Judges 17:4

MICAH SETS UP HIS OWN CENTER OF WORSHIP

"And when he restored the money unto his mother, his mother took two hundred pieces of silver, and gave them to the founder, who made thereof a graven image and a molten image: and it was in the house of Micah. And the man Micah had a house of gods, and he made an ephod, and teraphim, and consecrated one of his sons, who became his priest. In those days, there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes."

"His mother took two hundred pieces of silver ... gave them to the founder, who made a graven image and a molten image" (Judges 17:4). The question that rises here is "What did she do with the other nine hundred pieces of silver?" Moore tells us that, "Some say that the two hundred pieces were the wages of the founder and that the rest of the silver was made into the image. Lyra and others think the rest of the money was used for furnishing and adorning the shrine."[13] The simple truth of the matter seems to be that, "The woman through avarice broke her vow and gave to God only a small part of the consecrated treasure."[14]

"An ephod" (Judges 17:5). This was a part of the ceremonial dress of Israel's high priest, "A sacramental vestment, richly decorated, and in design somewhat like an apron with pockets."[15] It is by no means sure, however, that the ephod spoken of here was like that. It might have been some kind of an idol.

"Teraphim" (Judges 17:5). It is not certain what this was. Dalglish thought that, "It was a figurine or image of some kind."[16] In Genesis 31:19, Rachel is said to have stolen the teraphim of her father, and from this, it is supposed that these small idols were associated with the pagan habit of adoring household gods. Significantly, it is Rachel's posterity who in this chapter are involved in such pagan worship.

"Consecrated one of his sons ... his priest" (Judges 17:5). "The Hebrew here rendered `consecrated' is actually `filled the hand of.'"[17] "This was the regular God-given formula for the investiture of priests (Exodus 29:35; Leviticus 8:33)."[18] Thus, we have five references to the Pentateuch in as many verses, indicating, not merely, the existence of the Pentateuch long prior to the times of Joshua and Othniel, but also the general acquaintance of the Israelites with its provisions, especially with those procedures in which they were particularly interested.

It is strange indeed that such knowledge of the Books of Moses did not prevent the kind of departure from God's Word which is presented in this chapter.

No, Micah was not intent on worshipping Baal. He was merely adopting pagan practices in a kind of syncretistic worship of Jehovah. "Micah intended to worship Israel's God with his idols, but God not only had condemned idolatry but also the worship of the one true God by the use of images."[19]

"No king in Israel" (Judges 17:6). This verse is obviously the comment of the author of Judges; and as Campbell said, "He declares in effect that, "A king would have put a stop to that kind of corrupt worship."[20] Yes, that is exactly what is implied in the repeated use of this Judges 17:6, not only here, but several times subsequently, as in Judges 18:1; Judges 19:1, and in Judges 21:25,

This is one of the most important statements in Judges 17. The author of this narrative evidently believed that a king in Israel would have prevented the formation of such an illegal shrine. Hervey thought that this indicates that the author might have lived in the days of Asa or Jehoshaphat.[21] However that cannot be correct. No author who lived after the first few honeymoon years of Saul's reign could have supposed such a thing. The record of Israel's kings from Solomon and afterward was one of shameful compromise with idolatry and the open acceptance of it. This verse practically nails down the time when our author (of Judges) lived as being in those first few years of the reign of Saul. This points to SAMUEL. The truth of the business is that "If Israel had had a king," he would have led the way in idolatry, as proved by the vast majority of them. Only the innocent SAMUEL could have supposed such a thing as that which is implied here. Anyone except him would have implied, that, the right kind of a king was needed to prevent every man from doing what was right in his own eyes.

"The lesson here is clear, `If people do what is right in their own eyes, they will end up doing what is wrong in the eyes of God.'"[22]

When Micah rejected the Word of God as the standard of regulation for his behavior, he was left to determine what was right or wrong upon the basis of his own evaluations, and it was this departure from objective truth that led to the moral and spiritual degeneration of Israel and the ushering in of the Dark Ages of Israel's period of the Judges.