Judges 17:1-13

Micah and the Levite

17:1 There was a man in the hill country of Ephraim whose name was Micah. 2 He said to his mother, “The eleven hundred pieces of silver that were taken from you, about which you uttered a curse, and even spoke it in my hearing,-that silver is in my possession; I took it; but now I will return it to you.” And his mother said, “May my son be blessed by the LORD!” 3 Then he returned the eleven hundred pieces of silver to his mother; and his mother said, “I consecrate the silver to the LORD from my hand for my son, to make an idol of cast metal.” 4 So when he returned the money to his mother, his mother took two hundred pieces of silver, and gave it to the silversmith, who made it into an idol of cast metal; and it was in the house of Micah. 5 This man Micah had a shrine, and he made an ephod and teraphim, and installed one of his sons, who became his priest. 6 In those days there was no king in Israel; all the people did what was right in their own eyes.

7 Now there was a young man of Bethlehem in Judah, of the clan of Judah. He was a Levite residing there. 8 This man left the town of Bethlehem in Judah, to live wherever he could find a place. He came to the house of Micah in the hill country of Ephraim to carry on his work. 9 Micah said to him, “From where do you come?” He replied, “I am a Levite of Bethlehem in Judah, and I am going to live wherever I can find a place.” 10 Then Micah said to him, “Stay with me, and be to me a father and a priest, and I will give you ten pieces of silver a year, a set of clothes, and your living.” 11 The Levite agreed to stay with the man; and the young man became to him like one of his sons. 12 So Micah installed the Levite, and the young man became his priest, and was in the house of Micah. 13 Then Micah said, “Now I know that the LORD will prosper me, because the Levite has become my priest.” (Judges 17:1-13, NRSV)

The following comments are repeated here from August 21, 2006 (Monday in the week of the Sunday closest to August 17, Year Two):

The last four chapters of Judges present what appears to be a state of anarchy in Israel, the degeneration and decay of a nation needing, but not having, effective leadership. The repeated refrain, “In those days there was no king in Israel; all the people did what was right in their own eyes” (Judg. 17:6; 21:25; cf. 18:1; 19:1), cries out for a king–not the Abimelech sort of king, but a good king, perhaps like David. Samuel would later resist the call for a king (1 Sam., chap. 8), preferring theocracy to monarchy, but Judges pictures theocracy gone awry, so to speak. According to K. Lawson Younger, the Book of Judges ends with a “double conclusion” (Judg. 17:1-21:25) which “is symmetrical to the double introduction” (NOAB, 3^rd ed. on Judg. 17:1-21:25; cf. ref. to 1:1-2:5 and 2:6-3:6 in the Introduction to Judges). These conclusions, says Younger, “describe the self-destructiveness of the Israelites during the period of the Judges. Judges 17-18, the first conclusion, describes the difficulties with domestic idols as Israel disintegrated religiously, and Judges 19-21, the second conclusion, describes a civil war in which the ‘cherem’ was being internally applied” (ibid.). Yairah Amit takes note of the “refrain” (Judg. 17:6, etc.) and says the story of “Micah’s house of God and the temple of Dan” (Judg. 17:1-18:31)

serves to criticize the period of the judges by representing it as an age of anarchy . . . In terms of chronology, the story is set at the beginning of the age of the judges (see 18:10 and the introduction), but is placed at the end of the book to emphasize that the end of the period was similar to its beginning and the judges were unable to correct the situation; hence, the solution is monarchy. (The Jewish Study Bible, p. 547 on Judg. 17:1-18:31)

Today we read of Micah, not the later prophet, but “a man in the hill country of Ephraim” (Judg. 17:1) who, as it turns out, is a confessed thief. He tells his mother, “The eleven hundred pieces of silver that were taken from you, about which you uttered a curse, and even spoke it in my hearing,--that silver is in my possession; I took it; but now I will return it to you” (v. 2a). She is apparently forgiving, because her curse turns to blessing (v. 2b), but her further action, consecrating “the silver to the LORD . . . to make an idol of cast metal” (v. 3), invites the “curse” of Deuteronomy 27:15, not to mention the fact that it violates the second commandment (Exod. 20:4, 23; 34:17; Lev. 19:4; cf. Younger on Judg. 17:2-4). Amit takes note of the fact that Micah’s “mother, [though she] said that she had consecrated the money to the LORD . . . in practice . . . only set aside 200 out of the 1,100 shekels–this too reflects poorly on the cult center that is ultimately established” (on v. 4). The silver is given to “the silversmith, who made it into an idol of cast metal, and it was in the house of Micah” (v. 4b). Micah had “a shrine” (Myh9lox$ tyB2, bêt ’ ^elōhîm, ‘house of God), “and he made an ephod,” not a priestly vestment, but, as noted earlier (August 10, 2006, on Judg. 8:27, citing Amit), this was some sort of an idol, placed with the “teraphim” in the “shrine” (17:5a). Micah “installed one of his sons, who became his priest” (v. 5b). Since the son was from the tribe of Ephraim, not Levi, this too was a clear violation (cf. Exod. 29:9; Num. 16:10). We may wonder why, in such circumstances, Micah proceed to hire a Levite as priest in place of his son (vv. 7-10). “During this period,” says Amit, “Levites sought a livelihood; hence Micah hired a Levite and appointed him as priest rather than his son” (on vv. 1-13). Younger calls this Levite “an opportunist,” adding that “This Bethlehem . . . was in the territory of Judah . . . [and] not a Levitical town” (ibid., on v. 7). Of the “no king” refrain (v. 6), Amit says, “This statement criticizes what precedes it, and serves as a critical introduction to what follows. It also suggests that Micah’s specific act is representative of the whole” (ibid., on v. 6). Amit also notes “the gap between the annual wage of the Levite [‘ten pieces of silver a year,’ v. 10] and the amount of money stolen by Micah,” which he says, “indicates his great wealth” (ibid., pp. 547-548 on v. 10). We may well wonder at Micah’s optimism after installing the Levite as priest (v. 12). “Now I know that the LORD will prosper me, because the Levite has become my priest” (v. 13).

Acts 7:44-8:1a

44 “Our ancestors had the tent of testimony in the wilderness, as God directed when he spoke to Moses, ordering him to make it according to the pattern he had seen. 45 Our ancestors in turn brought it in with Joshua when they dispossessed the nations that God drove out before our ancestors. And it was there until the time of David, 46 who found favor with God and asked that he might find a dwelling place for the house of Jacob. 47 But it was Solomon who built a house for him. 48 Yet the Most High does not dwell in houses made with human hands; as the prophet says,

49 ‘Heaven is my throne,

and the earth is my footstool.

What kind of house will you build for me, says the Lord,

or what is the place of my rest?

50 Did not my hand make all these things?’

51 “You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you are forever opposing the Holy Spirit, just as your ancestors used to do. 52 Which of the prophets did your ancestors not persecute? They killed those who foretold the coming of the Righteous One, and now you have become his betrayers and murderers. 53 You are the ones that received the law as ordained by angels, and yet you have not kept it.”

The Stoning of Stephen

54 When they heard these things, they became enraged and ground their teeth at Stephen. 55 But filled with the Holy Spirit, he gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. 56 “Look,” he said, “I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God!” 57 But they covered their ears, and with a loud shout all rushed together against him. 58 Then they dragged him out of the city and began to stone him; and the witnesses laid their coats at the feet of a young man named Saul. 59 While they were stoning Stephen, he prayed, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” 60 Then he knelt down and cried out in a loud voice, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them.” When he had said this, he died.8 1 And Saul approved of their killing him. (Acts 7:44-8:1, NRSV)

On July 2, 2007 (Monday in the week of the Sunday closest to June 29, Year One), comments were repeated with editing and supplement from August 21, 2006 (Monday in the week of the Sunday closest to August 17, Year Two), when they were repeated from June 27, 2005 (Monday of the week of the Sixth Sunday after Pentecost, Year One). The revised comments are repeated again here..

Stephen’s speech to the Council continues with reference to Israel’s sanctuaries which, at first glance, would not seem to justify the harsh criticism which follows. “Our ancestors had the tent of testimony in the wilderness, as God directed when he spoke to Moses, ordering him to make it according to the pattern he had seen” (Acts 7:44). Stephen emphasizes the fact that the pattern for the tabernacle was given to Moses by God (cf. Exod. 25:8-9). Stephen notes that the Israelites “in turn brought it [the tabernacle] in with Joshua when they dispossessed the nations that God drove out before [their] ancestors” (v. 45a; cf. Josh. 3:7-4:18), and he notes that “it was there until the time of David” (v. 45b; cf. 2 Sam. 6:1-23). He notes David’s desire to build the temple (v. 46; 2 Sam. 7:1-2; cf. Ps. 132:5), but that “it was Solomon who built a house for him [God]” (v. 47; 1 Kgs. 6; the cross-references here are mainly those suggested by Christopher R. Matthews, NOAB, 3^rd ed., 2001, on these verses from Acts). As noted in Saturday’s comments, the reference to Israel’s use of “the tent of Moloch, / and the star of your god Rephan” (v. 43, cited from Amos 5:26 LXX), sets the tone for these references to the tabernacle and the temple. Stephen says, “But the Most High does not dwell in houses made with human hands” (v. 48). Matthews says, “Since made with human hands is language associated with idolatry in the Hebrew Bible (see Ps. 115:4; Isa 2:8), its application to the Temple would be offensive to a Jewish audience. Cf. 17:24-25” (op. cit., on Acts 7:48). But the emphasis on God’s house as heaven and earth, rather than something provided by his people, is not surprising. “Heaven is my throne, / and the earth is my footstool. / What kind of house will you build for me, says the Lord, / or what is the place of my rest? / Did not my hand make all these things?” (vv. 49-50, citing Isa. 66:1-2). Beverly Roberts Gaventa says, “That God does not dwell in houses made with human hands may be found already in 1 Kings 8:27-30, and Stephen’s audience would have agreed” (HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, on Acts 7:48).

In the context of the reference to “the tent of Moloch” (above), Stephen almost seems to confirm the first part of the charge against him, “we have heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place [the temple, the ‘holy place’ of v. 13] and will change the customs that Moses handed on to us” (Acts. 6:14, cf. v. 13). Stephen then summarizes by accusing the people of being stiff-necked, “uncircumcised in heart and ears” and opposing the Holy Spirit, just as your ancestors used to do” (7:51). “Which of the prophets did your ancestors not persecute?” asks Stephen (v. 52a). “The question ,” says Matthews, “is hyperbolic but recalls Lk. 11:47-48” (ibid., on v. 52). Matthews cites a similar accusation voiced by Jesus. Stephen charges the Jewish leaders with a double standard regarding the Mosaic law. “You are the ones that received the law as ordained by angels, and yet you have not kept it” (v. 53). Paul refers to the giving of the law by angels (Gal. 3:19), where, according to Gaventa, “Paul employs the same tradition about angels to argue the law’s inferiority” (ibid., on Acts. 7:53). In the Epistle to the Hebrews, while “the message declared through angels was valid” (Heb 2:2), and is used in an “all the more’ argument that emphasizes the greater message of salvation, “declared at first through the Lord, and . . . attested to us by those who heard him” (v. 3), we note that it “was valid.” In Stephen’s speech, says Gaventa, “the angels confirm the law’s importance” (ibid.).

All of this was too much for Stephen’s audience, who, “when they heard these things . . . became enraged and ground their teeth at Stephen” (v. 54). According to Gaventa, the words ground their teeth [represent] a common depiction of God’s enemies in the OT.” She refers to “Lk. 13:28; see also Job 16:9; Ps. 35:16; 112:10)” (ibid., on v. 54). In contrast to their rage, Stephen experiences something of a beatific vision. “But filled with the Holy Spirit, he gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. ‘Look,’ he said, ‘I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God!’ ” (vv. 55-56). But Stephen’s audience–still the Council? (cf. 6:15; 7:1)–is not blessed but enraged, for “they covered their ears, and with a loud shout all rushed together against him” (v. 57). “Then,” says Luke, “they dragged him out of the city and began to stone him” (v. 58a). “Here,” says Matthews, “Stephen appears as the victim of a lynching” (op. cit., on vv. 54-58a).

At this point, in anticipation of much of the following narrative in Acts, Luke introduces us to Saul (Paul), saying, “the witnesses laid their coats at the feet of a young man named Saul” (v. 58b). But, prior to his conversion, Saul appears as the enemy of the Christians. “While they were stoning Stephen,” we are told, “he prayed, ‘Lord Jesus, receive my spirit’ ” (v. 59). Then, his last words, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them” (v. 60a), echo the words of Christ on the cross, “Father, forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing” (Lk. 23:34, missing in Lk. in some ancient authorities according to NRSV text note c). Having said this, we are told , Stephen “died” (v. 60b). And Luke takes note of Saul’s approval “of their killing him” (Acts 8:1a).

John 5:19-29

The following texts and comments are repeated here from February 24, 2005 (Thursday of the week of the Second Sunday of Lent, Year One):

19 Jesus said to them, “Very truly, I tell you, the Son can do nothing on his own, but only what he sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, the Son does likewise. 20 The Father loves the Son and shows him all that he himself is doing; and he will show him greater works than these, so that you will be astonished. 21 Indeed, just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whomever he wishes. 22 The Father judges no one but has given all judgment to the Son, 23 so that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. Anyone who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him. 24 Very truly, I tell you, anyone who hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life, and does not come under judgment, but has passed from death to life.

25 “Very truly, I tell you, the hour is coming, and is now here, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live. 26 For just as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself; 27 and he has given him authority to execute judgment, because he is the Son of Man. 28 Do not be astonished at this; for the hour is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice 29 and will come out-those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation. (John 5:19-29 NRSV)

In vs. 19 Jesus tells the Jewish authorities that there is nothing arrogant in what he has said. He is not a rebellious son setting himself up as a rival to the Father; rather, he is completely dependent on the Father and claims nothing on his own. That Jesus does none of his works on his own reflects a favorite theme in John (also, ix 4). John also tells us that none of what Jesus says is his own (iii 34, viii 26, xii 49), and that the Son did not come of his own accord (vii 28, viii 42),. All of this is summed up in x 30: “The Father and I are one.” (The Gospel according to John I-XII, Anchor Bible 29, p. 218).

On January 30, 2008 (Wednesday in the week of the Third Sunday after the Epiphany, Year Two), comments were based on earlier comments, including those of August 21, 2006 (Monday in the week of the Sunday closest to August 17, Year Two), for example, and more recently on March 8, 2007 (Thursday in the week of the Second Sunday of Lent, Year One). The comments are repeated here with some editing and supplement:

On John 5:19-24

After Jesus heals the lame man on the sabbath (Jn. 5:1-9), the lame man is challenged by “the Jews” (vv. 10-12), who then “started persecuting Jesus, because he was doing such things on the sabbath” (v. 16). These first encounters with the religious leadership, here called “the Jews,” are discussed in Saturday’s reading and comments (Aug. 16, 2008), where it is noted that a running debate begins here that continues in the passages set in Jerusalem (5:19-47; 7:14-52; 8:12-59; 9:13-41; 10:19-39). Jesus debate with the Jews after the healing of the lame man at the pool led to the issue of Jesus’ identity. When he referred to God as “his own Father,” they “were seeking all the more to kill him,” not only for breaking the sabbath but “making himself equal to God” (Jn. 5:18). As the debate continues in today’s reading, Jesus compares his work to that of the Father. “Very truly,” he says, “I tell you, the Son can do nothing on his own, but only what he sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, the Son does likewise” (v. 19). And Jesus promises “greater works”: “The Father loves the Son and shows him all that he himself is doing; and he will show him greater works than these, so that you will be astonished” (v. 20). Specifically, these greater works are raising the dead. “Indeed,” he says, “just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whomever he wishes” (v. 21). Right at the outset of several chapters of debate and controversy with “the Jews,” Jesus claims divine prerogatives, to give life (v. 21), and to judge human beings. “The Father judges no one,” says Jesus, “but has given all judgment to the Son” (v. 22). Obery M. Hendricks, Jr., says, “On the Son as judge, see Mt. 19:28; 25:31-46” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., 2001, on Jn. 5:22). The Father’s giving “all judgment to the Son,” says Jesus, is for the purpose “so that ( i{na, hina) all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father” (v. 23a). The conjunction i{na (hina) can introduce a result, but its use here is “to denote purpose, aim or goal, in order that, that [in a] final sense” (Bauer-Danker-Arndt-Gingrich [BDAG], A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, 3^rd ed., 2000, s.v. i{na, hina, meaning (1) (a) (b) ). So Jesus claims that it was the Father’s purpose for him to exercise divine prerogatives. He adds “Anyone who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him” (v. 23b). This connection to the Father, the claim for which clearly in John’s account rubs the Jewish leaders the wrong way, relates to the motif throughout John, including the narrative of the arrest, trial, crucifixion and resurrection, that despite all appearances to the contrary, he, not the Jewish leaders, is clearly in control, so much so that what is called the “Passion Narrative” in the other Gospels, is in John’s Gospel called “the Book of Glory” (cf. Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel according to John XIII-XXI, Anchor Bible, 29A, 1966, 2^nd ed., 19^th printing, 1982, section III, on Jn. 13:1-20:31). His opponents apparently had no idea what they were up against.

The themes introduced here recur throughout John, reminding us, for example, of Jesus’ conversation with Nicodemus in chapter three. Raymond E. Brown comments on these verses:

In vs. 19 Jesus tells the Jewish authorities that there is nothing arrogant in what he has said. He is not a rebellious son setting himself up as a rival to the Father; rather, he is completely dependent on the Father and claims nothing on his own. That Jesus does none of his works on his own reflects a favorite theme in John (also, ix 4). John also tells us that none of what Jesus says is his own (iii 34, viii 26, xii 49), and that the Son did not come of his own accord (vii 28, viii 42),. All of this is summed up in x 30: “The Father and I are one.” (The Gospel according to John I-XII, Anchor Bible, vol. 29, p. 218, on Jn. 5:19, cf. vv. 16-30).

On John 5:25-29

Jesus continues to discuss resurrection and judgment. “Very truly, I tell you, the hour is coming, and is now here,” he says, “when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will life” (v. 25). The Father’s gift of life (life-giving power) to the Son is repeated. “For just as the Father has life in himself,” says Jesus, “so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself” (v. 26). This “life in himself” is related to the role of judgment mentioned earlier (v. 22), for “he [i.e., the Father] has given him [i.e., the Son] authority to execute judgment, because he [i.e., the Son] is the Son of Man” (v. 27). Scholars have noted a shift in emphasis here. “The contrast . . . between the final eschatology of vss. 26-30 and the realized eschatology of 19-25 is quite marked,” says Brown (ibid., p. 220). He sees similar words and thought forms in both paragraphs, but “the Son-Father terminology” gives way to the “Son of Man” title, and “We hear in vs. 28 that ‘an hour is coming,’ but the ‘and is now here’ of 25 is missing.” However, the paragraph division of the New Revised Standard Version comes between verses 24 and 25–Brown divides between 25 and 26 (ibid., p. 213)–thus bringing verses 25 and 28 into the same paragraph. “Do not be astonished at this,” says Jesus, referring to the authority given to the the Son of Man, “for the hour is coming when all who are in their graves will hear this voice and will come out–those who have done good, to resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation” (vv. 28-29). There is a distinction to be made between the life believers have now, “eternal life” (v. 24), and the future “resurrection of life” (v. 29). But these are not incompatible. Obery M. Hendricks, Jr. puts these respective interpretations side by side. Of the former he says, “Anyone who believes on the basis of Jesus’ word has already passed into eternal life; see 11:26; 1 Jn. 3:14” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., 2001, on Jn. 5:24); and of the latter, “The voice of Jesus will signal the final resurrection in which all will meet judgment (cf. Dan. 12:1-3; 1 Thess. 4:13-18)” (ibid., on vv. 25-30). We believe that Jesus brings a marvelous quality of life for the hear and now, with the hope of a glorious future “in my Father’s house” (14:2).

Ronald D. Worden, Ph.D.

rdworden@hgst.edu

deanworden@comcast.net