Micah 1:1-16

Submitted by admin on Sun, 2013-10-20 13:57.

Posted in | printer-friendly version »

In the eighth century BCE, the “word of YHWH” came to Micah of Moresheth, a town near the border of Philistine territory. (See the introduction for additional comments.) His service as a prophet began during the reign of Judean king Jotham and continued in the “days” or the time of kings Ahaz and Hezekiah. (1:1; see the Notes section.)

Whereas Jotham adhered to God’s law, his subjects in general persisted in idolatrous practices. (2 Kings 15:35; 2 Chronicles 27:2, 6) Ahaz, his son and successor, proved to be disloyal to YHWH. As an idolater, he participated in the abhorrent act of child sacrifice. (2 Kings 16:1-4; 2 Chronicles 28:1-4) Especially during his reign, oppression, corruption, and bloodshed must have been widespread. The moral breakdown that is revealed in the expressions of Micah doubtless reflect the conditions during the rule of Ahaz, and likely also existed after his son Hezekiah began to reign. Hezekiah did not follow the example of his father but chose to be devoted to YHWH and heeded the words of Micah and his contemporary Isaiah. (2 Chronicles 29:2) In view of the corruption and idolatry that had existed during the reign of Ahaz, the noble course of Hezekiah and his reforms would not have led to major changes among those who had become accustomed to a lawless way of life. As far as the kingdom of Israel was concerned, both the kings and their subjects in general disregarded God’s commands and paid no attention to his prophets who called upon them to repent. (2 Kings 17:7-18) Therefore, the word of YHWH through Micah continued to be one that pointed to punitive judgment for Samaria and Jerusalem, the respective capitals of the kingdom of Israel and of the kingdom of Judah. As the capital cities, Samaria and Jerusalem represent all the inhabitants of both kingdoms. (1:1)

The message that Micah proclaimed did not originate with him. This message is designated as the word “which he saw concerning Samaria and Jerusalem,” indicating that it came to him through divine revelation. The reference to seeing may indicate that the message was impressed on his mind while he was dreaming or while he was in a trance. (1:1)

The command for all the peoples to hear may apply to the people of all the nations. If, however, the application is limited by the immediate context, the people of the kingdom of Israel and those of the kingdom of Judah would be the ones called upon to listen. The directive for the earth to give attention may be understood as a command for the people of all the nations inhabiting the earth to do so. In this case, however, the noun “earth” may designate the land in which the Israelites resided and could, therefore, apply to all the Israelites dwelling in the land. No one is excepted. This is indicated by the words “earth and its fullness” or, according to the Septuagint, “all the ones in it.” (1:2; see the Notes section.)

As a witness against the people, YHWH would present his testimony regarding their wrongdoing that had not escaped his attention. In the capacity of a witness, he would also be the one to execute the deserved punitive judgment. The “temple of his holiness” or “his holy temple [holy house (LXX)]” refers to his holy dwelling place in heaven or the exalted spirit realm. (1:2)

The words “for look” serve to draw the attention of those being addressed to what YHWH would be doing. He would “go forth from his place” or his heavenly residence and would “come down” and then “tread upon the high places of the earth” or of the land. This indicated that he would be turning his attention to the inhabitants of the land for the purpose of taking action against them. It would be comparable to his having made a descent from heaven so as to be on the scene to carry out his purpose. The reference to treading on the “high places” may point to his exercising full control over all the land and its inhabitants, for high places are the strategic locations for observing everything that takes place below and being in the best position to respond to the developments there. Moreover, since high places often were the sites for idolatrous practices, YHWH’s treading on them could indicate that he would be turning his attention to these high places and would bring about their destruction. (1:3; compare Jeremiah 3:6; Hosea 4:13. See the Notes section.)

YHWH’s descent is represented as having a fear-inspiring effect on the physical features of the land. Mountains are depicted as “melting” under him or, according to the Septuagint, as being “shaken” (by an earthquake). The melting could allude to mudslides that occur after heavy downpours and which make it appear as if the mountain slopes are melting. (1:4)

As for the valleys below, “they will be split.” Torrents rushing down from the hills and mountains would fill and overflow dry stream beds and thus split the land apart. (1:4)

The phrase about wax (doubtless meaning beeswax) could be linked to the mountains, which would melt “like wax from before [literally, ‘from (the) face of’] the fire.” A number of translations make this significance explicit by transposing the phrase regarding wax. “Then the mountains will melt under him like wax in a fire.” (GNT, Second Edition) “The mountains will melt under him like wax near a fire.” (NIRV) “At his touch mountains dissolve like wax before fire.” (REB) The Septuagint rendering, however, refers to the melting of the valleys, which would melt “like wax from the face of fire and like water being carried down in a descent.” This could be understood to mean that torrents rushing down into the valleys would erode land as if it were melting and would wash it away as when water comes down from a descent or slope. (1:4)

In case the Hebrew text about the water applies to the valleys, the effect on the land below the mountains and hills would be like that produced by water being poured down on a slope. Translators who have transposed the phrase about wax have variously rendered the concluding thought. “Valleys are torn open as when torrents pour down a hillside.” (REB) “The valleys will be broken apart by water rushing down a slope.” (NIRV) “They [the melting mountains] will pour down into the valleys like water pouring down a hill.” (GNT, Second Edition) (1:4)

The reason for YHWH’s coming down or turning his attention to the people so as to execute his judgment against them is identified as being the “transgression [impiety (LXX)] of Jacob” and the “sins [sin (LXX and 8HevXIIgr)] of the house of Israel.” “Jacob” and “house of Israel” are parallel designations that apply to the Israelites, the descendants of Jacob whose name was changed to Israel. (Genesis 32:28) The questions that follow indicate that the transgression or the sins relate to idolatry and, therefore, to a serious failure to be fully devoted to YHWH and to heed his commands. “What [is the] transgression [impiety (LXX)] of Jacob? [Is it] not Samaria? And what [of] the high places [sin (LXX)] of Judah? [Is it] not Jerusalem?” (1:5)

During the reign of Omri, Samaria became the capital of the kingdom of Israel, and the name of the city often is used to designate the entire realm. (1 Kings 16:23, 24) Jeroboam, the first monarch of the kingdom of Israel established calf worship in the northern city of Dan and the southern city of Bethel. (1 Kings 12:26-33) This act of disloyalty to YHWH plunged the entire kingdom into an idolatrous course that continued uninterrupted to the very end, and this is the sin that came to be associated with Samaria. (1:5)

To please his many foreign wives, King Solomon established high places for the veneration of numerous deities. (1 Kings 11:1-8) During the reigns of Solomon’s successors, high places came to exist throughout the realm. As the capital that represented the entire kingdom of Judah, Jerusalem could also be regarded as linked to all of these high places, and their existence and the rites in which the people engaged constituted a serious revolt against YHWH and his commands. (1:5)

On account of the sin of Samaria, YHWH is represented as declaring that he would reduce the city to a “ruin of the field” or just a heap of rubble on a parcel of land. According to the Septuagint, he would make Samaria into a watchman’s hut in a field, probably meaning that the city would come to resemble a hut in an unoccupied and neglected condition. As a desolated site, Samaria would come to be suitable for planting a vineyard. YHWH is represented as saying that he would hurl down the stones of Samaria into the valley (a chasm [LXX]) and lay the foundations of the city bare. With the stones of the destroyed buildings being toppled from the elevated site into the valley below, the foundations would be exposed. (1:6; see the Notes section.)

During the reign of Israelite king Hoshea, the Assyrian monarch Shalmanser V with his forces came against Samaria, and the Assyrians captured the city after a three-year siege. (2 Kings 18:9, 10) A Babylonian chronicle indicates that Shalmaneser V “ravaged” the city. The annals of his successor, Sargon II, report that, in the first year of his reign, he “besieged and conquered Samaria” and took 27,280 of the people into exile. The Assyrian conquest fulfilled the words of Micah’s prophecy. Because YHWH permitted the Assyrians to capture Samaria, bringing an end to the kingdom of Israel, the conquest of the city is attributed to him. (1:6)

The prophetic word indicated that the conquerors of Samaria would “beat” or “cut” (LXX) her idols to pieces and that they would consign all her “hire” to the flames. Samaria’s hire could include everything that had been accumulated through corrupt practices and extensive trade. Involvement with other nations in trade led to adopting their God-dishonoring ways, including abominable idolatrous practices. The gain amassed through the pursuit of a course of unfaithfulness to YHWH constituted the hire of a prostitute, for the Israelites were in a covenant relationship with him and thus bound to him as a wife is to her husband. (1:7)

YHWH decreed that he would make the idols of Samaria a waste. From the wages of prostituting herself through a course of unfaithfulness to YHWH, Samaria had gathered riches, and to the wages of a prostitute the things accumulated would return. The victors would credit the conquest of Samaria to their deities and make offerings from the spoils to their gods and goddesses. As idolatry is divinely decreed to be prostitution, the wages or gain from harlotry would end up returning to the hire of harlotry. The Septuagint rendering could be understood to mean that Samaria gathered the idols from the wages of prostitution and brought them together from these wages. This suggests that the Israelites used a significant portion of the profit derived through their corrupt practices to increase the number of their idols. (1:7; see the Notes section.)

In view of the calamity to befall Samaria, Micah (according to the Hebrew text), in his own person, appears to represent the distressing effect this would have on the people. He would wail and howl, giving expression to loud and bitter lamentation. Like a mourner, he would go about without his sandals and stripped of his usual clothing. Although not stated in the text, likely he would cover the bare skin of his loins with sackcloth (a coarse cloth made from goat’s hair). In the Septuagint, Samaria is represented as a woman who would beat her breasts in lamentation, wailing and going about barefoot and naked. (1:8)

The Hebrew word tan is commonly understood to mean “jackal,” but in the Septuagint this designation is rendered as “dragon” (drákon). There is a measure of uncertainty about the meaning of the Hebrew noun ya‘anáh, which is preceded by the word for “daughters.” Literally, the expression could be rendered “daughters of greed,” and it is commonly regarded as applying to “ostriches.” The Septuagint rendering does not provide any insight, as the reference therein is to “daughters of sirens” (mythological creatures). (1:8)

According to the Hebrew text, Micah would wail like jackals. These canines howl, bark, and yelp. Micah would also make a sound of a person in mourning, a sound resembling that of ostriches. They make a deep mournful warning sound that can be heard a long distance away. The Septuagint refers to Samaria as lamenting like dragons and mourning like the daughters of sirens. (1:8)

The “blows” (“blow” [LXX]) to be inflicted on Samaria would be so severe as to prevent any recovery. After their conquest of Samaria, the Assyrians settled peoples of other nations in the region and thus the place ceased to be an Israelite city. The “blows” or “blow” striking Samaria would also affect the kingdom of Judah. As if the blow had already been inflicted, Micah referred to it as reaching “to the gate of my people, to Jerusalem.” During the reign of King Hezekiah, Assyrian monarch Sennacherib and his forces launched a punitive campaign against the kingdom of Judah, conquering the fortified cities and threatening to besiege Jerusalem. According to the biblical account, divine intervention saved the city. (1:9; see 2 Kings 18:13-25; 19:32-36.)

The Hebrew text about not making a declaration in Gath could be understood to mean that no report about the humiliating defeat should be made in this Philistine city, as the people therein would rejoice over the calamity that had befallen the people whom they regarded as their enemies. (1:10; compare 2 Samuel 1:20.) Before Micah began serving as a prophet, Judean king Uzziah conquered Gath and other Philistine cities. (2 Chronicles 26:6-8) During the reign of Ahaz, the grandson of Uzziah, the Philistines engaged in raids against the kingdom of Judah, captured a number of cities, and established themselves in the conquered region. (2 Chronicles 28:18, 19) King Hezekiah, the son of Ahaz, waged a successful campaign against the Philistines. (2 Kings 18:8) According to his annals, Assyrian king Sennacherib, after his campaign against the kingdom of Judah while Hezekiah reigned, gave conquered Judean towns to Philistine kings (Mitini the king of Ashdod, Padi the king of Ekron, and Sillibel the king of Gaza). So there would have been rejoicing about the calamity that befell the kingdom of Judah, especially since (as reported in Sennacherib’s annals) Hezekiah had earlier imprisoned Padi the king of Ekron. (1:10)

In the Septuagint, Geth (Gath) is mentioned in a different setting. The people of Gath were not to magnify themselves, which could mean that they were not to consider themselves great because their humiliated state had ended. (1:10)

There appears to be a wordplay on the name “Gath” with the Hebrew second person plural verb for “declare” or “tell” (taggidu). In connection with the names of certain towns that follow, the play on these names cannot be duplicated in translation. (1:10)

Aphrah has not been identified with any specific site. Based on the context, the town may have been in the Shephelah, the region west of Israel’s central mountain range, or in the plain bordering on the Mediterranean Sea. There is a play on the name Aphrah with the Hebrew word for “dust” (‘aphár). For “the house of Aphrah” or “Beth-leaphrah” to roll in the dust would mean that it would be brought low through conquest. (1:10)

The rendering of the Septuagint could literally be translated, “The ones in Akim, do not rebuild from a house according to laughter. Besprinkle earth according to your laughter.” This obscure reading could mean that an attempt to rebuild houses by the people of Akim would make them objects of derision, as such rebuilding would come to nothing. For this reason they should not rebuild. They should besprinkle earth or dirt on that which would make them an object of laughter, concealing it. (1:10)

There is uncertainty about the location of Shaphir. One suggested site is situated west of Hebron. In connection with Shaphir and also Zaanan, the participial form of the verb for “dwell” or “inhabit” (yasháv) is singular and feminine gender, but it may be understood to apply to those residing in the respective towns. The inhabitants of Shaphir are told to “pass over” in “nakedness,” in “shame” (bósheth). This suggests that the town of Shaphir would be conquered and the surviving inhabitants would be led away as humiliated captives stripped of their clothing. There appears to be a play on the name “Shaphir” (“elegant” or “beautiful”) with bósheth (“shame”). (1:11)

The play on the name “Shaphir” cannot be preserved in translation, and the Septuagint rendering appears to reflect the meaning of the name “Shaphir”
(kalós, meaning “well” or “beautifully”). There is, however, no reference to “nakedness” and “shame.” The Septuagint reads, “The one inhabiting her cities well did not go out.” Based on the words that follow, this inhabitress is Sennaan (Zaanan). (1:11)

The reference to the ones inhabiting Zaanan as not going out may be variously understood. On account of the enemy invasion, the residents would be afraid to leave the protective walls. Another possibility is that they would not be able to come out in order to make a successful escape from the besieged town. Their going out could also apply to leaving the town to come to the aid of beleaguered Shaphir or Beth-ezel. Translators are often more specific in their renderings than is the Hebrew text. “The people of Zaanan dare not come outside their walls.” (NLT) “Those who live in Zaanan do not dare to come out of their city.” (GNT, Second Edition) “The inhabitant of Zaanan does not escape.” (NASB) “The town of Bethezel mourns because no one from Zaanan went out to help.” (CEV) “You who live in the town of Shaphir, leave in shame and without your clothes. Those who live in Zaanan won’t come out to help you.” (NIRV) The Hebrew text contains a play on the name Zaanan (tsa’anan) with the verb for “go out” (yatsá’). (1:11)

In the Septuagint, the inhabitress of Sennaan (Zaanan) is represented as a woman beating her breasts in lamentation for the “house next to her.” The words “house next to her” reflect the meaning of the name “Beth-ezel” (“house nearby [beside]”). (1:11)

The concluding phrase of the Hebrew text in this verse could be literally rendered, “Wailing of Beth-ezel will take from you his standing ground.” This wailing suggests that Beth-ezel would be subjected to conquest and so could provide no place of refuge or give any support to defeated ones in the region. Translators vary in their interpretive renderings. “Beth-ezel is a place of lamentation; she can lend you support no longer.” (REB) “When you hear the people of Bethezel mourn, you will know that there is no refuge there.” (GNT, Second Edition) “The people in Beth Ezel will sob. They won’t be able to help keep you safe.” (NIRV) “Beth-ezel is torn from its foundations, from its strong supports.” (NJB) “The town of Bethezel mourns because no one from Zaanan went out to help.” (CEV) “The lamentation of Beth-ezel: ‘He will take from you its support.’” (NASB) “The people of Beth-ezel mourn, for their house has no support.” (NLT) The Septuagint rendering could mean that Zanaan would receive a painful blow from the invader (“she will receive a blow of pain from you”). (1:11)

As in the previous verse, the participial form of the verb for “dwell” or “inhabit” (yasháv) is singular and feminine gender. It may here refer to those dwelling in Maroth (a town that has not been positively identified with a particular site). The residents of Maroth would anxiously wait for “good,” but they would wait in vain, for evil” or calamity “from YHWH” would reach the “gate of Jerusalem.” With the city of Jerusalem being threatened, the people of Maroth could not expect a change for the better or any relief from the distressing situation they faced. The calamity is spoken of as coming down from YHWH, as he permitted it to befall his people. In the fulfillment, the Assyrians were intent on seizing Jerusalem, but YHWH’s intervention through his angel saved the city. (1:12; 2 Kings 18:17, 28-35; 19:32-35)

In Hebrew, there appears to be a play on the name “Maroth,” which designation is linked to a root meaning “bitter” (“bitterness” is waiting anxiously for “good”). According to the Septuagint, the question may be, “Who began [to do] good things for the inhabitress of pains?” The implied answer is that there would be no one bringing relief to those who experienced pains or distressing circumstances as if they were surrounded by them. This would be on account of the calamities descending “from the Lord upon the gates of Jerusalem.” (1:12)

As in verses 11 and 12, the singular Hebrew participial form of the verb yasháv in the feminine gender may be understood as applying to those inhabiting the city. The directive is for the residents of Lachish (a major fortified city in the kingdom of Judah) to harness the chariot to a team of horses. This could mean that the people were to get ready for battle or to prepare for flight from the invading military force. (For pictures of and comments about the site of ancient Lachish, see Lachish and for pictures of the Assyrian reliefs about the siege of Lachish, see reliefs.) (1:13)

Neither the context nor any other passages in the Scriptures make it possible to determine how Lachish proved to be the “beginning of sin to the daughter of Zion” or the city of Jerusalem. Possibly the reference is to a kind of idolatrous worship that had its start in Lachish and afterward came to be practiced in Jerusalem. Another possibility is that the sin related to a failure to trust in YHWH as the one who could protect his people, relying instead on chariots and horses for security. Horses and chariots may first have come to Lachish from Egypt. (Compare Deuteronomy 20:1-4; 1 Kings 10:26, 28, 29; Psalm 20:7.) The “transgressions [‘impious deeds’ or ‘godless acts’ (LXX)] of Israel” that were found in Lachish may likewise involve idolatry or reliance on chariots and horses for security instead of on YHWH. (1:13)

According to verse 12, the calamity would reach the “gate of Jerusalem,” the capital of the kingdom of Judah. So it may be that the kingdom of Judah is here said to give “parting gifts to Moresheth-gath.” The compound name “Moresheth-gath” may indicate that control over Moresheth (the hometown of the prophet Micah) would be transferred from the kingdom of Judah to the Philistines or, more specifically, to the Philistine city of Gath. Moresheth-gath may be represented as a daughter with “parting gifts” at the time she is taken away from her family to serve as a slave. The Assyrian forces conquered the region that included Moresheth, and the Assyrians may have handed the control of the town over to the Philistines. Lending a measure of support to this deduction is the fact that Sennacherib, according to his annals, gave captured Judean towns to Philistine rulers. In Hebrew, there appears to be a play on the name “Moresheth,” meaning “possession.” (“Possession” with her parting gifts becomes the “possession of Gath.”) (1:14)

The Septuagint text bears little resemblance to the extant Hebrew text. It could be understood to say that the kingdom of Judah would send ambassadors to the “inheritance” or territory of “Geth” (Gath), to “empty houses, for nothingness it became to the kings of Israel.” This obscure rendering could mean that the Israelites and their rulers received no benefit from having dispatched representatives to Gath. The result proved to be as if they had sent envoys off to uninhabited houses. (1:14)

Achzib was a town of Judah situated in the Shephelah, as were Lachish and Moresheth. (Joshua 15:44) This town is spoken of as being “for disappointment to the kings of Israel.” The Hebrew adjective ’akzáv describing something that is deceptive or disappointing here functions as a play on the name Achzib (’akzív). Being deceptive or disappointing, Achzib or its inhabitants would be of no assistance to the kings of Israel. In view of the context, this would be because Achzib would be conquered. (1:14)

YHWH is represented as purposing to bring “one dispossessing” to the “one inhabiting [yasháv] Mareshah.” This indicates that YHWH would permit Mareshah to be conquered and that the residents would be taken away from their city. The singular Hebrew participial form of the verb yasháv in the feminine gender may designate the inhabitants whom the victors would dispossess. Mareshah was an important city in the Shephelah region of Judah. King Rehoboam, the grandson of King David, fortified Mareshah and other cities, including Adullam and Lachish. (2 Chronicles 11:5-12) Centuries earlier Adullam appears to have been the location from which King David launched a successful military action against the Philistines. (2 Samuel 5:17-21; compare 2 Samuel 5:17 with 1 Chronicles 11:15, 16.) For the “glory of Israel” (“glory of the daughter of Israel” [LXX]) to come clear to Adullam could denote the end of the renown David gained as king of Israel when setting forth from Adullam and defeating the Philistines. The kingdom of Judah would experience humiliating defeat when battling the Assyrians, thus causing the former “glory of Israel” to vanish. (1:15; see the Notes section.)

The Septuagint rendering could be understood to refer to a future restoration. At the time God would bring “heirs” to the populace of Lachish — the “inheritance” of the city — “the glory of the daughter of Israel” would “come as far as Odollam [Adullam].” Thus Adullam would come to have the “glory” or honor it did during David’s reign. (1:15)

On account of the humiliation the kingdom of Judah would experience when subjected to Assyrian aggression, the directive is to make bald, shearing off the hair. This outward act would be an expression of grief. The reference to enlarging baldness like an “eagle” (nésher) may allude to what happens to an eagle when molting. In the case of eagles, however, there is no perceivable evidence of baldness because they lose their feathers gradually. So it may be that the Hebrew noun nésher includes the “vulture,” which bird may be described as bald. In expression of mourning, the created state of baldness would be for the “sons of [Judah’s] delight” because they would be taken into exile. These “sons” would be the precious inhabitants of the conquered cities. In the Septuagint, the reference is to enlarging “widowhood” like an eagle because the “delicate children” have been led into captivity. In the case of eagles, it is not uncommon for them to lose their young when they are starting to fly, which development might be understood as enlarging “widowhood.” (1:16)

Notes

In verse 1, the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint read “kings of Judah,” but the Greek Minor Prophets scroll (8HevXIIgr) (thought to date between 50 BCE and 50 CE) has the singular “king.” In this scroll, the divine name appears in ancient Hebrew script (paleo-Hebrew). For this verse, only the last letter he (H) of the divine name (read from right to left according to Hebrew style, not left to right as is the Greek text) is preserved.

In verse 2, the Septuagint starts with the words, “Hear, O people, words.” The Greek Minor Prophets scroll (8HevXIIgr) contains only fragments of this verse, but it appears that, like the Masoretic Text, this scroll did not include the noun “words.” In this scroll, the text that is preserved departs from the extant Septuagint reading (“all the ones in it”) and follows the wording of the Hebrew text (“and the fullness of it” or “and its fullness”).

The text for verse 3 in the Greek Minor Prophets scroll (8HevXIIgr) contains all the letters of the divine name (YHWH) in ancient Hebrew script (paleo-Hebrew).

After “field” in verse 6, the Septuagint includes the conjunction “and,” as does the Greek Minor Prophets scroll (8HevXIIgr).

In verse 7, a number of translations contain interpretive renderings that are very specific in what it means to “gather” from the hire of a prostitute and to “return” to the hire of a prostitute. “Because Samaria earned her money by being unfaithful to me, this money will be carried off by others who are not faithful to me.” (NCV) “Silver and gold from those idols will then be used by foreigners as payment for prostitutes.” (CEV) “These things were bought with the money earned by her prostitution, and they will now be carried away to pay prostitutes elsewhere.” (NLT) “Samaria acquired these things for its fertility rites, and now her enemies will carry them off for temple prostitutes elsewhere.” (GNT, Second Edition)

Translators have variously interpreted the phrase regarding the “glory of Israel.” (Verse 15) “Into Adullam will vanish the glory of Israel.” (NJB) “The glory of Israel will be hidden in Adullam.” (REB) “At Adullum the glory of Israel shall set.” (Tanakh) “Then Israel’s glorious king will be forced to hide in the Adullam Cave.” (CEV) “He who is the glory of Israel will come to Adullam.” (NIV)