Read an Excerpt
Micah-Malachi, Volume 32
Word Biblical Commentary
By Ralph L. Smith, David A. Hubbard, Glenn W. Barker, John D. W. Watts, Ralph P. Martin ZONDERVAN
Copyright © 1984 Thomas Nelson, Inc.
All rights reserved.
ISBN: 978-0-310-52172-3
CHAPTER 1
Introduction
The Place in the Canon
The book of Micah is sixth in order in the Book of the Twelve in the Hebrew canon but third in the list of the Minor Prophets in the LXX, which places Micah immediately after Hosea and Amos, two of his older contemporaries.
The Prophet
Micah's name was a rather common one in ancient Israel. At least nine different individuals are called Micah or Micaiah in the OT: an Ephraimite in the time of the Judges (Judg 17–18); a descendant of Reuben (1 Chr 5:5); a grandson of Saul (1 Chr 8:34; 2 Sam 9:12); a Levite of the family of Aseph (1 Chr 9:15); a Kohathite (1 Chr 23:20); a messenger ofjosiah (2 Chr 34:20); a prophet in the time of Ahab (1 Kgs 22:8); a Levite who sealed the covenant with Nehemiah (Neh 10:11); and our prophet, who is mentioned by name in only two places in the Scriptures (Mic 1:1; Jer 26:18). Micah means "Who is like Yahweh." For Micah God was incomparable. In 7:18 there is probably a play on his name "who is a God like thee?"
The name is appropriate for a book like this because Yahweh is exalted in it. From the opening lines which announce Yahweh's coming, to the closing assertions about God's faithfulness to his covenant promise Yahweh is recognized as sovereign. He is no local or national deity here, but God of the whole world and all nations. He is a God of justice, judgment, and grace.
Some OT prophets are identified by their occupation or by their father's name. Neither Micah's occupation nor his father's name is given. He is not even called a prophet in his book. We know the name of the father of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Hosea, Joel, Jonah, Zephaniah, and Zechariah, but Micah's father's name is not mentioned, perhaps because his family was not prominent. Micah, like Nahum the Elkoshite and Amos from Tekoa, was known from his hometown. When a person becomes known by his place of origin two factors are usually involved: (1) the person no longer lives in his place of origin. If he did there would be nothing to distinguish him from his fellows. Micah's small town origin probably stood out because he lived and worked in Jerusalem; and (2) although Micah lived and worked in Jerusalem he was actually a citizen of the small town, Moresheth, and still identified with the people there.
The Time of Micah
The superscription suggests the time of the ministry of Micah as being during the reigns of Jotham (742–735 B.C.), Ahaz (735–715 B.C.) and Hezekiah (715–687 B.C.). These figures allow a maximum period of fifty-five years for Micah's ministry, but it is not likely that he was active as a prophet during all of that time. The references to Samaria (1:1, 6), to idols (1:7; 5:12–13, Eng. 5:13–14) and to Omri and Ahab (6:16) have led some to argue that Micah's ministry began during the fall of Samaria in 722 B.C. Other scholars have denied these references to Micah, arguing that they are the work of a later redactor. Lescow even assigns the references to Samaria to the conflict which brought about the Samaritan schism in the fourth century b.c. The evidence, however, is not strong enough to deny that Micah preached before the fall of Samaria.
There is a strong similarity between Mic 6:10–11 and Amos 8:5–6. Each accuses their wealthy listeners of cheating the poor by using false weights, small measures, and rigged scales. Such similarity would support a pre–722 B.C. date for part of Micah's ministry.
Perhaps the earliest identifiable historical reference in the book of Micah is in 1:10–16. This pericope probably describes the march of Sennacherib from Lachish to Jerusalem in 701 B.C. If this section is the work of Micah we have evidence that he prophesied at least to the end of the eighth century B.C. Jer 26:18 tells us that Micah predicted the fall of Jerusalem (3:12) during the reign of Hezekiah (715–687 B.C.)
Historical Setting
Cultural Background. Micah rails against his listeners for their apostate life style. The transgressions of the people involved two primary aspects: perversion of the worship practices (1:7; 3:5–7, 11; 5:11–13, Eng. 5:12–14) and injustice toward others (2:1–2, 8–9; 3:2–3, 9–11; 7:2–6). The former iniquity is a common complaint of the prophets, who rebuked religious leaders for earning their wealth at the expense of pure religious practice. Professional prophets and priests of local shrines behaved more like merchants than servants of God. Furthermore, the widespread practice of worshiping domestic idols revealed blatant spiritual decay. Nude goddesses with ornate hair designs have been found in Palestine archeological sites dating from 2000 to 700 B.C. This lends credence to Micah's complaint about the proliferation of Canaanite worship practices (G. Cornfeld, Archaeology of the Bible: Book by Book [New York: Harper and Row, 1976] 185).
The sin of abusing one's fellow man was a target of Micah's rebuke as well. As Israel's society shifted to a merchant economy and the use of money replaced barter as the basis for transactions, the separation between rich and poor broadened. Unethical merchants were able to increase their profits by using a light weight to balance the amount of a product they sold and a heavy weight to balance the gold they charged for the product. The laws of the jubilee year and the provisions for the helpless—the poor, the widow, the orphan, the sojourner—were all but forgotten. Because no effective system of justice was enforced, the strong were able to oppress the weak.
International Situation. The list of cities in 1:10-16 indicates the march of Sennacherib. As king of Assyria (705–681 B.C.) Sennacherib was challenged in 703 B.C. by a coalition of tribes led by Merodach-baladan. When this rival took Babylon, he sought support by sending messengers to other countries—among them Israel. While Sennacherib focused his efforts on regaining Babylon, Hezekiah seized the Assyrian envoy and joined Tyre and Sidon in withholding tribute. After a successful campaign in the East, Sennacherib turned to the other end of his empire and defeated the armies of Egypt and the Philistines. Finally from the defeated city of Lachish he demanded surrender and tribute from Hezekiah. According to Sennacherib's records he defeated forty-six Israelite cities and laid siege to Jerusalem. This siege is recorded in 2 Kgs 18. The march from Lachish to Jerusalem is depicted in Mic 1 (C. F. Pfeiffer, The Biblical World [Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1966] 516–17).
The Book—Authorship
Until the middle of the nineteenth century very little critical work was done on the book of Micah. Ewald was the first to raise serious questions about the authorship of Micah. He first argued that chaps. 4–5 were written by another prophet contemporary with Micah because of a difference in style. Later he defended Micah's authorship of chaps. 4–5 urging similarities of form, thought and diction. But in 1867 Ewald argued that chaps. 6–7 were not the work of Micah but rather the work of another prophet living during the dark days of the reign of Manasseh. Ewald said that chaps. 1–5 are complete in themselves and need nothing added to them, but there is a complete change in style and historical background in chaps. 6–7. Writing in 1878, Wellhausen agreed with Ewald that 6:1–7:6 comes from the time of Manasseh but concluded that 7:7–20 was added during the exile (cf. J. M. P. Smith 13). In 1881, B. Stade wrote an article in ZAW in which he denied chaps. 4–5 to Micah in toto largely on the grounds that Micah would not have blunted his prophecies of doom in chaps. 1–3 with such promises of hope in 4–5. Following Stade's work there was a veritable flood of materials produced by OT literary critics who denied almost all of the book after chap. 3 to Micah.
Are there sections in the book that are earlier or later than Micah? Few OT scholars today would defend the Mican authorship of the entire book. However, some scholars attribute much more of the materials to Micah than others. L. C. Allen assumes that Micah could have written all of the book with the exception of three passages. He believes that 4:1–4 is earlier than Micah and 4:6–8 and 7:8–20 are exilic or early post-exilic. Allen posits an editor who collected, arranged and added to the oracles of Micah in the early post-exilic period (Allen 251–52).
Structure
In the twentieth century the work of the literary critic has been augmented by that of the form critic and that of the history of tradition scholar. The form critic has been concerned with isolating the pericopes, identifying the Sitz im Leben , and with tracing the oral transmission of the text. Hermann Gunkel, the father of form criticism, did a study on the close of Micah (7:7–20) and demonstrated how four different pericopes of varying literary types were connected to form a prophetic liturgy which was sung by different singers in Jerusalem on one of the days of grief about the time of Trito-Isaiah (Hermann Gunkel, "The Close of Micah," in What Remains of the OT, trans. A. K. Dallas [New York: Macmillan, 1928] 146–47).
Eduard Nielsen was one of the first scholars to do a history of tradition study on any portion of Micah. In his Oral Tradition (1954) he made a thorough study of Mic 4–5. Nielsen reviews the radical views of Marti (1904) and Hylmo (1919) in which Marti denied to Micah anything in the book after chap. 3. Nielsen demonstrates the tradido-historical approach to Mic 4–5. He believes that an inner core of material can be found in 4:9–5:6 made up of four pericopes which contrast the present distress with the promises of future deliverance. On either side of this center are pericopes (4:1–5; 5:10–14) which state that all nations will be brought into the kingdom of God. Then Nielsen suggests that 4:1–5 may have been written by the same hand that wrote chap. 3 because of the deliberate contrast between the passages.
Ten years after Nielsen's work, B. Renaud published a study on the structure of Mic 4–5. Renaud arranged the materials in these chapters in a chiastic order rather than as layers around a central core. According to Renaud sections A and A' go together, A = 4:1–4; A' = 5:9–13 (Eng. 5:10–14). Sections B and B' are alike, B = 4:6–7 (2:12–13) and B' = 5:6–7 (Eng. 5:7–8). Section C = 4:8–14 (Eng. 4:8–5:l) is closely related to C' =5:1–5 (Eng. 5:2–6). Renaud viewed these chapters as a coherent theological unit written by a Jerusalem priest-scribe of the fifth century. They are a midrash which combines many earlier sources into an eschatological synthesis.
In 1969 John T. Willis published a critique of Renaud's views along with his own theories about the structure of Micah 4-5 (ZAW 81 [1969] 191–214). Willis argues that chaps. 4-5 are a unit made up of seven parallel pericopes (4:1–5; 6–8; 9–10; 11–13; 4:14–5:5, Eng. 5:l–5:6; 5:6–8, Eng. 5:7–9; 5:9–14, Eng. 5:10–15) each of which starts with the present hopeless situation of Israel and concludes with a promise of future victory and hope. Willis argues that the hope elements are "not attempts by a later generation to offset the severity of the doom oracles of the pre-exilic period" (p. 203).
Leslie Allen (257–61) draws on the work of Nielsen and Willis and arranges the materials in chaps. 3–5 in concentric circles around a center section made up of three pericopes: 4:9–10; 4:11–13; 4:14–5:5 (Eng. 5:1–6.) The two passages on either side of this center material (4:6–8; 5:6–8, Eng. 5:7–9) deal with the remnant. The two outside sections 3:1–4:5 and 5:9–14 (Eng. 5:10– 15) contain long sections on judgment (3:1–12; 5:9–13, Eng. 5:10–14) followed by short sections of hope (4:1–5; 5:14, Eng. 5:15).
What can we say about the structure of the book of Micah? Have the materials in this book been arranged in a logical, or chronological, or a theo- logical pattern? Von Rad says, "... the prophetic corpus lies before us in what are ... very shapeless collections of traditional material, arranged with almost no regard for content or chronological order, and apparently quite unaware of the laws with which we are familiar in the development of European literature" (G. von Rad, Old Testament Theology, vol. 2 [Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1965] 33, n.l). Von Rad quotes Martin Luther as saying the prophets "have a queer way of talking, like people who instead of proceeding in an orderly manner, ramble off from one thing to the next so that you cannot make head or tail of them or see what they are getting at" (Ibid.). G. W. Wade says that the book as a whole lacks any systematic structures: "... its contents comprise a number of sections of which many stand in no logical or orderly relation to one another" (Wade, xx).
But some scholars try to organize the seemingly unorganizable. Almost every scholar who has written on Micah has offered some outline or scheme by which the materials are to be arranged. Ewald, Mays and Lescow divide the materials into two sections (chaps. 1–5 and 6–7), although Mays in his commentary simply discusses the materials in the book in thirty-one separate sections.
Many writers on Micah divide the book into three major sections: 1-3 (judgment); 4–5 (hope); 6–7 (judgment and hope). J. M. P. Smith and George Adam Smith used this system of arrangement. John T. Willis and L. C. Allen have made a strong case for arranging the material into three major divisions (1–2; 3–5; 6–7). F. C. Eiselen in his old but valuable commentary on the Minor Prophets used this outline for the book. In support of this outline we note that chaps. 1, 3, and 6 all begin with the words "Hear ye." Each of these sections begins with a message of judgment and ends with a note of hope.
The careful reader of the Hebrew text will notice obvious "catch-words" and other devices that are used to join pericope to pericope. But there is no definitive way to outline the book. This should be obvious when one considers how many different ways it has been outlined. Even the number and limits of pericopes in the book is not precise. Willis says that the modem critic should not expect to find a structure in biblical literature similar to modem literary canons. But "... it seems only fair to give ancient literary works the benefit of the doubt and allow them the possibility of containing coherent principles of organization" (J. T. Willis, Seminar Papers SBL [1978] 92). Scholars still disagree on the outline, date, and authorship of the book. Hans Walter Wolff, writing in 1978, said, "the extent of the secondary material in the Book of Micah is as controversial as ever" (H. W. Wolff, "Micah the Moreshite," Israelite Wisdom 77).
It is always difficult to discern major divisions in the materials of the OT prophets. In the commentary below the material is arranged in twenty pericopes. If larger units are present, then the grouping of chaps. 1–2; 3–5; and 6–7 together as three judgment/hope oracles seems to have the most support from the text.
(Continues...)
Excerpted from Micah-Malachi, Volume 32 by Ralph L. Smith, David A. Hubbard, Glenn W. Barker, John D. W. Watts, Ralph P. Martin. Copyright © 1984 Thomas Nelson, Inc.. Excerpted by permission of ZONDERVAN.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.
