Juízes 17

Juízes 17

MacArthur writes that "There seems to have been some laxity in the offering of the sacrifices in the wilderness which was not to be allowed when Israel came into the Promised Land. This self-centered attitude became a major problem in the time of Judges (See context in The MacArthur Bible Commentary) L M Grant…At this time a young man, a Levite from Bethlehem in Judah, was traveling, looking for a convenient place to stay (Jdg 17:7). A Levite at least ought to have consulted God and been guided by God as to where he should be, but he was like some preachers today who are looking for a church where they might find amore or less permanent position. One who is the Lord's servant should not be aimless and haphazard in what he does. (Comments On Judges LM Grant) As we learned in Judges 2 (note) (see death of Joshua in Jdg 2:8), without leaders the past history of God's acts and the future hope based on those acts can be easily forgotten. Lack of leadership and forgetting of history lead to self-centered life where wrong begins to look right! God's people need role models and spiritual leaders. The writer of Hebrews exhorted his readers not to "be sluggish, but imitators of those who through faith and patience inherit the promises." (Heb 6:12+) Israel ignored God's moral and religious demands when no one led them to remember His historical deliverances. Judges 3-16 of report external disasters that came on Israel, especially enemies from without who were literally sent by God to judge His people and bring them to repentance. What we discover in Judges 17-20 is the internal enemy of the wicked unredeemed flesh, which produces decay and deterioration of our moral compass with consequent loss of direction and ever increasing conflict from others who are also infected with "the corruption that is in the world by lust." (2Pe 1:4+) As emphasized earlier, these last chapters show us what happened within Israel when they abandoned God and His ways. Abandoning God’s standards sears the conscience and confuses the ability of the individual to distinguish between good and evil. No wonder Proverbs says “There is a way which seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death” (Pr 14:12). The “way which seems right" is a deceptive illusion. The hard reality that it leads to death is not an illusion but a certainty! THOUGHT - WHEN I DO MY OWN THING (i.e., do "right" in my own eyes) I DO JUST LIKE MICAH and HIS MOTHER and REJECT GOD AS KING and HIS KINGDOM STANDARDS AS MY GUIDE FOR LIVING! THIS IS THE MANTRA OF OUR MODERN WORLD. LISTEN TO THE POPULAR SLOGANS - "JUST DO IT!" "YOU ONLY GO AROUND ONCE. GO FOR ALL THE GUSTO YOU CAN GET!" Because Micah and his family didn’t submit to the authority of God’s Word, their home was a place of religious and moral confusion. What a vivid example of Do-It-Yourself Religion! But is the situation any different today? People ignore [Isa 8:20, La 2:14] and do what is right in their own eyes. The prophet Isaiah witnessed this dynamic and recorded that… "To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because they have no dawn." (Isaiah 8:20) Their home was a good deal like many homes today where money is the god the family worships, where children steal from their parents and lie about what they do, where family honor is unknown, and where the true God is unwanted. Television provides all the “images” the family will ever want to “worship,” and few worry about “thus saith the Lord.” Vance Havner speaking specifically about America had a quip that would have been relevant to Micah's day…“We shouldn’t worry because the government won’t allow children to have Bibles in school. They’ll get free Bibles when they go to prison.” But today our prisons are so crowded that the government doesn’t know what to do. If every family would make Christ the Head of the home, we could stop some of the nation’s crime right at the source. Godly homes are the foundation for a just and happy society. Ungodly homes end up with dramas like that in Judges 17. Dale Ralph Davis notes three characteristics of spiritual apostasy in this story: religious syncretism, moral relativism, and extreme materialism. (Quoted in King James Version Bible Commentary) Wood summarizes the sins that openly occurred in this account in Judges 17 (Quoted in King James Version Bible Commentary) The failure and apostasy of the Danites; the making of graven images; unauthorized priests serving for hire; establishment of private worship sanctuaries; the movement of the Levites from their assigned cities (click map above); and the justification of stealing. CONFUSION WHAT confusion! Never had I seen anything like it. On the road from the Leonardo da Vinci Airport to downtown Rome was an intersection where a host of cars had converged from every direction. Each driver was inching forward. Horns were blaring. Passions were flaring. No stoplights or traffic cops were there to bring order to this chaos of cars. A first-come-first­ through principle prevailed. But there was one positive note: no one was breaking the law—there was no law! Something like that marked the time of the judges. God's peo­ple did what was right in their own eyes. And what a bitter price they paid for such freedom. The book of Judges is a sad tale of repeated waywardness requiring God to use oppression by their heathen neighbors to bring them back to their senses. Still today, professing Christians ignore God's clear revelation of Himself in His Word. They form their own ideas of what God is like and what He expects. Strongly influenced by humanistic thinking, they live at the center of their own little world. Though claiming to be people of God, they actually walk in their own ways. And it creates moral and spiritual confusion. G Campbell Morgan In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes. Judges 17.6. These words constitute a commentary on the conditions obtaining in this par­ticular period; and they were doubtless written at a later time, when the nation was brought to a more orderly state under the rule of its kings. Whether the writer intended to or no, there is a deeper note in them than that. The nation had turned away from its one true King. He had not abandoned them utterly. That He had never done. But they had flung off re­straint, and were acting according to their own desires. This chapter, and the next four, do not continue a consecutive history. That ended with the story of Samson. In these five chapters we have illustrations of the internal conditions of the national life, and it is most probable that they were written with that intention. The strange and deadly mixture of motive is set forth in the story of Micah. His act was a vio­lation of the second Commandment. When he made images to himself and to his household, he was not adopting the idolatries of the heathen. His mother's words reveal her recognition of Jehovah, "Blessed be my son of Jehovah." So also do his own words to the Levite : "Now know I that Jehovah will do me good." Micah was desirous of maintaining his relations with God, but be attempted to do so by violating the commands of God. When in full and practical loyalty the King is dethroned, it is impossible to maintain relationship with Him. (Borrow Life applications from every chapter of the Bible) QUESTION - What is moral relativism? ANSWER - Moral relativism is more easily understood in comparison to moral absolutism. Absolutism claims that morality relies on universal principles (natural law, conscience). Christian absolutists believe that God is the ultimate source of our common morality, and that it is, therefore, as unchanging as He is. Moral relativism asserts that morality is not based on any absolute standard. Rather, ethical “truths” depend on variables such as the situation, culture, one’s feelings, etc. Several things can be said of the arguments for moral relativism which demonstrate their dubious nature. First, while many of the arguments used in the attempt to support relativism might sound good at first, there is a logical contradiction inherent in all of them because they all propose the “right” moral scheme—the one we all ought to follow. But this itself is absolutism. Second, even so-called relativists reject relativism in most cases. They would not say that a murderer or rapist is free from guilt so long as he did not violate his own standards. Relativists may argue that different values among different cultures show that morals are relative to different people. But this argument confuses the actions of individuals (what they do) with absolute standards (whether they should do it). If culture determines right and wrong, how could we have judged the Nazis? After all, they were only following their culture’s morality. Only if murder is universally wrong were the Nazis wrong. The fact that they had “their morality” does not change that. Further, although many people have different practices of morality, they still share a common morality. For instance, abortionists and anti-abortionists agree that murder is wrong, but they disagree on whether abortion is murder. So, even here, absolute universal morality is shown to be true. Some claim that changing situations make for changing morality—in different situations different acts are called for that might not be right in other situations. But there are three things by which we must judge an act: the situation, the act, and the intention. For example, we can convict someone of attempted murder (intent) even if they fail (act). So situations are part of the moral decision, for they set the context for choosing the specific moral act (the application of universal principles). The main argument relativists appeal to is that of tolerance. They claim that telling someone their morality is wrong is intolerant, and relativism tolerates all views. But this is misleading. First of all, evil should never be tolerated. Should we tolerate a rapist’s view that women are objects of gratification to be abused? Second, it is self-defeating because relativists do not tolerate intolerance or absolutism. Third, relativism cannot explain why anyone should be tolerant in the first place. The very fact that we should tolerate people (even when we disagree) is based on the absolute moral rule that we should always treat people fairly—but that is absolutism again! In fact, without universal moral principles there can be no goodness. The fact is that all people are born with a conscience, and we all instinctively know when we have been wronged or when we have wronged others. We act as though we expect others to recognize this as well. Even as children we knew the difference between “fair” and “unfair.” It takes bad philosophy to convince us that we are wrong and that moral relativism is true.GotQuestions.org Judges 17:7 Now there was a young man from Bethlehem in Judah, of the family of Judah, who was a Levite; and he was staying there. Bethlehem in Judah. Jdg 17:8, 9. Jdg 19:1, 2, 18, 18. Ge 35:19. Josh 19:15. Ru 1:1, 2. 1 S 17:12. Mic 5:2. Mt 2:1, 5, 6. From Constable Judges 17 THE LEVITE "A WANDERING JEW" Now there was a young man from Bethlehem in Judah, of the family of Judah, who was a Levite - How was he both a Levite and from family of Judah? Quite likely the Levite father had married a mother from the tribe of Judah. But we cannot be absolutely certain. This Levite was named Jonathan and was identified further as Moses' grandson (Jdg 18:30). He compromised in departing from one of the 48 cities God gave for Levite service to Israel (Nu 35:7+, see map of cities). His compromise in this small point then led him to greater sin as he prostituted himself as priest for hire in Micah's private sanctuary of graven images and molten images, complete even with a priestly ephod for "discerning" the will of God. How blind we can be when we are deceived and begin to travel further and further from God's standard. Remember that while every priest in Israel was to be of Levitical lineage, not every Levite was a priest. They were however to be associated with the Levitical cities. Related Resources: What was the Levitical priesthood? | GotQuestions.org What is the difference between priests and Levites? | GotQuestions.org And he was staying there - This was a violation of his Levitical lineage which probably set him up for restlessness. After all he had been given a great and glorious purpose for his life, having been set apart wholly unto God, and undoubtedly assigned a specific city from the 48 Levitical cities (cf Nu 35:7-8+, Joshua 21:3-11+). So as this wandering Jewish Levite began to seek his will and what was right in his own eyes, became restless. And so he wandered even farther from the way, the truth and the life as the following verses illustrate. He also may have been in search of support as the context suggests. Recall that the nation of Israel was clearly instructed to support the Levites, Moses declaring "And to the sons of Levi, behold, I have given all the tithe in Israel for an inheritance, in return for their service which they perform, the service of the tent of meeting. (Nu 18:20-24+). In the days of the Judges, Israel "forsook the LORD" (Jdg 2:12-13+) and as part of their forsaking Yahweh, they must have also forsaken their obligation to support the Levites (priests and non-priests). Israel had been clearly warned by Moses to "Be careful (a command) that you do not forsake ('azab) the Levite as long as you live in your land." (Dt 12:19+) Clearly in the days of the Judges Israel was not conducting their lives "according to the Book" so to speak! As a aside, it is a sign that true religion will begin to decay when godly ministers are neglected and at a loss for a livelihood. Keil and Delitzsch… Appointment of a Levite as Priest.—Vv. 7ff. In the absence of a Levitical priest, Micah had first of all appointed one of his sons as priest at his sanctuary. He afterwards found a Levite for this service. A young man from Bethlehem in Judah, of the family of Judah, who, being a Levite, stayed (גָּר) there (in Bethlehem) as a stranger, left this town to sojourn “at the place which he should find,” sc., as a place that would afford him shelter and support, and came up to the mountains of Ephraim to Micah’s house, “making his journey,” i.e., upon his journey. (On the use of the inf. constr. with לְ in the sense of the Latin gerund in do, see Ewald, § 280, d.) Bethlehem was not a Levitical town. The young Levite from Bethlehem was neither born there nor made a citizen of the place, but simply “sojourned there,” i.e., dwelt there temporarily as a stranger. The further statement as to his descent (mishpachath Judah) is not to be understood as signifying that he was a descendant of some family in the tribe of Judah, but simply that he belonged to the Levites who dwelt in the tribe of Judah, and were reckoned in all civil matters as belonging to that tribe. On the division of the land, it is true that it was only to the priests that dwelling-places were allotted in the inheritance of this tribe (Josh. 21:9–19), whilst the rest of the Levites, even the non-priestly members of the family of Kohath, received their dwelling-places among the other tribes (Josh. 21:20ff.). At the same time, as many of the towns which were allotted to the different tribes remained for a long time in the possession of the Canaanites, and the Israelites did not enter at once into the full and undisputed possession of their inheritance, it might easily so happen that different towns which were allotted to the Levites remained in possession of the Canaanites, and consequently that the Levites were compelled to seek a settlement in other places. It might also happen that individuals among the Levites themselves, who were disinclined to perform the service assigned them by the law, would remove from the Levitical towns and seek some other occupation elsewhere (see also at Jdg. 18:30). (Judges 17 Commentary) QUESTION - What is the legend of the Wandering Jew? ANSWER - The legend of the Wandering Jew is a cautionary tale that has been in circulation for centuries. Basically, the Wandering Jew is an immortal man who is doomed to travel from place to place in constant state of sorrow until the second coming of Christ as a punishment for his mistreatment of Christ in His passion. It is not a biblical story, as the Bible does not mention anyone, Jewish or otherwise, who is cursed in the same way that the Wandering Jew supposedly is. Depending on the version of the story, the fanciful details concerning the Wandering Jew are slightly different. Most all of the versions emphasize his inability to die and his curse of restlessness: he travels the globe and can only stop to eat meals before moving on again. One version, from the Middle Ages, identifies the Wandering Jew as a man named Cartaphilus, who taunted Jesus Christ as He was carrying His cross to Calvary. The story goes that, when this man saw Jesus passing by, he told Him to go faster and stop loitering, to which the Savior replied with something like, “I go, but thou shalt wait till I come.” Jesus’ words to Cartaphilus cursed him to roam the earth until the second coming. In an Italian version of the story from the fourteenth century, the Wandering Jew’s name is John Buttadeus—Buttadeus being Latin for “strike God,” a reference to John’s supposed physical attack upon Jesus. Other versions also associate the Wandering Jew’s crime with physical violence: in 1228, a man claimed to have met a man in Armenia who reportedly had been Pontius Pilate’s doorkeeper and had struck Jesus on His way to Calvary. In other versions of the tale, the crime of the Wandering Jew was to simply withhold aid from the suffering Christ. In the sixteenth century, a German bishop claimed to have met a tall, barefoot, long-haired man in Hamburg. The man said his name was Ahasuerus and that he was a Jewish shoemaker who had refused to help the Lord in His hour of need. Later, this same Ahasuerus was supposedly spotted in Madrid, Spain, where he evinced a fluency in every language. There are many other variations of the myth of the Wandering Jew, and they have been told in many cultures around the world. In some iterations, the Wandering Jew converts to Christianity and acts as an evangelist everywhere he goes. In others, he is simply cursed in his misery. Various versions give him various names: Melmoth, Matathias, Malchus, Isaac Laquedem (French), Juan Espera a Dios (Spanish for “John waits for God”), and Jerusalemin suutari (Finnish for “Shoemaker of Jerusalem”). In all versions, the theme is that cursing Christ brings a curse. The curse of the Wandering Jew bears some similarities to the curse God placed upon Cain after his murder of Abel. Besides decreeing that Cain would no longer be able to till the ground to produce crops, God said, “You will be a restless wanderer on the earth” (Genesis 4:14). Millennia-long wandering is not mentioned as part of Cain’s punishment, and immortality is not implied, although God does put a mark on him so that no one would kill him (Genesis 4:15). Some see the Wandering Jew legend as a metaphor for the plight of the Jewish people at large: under Moses, the Jews wandered for forty years in the wilderness; and forty years after rejecting Jesus as the Messiah, the Jews lost their temple and their nation and were forced to disperse to various places around the world. Some anti-Semitic groups have used the concept of the Wandering Jew to propagandize, and the term Wandering Jew, used as an epithet, is considered offensive. Again, the legend of the Wandering Jew has no basis in the Bible. It is a fable that has borrowed some elements from the Bible, including a mention of Jesus, but it is a fictional story. During His trial and crucifixion, Jesus was indeed mocked; on the road to Calvary, however, we have no record of anyone mistreating Him. Luke 23:27 records that women from Jerusalem bewailed and cried for Him. In His response, Jesus never spoke a curse on anyone. In all He said, He was an example of grace and truth. When He was attacked and humiliated by the Roman soldiers, He didn’t retaliate (Matthew 27:27–31). When false accusers lied against Him, “Jesus remained silent and gave no answer” (Mark 14:61). Any supposed interaction with a man who mocked Him, with Jesus cursing him, is simply a myth.GotQuestions.org Judges 17:8 Then the man departed from the city, from Bethlehem in Judah, to stay wherever he might find a place; and as he made his journey, he came to the hill country of Ephraim to the house of Micah. Then the man departed from the city. Jdg 17:11. Ne 13:10, 11. A LEVITE LONGING FOR "GREENER PASTURES" Then - Remember that this conjunction usually marks progression in a narrative, so be alert to this "time marker" which will help you understand the flow of thought and the context. The man departed from the city, from Bethlehem in Judah, to stay wherever he might find a place; and as he made his journey, he came to the hill country of Ephraim to the house of Micah - The man is not even referred to as a Levite now! He is clearly looking for greener pastures! It is worth noting that Bethlehem in Judah was not one of the 48 Levitical cities assigned by Moses (see map of cities). Levites were doubtless scattered hither and yon (from the 48 designated cities) because of lack of support, a situation that prevailed all too often in Israel's history. For example, years later Nehemiah "discovered that the portions of the Levites had not been given them, so that the Levites and the singers who performed the service had gone away, each to his own field." (Nehemiah 13:10). The young Levite in our story apparently lacked financial support which is further indirect evidence that Israel had wandered far from the command of God that Levites were to be supported by offerings from the people of Israel. What is notable is that this omission (of Levitical support) was an early effect of their apostasy that lasted 300 years. This would not have been a good time to be a Levite! Judges 17:9 And Micah said to him, "Where do you come from?" And he said to him, "I am a Levite from Bethlehem in Judah, and I am going to stay wherever I may find a place." MICAH'S "PROVIDENTIAL" LEVITICAL ENCOUNTER And Micah said to him, "Where do you come from?" And he said to him, "I am a Levite from Bethlehem in Judah And I am going to stay wherever I may find a place - While this encounter between Micah and the Levite was providential, it was not a "gift" to Micah, but a test of Micah, a test who miserably failed. If Micah had been a man of God, we would credit him here with asking a good question, something like "Since you are a Levite, why are you not in one of the 48 levitical cities?" As alluded to indirectly above, the Mosaic law had specified that the priests were to come from the tribe of Levi. Whether Micah knew the law or not it did not deter him (NOTE ASSOCIATION OF APOSTASY AND APATHY!). All Micah desired was quick "upgrade" to his homemade religious setup. Here was his golden opportunity to get him a Levite as a "pseudo-priest." So clearly he had some knowledge of what was right in God's eyes and either did not know the letter of the law or simply choose to ignore it as a minor detail. The Levite on his part seems to be aiming to get bread, not to do good Judges 17:10 Micah then said to him, "Dwell with me and be a father and a priest to me, and I will give you ten pieces of silver a year, a suit of clothes, and your maintenance." So the Levite went in. a father. Jdg 17:11. Jdg 18:19. Ge 45:8. 2Ki 6:21. 8:8, 9. 13:14. Job 29:16. Is 22:21. I will give. Jdg 18:20. 1 S 2:36. Ezek 13:19. Mt 26:15. Jn 12:6. 1 Ti 6:10. 1Pe 5:2. year. Ge 24:55. PRIEST FOR HIRE "MY OWN PRIVATE PRIEST!" Micah then said to him, "Dwell with me and be a father and a priest to me - So Micah promises the Levite PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT and honor as one would one's own father. Micah does not seem interested in his credentials and takes no time to look at his "Levitical C.V" and inquire how he behaved in his last residence. Micah is focused. He wants a "full-fledge" priest, or at least he thinks the Levite would so qualify! Micah's actions are a foreshadowing of similar actions by Jeroboam I who was even more perverted because he "made priests from among all the people who were not of the sons of Levi." (1Ki 12:31) Micah's actions may have been the "leaven" that would later make the yeast rise (so to speak). Micah's action should not surprise us. If he can make anything an image of God, he wouldn't hesitate to make anyone a priest of God. The Levite became both a "father" and a "son" to Micah (Jdg 17:10-11). "Father" is a term of honor used of Joseph's position in Egypt (Ge 45:8) and of Elisha as a respected prophet (2Ki 13:14, Ge 45:8). And I will give you ten pieces of silver a year, a suit of clothes, and your maintenance - Compare this annual pay to the stolen 1100 pieces of silver in Jdg 17:3+! This is poor salary in comparison of what God provided for the Levites that behaved well. However those that forsake God’s service will never better themselves, nor find a better master! As someone has said the ministry is the best calling but the worst trade in the world. THOUGHT - You must listen to this classic sermon 10 SHEKELS & A SHIRT (audio - a must listen!) based on some of the events in Judges 17. It is a riveting sermon by Paris Reidhead which preaches could be called one of the most influential sermons of the 20th century. The real point of this sermon is an indictment of individuals and organizations practicing humanism behind a mask of Christianity! (cf 2Ti 3:5+) "This sermon should be preached on a regular basis in every church in America!"