And they called the name of the city Dan, after the name of Dan their father, who was born to Israel; howbeit Laish was the name of the city at the first.
Judges 18 ends with armed men from Dan seizing a defenceless town and putting their own name over it. The new name looks like a small detail. It raises two questions. Why did a tribe have to go looking for a city at all? And whose name should a place in Israel carry?
Dan already had land of its own. The move north replaced a portion the tribe never took.
No tribe fails so badly to take hold of its inheritance. That is the only way we can make sense of the statement that their lot had not fallen to them. They had let the Philistines take back the cities on the sea coast, and the Amorites had forced them into the hills. This loss of what is ours, and what we should be making our own, is often the reason for much restless activity among the people of God. It is also the reason for much that looks like success in other directions... Here we see them forced by their own laziness or fear to look for an inheritance somewhere else. They were then as violent and greedy as they had been idle before.
Dan picked the easiest target on the map, and left the hard one alone.
Laish was a quiet and prosperous town at the northern edge of Canaan. It lay far from the Sidonians who owned it, and it did no business with anyone. This city gave Dan the chance of a conquest that brought no honour, but it also offered everything the natural heart could desire... Dan had a battle to fight and a victory to win inside his own borders, against the Amorites of the valley. But that fight would have cost him too much. He preferred a conquest without danger, won at the far end of the land. It lay far from the eyes of the Lord's witnesses, and far from his real enemy.
Whose name a city carries says who its people honour.
The children of Dan went their way, struck Laish, seized the city and "named the city Dan, after the name of Dan their ancestor" (v. 29). The name of Dan mattered more to them than the name of the Lord. That, in a few words, was the dark picture of the religious history of Israel.
The settlers brought Micah's stolen idols and his hired priest north with them.
Verse 31 adds the significant words "all the time that the house of God was at Shiloh." God did have a centre in Israel, though not yet in Jerusalem. But the Danites could assume they did not need it, since they had a worship of their own! As well as being against God, their false worship divided them from their brothers.
What began at Dan did not stay there, in place or in time.
Jonathan, a Levite and the grandson of Moses, started and established that line of idolatrous priesthood. It continued in the tribe of Dan for many centuries, "until the day of the captivity of the land" (Judges 18:30) — that is, until the Assyrians carried the ten northern tribes away (2 Kings 17)... You will remember that when the usurper Jeroboam set up the two calves of gold to be the gods of Israel, he placed one in Dan and one in Bethel (1 Kings 12:28-30)... Dan's poisonous influence on his fellow tribes seems to be implied in Jacob's dying prophecy, which describes Dan as "a serpent in the way, a viper by the path" (Genesis 49:17). This influence is first shown historically by the installing of Micah's carved image in the city of Dan (Judges 18:29-31). The corruption grew under the kings of Israel who followed. Before the Assyrian captivity, Amos prophesied of the judgment that would fall on those "who swear by the Guilt of Samaria, and say, 'As your god lives, O Dan'" (Amos 8:14).
One writer traces both the stolen gods and the stolen city to one root.
When the people of God are not satisfied with the full enjoyment of their own inheritance, they are surely ready for the enemy to come in and lead them astray. It is an unfilled heart, a heart that has failed to enter on its own portion, that is open to these attacks... The Danites become restless, just as the Levite did, and "like a bird that strays from its nest is a man who strays from his home."
- Unfilled — Dan never took the land God gave it. An unfilled heart is where idolatry gets in.
- Easy — they fought the weak enemy far away and left the strong one at home. The cheap victory was the unfaithful one.
- Renamed — they put their ancestor's name on the city, not the Lord's. That shows whose name weighed more with them.
- Rooted — stolen gods and a hired priest moved in with the new name. Dan worshipped its own way while God's house stood at Shiloh, and that cut it off from the other tribes.
- Spread — what one tribe planted at Dan grew into a king's golden calf, and then into a prophet's sentence of judgment on the whole north.
And the children of Dan set up the graven image; and Jehonathan, the son of Gershom, the son of Moses; he and his sons were priests to the tribe of Dan until the day of the captivity of the land.
Judges 18 ends with a whole tribe settling into a stolen religion. Micah's carved image now stands in the new city of Dan, served by a hired Levite and his sons. Two questions press on this verse. Whose grandson was this priest, and how long did the damage last?
In the Hebrew text one letter, an "n", sits above the line. It turns "Moses" into "Manasseh." Commentators say copyists added it, and that "Moses" is the true reading.
The Revised Version has good reason for changing "Manasseh" to "Moses." Even D. Kimchi, a famous Rabbi, admitted the reason. The copyists were ashamed that a grandson of the lawgiver had sunk so low as to become the priest of an idol. So they hid the fact by putting "Manasseh" in its place. De Rossi and Kennicott both point to manuscripts that carry the true reading. Even the Masoretic text has this striking and suspicious feature: the "n" is written above the proper line. In unpointed Hebrew that letter is the only difference between the two names.
Trace this priest's family line and you reach Moses, Israel's lawgiver. It did him no good at all.
This Levite, who took the place of priest for idol worship, was a descendant of no other than Moses himself, the great lawgiver of Israel. What a thought! Is it not written on every verse we have read, "You must be born again"? There is no such thing as spiritual descent. There is no such thing as inheriting spiritual traits. The child of Moses may lead a people away from God just as readily as an enemy of God does, such as an uncircumcised heathen king.
Ridout presses the point on anyone who leans on a godly family name.
Think how solemn this is. Some men have been nearest to God in privilege and in service, and God has used them. Yet if their sons do not share their faith, those sons may use the godliness of their fathers as a cover for their own idolatry and their own turning away from God.
The Levite's move was not a single sin. It began a line of priests that lasted.
He was glad of a better living and a larger place (verses 19, 20). So he left Micah's house with the lawless men of Dan. They wiped out Laish with fire and sword and named the new city after themselves. There they set up the carved image, and a line of priests that did not fail until the day the land went into captivity. Error takes root faster than the truth, and it bears fruit more richly and lasts longer.
Israel already had one appointed place of worship, named in the very next verse. Dan simply built its own.
Verse 31 adds a telling phrase: "as long as the house of God was at Shiloh." God did have a centre in Israel, though not yet in Jerusalem. But the Danites could assume they did not need that centre, since they had a worship of their own! Their false worship was against God, and it also cut them off from their fellow Israelites.
Commentators differ over "until the day of the captivity of the land." Some read it as the Philistine oppression, since verse 31 ties the image to the years the house of God stood at Shiloh. Others read it as the Assyrian deportation, centuries later. That would make verse 30 a prophecy added afterwards.
The captivity of the land was the Philistine captivity… Micah's image was there all the time the house of God was in Shiloh, and that gives us a date… If it were not for verse 31, one might well suppose verse 30 to be a later, prophetic addition. In that case "the captivity of the land" might mean the Assyrian one. Either way Jonathan is still a near descendant of Moses. The question is one of interpretation.
Whatever the date, the damage did not stay in one town. It ran on through Israel's history.
Greed and ambition seem to have driven him. He started that line of idol-serving priests, and it went on in the tribe of Dan for centuries, "until the day of the captivity of the land"… When Jeroboam seized power and set up the two golden calves as the gods of Israel, he placed one in Dan and one in Bethel. Dying Jacob's prophecy seems to hint at Dan's subtle, poisonous, satanic influence on his fellow tribes, describing Dan as "a serpent in the way, a viper by the path."
- Name. The priest of Dan was Gershom's son and Moses' own grandson. Scribes added one letter to shield the lawgiver's name from the shame.
- Descent. Faith is not passed down a family line. "There is no such thing as spiritual descent." The best heritage can still produce a man who leads people away from God.
- Succession. One man wanted "a better living and a larger place." His choice hardened into a whole line of priests, because error takes root faster and lasts longer than truth.
- Rivalry. Dan's private worship stood alongside the real house of God at Shiloh. It cut them off from their own people as well as from God.
- Reach. What began with a stolen image ended in Jeroboam's golden calf at Dan. Commentators differ on whether the captivity named here is the Philistine one or the Assyrian.
And they set up for themselves Micah's graven image, which he had made, all the time that the house of God was in Shiloh.
Judges closes the story of Micah's idol with a note about time. The image stood in Dan for as long as God's own house stood at Shiloh. Two rival places of worship stood in the same small land at once. How did one man's private image become a whole tribe's religion?
The closing phrase does more than fix a date. God had already given Israel a place of worship, and Dan acted as though it did not exist.
Verse 31 adds a significant phrase: "as long as the house of God was at Shiloh." God did have a centre in Israel, though not yet in Jerusalem. But the Danites could assume they did not need that centre, since they had a worship of their own! As well as being against God, their false worship divided them from their brothers.
One writer notes how little the book says about the true sanctuary, then asks the same question about the church today:
How little is said about the tabernacle at Shiloh during the days of the judges! Yet it was surely there. It is not until chapter 18 that it is even named. "So they set up Micah's carved image that he made, as long as the house of God was at Shiloh." Have there been no carved images set up in the so-called church? Yet the Holy Spirit is still here.
The sin was not only that an idol existed. They dressed the whole thing up as worship of the Lord, and got a Levite consecrated as its priest.
The first and worst departure was this: they could forget the Lord and dishonour Him so shamelessly that they set up a rival in His name. And the more seriously they went about it, the worse it was. To have an idol at all flew in the face of His law and word. To then worship it with such ceremony — getting a Levite consecrated as priest, to give it an air of solemnity — added profane insult.
Verse 30 dates the priesthood "until the day of the captivity of the land"; verse 31 dates the image by Shiloh. Commentators differ on which captivity is meant. One writer points to the Levite who founded that priesthood, and follows the line down to the Assyrians:
Greed and ambition seem to have prompted him. He started and established that succession of idolatrous priesthood. It continued in the tribe of Dan through many centuries, "until the day of the captivity of the land" (Judges 18:30) — that is, until the Assyrians carried away the ten northern tribes some six centuries later.
Others read the two dates as one, and end the story on the day the Philistines took the ark:
When the ark went into captivity among the Philistines, the sanctuary at Shiloh came to an end (Ps. 78:60-61); and with the reformation under Samuel, the idolatry in Dan was no doubt swept away.
Kelly notes why such things last: "error takes root faster, and bears fruit more richly and more lastingly, than the truth." What began as Micah's private image spread far past his own house.
This subtle form of idolatry prevails in the tribe of Dan until the captivity of the land — significant words. It lasts until God comes in judgment and the ark is taken away from Shiloh. It takes hold there, and it leavens the whole nation. It even makes possible, I do not doubt, that deeper form of idolatry which grows straight out of it — the two calves that Jeroboam the son of Nebat set up.
Why does a priestly class appear at all? One writer traces it back to something in the people themselves:
Spiritual sloth is what makes a priestly class possible. Sloth of soul hands our own responsibility for worship, praise and thanksgiving over to someone else's greater activity of faith. That is what creates a priestly class, and that in turn makes possible the idolatry we see here.
- Centre. God had a house at Shiloh the whole time. Dan's sin was to live as though its own worship made God's centre unnecessary.
- Counterfeit. The worst part was not the idol itself. It was using God's name for it, with a consecrated Levite to give it weight.
- Convenience. Spiritual sloth breeds a priestly class. People hand their own worship and thanks to someone else.
- Contagion. One man's image leavened the whole nation and opened the door to Jeroboam's two calves.
- Clock. The idol lasted as long as Shiloh did. Commentators differ over whether that ended with the Philistine capture of the ark or with the later Assyrian captivity.