Judg 8:27

“An ephod. A priestly garment; which Gedeon made with a good design: but the Israelites, after his death, abused it by making it an instrument of their idolatrous worship, (Challoner) and perhaps consulting their idols with it. No law forbad the making of such a garment. (Menochius) — It was not peculiar to the high priest, since we find that Samuel and David occasionally wore the ephod, (2 Kings vi. 14,) and probably Gedeon would, on public occasions, do the like with this most costly one, which would serve to remind the people of the victory which they had gained over Madian. The chief judge in Egypt wore a great golden chain and collar, adorned with curious figures, as a mark of his dignity. (Diod. ii. 3.) This monument of the victory, and of the dignity of Gedeon, became, after his death, an occasion of superstition to the people, who foolishly imagined that they might consult the Lord, wherever an ephod was found. See chap. xvii. 5., and Exodus xxv. 7. The began to neglect the tabernacle, and to form a religion of their own choice. Many think that Gedeon was guilty of indiscretion in making it. (St. Augustine, q. xli.; Lyranus; Estius) — But the thing was in itself indifferent. He did not intend to arrogate to himself the privileges of the Levitical tribe. The Scripture nowhere condemns him, but speaks of his faith and of his death with honour, ver. 32., and Hebrews xi. 3. — With it. Hebrew, “after it or him,” which may either signify that this superstition took place after the death of Gedeon, (Septuagint; Pagnin; Menochius) or in consequence of the making of the ephod. (Jonathan; Drusius; Protestants; &c. versions; Calmet) — And to. This explains how it affected Gedeon, who was probably dead. He suffered in the ruin of his family, (Haydock) as it is explained in the following chapter. (Menochius)”

“Gideon made an ephod thereof, and put it in his city, . . . Ophrah--That no idolatrous use was in view, nor any divisive course from Shiloh contemplated, is manifest from Jdg 8:33. Gideon proposed, with the gold he received, to make an ephod for his use only as a civil magistrate or ruler, as David did (Ch1 15:27), and a magnificent pectoral or breastplate also. It would seem, from the history, that he was not blamable in making this ephod, as a civil robe or ornament merely, but that it afterward became an object to which religious ideas were attached; whereby it proved a snare, and consequently an evil, by perversion, to Gideon and his house [TAYLOR, Fragments].”

“"And Gideon made it into an ephod," i.e., used the gold of the rings obtained from the booty for making an ephod. There is no necessity, however, to understand this as signifying that 1700 shekels or 50 lbs. of gold had been used for the ephod itself, but simply that the making of the ephod was accomplished with this gold. The word ephod does not signify an image of Jehovah, or an idol, as Gesenius and others maintain, but the shoulder-dress of the high priest, no doubt including the choshen belonging to it, with the Urim and Thummim, as in Sa1 14:3; Sa1 21:10; Sa1 23:6, Sa1 23:9, etc. The material for this was worked throughout with gold threads; and in addition to that there were precious stones set in gold braid upon the shoulder-pieces of the ephod and upon the choshen, and chains made of gold twist for fastening the choshen upon the ephod (see Ex 28:6-30). Now, if 50 lbs. of gold could not be used for these things, there were also fourteen precious stones to be procured, and the work itself to be paid for, so that 50 lbs. of gold might easily be devoted to the preparation of this state dress. The large quantity of gold, therefore, does not warrant us in introducing arbitrarily into the text the establishment of a formal sanctuary, and the preparation of a golden image of Jehovah in the form of a bull, as Bertheau has done, since there is no reference to פּסל or מסכה, as in Judg 17-18; and even the other words of the text do not point to the founding of a sanctuary and the setting up of an image of Jehovah. (Note: Oehler has correctly observed in Herzog's Cyclopaedia, that Bertheau acts very arbitrarily when he represents Gideon as setting up the image of a bull, as Jeroboam did afterwards, since there is nothing to sustain it in the account itself. Why cannot Gideon have worshipped without any image of Jehovah, with the help of the altar mentioned in Jdg 6:24, which was a symbol of Jehovah's presence, and remained standing till the historian's own time?) The expression which follows, אתו ויּצּג, does not affirm that "he set it up," but may also mean, "he kept it in his city of Ophrah." הצּג is never used to denote the setting up of an image or statue, and signifies not only to put up, but also to lay down (e.g., Jdg 6:37), and to let a thing stand, or leave behind (Gen 33:15). The further remark of the historian, "and all Israel went thither a whoring after it, and it became a snare to Gideon and his house," does not presuppose the founding of a sanctuary or temple in Ophrah, and the setting up of a golden calf there. In what the whoring of Israel after the ephod, i.e., the idolatry of the Israelites with Gideon's ephod which was kept in Ophrah, consisted, cannot be gathered or determined from the use of the ephod in the worship of Jehovah under the Mosaic law. "The breastplate upon the coat, and the holy lot, were no doubt used in connection with idolatry" (Oehler), and Gideon had an ephod made in his town of Ophrah, that he might thereby obtain revelations from the Lord. We certainly are not for a moment to think of an exposure of the holy coat for the people to worship. It is far more probable that Gideon put on the ephod and wore it as a priest, when he wished to inquire and learn the will of the Lord. It is possible that he also sacrificed to the Lord upon the altar that was built at Ophrah (Jdg 6:24). The motive by which he was led to do this was certainly not merely ambition, as Bertheau supposes, impelling the man who, along with his followers, and maintained an independent attitude towards the tribe of Ephraim in the war itself (Jdg 8:1.), to act independently of the common sanctuary of the congregation which was within the territory of Ephraim, and also of the office of the high priest in the time of peace as well. For there is not the slightest trace to be found of such ambition as this in anything that he did during the conflict with the Midianites. The germs of Gideon's error, which became a snare to him and to his house, lie unquestionably deeper than this, namely, in the fact that the high-priesthood had probably lost its worth in the eyes of the people on account of the worthlessness of its representatives, so that they no longer regarded the high priest as the sole or principal medium of divine revelation; and therefore Gideon, to whom the Lord had manifested himself directly, as He had not to any judge or leader of the people since the time of Joshua, might suppose that he was not acting in violation of the law, when he had an ephod made, and thus provided himself with a substratum or vehicle for inquiring the will of the Lord. His sin therefore consisted chiefly in his invading the prerogative of the Aaronic priesthood, drawing away the people from the one legitimate sanctuary, and thereby not only undermining the theocratic unity of Israel, but also giving an impetus to the relapse of the nation into the worship of Baal after his death. This sin became a snare to him and to his house.”