Juízes 17:5

Had an house of gods. — The Hebrew is Beth Elohim, which may mean equally well “a house of God” (Vulg., œdiculam Deo, and so too the LXX.). It is quite clear that Micah did not abandon the worship of God under the names of Jehovah and Elohim, by which He was known to the Israelites. How he coordinated this worship with his grossly idolatrous symbols, or whom those symbols were intended to represent, it is impossible to say. The fact remains that in the Beth-Micah we find “a house of gods” — “whole chapel of idols” — consecrated to Jehovah as a pious act (Juízes 17:2; Juízes 17:5; Juízes 17:13; Juízes 18:6).

An ephod. — No doubt the ephod was nothing more than a gorgeous priestly garment, though possibly it may have been used for oracular purposes. (See Juízes 8:27.)

And teraphim. — These were Syrian images (Gênesis 31:19), the use of which among the Israelites seems to have lasted for a long period, until it was put down by King Josiah in his great reformation (2 Reis 23:34; Ezequiel 21:26; Oséias 3:4; Zacarias 10:2). I have entered upon the interesting question of the use of Teraphim in an article on the subject in Kitto’s Cyclopœdia. (See Excursus II: Teraphim.)

Consecrated. — The curious Hebrew phrase is “filled the hand” (see Êxodo 28:41; Êxodo 29:24; Levítico 7:37), i.e., gave him the office by putting certain offerings in his hands. It is rather installed than “consecrated.”

EXCURSUS II. — ON Juízes 17:5. (TERAPHIM.)

THE Hebrew word Teraphim is always simply transliterated as in our version, or rendered by “images,” with “teraphim” in the margin, except in 1 Samuel 15:23; Zacarias 10:2, where it is represented by “idolatry,” “idols.” The singular of the word, “a teraph,” does not occur in Scripture, although it is clear that only one can have been put into David’s bed (1 Samuel 19:13). The LXX. adopt many different renderings, as does the Vulg., but they all point to idolatrous images or the implements of necromancy, as do the two renderings of the Targums, images and (Oséias 3:4) “announcers.”

1. Teraphim are first mentioned in Gênesis 31:19, where Rachel steals her father’s “images,” and successfully hides them from his search under the hiran on which she was sitting — the coarse carpet used to cover the wicker-work pack-saddle of her camel. Josephus supposes that she was actuated by idolatrous reverence; Iben Ezra that she expected oracular guidance from them; others that she stole them because of their intrinsic value. She probably shared the superstitions of her father, and regarded them as sacred (Gênesis 30:14; Gênesis 31:30), as being the figures of ancestral divinities (Gênesis 31:53). It is not impossible that they were among the “strange gods” which Jacob ordered his family to bury under “the sorcerer’s oak” — Allon Meonenim (Juízes 9:37). But that Jacob’s right feeling in the matter was not permanent is proved only too clearly by the conduct of Micah (Juízes 17:5) and the Danites (Juízes 18:3), although, unlike Jeroboam, they could not even plead the poor palliation of political motives.

2. The next definite notice of teraphim occurs in 1 Samuel 19:13, where Michal, in the dark eastern chamber, conceals her husband’s absence by putting the teraphim in his bed, with a bolster of goat’s hair for a pillow. The use of the article shows that even in David’s family the use of the “teraphim” was perfectly well known. Nor can we rely on the vague conjecture of Thenius, that barren women (Rachel and Michal) were especially addicted to their worship, or on that of Michaelis, that Michal may have possessed them unknown to David. The passage seems to show that they had at least some rude resemblance to the human shape, whence Aquila renders the word by protomai (“busts”), which is used of figures like the ancient Hermae. This is not the place to enter into the curious reading of the LXX. on this verse, by which they seem to connect the worship of teraphim with what the ancients called extispicium — i.e., divination by means of the liver of sacrifices, as in Ezequiel 21:21. Josephus follows the same reading, and dishonestly suppresses all mention of the teraphim.

3. The next important passage is Oséias 3:4, where the primâ facie view of every unbiassed reader would be that the “image” (matsêbah) and the teraphim are mentioned without blame as ordinary adjuncts to religious worship. Hence, perhaps, arose the notion that the teraphim were in some way connected with the Urim and Thummim, which led to the rendering of the word in this passage by δήλοι (LXX., “bright gems”), and by φωτισμούς (“enlightenments,” Aquila), and by “implements of priestly dress” (St. Jerome). This is the theory maintained most unconvincingly, though with great learning, by Spencer in his De Legibus Hebrœ-orum, lib. 3, pp. 920-1038.

But if these passages show that even in religious families teraphim were sometimes tolerated as material adjuncts to an Elohistic worship, on the other hand we find them unequivocally condemned by Samuel (1 Samuel 15:23), by Josiah (2 Reis 23:24), and by the prophet Zechariah (Zacarias 10:2); and in Ezequiel 21:21 the use of them, is attributed to the heathen Nebuchadnezzar.

The general inference seems to be that the use of the teraphim involved a violation of the second commandment, but that this use of symbols, this monotheistic idolatry, which is very different from polytheism, arises from a tendency very deeply ingrained in human nature, and which it took many years to eradicate. If centuries elapsed before the Jews were cured of their propensity to worship “other gods,”we can feel no surprise that “image worship” continued to linger among them, in spite of the condemnation of it by the stricter prophets. The calf-worship, the toleration of teraphim and consecrated stones (baetylia) and high places, the offering of incense to the brazen serpent, the glimpses of grave irregularities even in the worship of the sanctuary, show that it was only by centuries of misfortune and a succession of prophets that Israel was at last educated into the spiritual worship of the true God.

The reader will find further remarks on this subject in the article on “Teraphim,” by the present writer, in Kitto’s Biblical Cyclopœdia.