Original Meaning

The Idolatry of Micah the Ephraimite (17:1–6)

WHEREAS AT THE beginning of the period of the judges the Israelites had difficulties with the foreign gods of the peoples in the land (2:6–3:6), the Israelites are presented now, in the first conclusion, as perfectly capable of manufacturing their own idols.

The narrative introduces a man named Micah from the hill country of Ephraim, who confesses that he has stolen7 eleven hundred shekels of silver from his unnamed mother (obviously a woman of substantial wealth). The name “Micah” is a short form of Mikayahu, meaning “Who is like Yahweh?” This is ironic since Yahweh is so absent from this story. His overt disregard for the fifth and eighth commandments demonstrates a brazen attitude to Yahweh and his Law.

This sum (1,100 shekels of silver) provides a tangible link to the foregoing narrative, where Delilah takes precisely this amount from each of the five Philistine lords (cf. 16:5). Some interpreters have wrongly interpreted this sum to indicate that Delilah is the mother of Micah. But besides the fact there is nothing to support this interpretation, it obscures the important function of this literary link. In the Micah narrative, the money is stolen, not exchanged between consenting parties. Worse, Micah betrays the trust of blood-tie, of the mother-son kinship, not the betrayal of an ethnic enemy. And even worse, Micah’s theft is not a business transaction for services rendered (as in the case of Delilah); it is nothing but the product of raw covetousness. “Delilah, the gauge of evil—foreigner, seductress, betrayer—is surpassed by Micah, Israelite betrayer of Israelite values without reason against the most intimate sphere, the family.”8

Micah’s mother utters a curse, and this seems to motivate Micah to return the stolen silver principally because he is afraid of the fulfillment of this curse. But the reaction of his mother is to counteract the curse with a blessing: “Yahweh bless you, my son!” (17:2). What seems to underline Micah’s mother’s curse and blessing is the ancient Near Eastern concept of magic.9 This becomes clearer from what will transpire in the story.

At this point, according to the Law prescribed in Leviticus 6:1–6, Micah—who has confessed his sin of stealing and repaid the principal (i.e., the exact amount stolen from his mother)—should do two more things. (1) He should acknowledge his sin before Yahweh at the tabernacle by paying restitution to his mother for the crime (i.e., one fifth of the principal involved). (2) He should sacrifice a guilt offering through the priest for atonement. But it is more than obvious that the Law is not being followed in this story. Israel has no spiritual king.

This is amplified by the dedication recorded in 17:3. After the promised return of the silver, Micah’s mother solemnly consecrates the silver10 to Yahweh in order for her son to make an idolatrous object (or objects). She contributes, however, only two hundred shekels of silver toward this project (evidently pocketing the rest?). There is some disagreement concerning the precise meaning of the phrase pesel ûmassemkâ. Some scholars argue that this phrase reflects two separate objects: “a carved image and a cast idol” (e.g., NIV, NEB). Other scholars argue that this phrase is a hendiadys signifying “a cast image” (i.e., one object, namely, “a carved image overlaid with molten metal,” e.g., NRSV).11

In addition, verse 5 notes that Micah made ʾēpôd ût^erāpîm (an ephod and teraphim12; NIV translates “some idols”; lit., “household gods”). These terms (pesel ûmassēkâ; ʾēpôd ût^erāpîm) are more than a hendiadys13; they are two fixed pairs14 used to encompass all aspects of idolatrous worship. The mother contributes the silver for production of the pair pesel ûmassēkâ, emphasizing the fabricated aspect of the image. Micah contributes the material for the production of the pair ʾēpôd ût^erāpîm, emphasizing the oracular aspect of the cult shrine. The terms, as used in the Judges narrative, stress humanity’s part in either making the idol or in using it.15

In any case, the production of the first pair is in obvious violation of the second commandment (see Ex. 20:4, 23; 34:17; Lev. 19:4), not to mention the specific Deuteronomic curse, “Cursed is the man who carves an image [pesel] or casts an idol [massēkâ]” (Deut. 27:15).16 The making of an ephod was wrong for the same reasons that it was wrong in the case of Gideon (see comments on Judg. 8:27). The use of t^erāpîm (household gods) for divinatory purposes is attested elsewhere (Gen. 31:19; Ezek. 21:21; Zech. 10:2). Thus there is also a violation of the first commandment (Ex. 20:3; Deut 5:7) as well.

Micah places all the cult paraphernalia in his own house, where he makes a shrine (lit., “a house of god[s]”, bêt ʾ ^elōhîm). He installs one of his sons as the shrine’s priest. The installation of someone other than a Levite as a priest was obviously in violation of the Law (Ex. 29:9; Num. 16:10). This action under cut the divinely ordained priestly authority at Shiloh.

Disregard for parental well-being, thief, homemade idolatrous objects of pilfered silver, private shrines, personal priests, self-made religious paraphernalia—these are hardly the proper trappings of one whose name means “Who is like Yahweh?”17 Ironically, while thinking that they are doing right, both Micah and his mother perform actions contrary to Yahweh’s cultic requirements as prescribed in Deuteronomy 12. In addition, it is ironic that this production of an illegitimate cult shrine takes place in the “hill country of Ephraim” (17:1), not that far from the legitimate place of worship during the period of the judges, Shiloh! Small wonder this initial story ends with the first occurrence of the refrain, “In those days Israel had no king; every man did what was right in his own eyes” (17:6). This refrain, of course, serves as a transition to the next section.

Bridging Contexts

MANIPULATING GOD. If Samson did what was right in his own eyes, so much more the Israelites in the double conclusion. Each conclusion is full of admonitions of what not to do, given through example after example. None of the activities of chapters 17–18 is sanctioned by God. In fact, quite to the contrary.

From the beginning we are confronted with one evil after another, all done by a person whose name means “Who is like Yahweh?” (Micah):

• disregard for parental well-being

• thief (from a parent)

• magical curse

• magical blessings (made in the name of Yahweh!)

• homemade idols of pilfered silver

• production of a private shrine

• making of a personal priest (son)

• adopting of a personal priest (Levite)

• self-made religious paraphernalia

Micah evinces an ignorance of God’s Law and covenant in their most basic teachings. His confident assertion (17:13) that Yahweh will prosper him because he has a Levite for a priest reveals the false confidence that people often have that they know God and that they can manipulate him by cultic and institutional means and so secure their own futures.

The Danites make essentially the same error as Micah, and their shrine eventually suffers an even worse fate (2 Kings 15:29). The treatment of this theme is satirical throughout the story. This issue of a human attempt to manipulate Yahweh links the first conclusion with the cycles section, especially the Out-group judges’ attempts to manipulate the Lord (see esp. Gideon and Jephthah).

It is ironic that the Danites even bother to inquire of God’s will when God had already revealed his will in the allotments to the tribes. There is no need for another inquiry. Micah’s illicit ephod and the t^erāpîm (household gods) with their inherent ties to divination determine that the inquiry will automatically be considered unauthorized and unlawful. And while the Levite’s oracle declared in the name of Yahweh is what they want to hear, it is patently not from Yahweh, who condemns these practices. Modern interest in the future, especially as secured through divinatory means, has increased significantly in the last few decades. The growth of the use of psychics and horoscopes are just two examples.

Motivated by materialism. It is clear that the Levite is totally motivated by material concerns. The fact that later he accepts an even more attractive offer (18:19–20) confirms his materialistic impetus. In this he is a continuation of the motif of the person who can be bought (cf. comments on Delilah, esp. in the Contemporary Significance in 16:1–31).

The Danites, who properly should have destroyed Micah’s cult shrine (according to Deut. 12:2–3), instead find it worthy of acquisition, even if by means of theft (18:15–17). They have no more integrity than Micah. Thus, the syncretism and paganism that permeates this first conclusion determine its moral bankruptcy.

Contemporary Significance

MORAL BANKRUPTCY. What kind of son steals from his own mother? What kind of mother leads her son into idolatry? What kind of a Levite serves at an idolatrous shrine and then happily moves to serve at a bigger idolatrous shrine? And what kind of people plunder their own people while on their way to annihilate a peaceful city in a region outside the boundaries of their God-ordained allotment?

When God’s Word is unknown or ignored, the results are human-manufactured, culturally conditioned innovations. Self-consumed individuals (and a group) dominate this passage, which itself, at its very root, is immersed in the misconception of human manipulation of deity (i.e., idolatry). The participants in both parts of the story in this first conclusion appear quite silly in all their efforts and activities. Don’t they realize what they are doing?

This would be humorous if it weren’t so real. But when humankind rejects God’s Word, then all activities ultimately appear foolhardy. The massive efforts by people today to substitute all kinds of things in the place of God—idols of their own making—appear the same way in the light of Scripture. Such things include riches, pleasures, security, human wisdom, advancement, personal happiness, and so on. Certainly the writer of Ecclesiastes has more than adequately shown the futility, meaninglessness, and frustration of any worldview that does not rise above the horizon of a human being. Happiness can never be achieved by pursuing it, since such a pursuit involves the absurdity of self-deification. So all these things that our current society seeks as God-substitutes—its idols—are allusions and materialistic props that are ultimately nothing but absurdities (for more, see comments in the introduction, pp. 45–47, and on 2:6–3:6, pp. 95–99).

Determining God’s will. Amazingly, people will, like the Danites, inquire again and again to know God’s will when God has already revealed it. For example, one hears from time to time a Christian asking this question: Is it God’s will for me to marry this person (and the person is an unbeliever)? God has revealed his will on this in both the Old and New Testaments. But because of emotional involvements, this clearly revealed will of God is often ignored and rationalized away, and the inquirer marries the unbeliever anyway.

Attempts to divine God’s will or the future are certainly not limited to the context of ancient Israel. The human race has used a vast array of illicit methods to inquire about the future throughout history. The increase of access to psychics and horoscopes has impacted the church too. In the last decade, more Christians are making inquiries via these means than in the prior generation. Since it has become more socially acceptable, more and more Christians find themselves becoming reliant on these practices in spite of the clear condemnation in Scripture.

The allurement of sin. A striking feature of this passage is how one sin leads to another (this is also observable in the Samson account and the second conclusion). This is not something we tend to reflect on. Yet some reflection on the interlocking nature of sin may help us see how we have gotten to where we personally are. In this passage, what is needed among the different characters is repentance (which, unfortunately, is not forthcoming). But as we reflect on the pattern of sin in our own lives, we should call out to the Lord in repentance and seek his forgiveness, so that God can intervene to break the power and pattern of sin with all of its destructive force.

In Judges 17–18, various sinful activities achieve success. We will mention only a few examples. Micah’s theft, in a number of ways, becomes positive for him. Not only was there no punishment or restitution for the crime, but Micah receives a blessing! In the end the aimlessly wandering Levite succeeds in becoming the high priest of the Danite cult shrine. The Danites, who have failed to trust Yahweh in possessing their God-ordained allotment, succeed in possessing their own allotment without any trust in Yahweh. None of the characters in this section acts with integrity, yet they succeed in most of their agendas and machinations.

Thus in this section there is an important warning for the modern church. Success, especially as the world judges this concept, is not necessarily a sign of righteousness or an indication that we must be doing something right or the way that God would want things done. In fact, it may be the opposite. God does not squelch every corrupt motive, thought, or scheme of human beings (whether unbeliever or believer). Just because there is the appearance of success does not signify that the means or methods to this apparent success are godly. The issue of personal and corporate integrity matters, and the ultimate evaluation of success will be based on God’s judgment of men’s and women’s hearts.

It is interesting that the Danites manifest attitudes and actions that are nothing short of raw paganism, brutalizing Micah in the process. In the same way, one cannot help but think of how some Christians treat other Christians. Every Christian counselor can share stories in which God’s people have been or are brutalizing one another. This subject, in particular as manifested in the brutalization of women, becomes fully blown in the final section of Judges.

The double conclusion’s refrain, “In those days Israel had no king; everyone did as he saw fit,” emphasizes there is no spiritual king in Israel and life is a free-for-all (see comments above). Perhaps the modern expression of this is found in the famous song of the late Frank Sinatra, “I Did It My Way.” While the song is about being stoic and heroic in the face of difficulties, its emphasis on self to the complete neglect and omission of the sovereign Lord proclaims the essence of modern society’s orientation. Sinatra’s song could have been the theme song for the Israelites in the days of the judges.

Original Meaning

The Installation of the Levite at Micah’s Shrine (17:7–13)

IN THE NEXT EPISODE, a young Levite traveling from Bethlehem in Judah finds his way northward to Micah’s house. He has been living (lit., sojourning) in Bethlehem. Why is a young Levite living in Bethlehem in Judah? Bethlehem is not a Levitical town in Judah (Josh. 21:9–16). Moreover, Judges 18:30 states that this Levite is a descendant of Gershom, the son of Moses (Ex. 2:22; 6:18–20), which means that he is a member of the Kohathite clan of the Levites, who were allotted ten towns in Ephraim, Dan, and Cisjordanian Manasseh (Josh. 21:5, 20–26). Thus this Levite should not have been living in Bethlehem in Judah. The failure of the Israelites to obey the Law has probably resulted in a lack of support for the Levites and may explain the man’s wandering in search of subsistence.

In his search, he comes to Micah’s house (17:8). The dialogue is technically unnecessary in 17:9 since the information gained by Micah’s question to the Levite has already been given in the previous verses. The restatement, however, reinforces the fact that the Levite is a wandering opportunist. In light of the offer that Micah makes to him in verse 10 (“live with me and be my father18 and priest, and I’ll give you ten pieces of silver a year, your clothes and your food”), it is clear that the Levite is motivated primarily by material concerns. The fact that later he accepts an even more attractive offer (18:19–20) confirms his materialistic motivation.

This seems “right” in the eyes of the Levite. Micah treats him like one of his sons (i.e., quite well, 17:11). Installing the Levite as his priest probably means the demotion of his own son. But having a genuine Levite as his priest gives Micah’s shrine an air of legitimacy and prestige. This conclusion is supported by the statement of Micah in verse 13: “Now I know that the LORD will be good to me, since this Levite has become my priest.” Like Jephthah’s ignorance of God’s Law, Micah evinces an ignorance of the Law in its most basic teachings.

What makes the passage even more ironic is the setting. All the action (the making of the carved image and a cast idol, the making of Micah’s son a priest, the hiring of a wandering Levite, etc.) takes place in the hill country of Ephraim, the very tribe where the tabernacle of Yahweh is located (i.e., Shiloh). It should be stressed, however, that even before the Levite enters the story, the implicit assessment of Micah’s shrine is negative since, according to Deuteronomy 12, the mere existence of a cult other than the one endorsed by God at the central shrine is condemned.

Both of these first two sections follow a similar pattern. Both start with the introduction of a principal character (Micah, the young Levite) and end with an addition being made to Micah’s shrine (cult objects, Levitical priest). Thus they envision a progression of expansion and prosperity for Micah’s shrine that leads to his ironic expression of confidence in Yahweh’s blessing (17:13). The narrator is setting us up for what will follow, when Micah’s confidence is overturned.19

Bridging Contexts

MANIPULATING GOD. If Samson did what was right in his own eyes, so much more the Israelites in the double conclusion. Each conclusion is full of admonitions of what not to do, given through example after example. None of the activities of chapters 17–18 is sanctioned by God. In fact, quite to the contrary.

From the beginning we are confronted with one evil after another, all done by a person whose name means “Who is like Yahweh?” (Micah):

• disregard for parental well-being

• thief (from a parent)

• magical curse

• magical blessings (made in the name of Yahweh!)

• homemade idols of pilfered silver

• production of a private shrine

• making of a personal priest (son)

• adopting of a personal priest (Levite)

• self-made religious paraphernalia

Micah evinces an ignorance of God’s Law and covenant in their most basic teachings. His confident assertion (17:13) that Yahweh will prosper him because he has a Levite for a priest reveals the false confidence that people often have that they know God and that they can manipulate him by cultic and institutional means and so secure their own futures.

The Danites make essentially the same error as Micah, and their shrine eventually suffers an even worse fate (2 Kings 15:29). The treatment of this theme is satirical throughout the story. This issue of a human attempt to manipulate Yahweh links the first conclusion with the cycles section, especially the Out-group judges’ attempts to manipulate the Lord (see esp. Gideon and Jephthah).

It is ironic that the Danites even bother to inquire of God’s will when God had already revealed his will in the allotments to the tribes. There is no need for another inquiry. Micah’s illicit ephod and the t^erāpîm (household gods) with their inherent ties to divination determine that the inquiry will automatically be considered unauthorized and unlawful. And while the Levite’s oracle declared in the name of Yahweh is what they want to hear, it is patently not from Yahweh, who condemns these practices. Modern interest in the future, especially as secured through divinatory means, has increased significantly in the last few decades. The growth of the use of psychics and horoscopes are just two examples.

Motivated by materialism. It is clear that the Levite is totally motivated by material concerns. The fact that later he accepts an even more attractive offer (18:19–20) confirms his materialistic impetus. In this he is a continuation of the motif of the person who can be bought (cf. comments on Delilah, esp. in the Contemporary Significance in 16:1–31).

The Danites, who properly should have destroyed Micah’s cult shrine (according to Deut. 12:2–3), instead find it worthy of acquisition, even if by means of theft (18:15–17). They have no more integrity than Micah. Thus, the syncretism and paganism that permeates this first conclusion determine its moral bankruptcy.

Contemporary Significance

MORAL BANKRUPTCY. What kind of son steals from his own mother? What kind of mother leads her son into idolatry? What kind of a Levite serves at an idolatrous shrine and then happily moves to serve at a bigger idolatrous shrine? And what kind of people plunder their own people while on their way to annihilate a peaceful city in a region outside the boundaries of their God-ordained allotment?

When God’s Word is unknown or ignored, the results are human-manufactured, culturally conditioned innovations. Self-consumed individuals (and a group) dominate this passage, which itself, at its very root, is immersed in the misconception of human manipulation of deity (i.e., idolatry). The participants in both parts of the story in this first conclusion appear quite silly in all their efforts and activities. Don’t they realize what they are doing?

This would be humorous if it weren’t so real. But when humankind rejects God’s Word, then all activities ultimately appear foolhardy. The massive efforts by people today to substitute all kinds of things in the place of God—idols of their own making—appear the same way in the light of Scripture. Such things include riches, pleasures, security, human wisdom, advancement, personal happiness, and so on. Certainly the writer of Ecclesiastes has more than adequately shown the futility, meaninglessness, and frustration of any worldview that does not rise above the horizon of a human being. Happiness can never be achieved by pursuing it, since such a pursuit involves the absurdity of self-deification. So all these things that our current society seeks as God-substitutes—its idols—are allusions and materialistic props that are ultimately nothing but absurdities (for more, see comments in the introduction, pp. 45–47, and on 2:6–3:6, pp. 95–99).

Determining God’s will. Amazingly, people will, like the Danites, inquire again and again to know God’s will when God has already revealed it. For example, one hears from time to time a Christian asking this question: Is it God’s will for me to marry this person (and the person is an unbeliever)? God has revealed his will on this in both the Old and New Testaments. But because of emotional involvements, this clearly revealed will of God is often ignored and rationalized away, and the inquirer marries the unbeliever anyway.

Attempts to divine God’s will or the future are certainly not limited to the context of ancient Israel. The human race has used a vast array of illicit methods to inquire about the future throughout history. The increase of access to psychics and horoscopes has impacted the church too. In the last decade, more Christians are making inquiries via these means than in the prior generation. Since it has become more socially acceptable, more and more Christians find themselves becoming reliant on these practices in spite of the clear condemnation in Scripture.

The allurement of sin. A striking feature of this passage is how one sin leads to another (this is also observable in the Samson account and the second conclusion). This is not something we tend to reflect on. Yet some reflection on the interlocking nature of sin may help us see how we have gotten to where we personally are. In this passage, what is needed among the different characters is repentance (which, unfortunately, is not forthcoming). But as we reflect on the pattern of sin in our own lives, we should call out to the Lord in repentance and seek his forgiveness, so that God can intervene to break the power and pattern of sin with all of its destructive force.

In Judges 17–18, various sinful activities achieve success. We will mention only a few examples. Micah’s theft, in a number of ways, becomes positive for him. Not only was there no punishment or restitution for the crime, but Micah receives a blessing! In the end the aimlessly wandering Levite succeeds in becoming the high priest of the Danite cult shrine. The Danites, who have failed to trust Yahweh in possessing their God-ordained allotment, succeed in possessing their own allotment without any trust in Yahweh. None of the characters in this section acts with integrity, yet they succeed in most of their agendas and machinations.

Thus in this section there is an important warning for the modern church. Success, especially as the world judges this concept, is not necessarily a sign of righteousness or an indication that we must be doing something right or the way that God would want things done. In fact, it may be the opposite. God does not squelch every corrupt motive, thought, or scheme of human beings (whether unbeliever or believer). Just because there is the appearance of success does not signify that the means or methods to this apparent success are godly. The issue of personal and corporate integrity matters, and the ultimate evaluation of success will be based on God’s judgment of men’s and women’s hearts.

It is interesting that the Danites manifest attitudes and actions that are nothing short of raw paganism, brutalizing Micah in the process. In the same way, one cannot help but think of how some Christians treat other Christians. Every Christian counselor can share stories in which God’s people have been or are brutalizing one another. This subject, in particular as manifested in the brutalization of women, becomes fully blown in the final section of Judges.

The double conclusion’s refrain, “In those days Israel had no king; everyone did as he saw fit,” emphasizes there is no spiritual king in Israel and life is a free-for-all (see comments above). Perhaps the modern expression of this is found in the famous song of the late Frank Sinatra, “I Did It My Way.” While the song is about being stoic and heroic in the face of difficulties, its emphasis on self to the complete neglect and omission of the sovereign Lord proclaims the essence of modern society’s orientation. Sinatra’s song could have been the theme song for the Israelites in the days of the judges.