5<\/strong>. had an house of gods<\/em> ] But according to his lights Micah was a zealous worshipper of Jehovah; so follow Marg. had an house of<\/em> God<\/strong>, i.e. a private shrine. The narrative hardly permits the identification of Micah’s beth-elohim<\/em> with Beth-el, as has been proposed; nor does it intend to brand his shrine, and the sanctuary at Dan, as idolatrous foundations.<\/p>\n an ephod and teraphim<\/em> ] Instruments for consulting the divine oracle; 1Sa 23:9-12<\/span>, Zec 10:2<\/span>. In Hos 3:4<\/span> they are mentioned, together with sacrifice and pillar, in a way which suggests that they were to be found in public sanctuaries. Such was the case with the ephod, Jdg 8:27<\/span> note<\/em>; but the terphim as a rule seem to have been household sacra<\/em>, perhaps images shaped in human form (Gen 31:19<\/span>; Gen 31:34<\/span> f.; 1Sa 19:13<\/span>; 1Sa 19:16<\/span>), associated with superstitious practices such as divination and witchcraft, and therefore discountenanced by the higher religion; Gen 35:2<\/span>; Gen 35:4<\/span> E; 1Sa 15:23<\/span>; 2Ki 23:24<\/span>; Eze 21:21<\/span> [60] . The archaic miniature idols, generally figures of Ashtoreth, which have been unearthed at Taanach and Gezer, are supposed to have been terphim, but without much probability. See the illustrations in Vincent, Canaan<\/em>, pp. 153 ff.; Driver, <\/p>\n [60] The Jerusalem Targum on Gen 31:19<\/span> thus explains what the terphim were: ‘they kill a first-born male and cut off his head, and salt it in salt and spices, and write spells on a leaf of gold which they place under the tongue, and set it up on the wall, and it speaks with them.’ This barbarous magic must actually have existed in popular practice.<\/p>\n Schweich Lecture<\/em> s, p. 57. Gressmann, Eschatologie<\/em>, p. 345 n.<\/em>, accepts the view that if the ephod was the mantle, the terphim were the masks of the sacred image; the priest put them on to deliver an oracle, and was then supposed to be invested with the power of the Deity. But this does not seem to explain the private, domestic use of the terphim. The etymology and meaning of the word are unknown; it occurs only in the plural, even when referring to a single object (e.g. 1Sa 19:13<\/span>; 1Sa 19:16<\/span>); see Gesenius-Kautzsch, Hebr. Gram.<\/em> 28 , 124 h<\/em>, Meyer, Die Israeliten<\/em>, p. 212.<\/p>\n and consecrated one of his sons<\/em> ] Jdg 17:12<\/em><\/span>, installed<\/strong> lit. filled the hand of<\/em>. The idiom probably originated from the custom of filling the hands of a candidate for the priestly office with choice portions of the sacrifice, if we may suppose that the ceremonial enjoined in P was based upon traditional usage; Exo 29:22-25<\/span>, Lev 8:25-28<\/span>; cf. 2Ch 13:9<\/span>, 1Ki 13:33<\/span>. In Eze 43:26<\/span> the phrase has become entirely conventionalized, and is applied to the altar (lit. fill ye its hand<\/em>). An exact equivalent was used in Assyrian for conferring a dignity on a person, e.g. the god Ashur ‘filled his hand with a matchless kingdom,’ KB<\/em>. i. p. 191.<\/p>\n The verse throws a valuable light on the religious practice of the period. The head of a family could install a son as priest to his household (cf. 1Sa 7:1<\/span>, 2Sa 8:18<\/span>), and the priestly office was not confined to Levites (cf. 1Sa 2:18<\/span>; 1Sa 3:1<\/span>; 1Sa 7:9<\/span> f. etc., 2Sa 20:26<\/span>), though a Levite was considered to possess superior skill and fitness for it, Jdg 17:13<\/em><\/span>. Of course this was entirely at variance with later theory and custom. In Deuteronomy (viith century) the only priests we hear of are the Levites, and according to the compiler of the Book of Kings none but Levites had the right to exercise priestly functions (1Ki 12:31<\/span>; 1Ki 13:33<\/span>); all Levites might be priests (Deu 10:8<\/span> f., Jdg 18:1-8<\/span>). In the following age Ezekiel draws a distinction between Levites, and confines the priesthood to the descendants of Zadok, degrading the rest to the rank of priests’ servants (Eze 44:10-16<\/span>); while finally, according to the Priestly Code, only the descendants of Aaron can be priests (Exodus 28<\/span>, Num 3:10<\/span>, etc.). A later scribe, familiar with what had become the established rule in his day, draws attention to the irregularity in the present case, and puts it down to the general lack of order in the days before the monarchy; cf. Jdg 18:1<\/span>, Jdg 19:1<\/span>, Jdg 21:25<\/span>. The remark implies that the scribe who added it was writing? time when there were kings in Israel.<\/p>\n Verse 5<\/span>. The man Micah had a house of gods<\/B><\/I>] beith<\/I> Elohim<\/I> should, I think, be translated house<\/I> or temple of God<\/I>; for it is very likely that both the mother and the son intended no more than a private or domestic chapel, in which they proposed to set up the worship of the true God.<\/P> <\/P> Made an ephod<\/B><\/I>] Perhaps the whole of this case may be stated thus: Micah built a house of God <\/I>– a chapel in imitation of the sanctuary<\/I>; he made a graven image<\/I> representing the ark, a molten<\/I> image<\/I> to represent the mercy-seat, teraphim<\/I> to represent the cherubim<\/I> above the mercy-seat<\/I>, and an ephod<\/I> in imitation of the sacerdotal garments<\/I>; and he consecrated one of his sons to be priest. Thus gross idolatry was not the crime of Micah; he only set up in his own house an epitome of the Divine worship as performed at Shiloh. What the teraphim<\/I> were, See Clarke on <\/span>Ge 31:19<\/span><\/span>; for the ephod<\/I>, See Clarke on <\/span>Ex 25:7<\/span><\/span>; and for the sacerdotal vestments<\/I> in general, See Clarke on <\/span>Ex 28:4<\/span><\/span>, c.<\/P> <\/P> Who became his priest.<\/B><\/I>] cohen<\/I>, which the Targum translates chumera<\/I>. The word cohen<\/I> is the common name in Hebrew for a priest<\/I> of the true God but sometimes it is applied to idolatrous priests. When it is to be understood in the former sense, the Targum renders it cahen<\/I>; when in the latter, it uses the word chumera<\/I>, by which it always understands an idolatrous<\/I> priest. But that this was not a case of idolatry, and that the true God was worshipped here, is evident from the word Jehovah<\/I> being used, Jdg 17:4<\/span>, and oracular<\/I> answers being given at this house, as we see from Jdg 18:6<\/span> &c.<\/P> <\/p>\n An house of gods, <\/B>i.e. an house or place consecrated for the service of God in this manner. <\/P> An ephod; <\/B>an eminent part of the priestly garments, Exo 28:4<\/span>, which, some think, is here put for all of them. <\/P> Teraphim; <\/B>some sort of images so called, of which see Gen 31:19<\/span>; Hos 3:4<\/span>. <\/P> Who became his priest; <\/B>because the Levites in that corrupt estate of the church neglected the exercise of their office, and therefore were neglected by the people, and others put into their employment. But this kind of priesthood was condemned, Num 16:40<\/span>; 18:2<\/span>,7<\/span>. <\/P> <\/p>\n 5. the man Micah had an house ofgods<\/B>Hebrew,<\/I> “a house of God”a domesticchapel, a private religious establishment of his own. <\/P> an ephod<\/B>(see on Ex28:6<\/span>). <\/P> teraphim<\/B>tutelary godsof the household (see Ge 31:19<\/span>and see on Ge 31:26<\/span>). <\/P> consecrated one of his sonswho became his priest<\/B>The assumption of the priestly office byany one out of the family of Aaron was a direct violation of thedivine law (Num 3:10<\/span>; Num 16:17<\/span>;Deu 21:5<\/span>; Heb 5:4<\/span>).<\/P><\/p>\n And the man Micah had an house of gods<\/strong>,…. Having two images in it, besides teraphim, which were a sort of idols; and the Targum is, an house of images, or idols; though it may be rendered “an house of God”; a temple, a place for religious worship:<\/p>\n and made an ephod<\/strong>; a priestly garment, a linen one very probably, not so rich an one with a breastplate to it as the high priest had, which was very costly. Ben Melech interprets it a girdle, and there was a curious girdle of the ephod, with which it was girt; this may be here put for the rest of the priestly garments which Micah provided:<\/p>\n and teraphim<\/strong>; which were a sort of household gods, like the Lares and Penates of the Romans, and by which consultations were made;<\/p>\n [See comments on Ho 3:3]<\/span> [See comments on Ho 3:4]<\/span> [See comments on Zec 10:2]<\/span> Micah proposed to have an oracle in his house, whereby he might consult the Lord about future things, and not be at the trouble of going to the tabernacle, and consult there by Urim and Thummim; and the same some take the teraphim to be:<\/p>\n and consecrated one of his sons, who became his priest<\/strong>; or, “filled the hand” k of one of them; that is, with offerings, as Ben Melech interprets it; in which way priests were initiated, and consecrated to their office; see Ex 28:41<\/span> or, as Kimchi expresses it, he offered his offerings by the hand of one of his sons, and appointed him to be a priest, very probably his eldest son.<\/p>\n k “et implevit manum”, Montanus, V. L.<\/p>\n (5) Had an house of gods.<\/strong>The Hebrew is Beth Elohim, <\/em>which may mean equally well a house of God (Vulg., diculam Deo, <\/em>and so too the LXX.). It is quite clear that Micah did not abandon the worship of God under the names of Jehovah and Elohim, by which He was known to the Israelites. How he coordinated this worship with his grossly idolatrous symbols, or whom those symbols were intended to represent, it is impossible to say. The fact remains that in the Beth-Micah we find a house of godswhole chapel of idolsconsecrated to Jehovah as a pious act (Jdg. 17:2<\/span>; Jdg. 17:5<\/span>; Jdg. 17:13<\/span>; Jdg. 18:6<\/span>).<\/p>\n An ephod.<\/strong>No doubt the ephod was nothing more than a gorgeous priestly garment, though possibly it may have been used for oracular purposes. (See Jdg. 8:27<\/span>.)<\/p>\n And teraphim.<\/strong>These were Syrian images (Gen. 31:19<\/span>), the use of which among the Israelites seems to have lasted for a long period, until it was put down by King Josiah in his great reformation (2Ki. 23:34<\/span>; Eze. 21:26<\/span>; Hos. 3:4<\/span>; Zec. 10:2<\/span>). I have entered upon the interesting question of the use of Teraphim in an article on the subject in Kittos Cyclopdia. <\/em>(See Excursus II: Teraphim.<\/em>)<\/p>\n Consecrated.<\/strong>The curious Hebrew phrase is filled the hand (see Exo. 28:41<\/span>; Exo. 29:24<\/span>; Lev. 7:37<\/span>), i.e., <\/em>gave him the office by putting certain offerings in his hands. It is rather installed <\/em>than consecrated.<\/p>\n EXCURSUS II<\/strong>.ON Jdg. 17:5<\/span>. (TERAPHIM.)<\/p>\n THE Hebrew word Teraphim <\/em>is always simply transliterated as in our version, or rendered by images, with teraphim in the margin, except in 1Sa. 15:23<\/span>, Zec. 10:2<\/span>, where it is represented by idolatry, idols. The singular of the word, a teraph, does not occur in Scripture, although it is clear that only one can have been put into Davids bed (1Sa. 19:13-16<\/span>). The LXX. adopt many different renderings, as does the Vulg., but they all point to idolatrous images or the implements of necromancy, as do the two renderings of the Targums, images and (Hos. 3:4<\/span>) announcers.<\/p>\n 1. Teraphim are first mentioned in Gen. 31:19<\/span>, where Rachel steals her fathers images, and successfully hides them from his search under the hiran <\/em>on which she was sittingthe coarse carpet used to cover the wicker-work pack-saddle of her camel. Josephus supposes that she was actuated by idolatrous reverence; Iben Ezra that she expected oracular guidance from them; others that she stole them because of their intrinsic value. She probably shared the superstitions of her father, and regarded them as sacred (Gen. 30:14<\/span>; Gen. 31:30<\/span>), as being the figures of ancestral divinities (Gen. 31:53<\/span>). It is not impossible that they were among the strange gods which Jacob ordered his family to bury under the sorcerers oakAllon<\/em> Meonenim (Jdg. 9:37<\/span>). But that Jacobs right feeling in the matter was not permanent is proved only too clearly by the conduct of Micah (Jdg. 17:5<\/span>) and the Danites (Jdg. 18:3<\/span>), although, unlike Jeroboam, they could not even plead the poor palliation of political motives.<\/p>\n 2. The next definite notice of teraphim occurs in 1Sa. 19:13-16<\/span>, where Michal, in the dark eastern chamber, conceals her husbands absence by putting the teraphim in his bed, with a bolster of goats hair for a pillow. The use of the article shows that even in Davids family the use of the teraphim was perfectly well known. Nor can we rely on the vague conjecture of Thenius, that barren women (Rachel and Michal) were especially addicted to their worship, or on that of Michaelis, that Michal may have possessed them unknown to David. The passage seems to show that they had at least some rude resemblance to the human shape, whence Aquila renders the word by protomai (busts), which is used of figures like the ancient Hermae. This is not the place to enter into the curious reading of the LXX. on this verse, by which they seem to connect the worship of teraphim with what the ancients called extispiciumi.e., divination by means of the liver of sacrifices, as in Eze. 21:21<\/span>. Josephus follows the same reading, and dishonestly suppresses all mention of the teraphim.<\/p>\n 3. The next important passage is Hos. 3:4<\/span>, where the prim facie view of every unbiassed reader would be that the image (matsbah) and the teraphim are mentioned without blame as ordinary adjuncts to religious worship. Hence, perhaps, arose the notion that the teraphim were in some way connected with the Urim and Thummim, which led to the rendering of the word in this passage by (LXX., bright gems), and by <\/em>(enlightenments, Aquila), and by implements of priestly dress (St. Jerome). This is the theory maintained most unconvincingly, though with great learning, by Spencer in his De Legibus Hebr-orum, <\/em>lib. 3, pp. 920-1038.<\/p>\n But if these passages show that even in religious families teraphim were sometimes tolerated as material adjuncts to an Elohistic worship, on the other hand we find them unequivocally condemned by Samuel (1Sa. 15:23<\/span>), by Josiah (2Ki. 23:24<\/span>), and by the prophet Zechariah (Zec. 10:2<\/span> ); and in Eze. 21:21<\/span> the use of them, is attributed to the heathen Nebuchadnezzar.<\/p>\n The general inference seems to be that the use of the teraphim involved a violation of the second commandment, but that this use of symbols, this monotheistic idolatry, <\/em>which is very different from polytheism, arises from a tendency very deeply ingrained in human nature, and which it took many years to eradicate. If centuries elapsed before the Jews were cured of their propensity to worship other gods,we can feel no surprise that image worship continued to linger among them, in spite of the condemnation of it by the stricter prophets. The calf-worship, the toleration of teraphim and consecrated stones (baetylia<\/em>) <\/em>and high places, the offering of incense to the brazen serpent, the glimpses of grave irregularities even in the worship of the sanctuary, show that it was only by centuries of misfortune and a succession of prophets that Israel was at last educated into the spiritual worship of the true God.<\/p>\n The reader will find further remarks on this subject in the article on Teraphim, by the present writer, in Kittos Biblical Cyclopdia. 5<\/strong>. <\/strong> House of gods <\/strong> Or, a house of God, <\/em> a sanctuary after the model of that at Shiloh. He would have a tabernacle of his own. <\/p>\n An ephod <\/strong> Probably after the fashion of Gideon’s. See on Jdg 8:27<\/span>. <\/p>\n Teraphim <\/strong> Idolatrous images among the Syrians, but in Israel connected rather with corrupt notions of religion than with open idolatry. It does not appear that they were ever worshipped. But see on Gen 31:19<\/span>, and Jos 24:14<\/span>. <\/p>\n Consecrated <\/strong> Literally, filled the hand, <\/em> in allusion to the sacred and solemn duties which filled the hands required all the care of those who occupied the priest’s office. <\/p>\n One of his sons <\/strong> This fact affords further evidence of the looseness of that age, and shows how completely some of the most solemn enactments of the law had become a dead letter. But Micah did not feel fully satisfied with this priest of his own household, and hence his subsequent consecration of the wandering Levite.<\/p>\n ‘<\/strong> And the man Micah had a house of God (or ‘gods’), and he made an ephod and a teraphim, and installed (‘filled the hand of’) one of his sons who became his priest.’ <\/p>\n The fact that he at this stage installed one of his own sons suggests that this house of God was new, prepared by him to receive the ‘images’. Both Micah and his mother appear to have been genuinely determined to please Yahweh, although in a way that contributed to their own prestige. But they were clearly not well taught in what was necessary, although having some general idea about such things. The fact that Israel had the Law of God at the central sanctuary did not mean that the knowledge of it was satisfactorily disseminated. And they were influenced by what went on around them. <\/p>\n From now onwards the name of Micah (micyhu) is abbreviated (to micah) in the Hebrew text, dropping the name of Yahweh. This may have been the writer’s way of expressing his disapproval of what follows. <\/p>\n They seemingly did not recognise that to have their own house of God, their own ephod and their own throne of Yahweh was contrary to Moses’ teaching, and that teraphim especially were frowned on as linked with divination and idolatry (1Sa 15:23<\/span>). Nor, seemingly did they recognise that to have their son as their own family priest was not acceptable, although the fact that when the opportunity came to appoint a Levite, he did so, demonstrates that he was aware of this defect (someone may have pointed it out to him). We must not necessarily assume that the son acted as a full sacrificing priest. His responsibilities might have been limited to using the ephod to discover the will of God and offerings not of a sacrificial kind. <\/p>\n Micah was a religious innovationist and demonstrated how the Israelites were developing forbidden forms of worship contrary to the Law of Moses. They did what was right in their own eyes due to their failure to let Yahweh have His rightful place as King by honouring the covenant and the central sanctuary. To ‘fill the hand’ was to appoint as priest – Num 3:3<\/span>. We note that David also appointed his sons as priests, but this would be as priests of the order of Melchizedek in Jerusalem, as recognising their authority there, but not as sacrificing priests (2Sa 8:18<\/span>). <\/p>\n The ephod was a priestly metallic robe worn by ‘the priest’ in the Tabernacle which among other things was involved with the Urim and Thummim (Exo 28:30<\/span>; Num 27:21<\/span>) , which were used for discovering the mind of Yahweh. In the case of Laban, teraphim were described as ‘gods’, divine objects (Gen 31:30<\/span> with 35). But they were used for divination (2Ki 23:24<\/span>; Eze 21:21<\/span>). Otherwise we know little about them. Thus Micah was wanting to doubly ensure that he could discover the mind of Yahweh, although his means were unacceptable to the pure Yahweh worshipper. <\/p>\n In all this there is no mention of an altar. Worship in this house of God may well have been by offering other things than sacrifices. <\/p>\n Micah and his mother would have been familiar with the idol shelves found in Canaanite houses, and which soon found their way into some Israelite houses. They were seeking to have something similar but dedicated to Yahweh. But such was the state of Yahwism, of the central sanctuary and of the teaching of the Law at the time, that they did not realise that they were doing wrong. Yahwism was at a low ebb. <\/p>\n Jdg 17:5<\/span><\/em><\/strong>. <\/strong>An house of gods<\/em><\/strong><\/strong> This might be rendered more properly, a temple or house of God; beith elohim: <\/em>so the LXX and the Vulgate render it, as well as Houbigant, aedes deo sacra. <\/em>Micah and his family were desirous to have a little tabernacle, a place consecrated to the elohim, <\/em>at their own house, without the trouble of going up to Shiloh. Respecting the teraphim, see Gen 31:17<\/span>. <\/p>\nFuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible <\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
<\/em><\/p>\nFuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n