DOMINO EFFECT (JUDGES 17-18)
A man remarked to a stranger standing near him, “Just look at that young person with the short hair and blue jeans. Is it a boy or a girl?”
The bystander angrily replied, “It’s a girl. She’s my daughter.”
The embarrassed man apologized, “Oh, please forgive me, sir. I had no idea you were her father.”
The bystander bluntly replied, “I’m not her father. I’m her mother.”
Judges was an upside down society and culture, the darkest period in Israel’s history, where men do not lead, leaders are weak and families are no better. This period produced more than its fair share of unhealthy and unhappy families, including Gideon and his idolatrous father (Judg 6:25), Jephthah, the son of a prostitute (Jud 11:1) and the father of a virgin (Judg 11:34), the disobedient Samson (Judg 14:2) and Micah. By chapter 17, it was a time of parenting without morality, ethics or standards. The domino effect spread from home to temple to cities. It engulfed the parent, the priest and the public - the home and the priesthood and the country.
The last chapters of Judges are a transition from the first part of Judges when “the children of Israel did evil in the sight of the Lord” to the second part when “every man did that which was right in his own eyes” (v 6). Note that the transition includes from “doing evil” (Judg 2:11, 3:7, 12, 4:1, 6:1, 10:6, 13:1) in the beginning of the book to “doing right” (17:6, 21:25), but only in one’s eyes at the end of the book. Doing what was right in their own eyes from chapter 17 on, a mother’s self-style parenting negatively shaped her son’s life, her son’s self-taught religion disastrously impacted a priest’s life, and a priest’s self-made status determined a tribe’s destiny.
The story of Micah and the priest from Ephraim is inseparable from the rise of pagan idolatrous worship in Dan, where the worship of the golden calf was naturally officially established in the north after the death of Solomon(1 Kings 12:29).
What happens when people look to themselves and not God for answers, when they take things into their own hands? How can we turn things around?
Be Consistent and Not Contradictory with Words 言語一致不矛盾
1 Now a man named Micah from the hill country of Ephraim 2 said to his mother, “The eleven hundred shekels of silver that were taken from you and about which I heard you utter a curse? I have that silver with me; I took it.” Then his mother said, “The Lord bless you, my son!” 3 When he returned the eleven hundred shekels of silver to his mother, she said, “I solemnly consecrate my silver to the Lord for my son to make a carved image and a cast idol. I will give it back to you.” 4 So he returned the silver to his mother, and she took two hundred shekels of silver and gave them to a silversmith, who made them into the image and the idol. And they were put in Micah's house. (Judg 17:1-4)
The boss meets an employee and says: “You are here already one year. In the beginning, you were only a mail clerk. A week later, you started to handle sales. A month later, you were promoted as operation regional manager. In only four months, you were promoted to vice-president. Now, I’m ready to retire, I want you to be the new boss. How do you feel?”
The employee answers, “Thank you...”
The boss, “Anything else you would like to say?”
The employee, “Thank you .... dad...”
Micah is a last of a series of disastrous, liberal and upside down parenting from Judges. The family was from the region of mount Ephraim (v 1), therefore it is safe to suggest that he was not a Levite. The son Micah thought everything around the house was his, and his mother squandered and did not seize the chance to tell him otherwise when the opportunity came. It happened one day when he took eleven hundred shekels (v 2) from her, which was an incredible amount of money. It was more than double what Abraham paid for his wife Sarah’s burial plot that was worth 400 shekels of silver (Gen 23:15), so it was not surprising that Micah’s mother cursed her luck and cursed the thief (v 2) as well.
Micah’s mother was guilty of casually uttering a curse that eventually ended upon his son’s head and fate. It never occurred to her that her own son was the thief in the house. A curse should not be given, no matter if the sum was small or big. Sadly the son did not confess but conceal the problem until the curse was sworn. This is an unusual curse (v 2), the first of its kind, the second when Saul cursed the people, forbidding them to eat until evening, almost causing the death of Jonathan his son, if not for his men’s intervention (1 Sam 14:24, 45). This is more like an alarming, adversarial and abnormal oath and pledge. The consequences to a person are usually detrimental, disastrous and dreadful.
More foolish than uttering the curse was reversing it to a blessing, pretending nothing had happened, not only making a mockery of an oath to God but erasing his son’s wrong and sending him the wrong message. Instead of scolding her son or searching for reasons, the mother blessed him, emboldening him for the future with no questions asked. She should have talked to his son sternly, seriously and sincerely, assuming and not avoiding the duty of a parent.
Another problem made it harder but not impossible to correct her son: his son was already an adult with sons (v 5). In fact, it was more reason rather than reluctant to talk, so that the third generation is spared. There are two negative ways to handle problems with your children, one is doing nothing and the second is doing worse. In the end the mother further rewarded the son for his wrongdoings by paying two hundred shekels of silver for an image and an idol to be set up in her son’s home, which was more than a tithe of the eleven hundred of shekels.
This is the first record in the Bible of an individual and not a group actually making a “graven image” (v 3). The first image in the Bible refers to none other than the molten calf the Israelites worshipped in the wilderness (Ex 32:4) and the first reference to an idol (v 3) expressly forbids its worship in the Ten Commandments (Ex 20:4), so none was beneficial or edifying to her sons. So we see a mother’s liberal, lenient and lax approach to child–raising made things worse. It did not cut but compound harms complicate things, did not minimize but multiplied problems, hurt rather than helped her son’s blindness to his own faults.
Be Conscientious and Not Compromise in Worship 敬拜認真不妥協
5 Now this man Micah had a shrine, and he made an ephod and some idols and installed one of his sons as his priest. 6 In those days Israel had no king; everyone did as he saw fit. 7 A young Levite from Bethlehem in Judah, who had been living within the clan of Judah, 8 left that town in search of some other place to stay. On his way he came to Micah's house in the hill country of Ephraim. 9 Micah asked him, “Where are you from?” “I'm a Levite from Bethlehem in Judah,” he said, “and I'm looking for a place to stay.” 10 Then Micah said to him, “Live with me and be my father and priest, and I'll give you ten shekels of silver a year, your clothes and your food.” 11 So the Levite agreed to live with him, and the young man was to him like one of his sons. 12 Then Micah installed the Levite, and the young man became his priest and lived in his house. 13 And Micah said, “Now I know that the Lord will be good to me, since this Levite has become my priest.”
In ancient Thailand, when the kings of Siam wanted to ruin an obnoxious man in their kingdom they would present him with a white elephant. The unfortunate man couldn’t get rid of the elephant for it was “sacred,” and it was a gift from the king- and then the expense of keeping the useless thing soon put him in the bread line. (7,700 Illustrations #7533)
In the latter half of the book of Judges, the moral slide continued with the religious slide when man and not God was the center of religion. Religion in the era of the Judges was an institution to make men respectable or feel good, not pay God reverence. That is the difference between today’s spirituality versus Christianity. People today want faith without God, religiosity without rules, the Ten Suggestions rather than the Ten Commandments worship without the church, no content, community or commitment or central, spirituality to manage God, not under God’s management.
The deterioration, decline and decay of religion means that religion can be owned, just as Micah considered the priest “his priest” (v 5) in the days when “every man did that which was right in his own eyes” (v 6). This is the first of three occasions a priest comes with a personal pronoun “his priest” (Judg 17:5, 12, 18:4), all from the Judges and from this story. From a priest (17:10), the priest became “his priest” (17:12) and “my priest” (17:13). Micah and the priest reflect the mindset of their culture. Later the priest became “our priest/ be to us…a priest” (Judg 18:19).
The problem is that there is no such thing as “our priest,” “your priest” or “their priest” in the Bible, except for its use and abuse in this passage.
The Levites were the most opposed to the “image” (Ex 32:4) during Moses’ days because they were the ones who killed the idolators (Ex 32:28). How was the priest tempted? Why did he give in? He fell for the three-fold temptation of pay, popularity and power. “Food” (v 10) is plural. The priest had all that he needed and more. Priests cannot bargain for their food. They ate from the offerings (Ex 29:32, Lev 6:14-15, 8:31). In the temple no priest was offered more offerings than another. Considering the priest “one of his sons” (v 11) may sound affectionate and protective, it was another way for Micah to own or possess a piece of religion. The priest was shameless; he was no longer a priest from the moment he stepped into Micah’s household, but “his priest,” father (v 10) and son as well (v 11), serving a man who was fast becoming the Creator, creating God in his own image (Judg 18:24 “my gods which I made”), consecrating one of his sons (v 5), followed by the Levite (v 12). The priest became “his priest” (17:5, 12, 18:4), the first of three times in this story. His roles were distorted.
Lastly it became a selfish society when “every man did that which was right in his own eyes” (Judg 17:6). At first it sounded innocent enough, but later it was no laughing matter as it escalated. The first person singular “I” couched a bigger problem that would unfold, from the people to objects: “my son” (Judg 17:2), “my hand for my son” (Judg 17:3) and “my priest” (Judg 17:13) to “my gods” (Judg 18:24). Religion became a self-help and personal growth industry – “live/dwell with ME” (Judg 17:10), 10 “be my father and priest/ be unto ME a father and a priest” (Judg 17:10), “Now I know that the Lord will be good to me, since this Levite has become my priest/the Lord will do ME good, seeing I have a Levite to MY priest” (Judg 17:13).
Be Cordial and Not Calloused in Welcome 來往親切不冷漠
14 Then the five men who had spied out the land of Laish said to their brothers, “Do you know that one of these houses has an ephod, other household gods, a carved image and a cast idol? Now you know what to do.” 15 So they turned in there and went to the house of the young Levite at Micah's place and greeted him. 16 The six hundred Danites, armed for battle, stood at the entrance to the gate. 17 The five men who had spied out the land went inside and took the carved image, the ephod, the other household gods and the cast idol while the priest and the six hundred armed men stood at the entrance to the gate. 18 When these men went into Micah's house and took the carved image, the ephod, the other household gods and the cast idol, the priest said to them, “What are you doing?” 19 They answered him, “Be quiet! Don't say a word. Come with us, and be our father and priest. Isn't it better that you serve a tribe and clan in Israel as priest rather than just one man's household?” 20 Then the priest was glad. He took the ephod, the other household gods and the carved image and went along with the people. (Judg 18:14-20)
27 Then they took what Micah had made, and his priest, and went on to Laish, against a peaceful and unsuspecting people. They attacked them with the sword and burned down their city. 28 There was no one to rescue them because they lived a long way from Sidon and had no relationship with anyone else. The city was in a valley near Beth Rehob. (Judg 18:27-28)
Have you heard of a day without a crime reported, especially in an international city?
New York City on Nov 29, 2012, passed a day without a single report of a person being shot, stabbed or subject to other sorts of violent crime for the first time in recent memory.
New York Police Department chief spokesman Paul Browne said it was "first time in memory" the city's police force had experienced such a peaceful day.
While crime is up 3 percent overall, including a 9 percent surge in grand larceny police attribute to a rash of smart phone thefts, murder is down 23 percent over last year, the NYPD said.
As for a day without violent crime, experts said they could not recall that happening in recent memory. "In a city of 8 million people, this is extremely rare," said Tom Repetto, author of 'American Police, 1949-2012.'
There have been 366 murders in the city so far this year, compared with 472 at this time last year, according to the NYPD.
(“Violent crime takes a holiday in New York City,” Nov 29, 2012)
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/29/uk-usa-newyork-crime-idUSLNE8AS00P20121129
In chapter 18, the moral and religious slide climaxed with the tribal strife.
The Danites, one of the biggest tribes with 157,600 men (Num 2:31), had one of the smallest parcel of land allotted to the tribes. It is as small as the size of her neighbor Benjamin with its 35,400 men (Num 2:23). Moreover, the Amorites (Judg 1:34-35; cf. Josh 19:47) and later for forty years the Philistines (with the rest of Israel; cf. Judg 13:1; 14:4; 15:11) made their lives miserable with Joshua’s death. The Danite Samson embodied the leading characteristics of the tribe: unpredictable, unscrupulous, and unruly. Dan was not a good neighbor because the tribe encroached into the territory of Ephraim (Judg 17:1). Laish or Leshem (Josh 19:47) was not part of Dan’s territory originally. The Danites had no compassion on anyone.
For the priest it didn’t matter the company he kept as long as he kept his spot, was richly paid and much sought for. He did not care his new partners were raiders, robbers and rioters. He did not care that lives were killed, cities were burned and damage was done. Furthermore, the priest took what was not his, but those were must-have tools of the trade (v 20). No wonder Micah scolded, “You took the gods I made” then followed by “and my priest.” (v 24) Jug 18:24
The “land” motif is very strong, including “there was no magistrate in the land” (v 7, KJV) and “a land that lacks nothing whatever” (v 10). Shockingly, the last time a place was “very good” (v 9) was all the way back to Eden (Gen 1:31). Second, it is a piece of “spacious land” (v 10), which further entices the land grab. The motive was land and the target was Laish. The Danites were a force to reckon with as a big band of wanderers. They were mean, merciless and murderous. No one could stand in their way, happily helping themselves to what belonged to others. There was no neighboring community from miles away, so the marauding Danites were free to exert pressure on others.
When every man does that is right in his own eyes, who suffers and pays the price? There is a wrong answer and a right answer. The wrong answer is nobody. The right answer is somebody, usually the defenseless. Overall in the two chapters (17-18), the victims are exposed by a loud “NO,” from “NO king” (Judg 17:6 “In those days Israel had no king; everyone did as he saw fit,” 18:1) it descended to the point where there was “NO magistrate in the land” in Laish (Judg 18:7) and “NO business with any man” (Judg 18:7, 28), “No want of any thing that is in the earth” (Judg 18:7, 10) and “NO deliverer… NO business with any man (Judg 18:28)
Without religion, people turned murderous. They had a right to the land but not the way it was done.
