Judges 17:7

A LEVITE COMES TO THE HOUSE OF MICAH

"And there was a young man out of Bethlehem-judah, of the family of Judah, who was a Levite; and he sojourned there. And the man departed out of the city, out of Bethlehem-judah, to sojourn where he could find a place; and he came to the hill-country of Ephraim, to the house of Micah, as he journeyed. And Micah said unto him, Whence comest thou? And he said unto him, I am a Levite of Bethlehem-judah, and I go to sojourn where I may find a place. And Micah said unto him, Dwell with me, and be unto me a father and a priest, and I will give thee ten pieces of silver by the year, and a suit of apparel, and thy victuals. So the Levite went in."

Strahan's comment on this labeled, "The young man as a native of Judah and a Levite by profession, adding that, `it is a contradiction to say that he sojourned among his own people.'"[23] This is an erroneous view. That the young man was a Levite indicates his tribal connection, not a so-called profession. The mention of his being from Bethlehem-judah of the family of Judah is a somewhat ambiguous reference to his residence, as proved by the simple declaration that "he sojourned there." The background of this is that the Levites received no inheritance when Canaan was allotted to the Israelites, but they were scattered throughout the tribes, being assigned to certain cities. It was illegal and sinful for anyone to be a `Levite,' except those belonging to that tribe. This Mosaic regulation was well known to Micah, as indicated by his pleasure in being able to employ a real Levite. "The reference to Judah does not signify that he descended from that tribe, but simply denotes that he belonged to the particular group of Levites who had been assigned to Judah, thus being reckoned in all matters as belonging to that tribe."[24]

"Of the family of Judah" (Judges 17:7). The failure of critics to understand what this means has led them to declare it a gloss and to erase it from the text. Keil cited the error of such in the following:

"There is no reason to pronounce these words a gloss. Their omission by the Codex Vaticanus rendition of the Septuagint (LXX) cannot warrant this, because the words are retained in the Codex Alexandrinus rendition of the LXX, and their omission in the former is easily accounted for by the difficulty which was felt in explaining their meaning. Also, it is impossible to imagine any reason for the interpolation of such a phrase into the text."[25]

We may only pity the poverty and distress of the Levite who could be bribed to accept a sinful assignment for such an insignificant stipend.