning to the church at the close of the twentieth century. Success is not necessarily a sign of righteousness or an indication that we must be doing something right. It may in fact be the opposite. God does not stifle every corrupt thought and scheme of the human heart." [Note: Block, Judges . . ., pp. 514-15.]
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Fuente: Gary Hampton Commentary on Selected Books
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)