The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

General Editor:—J. J. S. PEROWNE, D.D.,

Dean of Peterborough.

MICAH,

WITH NOTES AND INTRODUCTION

by

THE REV. T. K. CHEYNE, M.A.

FELLOW AND LATE LECTURER OF BALLIOL COLLEGE, OXFORD,

AND RECTOR OF TENDRING, ESSEX.

EDITED FOR THE SYNDICS OF THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.

Cambridge:

AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.

London: CAMBRIDGE WAREHOUSE, 17, Peternoster Row.

Cambridge: DEIGHTON, BELL, AND CO.

1882

[All Rights reserved.]

PREFACE

BY THE GENERAL EDITOR

The General Editor of The Cambridge Bible for Schools thinks it right to say that he does not hold himself responsible either for the interpretation of particular passages which the Editors of the several Books have adopted, or for any opinion on points of doctrine that they may have expressed. In the New Testament more especially questions arise of the deepest theological import, on which the ablest and most conscientious interpreters have differed and always will differ. His aim has been in all such cases to leave each Contributor to the unfettered exercise of his own judgment, only taking care that mere controversy should as far as possible be avoided. He has contented himself chiefly with a careful revision of the notes, with pointing out omissions, with suggesting occasionally a reconsideration of some question, or a fuller treatment of difficult passages, and the like.

Beyond this he has not attempted to interfere, feeling it better that each Commentary should have its own individual character, and being convinced that freshness and variety of treatment are more than a compensation for any lack of uniformity in the Series.

Deanery, Peterborough.

CONTENTS

I.  Introduction

  The Arrangement of the Book

  Style and Subject

  Social, Religious, and Political state of Judah

  Chronology

II.  Notes

Index

*** The Text adopted in this Edition is that of Dr Scrivener’s Cambridge Paragraph Bible. A few variations from the ordinary Text, chiefly in the spelling of certain words, and in the use of italics, will be noticed. For the principles adopted by Dr Scrivener as regards the printing of the Text see his Introduction to the Paragraph Bible, published by the Cambridge University Press.

INTRODUCTION

Micah, also written Micaiah (Jeremiah 26:18 K’thibh), was perhaps the youngest of that remarkable group of prophets who fill up the period from Uzziah to Hezekiah. He is called ‘the Morasthite,’ Micah 1:1 (i.e. a native of Moresheth, a small town in the maritime plain near Gath[1], Micah 1:14), to distinguish him from the Micaiah who lived in the reign of Ahab (1 Kings 22.). His family would seem not to have been very important; otherwise his father’s name would have been stated—as, for instance, Isaiah is described as “Isaiah, the son of Amoz.” According to the heading, he prophesied “in the days of Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah” (Micah 1:1), i.e. between 759 and 679 b.c. There is a difficulty, however, in accepting this date. We read in Jeremiah 26:17-18,

[1] The place was still known in the time of St Jerome, who says (Prol. ad explanandum Michæam); “Michæam de Morasthi qui usque hodie juxta Eleutheropolin (five Roman miles north of Gath) haud grandis est viculus.”

“Then rose up certain of the elders of the land, and spake to all the assembly of Israel, saying, Micah the Morasthite prophesied in the days of Hezekiah king of Judah, and spake to all the people of Judah, saying, …”

It is true, the passage quoted by the elders is Micah 3:12; so that there still might be a prophecy older than Hezekiah, if internal evidence suggested this. But internal evidence does not favour this view. Hezekiah was evidently already king when the prophecy against Samaria in chap. 1 was written; and the argument used by some, ‘the prophecy in Micah 4:1-3 is evidently more original than the form assumed by the same passage in Isaiah 2:2-4, therefore, since Isaiah 2 was written probably under Ahaz, Micah 4 cannot be later than the reign of Ahaz,’ will not hold good, 1. because chap. Micah 4:1 is attached to chap. Micah 3:12, which was written (as Jeremiah shews) in the reign of Hezekiah, and 2. because chap. Micah 4:1-4 is not in the style of Micah, and was probably inserted here by Micah or another from some (perhaps older) prophet. It is better therefore to accept the statement of Jer. l. c. in its most literal sense, that “Micah prophesied in the days of Hezekiah.” This at any rate applies to chaps. 1–3, though it is perfectly possible that some parts of the later chapters (especially chaps. 6, 7) may belong to a subsequent period. As to the heading, it has no binding authority; there is a similar inaccuracy in the heading of the prophecies of Isaiah. Here, as in the case of the headings of the Psalms, we are driven to assume that it was inserted by the scribes during the Babylonian Exile.

The Arrangement of the Book. Micah was not a literary artist, and we have no right to expect a careful and logical distribution of the contents. It is plausible to divide the book into three parts (viz. 1. chaps. 1, 2; 2. chaps. 3, 4, 5; 3. chaps. 6, 7), each part beginning with ‘Hear ye,’ and each closing with a promise. And yet this division cannot have been originally intended. The abrupt transitions with which the book abounds prove that the Book of Micah, like most of the other prophetic writings, was mainly founded on discourses, or notes of discourses, composed on various occasions. With this reserve, however, we may accept another threefold division in preference to that above mentioned, viz. 1. chaps. 1–3; 2. chaps. 4, 5; 3. chaps. 6, 7. Threatening, or at least a gloomy view of things, predominates in the first and third; promise in the second.

Style and Subject. The prophecies of Micah are addressed to all Israel, but refer more particularly to Judah. He was, like Amos, a native of a country district, and his rustic origin doubtless strengthened his recoil from the unnatural sins of the capital. He seems to have sprung from a deeply religious family; his name (Micah is a shortened form of Micaiah) means ‘Who is like unto Jehovah?’ Thus, like Isaiah, he was ‘a sign and a portent in Israel from Jehovah’ (Isaiah 8:18). Micah and Isaiah should in fact be read in connexion. “It pleased God,” as Calvin remarks, “that a testimony should be borne by the mouth of two, and that holy Isaiah should be assisted by his friend, and as it were his colleague.” But while they have much in common, they present the one truth in a slightly different light; Micah is even more emphatically an ethical teacher than Isaiah. He has no hope of any radical change for the better, and looks forward to nothing short of complete destruction for the city and the temple (Micah 3:12, see note). The later chapters, it is true, soften this prospect; but they were evidently written (if entirely the work of Micah) when the prophet had passed through some profound inner change. It was his prophecy of judgment through which he was remembered by the next generation (Jeremiah 26:18); and in the unflinching severity of his tone he passes beyond even his great contemporary, Isaiah. In this predominant ethical tendency, Micah reminds us very much of Amos; but in his softer moods (for he has such) he suggests a comparison with Hosea. He would willingly strip himself like a captive, and cry as an ostrich for the calamity of Beth-aphrah (Micah 1:10); he unites himself in spirit with the besieged Zion of the near future (Micah 5:1). He compensates himself, moreover, for the enforced preponderance of threatening by a conclusion which is one of the sweetest passages of prophetic writing (Micah 7:8-20). Nor is it, perhaps, accidental that he lays such stress on “kindness” as one of the three elements of true religion (Micah 6:8). For human kindness is the reflection of divine; and the Jehovah whom Micah preaches is no capricious despot—he has entered into a moral relation to His people, Israel.

Still, for the purpose of historical illustration, no prophet is so important as Isaiah, on account of the abundance and fulness of his writings; and it is worth while to compare not only the prophecies which he wrote under Hezekiah, but also those of the reign of Ahaz; for Micah may be presumed to have been a reader of Isaiah’s prophecies, as soon as any of them were collected. Compare, then, the following more or less close coincidences:—

Micah 1:9-16  with

  Isaiah 10:28-32Micah 2:1-2  …

  Isaiah 5:8Micah 2:6; Micah 2:11  …

  Isaiah 28:10; Isaiah 30:10-11Micah 2:11  …

  Isaiah 28:7Micah 2:12; Micah 4:7  …

  Isaiah 10:20-23Micah 3:5-7  …

  Isaiah 29:9-12Micah 3:12  …

  Isaiah 32:14Micah 4:4 (end)

  …

  Isaiah 1:20 (end)

Micah 4:10  …

  Isaiah 32:11Micah 5:2-4  …

  Isaiah 7:14 (?)

Micah 5:5  …

  Isaiah 9:6Micah 5:9-14  …

  Isaiah 2:6-17Micah 6:6-8  …

  Isaiah 1:11-17Micah 7:7  …

  Isaiah 8:17Micah 7:12  …

  Isaiah 11:11.

The following are the chief predictions in the Book of Micah 1. The destruction of the kingdom of Israel, and especially of its capital Samaria (Micah 1:6-7). 2. The complete destruction of Jerusalem and the temple (Micah 3:12, Micah 7:13). 3. The deportation of the Jews to Babylon (Micah 4:10). 4. The return from exile; peace and prosperity in Canaan; victories and spiritual primacy of Israel (Micah 4:1-8; Micah 4:13, Micah 7:11; Micah 7:14-17). 5. A ruler in Zion (Micah 4:8), born at Bethlehem, of the family of David (Micah 5:1-2). According to Delitzsch, some of these prophetic intuitions indicate that Micah saw even further than Isaiah, inasmuch as—

(1) he predicts not only the Babylonian exile, but also the deliverance from it;

(2) he considers Babylon as the metropolis of the world, as the centre of the land of Nimrod (Micah 5:5), the enemy of Israel (Micah 7:8; Micah 7:10), though it is true that in Micah 5:4 he calls the hostile world-empire by the current historical name Assyria; and

(3) while Isaiah beholds the rise of Messiah’s kingdom in connexion with the fall of Assyria, Micah sees the kingdom of the Messiah established after the Babylonian exile.[2]

[2] Delitzsch, Messianic Prophecies, by Curtiss, § 44.

Upon the whole, as we have seen, it was the troublesome office of Micah to warn his countrymen of judgment. A pungent irony stood at his command; and he was not slow to avail himself of it. He abounds, too, in paronomasias and in bold interrogations, such as we can well imagine a fervid Hebrew orator employing. He unites simplicity, vividness, and energy. “Thus in predicting punishment, he uses the form of command, bidding them, as it were, execute it on themselves [Micah 2:10, Micah 1:11; Micah 1:13, Micah 4:10]” (Dr Pusey). “The rhythm is full and forcible, but not so smooth or rounded as that of Joel and Amos. The parallelism is usually regular; the diction pure and classical, but concise, and therefore difficult here and there” (Dr S. Davidson). We must, however, allow for the possibility that the text has at certain points been incorrectly transcribed. Providence has not interfered to preserve the Scriptures from the ordinary errors of scribes and editors.

Social, religious, and political state of Judah. As the commentary on chaps. 2, 3. will shew, the peasantry of Judah (the class to which Micah not improbably belonged, or with which at any rate he was best acquainted) were ground down by numerous exactions, and illegal, oppressive treatment on the part of the grandees. Commerce had increased the wealth of a few, and made the old law of land-tenure more and more difficult to maintain. The local sanctuaries still existed (Micah 1:5); Hezekiah’s reform was probably not as complete as we should infer from 2 Kings 18:4. The religious state of Judah, then, was by no means such as Micah could approve of; nor was its political state free from danger. How, in fact, could a nation prosper, when the ruling class set the laws of morality itself at defiance? Hence, although Hezekiah was ‘one of the most splendid princes who ever adorned the throne of David,’ and ‘the last king who not only reigned in the spirit of the true religion, but also reigned prosperously till his death’ (Ewald), the clear-sighted prophet Micah warned his people of a judgment more severe than even Isaiah in general announced. But how are we to explain chaps. 6 and 7? Are we not transported into another period? Such is the impression of Ewald. “We feel here,” he says, “the effects of the cold, biting wind which King Manasseh brought over the kingdom of Judah; it is also plain from Micah 6:16 that the idolatrous tendency which this king favoured had long been prevailing; and the more religious hardly ventured, according to Micah 6:9 b, to name the king quite openly.” Certainly it is difficult to account for the tone of these chapters from what we are told in the historical books of the reign of Hezekiah; and the theory of Ewald, whether we adopt it or not, may serve to call our attention to the very real change of tone and circumstances in the two last chapters of the book. It will be remembered that there is a somewhat similar difficulty in accounting for the internal phenomena of Isaiah 40-66.

Chronology. The chronology of the kings of Israel is too intricate a subject to be treated of here. It is safest to follow the contemporary records of the Assyrians whenever a definite indication of date is given. The following table differs somewhat from the chronology of Usher, but there is no justification for adhering to an antiquated opinion, when a more critical view is attainable.

b. c.

727

  Accession of Shalmaneser.

726

  ———Hezekiah.

722

  ———Sargon, and capture of Samaria.

711

  Sargon’s invasion of Judah; Hezekiah’s illness.

705

  Accession of Sennacherib.

701

  Sennacherib’s invasion of Judah.

697

  Accession of Manasseh.

The invasion of Sargon referred to is not mentioned in the Old Testament narratives in their present form; but there is reason to think that there is a confusion in 2 Kings 18:13 (= Isaiah 36:1) between Sargon and Sennacherib, and that the later Jews had forgotten Sargon almost entirely, just as they forgot Assurbanipal. Certainly Sargon himself claims to have conquered the land of Judah (so Oppert, Sayce, and Schrader), and it is probable that the invasion was to punish Hezekiah for having joined the same coalition of which Yavan, the unfortunate king of Ashdod, was a member (see Smith’s Assyria in S. P. C. K.’s Ancient History from the Monuments, pp. 104, 5). This new fact illustrates not only the first chapter of Micah but several prophecies of Isaiah (viz. Isaiah 10:5 to Isaiah 12:6, Isaiah 14:24-27, and probably chap. 22). The fate of Ashdod (Isaiah 20:1) seemed likely to be shared by Jerusalem; and the prophets bent all their energies to move the people to a timely repentance.