Judges 18:27-31

The establishment of idolatry at Dan 18:27-31

The Danites’ defeat of the inhabitants of Laish appears cruel and unjustified (cf. Judges 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 (Judges 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 (Joshua 13:29-31; Joshua 19:32-33).

Note in Judges 18:27 that the Danites took three things: the "gods" that Micah had made (cf. Judges 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, Judges 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 (Judges 18:30) may be that of the Philistines (1 Samuel 4:11; 1 Samuel 4:22) or the Arameans (2 Chronicles 28:5). [Note: Lewis, p. 93.] Some scholars believe that it was the Assyrian Captivity of Israel that began in 734 B.C. (2 Kings 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 (1 Chronicles 6:63; 1 Chronicles 6:77; 1 Chronicles 12:33; 1 Chronicles 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., 2 Chronicles 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 Judges 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 (Revelation 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 Judges 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.]