Footnotes

1. And. Although to our ears this implies a continuation of the narrative from Shimshon’s day, the waw conjunctive (“and”) does not necessarily indicate historical sequencing, but merely causal connection—even retroactive connection, for we learn in 18:30 and 20:28 that these events occurred much earlier, during the time of Mosheh’s and Aaron’s grandsons; cf. Numbers 25:7; Joshua 22:13ff. This would have been immediately after Joshua; I suggest between the death of Joshua’s elders and the rise of Othniel; cf. 2:7, 11ff; 3:7–9. ↩

2. mountainland of Ephraim (har ephraim). Lit. “mount Ephraim,” but this would lead the reader astray; in Hebrew har has a broader range of meaning than in English. This area is not a single mountain, but a dense collection of hills, extending from Bethel to the plain of Jezreel. In later times it became Samaria. “High country” also gets the idea (so Alter), but loses the connection to “mountain” which har denotes. Israel’s religion begins to be ruined at the beginning of this period in the mountainland of Ephraim—but fittingly, reform also comes at the end of this period in the mountainland of Ephraim (1 Sam 1:1). ↩

3. Micayhu. Trad. “Micah,” but this obscures the theophoric ending used here, but not later. In verses 1 and 4, his name ends with a form of God’s own, and means “Who Is Like Yah?” Afterward, the suffix is dropped, leaving the question hanging. Of course, this is the question which the whole of Judges is concerned with, and here in its epilogues we discover why this question even arises. Micayhu, as a personification of this question, stands in for Israel as a whole—and is notably and unusually without genealogy. In my view, this underscores that Israel as a whole is without fathers at this time; the Levites having generally failed in their assignment (on which see the notes that follow). ↩

4. mother (em). Micahyu’s mother is mentioned six times, but never named. This seems like a significant number, and a significant way of presenting her. The last unnamed mother mentioned was Shimshon’s in chapter 14, and there em appears seven times. Six is not necessarily an “evil” number, just as eleven is not; but juxtaposed against seven, the number of rest and perfection, and twelve, the number of Israel’s identity, these numbers show something coming up short. Moreover, Sisera’s mother stands as the paradigm of the unnamed mother in Judges, being the head of this symbolism in the book (Jdg 5:28). Shimshon’s mother overcomes this, to become a new Eve; but Micahyu’s mother does not, leading her son into idolatry, and thus becomes like Sisera’s mother. There is another theme shared here also: Sisera’s mother gives birth to a sexually violent son (Jdg 5:30); Micahyu’s mother, narratively speaking, “gives birth” to the violence and sexual sin of the last chapters of Judges. This theme also passes through Delilah, who Micahyu’s mother is a mirror of in possessing eleven hundred silver. ↩

5. eleven hundred silver. About 13 kg (29 lb). A silver shekel was generally a peasant’s wage for a day. However, we see in verse 10 that even ten silver per year was a sufficient wage to compel the Levite, provided his major expenses of clothing and food were also taken care of. We can therefore infer that 1100 silver, at least at this time, was a princely sum indeed. As with the word “mother,” this silver is mentioned six times in the story (verse 10 is different silver). Eleven hundred silver was what each Axle of the Philistines offered Delilah to cause Shimshon’s downfall (16:5); what we learn here is that this is a fitting recompense, because the downfall of Israel actually began with forsaking Yahweh via eleven hundred pieces of silver. This seed planted by Micah, and cultivated by the Danites in chapter 18, finally grows to full power by the end of this period, and so Shimshon the Danite is destroyed by 5×1100 silver. ↩

6. adjured (alah). Trad. “cursed,” or “swore,” but this is not one of the two common words for cursing (arur and qilalah), nor the two common words that mean to swear (shava’) or vow (neder). It is relatively rare in scripture, with a head in Genesis 24:41, where Eliezer describes Abraham’s charge to him (previously described by Abraham as a “pledge,” shava’; Gen 23:8–9). Alah does not denote malediction, so “adjure” is the better rendering; but here it is clearly alluding to Leviticus 5:1: “And when a soul sinneth, and heareth the voice of adjuration, and he is witness, or hath seen, or hath known, if he tell not, then he shall bear his iniquity.” From this we may infer that Micahyu’s mother had a pretty good idea of who had stolen her silver, since she says the adjuration “in his ears.” Evidently he was afraid of bearing his iniquity, and confesses; hence his mother blesses him, reversing the implied curse. ↩

7. I, I. The Hebrew uses the relatively rare personal pronoun in addition to the inflected verb, thus essentially repeating “I.” ↩

8. And he turned back the eleven hundred silver to his mother. He does not, however, add a fifth to it in restitution, as required by Leviticus 6:5; nor bring a perfect ram from the flock to the priest as a guilt-offering to satisfy God, as required by Leviticus 6:6–7. One might suspect he did not know the law, given the failure of the Levites emphasized in this passage and onward, except that he appears to know Leviticus 5:1! ↩

9. carving (pesel). Cf. Jdg 3:19, 26. ↩

10. casting (masekhah). Trad. “molten image,” but this is needlessly confusing, and requires two words when one will do. The root means to pour out; a casting is an image made by pouring metal into a mold. ↩

11. I have hallowing hallowed…I turn it back to thee. This is a repetition of the pattern of the golden calf, and of Gideon’s idolatrous ephod (Jdg 8:24ff). But this one is closer to Exodus in that the metal is first the property of women (Exodus 3:22). On the other hand, it is only silver—a downgrade; this is a second-rate knockoff of the golden calf. ↩

12. And he turned back the silver to his mother. The NET relocates this clause to the end of Micayhu’s speech in verse 2, on the assumption that it doesn’t make sense here, where it creates a bizarre back-and-forth, and must have been accidentally transposed. I believe the received text is correct, however, and certainly both versions of the LXX follow it; the bizarreness is intentional. ↩

13. two hundred silver. Where did the other 900 silver go? It seems unlikely this means she paid the refiner (a silversmith) 200 shekels for his services, with the other 900 going into the idol; this would be an extraordinary wage (see note on verse 2). Two hundred silver does seem barely adequate to create both a carving and a casting, being about 2 kg (5 lb)—210 mL (7 fl.oz.) The typical proportions of cast idols in the ancient world were small: only 10–20 cm tall (4–10″). The carved idol would be larger, but would require relatively little silver, being only overlaid or inlaid. Nine hundred silver, on the other hand, would be extravagant: around 10 kg (22 lb), which would make a cast idol with a volume of nearly a liter (33 fl.oz or 2 pints). This would be unusually large, though I suppose much of it could have been used on a life-sized carved image as well. In any case, 200 silver could have been enough for both idols, which suggests that the other 900, supposedly dedicated to God, has mysteriously disappeared. It certainly disappears from the narrative. Apparently Micah learned his covetousness from his mother. Alternatively, some commentators suggest that the two hundred is in addition to the eleven hundred, and is a rounded number representing the extra one fifth that Micayhu owed in restitution according to Levicitus 6:5 (220 silver). Thus Bertheau suggests a translation like, “So he restored the money to his mother, and she took two hundred silver, and she gave it (the eleven hundred) to the founder.” I think this is a huge stretch. Even the benefit of explaining where the number 200 came from is largely undone by the fact that it should be 220, which would actually be far more symbolically significant as it is also a multiple of eleven. ↩

14. refiner (tsaraph). Or “smith,” but this is the same lemma used in 7:4. ↩

15. a carving and a casting. I would think this a hendiadys (a compound phrase describing a single idol with two different words), except that in 18:17ff, the carving is clearly distinguished from the casting. The use of the singular pronoun “it” evidently refers to the silver as a whole, even after it is separated into these two distinct items. One is a small and portable cast metal figurine, the other a larger carved statue of stone, clay, or wood, either overlaid or inlaid with silver. ↩

16. Micah. Here, and later, the Hebrew text abbreviates his name, leaving off the yhu suffix. This seems to me quite pointed, and not something that should be papered over in translation. ↩

17. house of God. Or “house of gods;” i.e., a temple. Elohim is plural either way, and in this case the ambiguity is surely intentional given that Micah is setting up his shrine in competition to the actual house of God, at this period located either at Gilgal or Bethel/Bokim (2:1), each within a day’s journey of Ephraim. ↩

18. made (’asah). Or, “had made.” ↩

19. domestic idols (teraphim). The traditional transliteration of teraphim is hopeless, being both meaningless in English, and not properly anglicized as a plural (i.e., “teraphs”). Teraphs were household gods, set up in a family shrine. I have chosen “domestic idols” to avoid any accidental implication in translation that the word beyt (house) or elohim (gods) appears here. The NET’s “personal idols” does convey that these are his personal invention, but misses the familial, corporate nature of teraphs. As Jordan observes, “Every conceivable kind of idolatry is mentioned here, so that we do not miss the point.” This is even more the case than is evident to our modern eyes, for teraphs were not merely idols, but also used in divination (Ezek 21:21; Zech 10:2). Hence 1 Samuel 15:23 says that “rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as idolatry and teraphs.” If the law of God were being rightly administered in Israel, Micah would have been put to death (Dt 13); but cf. verse 6 and note. ↩

20. filled the hand. Most translations gloss this as “consecrate,” rather than rendering the Hebrew. This term is used of Aaron being ordained to the priesthood in Exodus 28:41; 29:9 etc. Though “fill the hand” could refer to giving offerings to the priests to sacrifice, it appears in Exodus that there is some connection especially to the priestly garments being formally given to them. Possibly the filling of the hand was not literal, but merely a figure of speech meaning they are fully equipped for priestly service, but this seems out of keeping with the concrete nature of Hebrew idiom. Perhaps after the priest was invested in his garments, he had his hand filled with the trappings of his work: a scroll of the law, a knife, etc. ↩

21. And the man Micah had a house of God…he became to him for a priest. We see here a striking example of the principle that endures through all scripture into the book of Revelation: that Satan does not create, but only counterfeits. ↩

22. straight (yashar). See note on 14:5. ↩

23. In those days was no king in Israel; each man, what was straight in his eyes, he did. Because this is a formulaic phrase of great significance, repeated (sometimes with abbreviation) four times in these last chapters, I have taken the liberty of giving it a more poetic flare by more strictly following the Hebrew word order. Commentators with one voice declare this to mean there was no supreme magistrate in Israel to maintain law and order; that this is not the case is so obvious that I must assume they are simply unreflectively copying each other. We are given the meaning of this phrase quite directly by Gideon in Judges 8:23, right before Israel descends to new depths of depravity due to his playing king, and Abi-Melek seeking kingship. To say there was no king in Israel is not a political comment, but a theological one: the kingship of Yahweh was neither propounded nor promoted. Without the foundation of God’s kingship, a human king makes idolatry worse (cf. Manasseh, Yehoram, Yeroboam, Ahab etc). Moreover, the fact that there are eleven key events in Judges revolving around the number eleven, and the Levites are the “missing tribe” until the end of the book, and then chapters 17ff focus on the gross idolatry and wickedness of Levites, clearly signals that the kingship that is lacking in Israel is religious and not political. ↩

24. lad (na’ar). Three times we are told that this “father” to Micah is a lad. Aside from the manifest absurdity, this also emphasizes that he is disqualified as a priest, since Numbers 4:3 required him to be thirty years old before he could be ordained. Though we perhaps associate a lad with innocence, that is not necessarily the case in scripture. Young men are often eager to take power, status, and authority that is well beyond what their years entitle. ↩

25. Bethlehem-Yehudah. I.e., Bethlehem-Judah, the Bethlehem that was not in Zebulun. Bethlehem means “house of bread,” though its “bread” at this time was pretty bad (cf. Jdg 19:1; Ruth 1:1). ↩

26. from the family of Yehudah. How can a Levite be from the family of Yehudah? It would appear, at least, that he is an “adoptive Judahite,” though not a Bethlehemite; he sojourns there, indicating a restless life, unmoored to any place; a wanderer like Cain. Gill could well be correct in supposing that he is from Levi on his father’s side, and Yehudah on his mother’s, but the chief point is not how we may answer the question, but that we need to answer it: this is a man of confused identity, appearing in a narrative of confusion. ↩

27. Levite. As with Micah’s mother, this lad is not named here (but cf. 18:30); he is thus an archetypal stand-in for all Levites. As Micah’s mother is symbolically not merely his mother, but every mother in Israel, so this is not merely “a” Levite, but as the narrative continues he becomes “the” Levite, and symbolic of the entire Levitical ministry in Judges—a ministry, quoting Jordan, “built on 1100 pieces of silver that were used to betray the Lord.” ↩

28. wherever (asher). Lit. “that.” ↩

29. as he made his way. Or, “to make his way.” This is not an English idiom, but a Hebrew one. “Make” is ’asah, the same word used of God making the firmament, luminaries, and beasts in Genesis 1. Way is derek, the standard word for a way or path. I am slightly unsure about the import of l- (“to” or “for”) prefixing the verb; following the majority of translators I have taken it to be best represented in this case with “as.” Why the Levite is sojourning in Yehudah, and why he appears to be doing so as part of an itinerant habit, is not explained; but the detail is not included for nothing. Let us speculate, then, that perhaps the failure of Israel to capture the land had pressed the Levites in particular, as they relied partly on charity, which would be in short supply during times when the people had to tighten their belts. That said, this is a vicious cycle: the Levites were supposed to teach the people God’s ways, which certainly included the ways of war (cf. 3:2). ↩

30. I (anokhi). It seems to me the pronoun is used unnecessarily here, perhaps to emphasize the center of the passage, verse 6, which tells us that each man did what was straight in his own eyes. ↩

31. for a father and for a priest. These should be taken as parallel and mutually reinforcing concepts; a priest is a father in this sense. As the NET notes (trying to justify “translating” av as “adviser”), “‘Father’ is here a title of honor that suggests the priest will give advice and protect the interests of the family, primarily by divining God’s will in matters, perhaps through the use of the ephod.” ↩

32. ten silver for the year. While eleven hundred silver is a princely sum, this is on the other end of the scale: a pauper’s wage. This is not necessarily as miserable as it seems, given that priests were primarily supported materially, as indeed he is here, being supplied food and clothing (by which we may infer especially priestly raiment; cf. Ex 28:40). Still, this is less than a shekel a month for sundries. That the Levite readily accepts this lends some credence to the notion that his tribe was hard-pressed by poverty in this time, due to Israel’s unfaithfulness. Though this number is meager, it is not arbitrary; significantly, it is a tithe of one eleventh of the original “idolatrous silver.” Note, however, that both versions of the LXX substitute “day” for “year” here. LXX-A says, “ten pieces of silver for days,” while LXX-B says, “ten pieces of silver a day.” I have found no discussion of this discrepancy in any translations or commentaries. Ten silver per day would be an astronomical sum on top of clothing and food, and must surely reflect an aberrant manuscript tradition that the Greek translators were working from. ↩

33. array (’erekh). Cf. Jdg 6:26. ↩

34. living (michyah). Contrary to most translations, this is not the standard word for victuals or provisions (tseydah), but a fairly rare one; it is also used in 6:4. Its root is chayah, “life,” and it means essentially to preserve or give life. The sense may be limited to “sustenance,” but in English we also speak of one’s “living,” and this captures the word perfectly here in my view. ↩

35. the Levite was pleased to dwell with the man. The exact same phrase is used of Mosheh in Exodus 2:21. ↩

36. and the lad was to him as one of his sons. As with everything else about this story, here too is a counterfeit of the true Levitical religion. The Levites had been taken by God in place of the sons of Israel, because (as I take it, following Jordan) they alone put down the idolatry of the sons of Israel at the golden calf. Comparing Exodus 32:29 and Numbers 8:14–19 makes this quite evident. Here, the Levite replaces Micah’s son. Moreover, the Levite is further arrogating to himself an office not his, for though every priest was a Levite, not every Levite could be a priest: only the sons of Aaron were given the priesthood (Ex 27:21; 29:44; Num 16:40 etc). Other Levites were supposed to serve the tabernacle primarily by functioning as pastors within the towns of Israel (again, facts not explicitly stated, but easily inferred from Lev 23:3; Dt 14:27, 29). Again, the description of the Levite as a son to Micah also emphasizes the absurdity of what he is doing, for this is the same character he takes to be a “father” to him in verse 10. ↩

37. and Micah filled the hand of the Levite. This is as audacious as it is absurd. If Micah, an Ephraimite, thinks himself qualified to ordain a priest (fill his hand), why does he need the Levite? But if he needs the Levite, how then is he qualified to ordain him? ↩

38. and was in the house of Micah. The text uses a very generic verb here, “to be,” rather than “dwell” or “abide,” suggesting a rather ephemeral connection between the Levite and Micah’s house. ↩

39. shall do good (yatav). Or, “shall deal well.” ↩

40. Now I know…the Levite is to me for a priest. Micah evidently believes that what matters for ensuring God’s favor is mechanical externals; indeed, that God can be manipulated by the proper application of technique. This is more commonly known as magic. Reading between the lines, it seems Micah also envisages God blessing what he has established as a sort of religious business for those in the area. Cf. Acts 16:16. ↩