no longer deals with idolatry, but with the corruption of society,
and particularly of its leaders—the grasping aristocracy whose
whole energies are concentrated on devouring the poor and depriving
them of their little holdings, the unjust judges and priests who
for gain wrest the law in favour of the rich, the hireling and gluttonous
prophets who make war against every one “that putteth not
into their mouth,” but are ever ready with assurances of Yahweh’s
favour to their patrons, the wealthy and noble sinners that fatten
on the flesh of the poor. The internal disorders of the realm
depicted by Micah are also prominent in Isaiah’s prophecies; they
were closely connected, not only with the foreign complications
due to the approach of the Assyrians, but with the break-up of the
old agrarian system within Israel, and with the rapid and uncompensated
aggrandisement of the nobles during those prosperous
years when the conquest of Edom by Amaziah and the occupation
of the port of Elath by his son (2 Kings xiv. 7, 22) placed the lucrative
trade between the Mediterranean and the Red Sea in the hands of
the rulers of Judah. On the other hand the democratic tone
which distinguishes Micah from Isaiah, and his announcement of
the impending fall of the capital (the deliverance of which from
the Assyrian appears to Isaiah as the necessary condition for the
preservation of the seed of a new and better kingdom), are explained
by the fact that, while Isaiah lived in the centre of affairs,
Micah, a provincial prophet, sees the capital and the aristocracy
entirely from the side of a man of the oppressed people, and foretells
the utter ruin of both. But this ruin does not present itself to
him as involving the captivity or ruin of the nation as a whole;
the congregation of Yahweh remains in Judaea when the oppressors
are cast out (ii. 5); Yahweh’s words are still good to them that
walk uprightly; the glory of Israel is driven to take refuge in
Adullam,[1] as in the days when David’s band of broken men was
the true hope of the nation, but there is no hint that it is banished
from the land.
Our only evidence as to the reception of Micah’s message by his contemporaries is that afforded by Jer. xxvi. 17 seq., both directly, in the recorded effect on Hezekiah and the people; and indirectly, in the fact that the impression created was remembered a century afterwards. Micah resembles Amos, both in his country origin, and in his general character, which expresses itself in strong emphasis on the ethical side of religion. As the last of the four great prophets of the 8th century he undoubtedly contributed to that religious and ethical reformation whose literary monument is the Book of Deuteronomy.[2]
The remainder of the book bearing the name of Micah falls into two main divisions, viz. iv., v. and vi., vii. Each differs from the first division (i.–iii.) in a marked degree. The second consists mainly of prophecies of restoration including eschatological (iv. 1 seq.)[3] and Messianic (v. 2 seq.) hopes. The third is formed of three or four apparently unrelated passages, on the spirituality of true worship (vi. 1-8), social immorality and its doom (vi. 9-16; vii. 1–6), and Israel’s future recovery from present adversity through Divine grace (vii. 7–20). It is improbable that much, if any, of these chapters can be ascribed to Micah himself.[4] not only because their contents are so different from his undoubted work (i.–iii.), for which he was subsequently remembered (Jer. xxvi. 18), but because they presuppose the historic outlook of the Exile, or a later age (e.g., iv. 6 seq.; vii. 7 seq.). It is neither psychologically nor historically impossible for a prophet of judgment to be also a prophet of comfort; but the internal evidence of composite and (in whole or part) later authorship must outweigh the traditional attachment of these passages to a MS. containing the work of Micah.
The sequence of thought in chs. iv. v. is really difficult, and has given rise to much complicated discussion. Thus iv. 11–13 stands in direct contradiction to iv. 9, 10, and indeed to iii. 12, The last two passages agree in speaking of the capture of Jerusalem, the first declares Zion inviolable, and its capture an impossible profanation. Such a thought can hardly be Micah’s, even if we resort to the violent harmonistic process of imagining that two quite distinct sieges, separated by a renewal of the theocracy, are spoken of in consecutive verses. Another difficulty lies in the words “and thou shalt come even to Babylon” in iv. 10. Micah unquestionably looked for the destruction of Jerusalem as well as of Samaria in the near future and by the Assyrians (i. 9), and this was the judgment which Hezekiah’s repentance averted. If these words, therefore, belong to the original context, they mark it as not from Micah’s hand; though they might be a later gloss. The prophetic thought is that the daughter (population) of Zion shall not be saved by her present rulers or defensive strength; she must come down from her bulwarks and dwell in the open field; there, and not within her proud ramparts, Yahweh will grant deliverance from her enemies. Opposition to present tyranny expresses itself in recurrence to the old popular ideal of the first simple Davidic kingdom (iv. 8). These old days shall return once more. A new David, like him whose exploits in the district of Micah’s home were still in the mouths of the common people (? i. 15), goes forth from Bethlehem to feed the flock in the strength of Yahweh. The kindred Hebrew nations are once more united to their brethren of Israel (cf. Amos ix. 12, Isa. xvi. 1 seq.). The remnant of Jacob springs up in fresh vigour, inspiring terror among the surrounding peoples, and there is no lack of chosen captains to lead them to victory against the Assyrian foe. In the rejuvenescence of the nation the old stays of that oppressive kingship which began with Solomon, the strongholds, the fortified cities, the chariots and horses so foreign to the life of ancient Israel, are no more known; they disappear together with the divinations, the soothsayers, the idols, the mazzebah and asherah of the high places. Yahweh is king on Mount Zion, and no inventions of man come between Him and His people.
The sixth chapter of Micah presents a very different situation from that of chs. i.–iii. or iv., v. Yahweh appears to plead with His people for their sins, but the sinners are no longer a careless and oppressive aristocracy buoyed up by deceptive assurances of Yahweh’s help, by prophecies of wine and strong drink; they are bowed down by a religion of terror, wearied with attempts to propitiate an angry God by countless offerings, and even by the sacrifice of the first-born. Meantime the substance of true religion—justice, charity and a humble walk with God—is forgotten, fraud and deceit reign in all classes, the works of the house of Ahab are observed (worship of foreign gods). Yahweh’s judgments are multiplied against the land, and the issue can be nothing else than its total desolation. All these marks may be held to fit exactly the evil times of Manasseh as described in 2 Kings xxi. Cp. vii. 1-6, in which the public and private corruption of a hopeless age is bitterly bewailed, possibly belongs to the same context.
Micah may very well have lived into Manasseh’s reign, but the title in i. 1 does not cover a prophecy which certainly falls after Hezekiah’s death, and the style has nothing in common with the earlier part of the book. It is therefore prudent to regard the prophecy, with Ewald, as anonymous. Ewald ascribed the whole of chs. vi., vii. to one author. Wellhausen, however, remarks with justice that the thread is abruptly broken at vii, 6, and that verses 7–20[5] represent Zion as already fallen before the heathen and her inhabitants as pining in the darkness of captivity. The hope of Zion is in future restoration after she has patiently borne the chastisement of her sins. Then Yahweh shall arise mindful of His oath to the fathers, Israel shall be forgiven and restored, and the heathen humbled. The faith and hope which breathe in this passage have the closest affinities with the book of Lamentations and Isa. xl.–lxvi. Indeed, as Marti points out (p. 259) the triple division of the book of Micah (i.–iii.; iv., v.; vi., vii.) corresponds with that of the book of Isaiah (i.–xxxix.; xl.–lv.; lvi.–lxvi.) in the character of the three divisions (judgment; coming restoration; prayer for help in adversity) respectively, and in the fact that the first alone gives us pre-exilic Writing in the actual words of the prophet to whom the whole book is ascribed. In both cases, it need hardly be said, the great literary and spiritual value of the later passages ought in no way
- ↑ i. 15; the reference is, however, obscure and uncertain.
- ↑ See the Introduction to the Century Bible, “Deuteronomy and Joshua,” by H. Wheeler Robinson.
- ↑ Mic. iv. 1–3 and Isa. ii. 2–4 are but slightly modified recension’s of the same text, and as Isa. ii. is older than the prophecy of Micah, while on the other hand Mic. iv. 4 seems the natural completion of the passage, it is common to suppose that both copy an older prophet. But the words have little connexion with the context in Isaiah, and may be the quotation of a copyist suggested by ver. 5. On the other hand it has been urged that the passage belongs to a later stage of prophetic thought than the 8th century B.C. Reasons making this view the more probable one are given by Wellhausen (p. 142) and Marti (p. 281).
- ↑ Nowack thinks that iv. 9, 10a, 14 and v. 10–14 may possibly belong to Micah; Wellhausen recognizes the same possibility, which he extends, however, to vi. 1-8. Marti, who (like Cheyne in Ency. Bib.) finds nothing by Micah in iv.–vii., thinks these chapters have crystallized round two central passages, viz. iv. 1–4, and vi. 6-8, whose addition to the first three chapters formed the second stage in the growth of the present book. More conservative views as to authorship are taken by Driver and G. A. Smith, the former suggesting, however, that “the existing Book of Micah consists only of a collection of excerpts, in some cases fragmentary excerpts, from the entire series of the prophet’s discourses” (L. O. T., Ch. vi. § 6).
- ↑ Regarded by Stade (Z. A. T. W., 1903, p. 164 seq.) as an independent psalm.
