The Minor Prophets: An Exegetical and Expository Commentary : Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, and Habakkuk , Vol. 2 0801063078, 9780801063077

Citation preview

The Minor Prophets An Exegetical and Expository Commentary

Volume 2 Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, and Habakkuk

Edited by

Thomas Edward McComiskey

D» Baker Books A Division of Baker Book House Co. Grand Rapids, Michigan 49516

Copyright 1993 by Baker Book House Company PO Box 6287 Grand Rapids, Michigan 49516-6287

Printed in the United States of America All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means—electronic, mechanical, photocopy, recording, or any other— without the prior written permission of the publisher. The only excep­ tion is brief quotations in printed reviews.

Unless otherwise indicated, Scripture quotations are from the New Revised Standard Version (nrsv) of the Bible, copyright 1989 by the Divi­ sion of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A., and are used by permission. Scripture quotations marked niv are taken from the Holy Bible, New International Version, copyright 1973, 1978, 1984 by the International Bible Society, and are used by permission of Zondervan Publishing House.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

(Revised for vol. 2)

The Minor Prophets.

Includes bibliographical references and index. Contents: v. 1. Hosea, Joel, and Amos—v. 2. Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, and Habakkuk. 1. Bible.—O.T.—Minor Prophets—Commentaries. I. McComiskey, Tho­ mas Edward. II. Bible. O.T. Minor Prophets. English. New Revised Standard. 1992. BS1560.M47 1992 224'.907 91-38388 ISBN 0-8010-6285-3 (v. 1) ISBN 0-8010-6307-8 (v. 2)

Contents Abbreviations vii Hebrew Transliteration Scheme ix Introduction xi

Obadiah fonah Micah Nahum Habakkuk

Jeffrey J. Niehaus 495 Joyce Baldwin 543 Bruce K. Waltke 591 Tremper Longman III 765 F. F. Bruce 831

Scripture Index 897

Abbreviations Bibliographical James B. Pritchard (ed.), The Ancient Near East in Pictures Relating to the Old Testament (2d ed.; Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969) ANET James B. Pritchard (ed.), Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Tes­ tament (3d ed.; Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969) BDB Francis Brown, Samuel R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1907; corrected printing in 1953) BHK Rudolf Kittel (ed.), Biblia Hebraica (3d ed.; Stuttgart: Württembergische Bibel­ anstalt, 1937) BHS Karl Eiliger and Wilhelm Rudolph (eds.), Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (Stutt­ gart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1977) CAD The Assyrian Dictionary (Chicago: Ori­ ental Institute, University of Chicago, 1956-) Encfud Encyclopaedia Judaica (16 vols.; Jeru­ salem: Keter/New York: Macmillan, 1971) GB Wilhelm Gesenius and Gotthelf Bergsträsser, Hebräische Grammatik (29th ed.; 2 vols.; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1918-29; reprinted Hildesheim: Olms, 1962) GKC Emil Kautzsch (ed.), Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar (trans A. E. Cowley; 2d ed.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1910) HALAT Walter Baumgartner et al., Hebräisches und aramäisches Lexikon zum Alten Testament (3d ed.; Leiden: Brill, 1967-) IBHS Bruce K. Waltke and Michael O'Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1990) Joüon Paul Joüon, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew (trans. Takamitsu Muraoka; 2 vols.; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute Press, 1991)

KB

ANEP

TDNT

TDOT

THAT

TWOT

UT

Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgart­ ner, Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti (Lei­ den: Brill/Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953) Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich (eds.), Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley; 10 vois.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964-76) G. Johannes Botterweck and Helmer Ringgren (eds.), Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament (trans. David E. Green et al.; 6 vois, to date,- Grand Rap­ ids: Eerdmans, 1974—) Ernst Jenni and Claus Westermann (eds.), Theologisches Handwörterbuch zum Alten Testament (2 vols.; Munich: Kaiser, 1971-76) R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer Jr., and Bruce K. Waltke (eds.), Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (2 vois.; Chicago: Moody, 1980) Cyrus H. Gordon, Ugaritic Textbook (Analecta Orientalia 38; Rome: Pontifi­ cal Biblical Institute Press, 1965)

Bible Versions Av jb nasb neb

Niv nrsv rsv rv tev

Authorized (King James) Version Jerusalem Bible New American Standard Bible New English Bible New International Version New Revised Standard Version Revised Standard Version Revised Version Today's English Version

General LXX MT NT OT 11

Septuagint Masoretic Text New Testament Old Testament parallel to

vii

Hebrew Transliteration Scheme

Consonants

Vowels

«

>

□ T

â

qâmes

□

b

□

a

pat ah

2 1 H

g

3

e

sëgôl

d

□

ë

sêrê

h

□

i

short hîreq

1

w

□

ï

long hîreq written defectively

ï

Z

□ T

0

qâmes hâtûp

n h □ t

Ù

ô

hôlem written fully

□

ô

hôlem written defectively

y

U

û

sûreq

k

□

u

short qibbus

’

5 □0

î

P

*

0

s

□ û H a nn â P ê

I?


alep, not represented in Micah, appears. In that form the name is connected with ro’s (head), without a play on sense. In popular etymologies, however, sound (not etymology) is decisive for form and meaning. This is the only time in the chapter that Micah mentions the human agent behind the invasion. Mareshah, or Tell Sandahanna (Hall, "Mare­ shah," pp. 566-67), belonged to the Judean system of defense (2 Chron. 11:7). It lay about four miles southwest of Achzib and three miles south of Moresheth. In an inclusio for the main body, begun in verse 10a, Micah draws another literary allusion from Israel's nostalgic, national lore from David's life, the glory of Israel par excellence. The word kabod (glory) is a collective metonymy for "men of rank" (compare "honored men," Isa. 5:13 rsv), and "Israel" refers to Judah (as in v. 5). Many of Israel's military leaders and officials had David's blood in their veins. This epithet for royalty poignantly recalls once again David's lament over the disas­ ter that befell the house of Saul, also called "the glory" [sebi] of Israel. Renaud [La Formation, p. 27) comments that the lament ends as it started with an allusion to David and his brave ones, which "cannot be accidental." David fled to the cave at Adullam as a fugitive during the darkest days when Saul pursued him (1 Sam. 22:1; 2 Sam. 23:13). So now his descendants must flee there

once again as fugitives to escape Sennacherib, who hounds them to death. Adullam is identified as Khirbet esh-Sheikh Madkur by Wolff [Micah, p. 63), which is also a defense city in the Shephelah (2 Chron. 11:7). 16. The prophet draws his lament to a close by denouncing the leaders of the theocracy, who had a unique opportunity to establish the golden king­ dom of God on earth. Micah's rhetorical com­ mand to daughter Zion (v. 13) "to make yourself bald" refers to removing hair to make oneself either partially or entirely bald, which was part of the mourning ritual (Jer. 47:5). This extreme mea­ sure to comport one's outer countenance with one's true inner disposition by removing the natu­ ral splendor was frequently taken in the face of the destruction of a city or land (Isa. 3:24; 15:2; 22:12; Jer. 47:5; 48:37; Ezek. 7:18; 27:31; compare Job 1:20). The proscription for laity against mak­ ing oneself bald between the eyes (i.e., a partial tonsure of the forehead) in Deuteronomy 14:1 probably refers to a heathen ritual in contradis­ tinction to that of making oneself entirely bald (Isa. 22:12). Only priests were prohibited from the latter practice (Lev. 21:5). The threefold repetition of the command along with the comparison to the bald vulture indicates that Micah does not have a partial tonsure in view. To make bald and to shave included removing hair from the top of the head and the cheeks. "For the children in whom you delight" desig­ nates the reason for the extreme funerary mea­ sure,- they mourn because the children in whom they delighted (2:9)—their future nobles—go into exile. Micah's third synonymous command in verse 16Ba also addresses daughter Zion: "enlarge

632

Micah 1:8-16

your baldness" emphasizes the extreme baldness, and so despair, felt by daughter Zion. The word translated "vulture" can also mean "eagle." Nowack [Micah, p. 207) prefers the bald vulture (Gyps fulvus), which was common in Egypt and

Palestine, because its bald head and neck make it strikingly noticeable. The land is stripped of its population, even to its children, leaving no hope for the future.

633

Micah 2:1-5

I. First Cycle: God Gathers the Elect Remnant into Jeru salem (1:2—2:13)

B. Greedy Land Barons Accused and Sent into Exile (2:1-11) 1. Woe to the Greedy Land Barons (2:1-5) NRSV

WALTKE

2

2

3

4

5

Woe to you who plan to get rich by violence, even you who forge evil on your beds! who at morning's light carry it out because it is in your power. [Woe to you who], when you covet fields, you seize [them], when [you desire] houses, then you take them; when you defraud a man, you [take] his house; a fellowman, and his inheritance. Therefore^ thus the Lord says: I am planning disaster against this clan, [a yoke] from which you will not with­ draw your necks,you will not walk haughtily. Surely, it is a time of disaster! In that day [men] will take up a taunt against you, and they will mock you with a most mournful dirge: "We arc utterly ruined! They take away my people's possession. How they take away what belongs to me! They assign our fields to the obstinate." Therefore you will have no one to divide the land by lot in the assembly of the Lord.

634

2

2

3

4

5

Alas for those who devise wickedness and evil deeds on their beds! When the morning dawns, they perform h, because it is in their power. They covet fields, and seize them; houses, and take them away; they oppress householder and house, people and their inheritance. Therefore thus says the Lord: Now, I am devising against this family an evil from which you cannot remove your necks,and you shall not walk haughtily, for it will be an evil time. On that day they shall take up a taunt song against you, and wail with bitter lamentation, and say, "We are utterly ruined; the Lord alters the inheritance of my people; how he removes it from me! Among our captors he parcels out our fields." Therefore you will have no one to cast the line by lot in the assembly of the Lord.

Micah 2:1-5

1. ’In (woe to you) is found only in the mouth of prophets. Clifford ("Use of Hoy"), Williams ("Alas-Oracles"), and Janzen (Mourning Cry) interpret the interjection here as "alas," the cry of a funeral lament. Clifford traces the interjection's meaning diachronically: it meant "alas" in the pre-Jeremian era, "woe to" with biting scorn in Jeremiah, and "ho" as a cry to get attention in the postexilic period (Isa. 55:1; Zech. 2:10-11 [6—7]). Clifford admits (p. 461), however, that it means "woe" in Isaiah 29:15 and 33:1. Five of the eight clear cases of "alas" occur in Jeremiah (22:18 [4 times]; 34:5; the others are 1 Kings 13:30 and Amos 5:16 [2 times]). In Amos 5:16 the form is In and, unlike the other occurrences, it is not syntac­ tically connected with a vocative of address. Where it means "alas," it clearly occurs at funer­ ary rites and the vocative address is a term of endearment or honor: brother, sister, lord, excel­ lence. By contrast "woe to" occurs in contexts of

accusation and threat, and the mood is one of scorn and criticism. Whether the word corre­ sponds to the series of maledictions threatened in Deuteronomy 27:15-26 is uncertain. Hillers ("Hôy and Hoy-Oracles") argues persuasively that the second-person elements that come in sooner or later in oracles introduced by ”17î are not sec­ ondary but suppose that a vocative element be supplied right after ’*in. Thus the participles ’□dn and as the equivalents of relative clauses, stand in apposition to ‘TL (even you who forge): Waw is epexegetical (IBHS §39.2.4) since the "planners" are in view and the verbal root means "to execute." DrTQSrô by (on your beds): How can they carry out their machinations on their beds? Renaud (La Formation, p. 66) explains plausibly that the distinction between projecting and acting are attenuated in Semitic anthropol­ ogy. In Psalm 58:3 [2], for example, the verb ^2 is connected with activity "in the heart." The con-

1-5. Until this prophecy the prophet spoke abstractly of rebellion and sin (1:5). Now he speci­ fies the crime that has both social and theological dimensions. Socially, rich and powerful landlords in Israel behaved unethically by seizing the land and destroying the homes of fellow Israelites who were unable to defend their rightful possessions. Theologically, they erred by thinking the land belonged to the powerful instead of believing that the land belonged to God and the covenant com­ munity to whom he gave it in order to serve him. In sum, they had broken both the spirit and letter of the covenant, which instructed Israel both theologically and ethically about property rights. The prophecy falls into three parts. First, an exclamation of "woe" (v. 1a), to which are grafted the participles in the rest of verse 1a and the ver­ bal clauses in verses 1b-2, which denote the char­ acteristics of the venal land barons who unethi­ cally seize sacred property and destroy the families who inherited it. Second, the Lord hands down a judicial sentence handing the nation over to a galling and humiliating exile (v. 3), to which Micah adds that they will lose their sacred prop­ erty to invaders (v. 4). Third, in conclusion, the land grabbers are consigned to an eternal death, but Micah implies a hope for a future remnant (v. 5). The prophetic accusation and the divine sen­ tence are linked together by common expressions: "you who plan violence" (v. 1) and "I am planning disaster" (v. 3); and "fields" (v. 2) and "our fields" (v. 4). The rich had wrested fields from the poor (v. 2), therefore Yahweh will send an enemy army to

wrest the Promised Land from them (w. 4-5) (Willis, Structure, p. 144). These lexical connec­ tions are but one of several instances in Micah where the principle of lex talionis is reflected in word play (1:7, 10-15; 2:4, 9-10; 3:5-6, 10-12; 6:10-15; 7:4, 9). Accusation and sentence are also pulled together by not using explicitly second-per­ son forms (hôy in v. 1 implies "woe to you") until verses 3b-4. The Lord's sentence and Micah's elaboration of it are bound by "it is a time of disas­ ter" (v. 3) and "in that day" (v. 4). An inclusio involving the doleful interjections hôy (v. 1) and >ek (v. 4) bind the unit together before the conclu­ sion, which contains a note of hope. The sentence and conclusion are joined by the particle lâkên (therefore) (v. 5) and by the technical, sacerdotal vocabulary for land (hêleq) (v. 4) and its imagery ("one to divide the land by lot") (v. 5). 1. Micah introduces his oracle against the hardfisted land grabbers with prophetic thunder: "Woe to." Upon their beds at night they plan their turpi­ tude, at morning's light they carry it out. "Iniq­ uity," rendered "to get rich by violence," signifies negative power against persons. Its parallels include violence, oppression, destruction, and blood-thirst. The word also connotes deception and lying. Bernhardt (TDOT 1:142) says: "The majority of these examples have in mind 'decep­ tion' actively practiced by evildoers with the pur­ pose of hurting others." These two notions, power and deception, fit the context of Micah 2-3 admi­ rably, for they accuse and sentence the powerful rich for taking advantage of the defenseless by ille­ gal means. "Plan iniquity" may signify the elabo-

635

Micah 2:1-5

nection can be captured by the English gloss "forge." In that passage, as here, this inward deci­ sion is followed by the outward action in the next verset. The words modify both parti­ ciples. As noted in the Exegesis of 1:2, Hebrew (and also Classical Arabic) syntax regularly employs the third-person in modifying clauses after a vocative (see the Exegesis of 1:11 for the alternation between second- and third-person in the terse prophetic style). ¡TOiF ([they] carry it out): The third-person plural subject continues to modify the vocative and will continue through verse 2. The feminine singular suffix (FT) does not refer to the masculine JF1 or but to the situa­ tion in general [IBHS §6.6). (because) introduces the reason for their vile practice, namely, 5w5”EF OT (it is in your power). The meaning of this idiom (found elsewhere in Gen. 31:29; Deut.

28:32; Neh. 5:5; Prov. 3:27; see also Sir. 5:1) has never been in doubt, but earlier grammatical explanations failed. Cross (TDOT 1:261) argues that the frozen idiom T btt1? EF/]K (+ pronominal suffix) and variants should be redivided to read CF/]K to include a word from the root ^5 (which Cross notes "is extremely common in Canaanite as well as other Semitic languages in the meaning 'be powerful' "): "my/your hand has (no) power." Watson ("Reclustering Hebrew Tlyd”} independently reaches the same conclu­ sion. 2. Verse 2 does not chronologically follow verse 1, but epexegetes the character and corrupt prac­ tice of the rapacious land barons by concrete examples: "coveting" of verse 2a approximates the "plotting" of verse 1a and the "defrauding" of verse 2b approximates the "forging" of verse 1B.

ration of projects and goals, and "forging evil," the putting into action the necessary means to secure the success of the enterprise, which are plotted and forged "upon your beds" at night. Whereas verse 1a speaks of activity of the venal land barons at night, verse 1b describes their carrying out their carefully worked out schemes in the morning. The "legal sharks" against whom Micah inveighed performed their perfidious acts at dawn. Unlike the English word morning, which means before noon, boqer denotes the coming of sunrise, from the time when the stars that presage the new day are still visible (Job 38:7) and people and things are scarcely visible (Gen. 29:25; Ruth 3:14; 1 Kings 3:21) to the breaking of the sun over the horizon (Judg. 9:33; 2 Sam. 23:4; 2 Kings 3:22), as here. The light of the new day should have brought with it the hope for the exposure of the wicked and their condemnation. In the ancient Near East the light of the new day was the time for justice, after thieves had cov­ ered their dark deeds with the cover of night. In Egypt it was thought the sun-god dispelled all evil (Keel, Symbolism, pp. 288-90). The psalmist notes that when the sun rises the prowling, rapa­ cious beasts of the forest steal away (Ps. 104:2022). The Lord challenges Job's intrepid question­ ing of his administration: "Have you ever given orders to the morning, / or shown the dawn its place, / that it might take the earth by the edges / and shake the wicked out of it?" (38:12-13 niv). This expectation of divine help and justice at morning (also in 2 Sam. 15:2; Job 7:18; Ps. 37:6; 73:14; 90:14; 143:8; Jer. 21:12; Hos. 6:3, 5; Zeph. 3:5) probably had to do in part with the king's

practice of administering justice in the morning (Ps. 101:8; Keel, Symbolism, p. 288; Aalen, TDOT 1:163). Micah's accusation is honed with irony. Instead of finding the hoped-for justice in Jerusa­ lem's morning court, Israel's citizens found injus­ tice from their administrators. Today, many law­ yers also teach criminals how to circumvent the law and make mockery of it. Perpetrators go free and witnesses rot in jail. The causal clause "because it is in your power" strikes at the heart of the problem, which is mis­ placed confidence. Instead of trusting God, the vile denizens of the court stand up as rivals to him and behave as despots. Their absolute power gave unbridled expression to their depravity and covet­ ousness. Motivated by greed and armed with the principle that might is right, they rationally, yet unconscionably, schemed to plunder and defraud Israel's people of their fields and homes. Micah is not a champion of the poor but of an oppressed middle class (vv. 9-10). 2. Micah bases his accusation on the law. "Do not covet" is the one commandment repeated in the Ten Commandments (Exod. 20:17; compare 34:24; Josh. 7:21; Prov. 12:12a). The word covet [hamad] refers to emotional appreciation of find­ ing something desirable or precious on account of its form and value. Coveting points to the human heart as the source of spiritual malady and unethi­ cal behavior toward another human's property (Exod. 20:17; Deut. 5:18 [21]). The coveted fields represent a person's liveli­ hood and so freedom. Deprived of them, one is forced into servitude. The Lord provided for the

636

Micah 2:1-5

As in verse 1, the third-person form continues to modify the vocative (woe to you who). Both the protasis (HOm, when you covet) and apodosis (^TT), you seize) of the next clause are introduced by waw (IBHS §32.2.3). In Micah's terse, poetic style nine? (fields) is the gapped object of the apod­ osis. The syntax of verse 2Ab is identical to that of 2Aa: protasis waw with a gapped HQ1T). (then you take them) consists of apodosis waw with gapped object CTQ. As verse 2 epexegetes verse 1, so verse 2b epexegetes 2a. □’’FQl (when . .. houses) in verse 2a according to its parallel FiW denotes buildings. (when you defraud): Hendiadys waw represents two aspects of a complex situa­ tion (IBHS §32.3). Triri (and ... his house) accord­ ing to its linkage with (a man) refers to family (see v. 9). ETK) (a fellowman) emphatically individ­ ualizes and underscores that he is a fully

enfranchised citizen. BHS rightly corrects CTK1 to ETK by many manuscripts and the ancient ver­ sions. The conjunction is due to dittography from Irra. 3. (therefore) connects the accusation with the judicial sentence. HD (thus) refers to the sen­ tence in verses 3Ab-5. "W (says) is a verba dicendi to be translated by the present tense (IBHS §30.5.1). HTT (the Lord) hands down the sentence himself as in 1:6-7. ([behold] I) and the participle have the same force as the interjec­ tion followed by the participle in 1:3. The full idea is that the Lord is about to effect the judgment he has planned, □dn (am planning) is a deliberate semantic parallel to ■□ipn in verse 1. r»wn (against this clan): Smith (Micah, p. 58), against all texts and versions, for metrical and syntactic reasons strikes out this phrase as a late

lives of his covenant families by distributing their inheritances (Num. 26:52-56; 27:7), and his law safeguarded that inheritance forever (Lev. 25:10; Num. 36:1-12). Hillers (Micah, p. 33) observes: "The economic and social ideal of ancient Israel was of a nation of free landholders—not debtslaves, share-croppers, or hired workers—secure in possession, as a grant from Yahweh, of enough land to keep their families." Fields, then, were sacred trust, not just another piece of real estate. With total disregard to their sanctity, however, the greedy land barons seized fields and houses in an illegal manifestation of power (the Syriac rightly translates "and take for themselves by force"). The law also forbade cheating (Lev. 5:2023 [6:2-5]; Deut. 24:14; 28:33) and plundering (Lev. 19:13) one's neighbors. As the law distinguished between violence against a person's property (i.e., plundering), as well as against the person (i.e., defrauding), so also Micah distinguishes them. The rape, which in verse 2a was directed first against the property (fields and houses) of Israel's citizens, is seen more specifically in verse 2b as against their persons (house). The word defraud (casaq) represents a sit­ uation where the stronger takes away, either directly or indirectly, the produce and labor of the weaker, giving nothing in exchange. It may be by dishonest scales (Hos. 12:8 [7]), extortion, outright show of force (Isa. 52:4; Jer. 50:33), or through the court system (as in 6:9-12; 7:1-6). The parallel in Amos 5:7, 10-17 suggests the latter is in view here. Hillers (Micah, p. 33) specifies: "We are probably to think of their making loans and fore­ closing." The use of geber (man) depicts compe­

tent and capable strength (w. 8-9). Isaiah elabo­ rates upon the exploitation of property (5:8-10), and Micah comments further on the exploitation of the family in verse 9. Micah brings together property and family in the crucial term nahala (inheritance), which "basically connotes that which is or may be passed on as an inheritance (e.g. Gen 31:14), that which is one's by virtue of ancient right, and that which is one's permanently" (Coppes, TWOT 2:569). 3. The Lord himself as the avenging Judge now hands down his sentence (compare 1:6-7). Micah uses lexical connections to express the principle of lex talionis (see the Exposition of v. 1-5): as they plotted (moral) evil, so God plots (physical) evil. Both "therefore" and "thus the Lord says" function as a transition from the accusation to the sentence (compare 1 Kings 21:17-19; 2 Kings 1:34; Amos 5:16; 7:17; Mic. 1:6-7, 15). As the land barons plotted evil against innocent victims, both with respect to their property (v. 2a) and persons (v. 2b), so now the Lord plots evil against them, both with respect to their persons (v. 3) and their property (v. 4). The expression "behold I am about to do so and so" aims to awaken them from their moral stupor. Many translators try to alleviate the incongru­ ity between the accusation against the venal land barons and the apparent sentence against the whole nation by rendering mispaha (clan) as "brood" or another pejorative equivalent such as "gang" or "crowd" (Hillers, Micah, p. 33)—but without lexical warrant. Others think miSpaha is a gloss added to the text after the Babylonian

637

Micah 2:1-5

gloss. Robinson (Micha, p. 133) also notes the allegedly too abrupt change in second-person in verse 3b. Wolff (Micah, p. 69) notes the parallel Amos 3:1b and Jeremiah 8:3 and so thinks the style is that of the Deuteronomistic redactor. But our knowledge of meter and of Micah's style is too insecure for text-critical purposes, and abrupt shifts between persons is acceptable Hebrew (see the Exegesis of 1:11). Schwantes (Critical Study, p. 59) retains the phrase as necessary to identify the object of the sentence. Hillers (Micah, p. 31) rightly retains the MT, suggesting the unusual word order is for emphasis. nnaOT (clan) signifies "species" or "kind of" animals in Genesis 8:19 and Jeremiah 15:3, a meaning that is doubtful here. More probably it refers to the nation (as in Jer. 8:3). HIT) (disaster), a feminine equivalent to (moral evil) in verse 1 (IBHS §6.4.3), is a generic abstract for the specific judgment pro­ nounced in verses 3Ab-5; namely, humiliating exile (vv. 3Ab-4) and permanent loss of land (v. 5). lErpn (you will . . . withdraw): Although this form could be qal, the required transitive notion shows it is hiphil. The second-person plural shows that this oracle of doom was addressed directly to the venal land barons. The non-perfective form signi­ fies capability (IBHS §31.4). Smith (Micah, p. 54) sees □□□ (from which) as dittography from lETOF and conjectures reading the line as (which you will not withdraw from your neck). His restoration, however, is unneces­ sary as Wolff (Micah, p. 69) has shown. has an

assumed (yoke) as its antecedent (as in Isa. 10:27). Mays (Micah, p. 64) explains the metaphor: "A yoke on their necks is employed to describe how the powerful end up in the control of others. The metaphor is generally used as an image of ser­ vitude to a conquering enemy (Isa. 9:4; 10:27; 47:6; Jer. 27:8; 28:14; Ezek. 34:27)." (your necks) refers especially to the back of the neck. ^5*1 (and you will not walk) is sequential to line Ba, but (not) demands the non-perfective construction. HOP« (haughtily) is adverbial and is the accusative of state modifying the subject (IBHS §10.2.2). Walking haughtily entails an out­ stretched, arrogant neck (Isa. 3:16). 'D (surely) is emphatic (IBHS §39.3.Id). TO (time): See the Exe­ gesis of 3:4. The poet uses the feminine dummy pronoun tVH (it) to refer to a situation. By placing the predicate nominative first, Micah classifies the nature of the situation (what it is like) rather than its identification (what it is) (IBHS §8.4.2). 4. WHH CV? (in that day) refers back to HXH rw frVH (it is a time of disaster) in verse 3. The shift from the Lord as speaker in verse 3 to Micah in verse 5 probably occurs at verse 4. KiT ([men] will take up): The root of this verb often occurs with verbs of saying, usually “ICK (as here) to refer to formal and solemn utterance (BDB, p. 670, #l.b.7). The third-person masculine singular is imper­ sonal (they) (IBHS §4.4.2). (against you) is pejorative and the suffix refers back to the plural verbs in verse 3 referring to the clan. 5TO (a taunt) in parallel with (mournful dirge) has its specific

exile. Why, however, would a redactor choose such an unusual word? Creative wording is far more likely the work of the prophet himself than of a redactor. Such a suggestion also fails to take into account the doctrine of corporate solidarity. In biblical theology, the whole "family," bound together by blood and history, suffers for the sins of individuals within it, especially its leaders. David wondered why the whole nation should be judged for his sin (2 Sam. 24:17). When God laid the ax to its roots, the whole tree fell. Daniel (9:5) and Nehemiah (9:33) identified themselves with the sins of the people and confessed the nation's sins as their own. As a master irresistibly enslaves and humbles an animal by a yoke, so Israel's new masters will enslave them with a yoke from which they will not be able to withdraw their necks. Subjugated by Assyria's crack troops who, like the venal land barons, coveted their fields and plundered them, they will no longer "walk haughtily." The Assyr­

ian, however, is not mentioned because this judi­ cial sentence focuses on the ultimate Judge and serves as a paradigmatic warning against all greedy people. 4. Lefèvre ("L'Expression") finds that the phrase bayyôm hahiri (in that day) in Isaiah often begins or ends an oracle. In Micah 4:6 and 5:9 [10] it introduces the oracle, and here it introduces a new starting point within the judicial sentence. Perhaps two originally independent oracles of judgment were later combined. In addition to per­ sonal servitude (v. 3), the criminals will lose their sacred land (v. 4). The punishment is phrased as a satirical dirge in the mouth of enemies just as heartless as the accused. Sâdôd nèsaddunû (we are utterly ruined) sounds like sâdênû (our fields), another instance reflecting lex talionis by word play. Sâdad (to ruin) connotes to deal violently with, despoil, rav­ age, devastate, ruin. Hamilton (TWOT 2:906) notes: "The ferocity of shâdad is indicated by its

638

Micah 2:1-5

sense here of "'mocking verse, taunt." McKane (Proverbs, p. 28) says that the effectiveness of a proverb over ordinary speech derives from its con­ creteness and from its ability to get attention and stimulate the imagination. Since "taunts" fre­ quently contain metaphor and enigma (as in Prov. 1:6; Hab. 2:6), one should hesitate in emending the text on the basis of unparalleled usage. Many text critics have, however, emended the obviously rhetorical sequence H’H? '’Hj THTI (and they will mock you with a most mournful dirge). The mas­ culine singular subject of fTO is impersonal of the enemy, and the waw with the suffix conjugation is a wdw-relative, subordinating the clause to the preceding clause, which uses the non-perfective KET (IBHS §33.2.1). is an accusative expressing an effected object: "one groans a groaning" or "one makes a groan" (IBHS §10.2.1). ¡TH? is prob­ lematic. Hillers (Micah, p. 32) deletes it as arising from dittography. Hitzig (Die zwolf kleinen Propheten, p. 187) and Wolff (Micah, pp. 69-70) interpret it as niphal: "It has happened!" Accord­ ing to Wolff it is an original error interrupting the text and was understood by a later redactor as con­ firmation of the loss of land that in the interim had come true (for support of the niphal he turns to 1 Kings 12:24; Joel 2:2). On the other hand, as Renaud (La Formation, p. 75) recognizes, it is unnecessary to accept such an unlikely interrup­ tion of the text. ¡TH? may be a feminine doublet of TT2 (IBHS §6.4.3; BDB, p. 624; compare the doublet and HiTl in vv. 1, 3), in which case ¡TH? ’H2 is a superlative genitive: "a groan of groaning" or "one makes the most awful groan" (see IBHS §9.5.3 and GKC §133i for examples of superlatives

involving two singular nouns). This interpretation was proposed by BDB and is defended by Rudolph (Micha, p. 52) on the basis of ancient versions. Such a play would be expected in a bro. The enemy exaggerates their groaning to mock the dis­ enfranchised barons. “W (they will say) is an expected perfective with verba dicendi (IBHS §30.5.1). It occurs frequently with and is repre­ sented in the versions. The third-person mascu­ line singular impersonal subject matches the other two verbs. The mocking enemy taunts the defeated land barons by quoting their despairing lament. TO (utterly) is a qal infinitive absolute that unexceptionally augments the niphal (IBHS §35.2). ttTO} (we are ... ruined), instead of (GKC §67u), may be either dialectical or deliber­ ate for the sake of assonance (Bauer and Leander, Historische Grammatik, p. 439). The perfective of this fientive verb denotes the present perfect tense (IBHS §30.5.1). They are in a state of ruin as a result of their fields having been taken from them. The enemy's taunts, though future, are repre­ sented as said after Israel's defeat and at the time of its exile. First-person plural has the venal land grabbers as its antecedents. They represent them­ selves as a group by the plural "we are ruined" and "our fields," and in this chiastic parallelism as individuals by the singular (my people's) and (to me). The pronominal suffix on *’0X7 varies with each context (see the Exegesis of 1:2). For grammatical disagreement of pronouns see the Exegesis of 1:11. TQ* (they take away) is followed by Targum and Vulgate, but the LXX reads kcxtepETpiiBri ev o%oivi(p (has been measured with a line), followed by Syriac, which harmonizes with

coupling with the activities of a wolf (Jer 5:6) who pursues, attacks, and mauls its victim." Wolff (Micah, p. 50) says: Sâdad "describes not merely a general destruction but a specific plundering and devastation of the land (Amos 3:10; Hos. 7:13; 9:6; 10:2; Obad. 5; Joel 1:15) and the destruction of for­ tifications (Hos. 10:14)." This strong word is fur­ ther emphasized by the infinitive absolute sâdôd (utterly), emphasizing the factual mood: "we are ruined" (IBHS §35.3.1). "Possession" inadequately represents the quasi-technical term hêleq. Its root essentially means "(to give or receive) the portion coming to one by law and custom" and has social overtones. Tsevat (TDOT 4:448) explains that hêleq is "something in which giver and receiver, the indi­ vidual or small group and the community, have an equal interest." Moreover, it refers to the ara­

ble land, essential for life, not common pasture land. Its parallel is nahâlâ (inheritance) (v. 2). Wiseman (TWOT 1:293) says: "On the principle that 'the land is the Lord's inheritance,' the land share came to be regarded as synonymous with 'share of land' (hëbel) given out by lot to the tribes [see v. 5]." As the strong and mighty in Israel ravaged oth­ ers by taking their fields, now others stronger than they will take theirs. The reference to fields links the accusation (v. 2) with the threat in strict lex talionis. As the oppressive land barons took fields from defenseless citizens, so tyrants will take their fields. The chiastic form of the taunt subtly underscores the reversal of the land barons' for­ tunes. Having been removed from their land with yokes about their necks, their lands are exchanged and redistributed.

639

Micah 2:1-5

verse 5. Most critics favor TO’ (ITO niphal) because of the alleged parallel in the next verset. However, TO’ in the chiastic parallelism of the versets involved balances 9’0’ not p^H’, and agrees with 9’0’ both in sound and sense—thus favoring the MT. The almost identical use of "TO in Ezekiel 48:14 for “exchanging" (its parallels show that it means "the sale of") the holy land into other hands confirms the MT. The subject once again is impersonal and the non-perfective conjugation unpacks the perfective Vl9? (IBHS §31.3). "p# (how) is an exclamation of lamentation. 9’0’ (they take away): Although the use of this verb for removal from land is unparalleled, it is an apt metaphor and parallel to "TO. Again, the subject is impersonal and the non-perfective conjugation continues to unpack the situation signified by IDTO?. (to me): There is no need to correct this form by the LXX to 'i1? if either p5n (possession) or Vp9 (our fields) be understood as the gapped object of 9'0’ and b as signifying possession. □□19l?

(to the obstinate) is an adjectival form of □•«© with the sense of treacherous or backslider. It may refer to treacherous and willful apostates within Israel or to the willful and refractory peoples outside of covenant as in Jeremiah 49:4 (of the Ammonites) and here (of the Assyrians). 1T“T9 sounds like Vl92 in the chiastic parallel. p^T (they assign) is another third-person masculine impersonal and progressive present non-perfective. 5. iTiT (you will ... have): This non-perfective form must denote a future tense beyond the dispossessed's loss of the land (v. 4) because verse 5 envisions the redistribution of the sacred land. 7[i? (you): It is unnecessary to change this singular form to plural (Dp1?) due to haplography. The sin­ gular form matches those of verse 4, and change of number with pronouns is common in Micah. 5on (one to divide the land by lot) states, literally, "one who extends the line by lot." It has in view the agent (probably a priest) who redistributes the land and his means (the lot).

"All who draw the sword will die by the sword" (Matt. 26:52 niv). The Lord had distributed the land to the tribes and families by casting the lot according to his good pleasure (Josh. 12-22). Without this distribution of the land the priestly nation could not exist. The Owner gave it as a usufruct (Lev. 25:23). Israel could enjoy the land freely and fully as long as it served the interest of the covenant. But should the nation abuse its gift by using it apart from the covenant's designs, the Lord retained the right to take it away from the traitors and give it to their enemies (Lev. 26:33; Deut. 28:49-68). Casting the people off the land and redistributing it to others constituted the final act of judgment. 5. Micah brings the sentence to its awesome climax in verse 5: eternal spiritual death in exile (compare 1:8-16). "Therefore" (laken} links the land barons' loss of land (v. 4) with their addi­ tional loss of eternal life, the severest judgment of all. Beyond the loss of land the villains will not be represented in the future assembly of the Lord when he redistributes the land—the basis and symbol for life—after the exile. "No one to divide the land by lot" implies an agent, probably a priest, who redistributes the land, and his means, the lot. This vocabulary looks back to the time when the Lord, the owner of the land, originally indicated his will for the distribution of the land among the elect, through his priests who cast lots (Num. 26:55-56; 33:54; 34:13; 36:2; Josh. 14:2; 18:11; esp. 19:51); it also looks to a future when

new agents will redistribute the land. Because the Lord had promised Abraham the land as an eternal inheritance, Micah knew the land must be given back after the Assyrian conquest (7:20). Those who were removed from the land for their moral turpitude, however, will have no share in it. Qahal refers to an assembly, a convocation called together, usually for a religious purpose, as when Israel was assembled at Horeb for receiving the law. Often the Lord spoke or acted when Israel assembled (Deut. 5:19 [22]; 9:10). Micah later clar­ ifies (2:13; 4:6-7) that the assembly of Israel in view here is the restored righteous remnant after the exile. From Jeremiah one learns that it will be a new-covenant community (31:31-34). No unclean outsider could be a part of this assembly (Deut. 23:3-5, 10 [2-4, 9]). This conclusion to the sentence contains at one and the same time the severest punishment for the venal land barons and a glimmer of hope for the covenant community. The hard-fisted land barons are consigned to eternal death; the righ­ teous remnant have a future hope. This prophetic hope is firmly based on the Lord's covenant prom­ ises (Gen. 17:8; Deut. 30:1-10; 2 Sam. 7:16; Mic. 7:20). The faint flicker of hope in verse 5 becomes brighter throughout the rest of the book (7:18-20) and is brought into the full light of day with the advent of Jesus Christ. Prophets portray the new dispensation ushered in by Jesus Christ under the imagery of the old dispensation. Now that the heavenly reality has

640

Micah 2:1-5

been lowered from heaven in Christ, the earthly imagery is done away, leaving only the reality that was always present in these prophecies. Today the Lord Jesus Christ gives eternal life to the elect of all nations (John 17:2). He gathers the seed of Abraham, all those that believe in him (Gal. 3:26-

29), into the rest that only he can provide (Heb. 4:1-11), and he sovereignly apportions them in his church (1 Cor. 12). The realized promise will find its consummation in final triumph of the eternal city of God (Heb. 11:39-40) in the new heaven and earth (Rev. 21:27; 22:15).

641

Micah 2:6-11

I. First Cycle: God Gathers the Elect Remnant into Jeru salem (1:2-2:13)

B. Greedy Land Barons Accused and Sent into Exile (2:1-11) 2. False Prophets Support the Greedy Land Barons (2:6-11) WALTKE

"Stop prophesying," they prophesy. They do not prophesy about such things,[so their] shame will not depart. Should it be said, O house of Jacob: "Does the Lord become impatient? Does he do such things? Do not my words prosper [him who] walks uprightly? But lately my people rise up as an enemy: You strip off the rich robes from the tunics, from those who pass by without a care, [like] men having returned from battle; you drive the women of my people from their luxurious homes,from their children you take away my splendor forever. Get up, go away! For this is not a resting place! Because it is defiled, it will be destroyed beyond all remedy." If a man comes with windy [words] and lies deceptively: "I will prophesy for you of wine and beer," he would be just the prophet for this people!

642

NRSV

6 "Do not preach"—thus they preach— "one should not preach of such things,disgrace will not overtake us." 7 Should this be said, O house of Jacob? Is the Lord's patience exhausted? Are these his doings? Do not my words do good to one who walks uprightly? 8 But you rise up against my people as an enemy; you strip the robe from the peaceful, from those who pass by trustingly with no thought of war. 9 The women of my people you drive out from their pleasant houses; from their young children you take away my glory forever. 10 Arise and go; for this is no place to rest, because of uncleanness that destroys with a grievous destruction. 11 If someone were to go about uttering empty falsehoods, saying, "I will preach to you of wine and strong drink," such a one would be the preacher for this people!

Micah 2:6-11

6.1DI3H"5k (stop prophesying): The verb has the basic sense of drip or drop. The hiphil of this verb, which occurs five times in this pericope (w. 6, 11), may be either a two-place hiphil with the object ("words") of the causative notion elided (i.e., stop causing words to drop) or an intransitive, internal hiphil meaning "stop causing yourselves to drip/prophesy" (IBHS §27.2). The unexpected plural, equivalent to "you all stop prophesying," probably reflects the historical situation when the false prophets rebuked the true. The verb entails that the addressees are prophets. The jussive has the force of an urgent command. pETtT (they prophesy): The non-perfective in present time sig­ nifies an imperfective aspect, either progressive (they keep on prophesying) or ingressive (they begin to prophesy) (IBHS §31.3). Paragogic nun in poetry may signify contradiction (IBHS §31.7.1b). Micah's audience, to whom he quotes his adver­ saries, is unidentified. W^K1? (they do not proph­ esy): Minus paragogic nun, this is the same form as the preceding verb, suggesting the same subject and the same grammatical values. Note too the negative adverb is Kb, not 5k, suggesting that it has a different subject and value than the initial verb (IBHS §34.2.1). nb^b (about such things): In

this prepositional phrase b can mean either "to" (introducing the so-called indirect object of the verb of speaking) or "about" (IBHS §11.2.10), and the antecedent of the demonstrative pronoun could be personal ("these people") or impersonal ("these things"), respectively. The issue is best decided from verse 11. There ^b after suggests that Micah would have used a personal pronoun in verse 6 had he intended "these people." The use of nbK in verse 7 with an impersonal sense fur­ ther confirms this interpretation. Its antecedents are the judicial sentences in verses 3-5. The paral­ lel in verse 11 undermines the emendation to HbKS in BHS. The emendation to nbKD (about a curse) is also inappropriate for, as Rudolph (Micha, p. 56) notes, Micah has not used curse words. 20’’ Kb (will not depart): Many scholars (BHS, nrsv, niv) emend this construction to Kb (will not overtake us), which equals Kb (see the similar exchange of these verbs in Job 24:2; Mic. 6:14), because SO’ lacks a masculine subject. Aquila reads KarcxXribri (you will overtake) (= 2”pFl/ rÖFl), with rriftbp (shame) as subject (compare Isa. 59:9) supporting the change. The object ("us") need not be expressed (Exod. 15:9; 1 Sam. 30:8; Ps. 7:6 [5]). The emendation, however, also involves a

6-11. The judgment oracle found in verses 611, accusing and sentencing the perversely obsti­ nate house of Jacob, including both its false proph­ ets and rapacious racketeers, is marked off by (1) the rare word ntp for prophesying in an inclusio (vv. 6 and 11), (2) its dialogic and theatrical charac­ ter, (3) its expanded addresses to the house of Jacob, and (4) in contrast to verses 1-5 and 12-13, its formal and thematic coherence, involving an introduction (v. 6), the main body (vv. 7-10), and a conclusion (v. 11). Yet the oracle has these links with verses 1-5: (1) the powerful are accused of taking by oppression the houses and fields of the weak (w. 2b, 9); (2) the fields are assigned to for­ eigners (v. 4) and the land vomits the Israelites out (v. 10); and (3) "such things" in verses 6-7 lacks an antecedent without the connection to verses 1-5. This oracle, both an apologia for true prophesy and a polemic against false, adds to the accusation against the great and powerful their unwillingness to repent when confronted with judgment (v. 6); it also makes more explicit their false theology and their oppression of the defenseless (vv. 7-9), and accuses them of listening to any liar who coddles them, not to God's moral law (v. 11). It adds to the judicial sentence that the land will vomit them out because of their uncleanness (v. 10).

6. In the introduction (v. 6) Micah identifies, accuses, and sentences the false prophets. He paints them as adversaries who try to silence the true (v. 6a), implicitly accuses them of failing to preach judgment (v. 6Ba), and predicts inevitable shame for the impenitent house of Jacob (v. 6Bb). The plural verb "[you all] stop prophesying" suggests that the prohibition against judgment oracles was not directed against Micah alone but also against his contemporary peers such as Hosea, Isaiah, their disciples (Isa. 8:16), anony­ mous prophets (Jer. 26:5), and, indirectly, the thousands they represent who do not bow the knee to Baal (see 1 Kings 19:18; 2 Tim. 1:8-14; 2:1-7). The plural slightly brightens the dim light in verse 5 that a righteous remnant would redis­ tribute the land. Ntp means "to fall drop by drop"—of clouds (Judg. 5:4), of the beloved's fin­ gers dripping with myrrh (Song 5:5), and of the beloved's lips with honey (Song 4:11 ). In the hiphil stem it may function as a synonym for nibba> (to prophesy). The metaphor approximates Proverbs 5:3 where the lips of the adulteress drip the honey of her words. It could carry a pejorative connota­ tion in Micah 2:6, 11, especially since in Amos 7:16 the verb is also put in the mouth of a proph­ et's adversaries. A possible pejorative nuance,

643

Micah 2:6-11

re-reading of giving an unexpected jus­ sive force, so that Micah's critics remain speakers throughout the verse, apart from pETCT. Moreover, the more difficult MT has the support of the LXX (ancoocTai, he will remove). The niphal of TC denotes the middle voice {IBHS §23.2.1), and the non-perfective has a future force {IBHS §31.6.2). The full thought is, "They will not prophesy about these things, (so) [their] shame will not depart." Note that the Masoretes linked these two clauses beginning with (not) by placing them in the b verset. nfe1?? (shame) is an abstract feminine

plural {IBHS §7.4.2), which is the subject of the singular, masculine verb (GKC §145o). 7. As the three lines in verse 6 began with neg­ ative particles I4?# and 85), so do the first four lines of verse 7 begin with an interrogative (H and Ct*). Niederhiser ("Micah 2:6-11," p. 105) succinctly summarizes and rejects the several major attempts to emend "AD8H (should it be said), the MT of which is best interpreted as a passive parti­ ciple reflecting a popular saying (König, Historisch-Comparative Syntax, §323eß). HpXTTr? (O house of Jacob) refers to the whole nation (contra

however, is neutralized by its favorable connota­ tion in Ezekiel 21:2 [20:46]; 21:7 [2]. The evidence is too slim to argue that the word developed from a disparaging sense in Amos and Micah to a favor­ able sense in Ezekiel [pace Wolff, Micah, p. 81). The use of the word for speaking smoothly in Song 4:11 and Proverbs 5:3 also calls into serious question the popular notion that the verb "may have developed from the frenzy which came over the early charismatic prophets in a state of ecstasy" (Mays, Micah, p. 69)—an argument based on questionable etymology, not on usage. The subject of "they prophesy," to judge from the meaning of the verb, refers to false prophets, who are included in the condemned house of Jacob (v. 7). The vox populi finds expression through false prophets, the official theologians of the time. Van der Woude ("Micah in Dispute," p. 247) explains that the pseudo-prophets represent the religio-political establishment. The selfappointed theologians defending the entrenched leaders would have included priests, such as Amaziah (who commanded Amos not to prophesy in Amos 7:16), false prophets (Mic. 3:5-7), and coun­ selors (Jer. 18:18). Prophetic conflict appears fre­ quently in ancient Israel (1 Kings 22:24; Jer. 2:8; 6:13; 8:10; 14:14; 23:9-26, 32; 26:7-8, 11, 16; 28:117; 29:1, 8; Ezek. 13:1-9, 17-19; Mic. 3:8; Zeph. 3:4). Blinded by Satan, the world system by nature both opposes the message of grace, which teaches the heart first to fear and then relieves fear, and persecutes God's witnesses to the truth (John 15:18-16:4). False prophets "do not prophesy about such things" (i.e., of the judgment Micah predicated in w. 3-5). A badge of false teachers is their distorted preaching on only God's love and never on his wrath and judgment. Preaching half-truths, they lead the populace to death. True prophets must preach the whole counsel of God. From now on, climaxing in the ministry of Jesus Christ, the Lord of Hosts will not raise up military geniuses like

Joshua and David to establish an external king­ dom, but prophets, who, through the doublededged sword of preaching, both cut out spiritual rot and convert the hearts of people, thereby establishing an everlasting spiritual kingdom. God's judgment upon the false theologians and the racketeers whom they represent will be eter­ nal disgrace. According to Oswalt {TWOT 1:443), kelimmot denotes "the sense of disgrace which attends public humiliation. In thirty cases the root is used in parallel with bosh 'to be ashamed.' " For the false prophets, their disgrace (a metonymy for judgment) entails in part a loss of the prophetic gift (3:6-7); for the powerful elite— the land barons, the military personnel, and the royal administrators—their disgrace means the loss of land and the eternal death threatened in verses 3-5. As the glory of that generation departs (1:15-16), its disgrace will never depart (v. 4). Had all prophets been true to their gifts and calling, and had the people repented before the ignominy threatened by true prophets came to pass, the humiliating defeat would have been averted. Without repentance, however, it would not turn aside (Jer. 23:40). 7. In the body of the oracle, addressed to the house of Jacob, the Lord indicts the house of Jacob for approving the faulty theology of the false prophets (v. 7) that leads to social injustices (vv. 89) and he sentences it to banishment from the pleasant land (v. 10). The half-baked theology of the false prophets is summed up in two pithy proverbial statements: "Does the Lord become impatient? Does he do such things?" The second question repeats the "such things" of verse 6, linking the two verses. Their false view of his character led to their false view of his actions. The flag of a false theology is its warped view of covenant. As Labuschagne ("Amos' Conception of God," p. 123) says: "Entrenched in the spiritual bulwark of election and covenant, with a Yahweh watching over their

644

Micah 2:6-11

1:5). Hp" nn "1^7 H (does the Lord become impa­ tient?): nil "l^j? is a syntagmatic compound that connotes "to become impatient" (Prov. 14:29; see also Judg. 16:16). Although it may possibly have the sense of impotent (Haak, "Interpretation of qsr nps," p. 165), the sense of impatient fits best here. Although one expects a feminine verb, the masculine is not impossible (see Isa. 40:13). Renaud (La Formation, p. 92) repoints the text, however, to agree with Proverbs 14:29. The per­ fective with the stative verb ("be short") has an ingressive aspect ("become short"). The questions appear to be proverbial sayings. Micah is putting into the mouth of the false teachers their prover­ bial saying about Yahweh's patience and good­ ness. EK, carrying on the interrogative H, intro­ duces their second question. Their first pertains to Yahweh's character, their second to his acts. rf7K (these) has the same value as in verse 6, namely, Yahweh's judgments in verses 3-5. T^DQ (lit., his deeds) also occurs in 3:4. The suffix refers to Yah­ weh, as its parallel in verse 7Aa£ shows. Both questions expect a negative answer. According to Brown (“HL in Northwest Semitic") K’frn (do not) could be an interjection (with the sense of indeed) or an interrogative particle. The parallels in verse

7a support the second meaning. Wolff (Micah, p. 74) notes that K'i^H frequently begins a reply within a discourse and rightly argues that here it introduces Yahweh's counterargument to the false theology. HE* (my words): The pronominal suffix refers to Yahweh (as does in v. 9, where Yahweh is still the speaker), though the line between Yahweh and his prophet is attenuated. There is no need to correct the text to the more facilitating reading (his words) (compare the LXX's oi Xoyoi autoi). Willis ("Micah 2:6-8," pp. 77-78) thinks that the false prophets are still speaking because there is no indication of a change of speaker and because of the parallel syn­ tax between verse 7a and verse 7b. Most who accept this view emend to T"i:n, Ed’H Cl? to 5K7P” HED ED, and ^WK*! (v. 8) to EFiKL It is unlikely, however, that Micah would have put sound theology into the mouths of false prophets and have left them without an answer. Gordis ("Quotations," pp. 196-218) demonstrates that in argumentation, especially involving proverbial sayings, texts often do not indicate change of speakers. In any case Yahweh is the speaker in verse 8, and there is no reason not to begin his address in 7b. He answers them with the same

interests and existence, the people felt secure, and with Yahweh backing their cause, they lived com­ placently, knowing no disquietude." In Amos, where there is found "ease in Zion," Yahweh "roars from Zion as a lion" (1:2; 3:4, 8, 12; 5:19). The apostates presumed upon the covenant; they claimed to be the Lord's people, the house of Jacob, "my people" (w. 4, 8), through blood and history, denying that the true covenant is spiri­ tual, based on faith and obedience exhibited in familial kindness (Rom. 9:6). The popular theol­ ogy was probably built on Israel's famous confes­ sion in Exodus 34:6: "The Lord, the Lord, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness" (niv) (compare Num. 14:18; Neh. 9:17; Ps. 86:5; 103:8; 145:8; Joel 2:13; Jonah 4:2; Nah. 1:3). Putting on the armor of "orthodoxy," they stood secure and unthreatened in their sinful ways, but this theology founders on two rocks. First, it was built on a half-truth, for it left out Exodus 34:7: "Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished" (niv). Second, it misapplied the text to the wrong situation, just as Satan misap­ plied Psalm 91:11-12 when he tempted the Lord (Luke 4:10-11). The whole truth is that, on the one hand, because of God's benevolent attributes, his covenantal purposes for his people collectively

cannot be revoked, and that, on the other hand, individual rewards and punishments are contin­ gent on ethical behavior. When Micah's genera­ tion rejected the Lord and their covenantal obliga­ tions, they became God's enemies and lost their privileged position. Their popular sayings were "like a thornbush brandished by the hand of a drunkard" (Prov. 26:9). Just as dangerous today are false teachers who apply the doctrine of the believ­ er's security to those who disown their Lord in their lifestyles and who do not bring forth the fruit of repentance from sin (see Matt. 7:24-37; 12:50; 1 Cor. 6:9-11; Gal. 5:21b; 2 Tim. 2:12). Israel is culpable for not removing the leaven of the false prophecy from its midst (Deut. 13:2-6 [1-5]). The Lord answers their two punchy questions (v. 7a) with one long deliberate one (v. 7b): "Do not my words prosper [him who] walks up­ rightly?" Those who walk uprightly in this case involve those whom the powerful have oppressed. Some of defenseless whom they oppressed will experience his saving acts (w. 5, 12-13). The mes­ sage of true prophets is distinguished in two ways from counterfeits: (1) in contrast to false prophets, they insist on a loyalty to the Lord that issues into keeping his commands (Deut. 13:2-6 [1-5]) and (2) what they predict comes to pass (Deut. 18:21-22).

645

Micah 2:6-11

style of rhetorical question with which they addressed him. "IZH (word): See the Exegesis of 1:1. ■□V” can connote "prosper" (as in Gen. 32:10, 13 [9, 12]). The non-perfective tense denotes future or a persistent present (IBHS §31.3, §31.6.2). DV (untranslated) extends the causative notion of the hiphil to the undersubject: "him who walks uprightly." ([him who] . . . uprightly): The article may be a relative, equivalent to [IBHS §13.5.2). ICT, as König (Histonsch-Comparative Syntax, §332i) suggests, is an adverbial accusative of state modifying the subject. The construction is most unusual, however, because such accusatives are indefinite (IBHS §10.2.2d). In that light, emend the text to HQV (with him who walks uprightly), assuming the archaic third-per­ son masculine singular orthography and an elided relative. 8. 'EX7 b-oriN*! (but lately my people): Many crit­ ics (e.g., BHS) emend this form into 'EXT^IVj CFiW (but you against my people), understanding *710 as a dittography from 5^0 in verse 8Ba, and suppos­ ing that -¡5P cannot be the offending subject but the unfortunate victim of the verb cp (to rise up) in verse 8Ab. The emendation, however, also involves emending □¡Tip’ to E”Pp (a participle) or to ■lE’lpFi. Willis ("Micah 2:6-8," p. 84) proposes less alteration by reading Ei7)N'l (compare 3:8). Both emendations are unnecessary because similar, though not identical forms of meaning "recently" or "formerly" are found in 2 Samuel

15:20 and Isaiah 30:33, and it was so understood by the LXX and Vulgate. The similarity to the fol­ lowing *710 may be due to Micah's love of asso­ nance. *QX> (my people): The pronominal suffix with this word refers to Yahweh (as it does in w. 7, 9). The precise identification of CX7 must be decided by contextual considerations (see 1:9; 2:4; 3:5; 6:3, 5; McComiskey, Micah, pp. 413-14). Yah­ weh may be using the covenantal term sarcasti­ cally (see v. 4). (as an enemy): *7 has a com­ parative sense as in Deuteronomy 9:21 [IBHS §11.2.10). The rulers who should shepherd Israel attack their defenseless subjects like an enemy. In 3:1-4 Micah will liken them to butchers. Accord­ ing to Kedar-Kopfstein ("Semantic Aspects," p. 166), the pattern CoCeC in "denotes a perma­ nent feature of the subject in character or behav­ ior" [IBHS §5.2). CQip* (rise up): The non-perfective is progressive [IBHS §31.3b), and the polel with this verb of body movement probably has a frequentative aspect (IBHS §24.5). (the rich robes), connoting "splendor," could be a meton­ ymy for a splendid garment worn over the tunic. Due to haplography caused by the following pCDCpSFl, a final D was probably dropped from the original FTHN (mantle). Many emend the text to fit the general sense that the rich take the garments of the poor, but Micah represents the men as land­ owners (v. 2), their homes as delightful (v. 9a), and their children as displaying glory (v. 9b). [TCE3FI (you strip off): The root is frequently used of

Micah courageously pinned the first badge on himself. With the words of the Lord in his mouth he calls his audience back to the original cov­ enant: the promises of God are not for sinners but for saints (compare 3:8). By recognizing the canon­ ical status of his book, later generations pinned the second badge on Micah when his prophecies came to pass. 8. False theology leads to unethical behavior. One's worldview, which is always religious, inevi­ tably determines one's social behavior. Verses 8-9 present an epexegesis of the accusation in verse 2. Instead of walking uprightly the house of Jacob attacked innocent victims. In typical Semitic style Micah characterizes in a general way Israel's tyrants as an enemy (v. 8a) and then develops the theme by looking at their victims (vv. 8b-9; com­ pare 3:5). Like a hostile army, the powerful and rich make war against the defenseless: they strip off the rich mantles from Israel's men, drive mothers from their luxurious houses, and deprive children of their inherited splendor (v. 9). Israel's

leaders might just as well have been the Assyrians or the later Babylonians in spoiling Israel. The Lord first focuses on the criminal "war" acts against Israel's capable and competent men. The powerful strip off of people their "rich robes" from over their salmd (tunic), the basic garment. Whereas verse 8Ab looks at the attackers, verse 8Ab looks at the attacked. The word ’adderet (mantle, rich robes) derives from a root meaning "wide, great" and from that came to mean "high, noble, glory, magnificence" and by metonymy could designate the wide mantle. It is used of a prophet's mantle, with the qualifier "hairy" (Gen. 25:25), of a royal robe (Jonah 3:6), and of the robe Achan coveted, with the qualifiers "goodly Baby­ lonian" (Josh. 7:21, 24). Commentators often mis­ takenly cross-reference the pillaging in verse 8 with the law that aimed to protect the poor by obliging a creditor to give back the coat taken in pledge before sunset (Exod. 22:25 [26]; Deut. 24:13; compare Job 22:6; Amos 2:8). That interpre-

646

Micah 2:6-11

violently stripping off garments (Gen. 37:23) and, as McComiskey (Micah, p. 413) notes, of martial raids (Judg. 9:33; 1 Sam. 23:27). Micah uses the same word in his figure of the enemy as a butcher stripping off skin (3:3). The literal reality, the ille­ gal practices of the court, is spelled out in verses 1-2. Our poet often shifts persons (e.g., 1:11; 2:4), here from third ("people rise up") to second ("you strip off"). The second-person refers to the tyrants, in parallel to third-person. □‘HZ&O (from those who pass by): The qal active participle functions as an equivalent of a relative clause (IBHS §37.5), an antimeria (i.e., an adjective for a noun) for the unsuspecting victims. (without a care), con­ noting "to feel secure," is an adverbial accusative modifying the state of the passersby. The next phrase explains why they feel secure. HErfpft ([like] men having returned from battle) is in appo­ sition to and is a unique masculine plural qal passive participle of ZTO. It is in construct with a genitive after the participle in place of the preposition (Joiion §121n; see Isa. 59:20). It cannot mean "returned to battle" because, were that the case, they would not feel secure. BDB (p. 997, #5f) thinks it means "averse," but this is an overly extended meaning of "return." Our poet uses military imagery throughout the verse. 9. (the women of): HE?K, in contradistinction to usually refers to married women, as here, where it is parallel to children. The word order

emphasizes the women as objects of the pillaging. Micah refers to the oppressed as ’’Qp (my people) (contra w. 4, 8). (you drive): The non-perfective continues in the present tense to be pro­ gressive (IBHS §31.3b); paragogic nun emphasizes the unexpected (IBHS §31.7.lb); and the piel signi­ fies a resultative situation (i.e., you make driven out) (IBHS §24.3.2). The second-person masculine plural subject refers to the tyrants. The verb Cha (to drive out) continues the martial figure begun in verse 3. ¡TX^Fi iTBO (from their luxurious homes) brings the martial figure close to the real­ ity of Israel's courts (v. 2). ¡73 (house) again illus­ trates the poet's quick shift of number. Note also the singular pronominal suffix with the plural antecedent, as Micah typically shifts from the group to the individual (1:11; 2:4, 12-13). ¡TOOT (luxurious) is a plural collective with an abstract noun (IBHS §7.4.1). The root W refers to taking exquisite delight (1:16); its n prefix denotes action (IBHS §5.6). 5OT (from) is a compound preposition extending the martial figure to the children of the women in the B verset. (their [lit., her] chil­ dren) refers to dependent children, from an unborn child (Job 3:16) to a child asking for bread (Lam. 2:19; 4:4). Ti£Fi (you take): This non-perfective sig­ nifies a progressive situation with the tyrants as subject and continues the military metaphor, ’’"nn (my splendor) is a metonymy for the rich physical benefits that the Lord gave his children in the

tation lacks both lexical and contextual support (see v. 9). Israel's citizens felt secure within their own borders, as secure as a soldier feels when returning home from battle. The last place they expected the enemy was in their own capitals. But as it turned out, their ignoble leaders, like many con­ temporary politicians and church leaders, did not see their offices as positions from which to serve, but as prizes they had won in order to pillage those given to their trust. 9. In a crescendo, Micah moves from pillaging rich robes from men, to seizing luxurious houses from women (compare Mark 12:40), to taking splendor forever from defenseless children. The accusation shifts quickly from men, to women, to children, and from rich robes, to luxurious houses, to splendid wealth in general. The qualifying words give an inside view of the prosperity of the nation at the time of its fall. Once again, Micah epexegetes verse 2 (namely, houses and inherit­ ance). The Lord's splendor refers to the riches he conferred on Israel, making her beautiful among the nations (see Ezek. 16:9-14, esp. v. 14). Hadar

denotes the majesty and dignity that comes from wealth; the possessive genitive shows that the wealth was the Lord's to give. The adverbial "for­ ever" shows that the tyrants determined perpet­ ual servitude of the people even as the pharaoh had prior to the exodus. See the Exposition of verse 2 regarding Israel's perpetual possession of land. Throughout the accusation the focus has been on the pillaging of the wealth that God had given his people. Like victims of war, the formerly richly endowed children are left without wealth or security. The Lord's enormous wealth distrib­ uted across the length and breadth of Israel has now become concentrated in the hands of a few, corrupt leaders. Today 35% of the wealth of the United States is concentrated in the hands of less than 1 % of the people, many of whom function as patrons to the supposed representatives of the people. When people become impoverished through lack of character or prudent action, they need the Savior to change them. When poverty comes through a hostile environment, such as drought, they need the Creator's intervention to

647

Micah 2:6-11

sworn land. Halevy ("Le Livre de Michee," p. 115), followed by BHS and Wolff [Micah, p. 71), emends the text to 1’jn or T“Hn ([his] bedchamber), which matches "houses" in verse 9a and fits the theme of rest in verse 10. It misses, however, the parallel with "luxury" in verse 9a and "splendid mantle" in verse 8. 10. Op (get up): Many commentators think Micah is quoting the extortioners as they address their victims. Weiser [Mich a, pp. 248-50) attempts to prove that the rich are driving the women from their houses under the pretext of sanitary measures against contagious sickness. Other commentators, however, argue that the Lord is now handing down the divine sentence against the despots. This latter view requires no textual emendation, no dubious reworking of the text, no change of speakers, and fits the typical form of a judgment oracle, namely, a divine sen­ tence matching the crime. Perhaps the Lord is using in a lex talionis the very vocabulary the extortioners used to oust their victims. The shift from accusation to sentence is reflected in the shift of moods from indicative to imperative. With imperative (go away), rap has an adver­ bial force (quickly), so that the principal idea is introduced only by the matching (GKC §120d, g). ”5 (for) introduces the reason for the hasty departure. HKT (this) functions as a neutrum

pronoun for a vague circumstance [IBHS §17.4.2). The combination in poetry expresses pointedly an antithesis or negation: "The sworn land is in no respect the resting place" (BDB, p. 519, #2d). TWO (it is defiled) may be a qal infinitive construct of KQE with a nominal function [IBHS §36.1.1, §36.2.1). Although Micah uniquely uses a priestly term to stigmatize social injustices (of its thirty­ seven uses twenty are in Leviticus-Numbers and eight are in Ezekiel; see Maas, THAT 1:664-67); analogies show that it is not so unique that one must side with Renaud [La Formation, pp. 98100) and Wolff [Micah, pp. 71, 76) in suspecting a redactional intervention or that we must emend the text to read HCW (for a mere nothing). This old emendation (found in BHS) harmonizes with an interpretation of verse 10b in which ^30*1 is derived from I bnn (to take in pledge) and ^3n is read as "for a mere nothing you seize in pledge a ruinous pledge." According to Renaud [La Formation, pp. 99-100) and Wolff [Micah, pp. 71, 76), the MT represents a later reinterpretation of this original text in which it was repointed as pual and derived from II (to ruin, devastate). The emendation and conjectured reconstruction is, however, totally speculative and leaves the origi­ nal pericope unexpectedly with only accusation and without judgment. ^3nn (it will be destroyed) is probably a feminine singular in agreement with

restore life. When tyrants spoil them, they need the presence of God (Ps. 23:2; 116:7). In brief, the the Judge to punish the tyrants and deliver them. resting place is not just an external political real­ The latter situation is in view here. God will ity, but the whole sphere of salvation procured by judge these tyrants in the same way they tyran­ God. nized their subjects. Now, however, God declares the land 10. The Lord hands down the sentence in verse "defiled." Persons and objects become ritually 10a, probably using the same words with which unclean through birth, menstruation, bodily emis­ the avaricious drove the oppressed from their sions, "leprosy," sexual relations and misdeeds, lands, and then gives the brief for the sentence in and contact with death. Idolatry defiled the tem­ verse 10b. As in verses 3-5, the Lord sentences ple and the land. The whole land became unclean them in verse 10a to exile from the resting place in the same way that a spot on the skin or in the [menuha], a word that carries the spiritual notion house rendered the whole person or house defiled. of well-being. In Ruth 3:1 its byform manoah Once an object was declared unclean it had to be means "a home," with all the richness of that discarded or at least removed from the presence of term. As Naomi sought a home for Ruth, so the the Lord. It may be inferred from Numbers 35:34 Lord procured a resting place for Israel when he and Deuteronomy 21:23 that the unethical exploi­ gave them the land (Exod. 33:14,- Deut. 3:20; tation by the powerful against their defenseless 12:10; 25:19; Josh. 1:13, 15; 21:44; 22:4; 23:1; Isa. victims rendered the land unclean. The prophets 63:14; esp. Deut. 12:9; Ps. 95:11). Through con­ used this primarily priestly term as a metaphor for quest over Israel's enemies he had procured this moral defilement and social wickedness (Yamauhome with all its security and wealth (2 Sam. 7:1, chi, TWOT 1:349-50). Micah likewise applies the 11; 1 Kings 5:18 [4]; 1 Chron. 22:9, 18; 23:25; cultic term to stigmatize the social injustices of 2 Chron. 14:4-5 [5-6]; 15:15; 20:30; esp. Ps. the profiteers to explain why they must be exiled 132:14). At the temple the soul should find rest in from the holy land. Instead of being a resting

648

Micah 2:6-11

its subject nnwn (resting place). The nrsv makes "uncleanness" (also feminine singular) the sub­ ject, but it must supply a relative pronoun. Were the subject second-person one would expect a plu­ ral form matching verse 10Aa, but emendation to plural has already been ruled out. The LXX's 8ie(|)0dpr|TE 0Gopa (you have been destroyed), which is linked with verse 11 ("you have fled and no one pursuing"), probably represents a guess. According to Ryder (D-Stem, p. 110), 5on piel is an idiomatic use derived from an original "destroy." 5orn (beyond all remedy): Waw is epexegetical (even) and bzn is a cognate internal accusative (IBHS §10.2.1) with a gapped b?nri or the direct object of a gapped verb meaning "to do." For meaning of 1*72?, see 1 Kings 2:8. ¡*7? connotes "to be sick." The niphal participle has a gerundive force: "sick­ ening" (i.e., grievous). 11. A change of speaker from Yahweh to Micah may be suggested by the change from addressing the "house of Jacob" in second-person to thirdperson. (if): Instead of this wish particle the LXX (ouSevoc;) and Vulgate read negative Hib, but compare Kb in 2 Samuel 18:12, which form calls into question the reading of Kb in Mur 88 and may account for the more common, though here less sensible, pointing of Kb. The particle with a parti­ ciple, as here, represents a condition as a real pos­ sibility, not as contrary to fact (2 Sam. 18:12; Ps. 81:14 [13]). CTK (a man) (also in v. 2) is indefinite (anyone) and the subject of ¡THl . . . 2TD . . . *bn. ^bn (comes): There is no need to emend this qal

active participle into a finite verb (contra BHS) because the construction ^ib + participle + perfec­ tive is acceptable Hebrew (Jouon § 121 j; see 2 Sam. 18:12; 2 Kings 3:14; Ps. 81:14). The meaning "goes about" is also used of animals (BDB, p. 232, #2). The predicate participle signifies durative aspect (IBHS §37.6). n-H (with windy [words]) is an adver­ bial accusative of state modifying EfK (IBHS §10.2.2). Wolff (Micah, p. 84) says n-n here means "windy," that is, "vain, empty, windy words." Windy words are empty words (Job 6:26; 16:3); windy prophets are prophets who say nothing (Isa. 41:29; Jer. 5:13; Hos. 9:7). Allen (Micah, p. 299) suggests a pun on Hosea 9:7: "What should have been inspiration was nothing more than wind." (and lies deceptively): (deceptively) is possibly a singular expressing kind (IBHS §7.2.2b), which signifies a distortion of facts. It is an effected accusative (IBHS §10.2.If) with the facti­ tive piel 2D (lies) and was probably chosen for its assonance with "CC in verse 11 Ab. In chiastic par­ allelism with ITH, no explains ITT). The perfective is expected in this hypothetical situation (IBHS §30.5.4b, #5). Many commentators regard as a hendiadys with ITA, but they differ in their understanding of its syntax. The conjunctive accent mereka with ^]bn and the disjunctive accent with ITn provide the necessary parallelism between verse llAaa and verse 1 lAap. =pK (I will prophesy): As elsewhere in this pericope no for­ mula introduces the quotation in 1 lAba-p, in this case by the lying prophet. In the direct discourse

place, the land now spits them out (Lev. 18:25) to their ruin. The verse ends with "beyond all rem­ edy." One is reminded of the Lord Jesus, who later brought judgment on the impenitent churches of Asia Minor (Rev. 2-3; esp. 3:16). 11. Whereas in verses 6-7 Micah accused the powerful of listening to false prophets who neglected to mention the Lord's wrath against sin and eternal damnation, in his conclusion he scathingly and sarcastically rakes them for being willing to ordain as their prophet any windy liar who joins them in their criminal cupidity by tai­ loring his message to their greed. Such deliberate liars are even worse, if that be possible, than their presently gifted, but deluded, prophets who theo­ logically justified their crimes (see 3:5). The tyrants are prepared to listen to anybody who gives them credibility and are not at all surprised by the turpitude of these so-called prophets (see Isa. 28:7; Amos 2:12). Wine and beer are favorite themes of these carnal rulers who indulge their swollen appetites, a lust censored by the preexilic

prophets (Isa. 5:11-12, 22; 28:7-8; 56:12; Amos 4:1; 6:4-6) and warned against by the sages (Prov. 20:1; 21:17; 23:20-21, 29-35; 31:4-7). It may also evoke a sense of security and divine blessing on Israel in the sworn land (Lev. 26:5; Deut. 28:4, 11; Joel 2:24; 4:18 [3:18]; Amos 9:13). McComiskey (Micah, p. 413) says: "The people of this time had an intense desire for the fruits of their affluent society, expressed in the terms 'wine' and 'beer.' So if someone were to preach to them of great affluence and prosperity, they would listen to him; and he would readily find acceptance among them." Unfortunately the evangelical church today is too closely associated with the business establishment, too usually motivated by serving self, not others, and too little concerned with the oppressed and needy, in spite of the clear teaching of the NT on this subject (Matt. 25:31^4-6; Mark 12:31; Acts 4:32-37; 1 Thess. 4:9-10; 1 John 1:6; 2:10; 3:16-18). Like the venal people of Micah's day they swallow greedily the spiritually lethal message of wealth and prosperity.

649

Micah 2:6-11

the pronoun refers to EFK who is now the speaker, and the non-perfective denotes a specific future (IBHS §31.6.2) of hiphil (see the Exegesis of v. 6). (for you) may be benefactive (IBHS §11.2.10d). The shift in number is perfectly acceptable in Hebrew syntax (see v. 9) and so there is no need to emend to CO1? (contra BHS) to agree with TOp in verse 10. The singular individualizes the group. Renaud (La Formation, p. 102) con­ strues b in |*’5 (of wine and beer) as the lamed of agent (by means of) rather than of topic (about), arguing that whether be qal (Judg. 5:4; Prov. 5:3; Song 4:11; 5:5, 13; Joel 4:18 [3:18]) or hiphil (Amos 9:13) the direct object complement is elsewhere in the accusative and is not intro­ duced by the preposition *?. His analysis, however, overlooks the obvious parallel construction in verse 6, which constitutes an inclusio with verse

650

11, where rfptf*? after does not mean "by" even according to Renaud. Furthermore, in the passages cited, connotes "to drip," not "to prophesy." "Ijd (beer) in all but two of its twenty-two instances occurs with (wine) and denotes not just barley beer but any alcoholic beverage. Both are light intoxicants, about 7-10 percent alcoholic content, by comparison with modem liquors and strong drinks (Harris, TWOT 1:376). Wine and beer are favorite themes of the carnal rulers and evoke a sense of security. H?Ti (he would be): Waw introduces the apodosis of verse 11B, after the pro­ tasis introduced by 15 (if) (IBHS §32.2a). rpc (lit., who prophesies): This participle is relative (IBHS §37.5) in the predicate nominative slot. HTH DOT (for this people): COT is an objective genitive and designates the same folk as in verse 8Aaa.

Micah 2:12-13

I. First Cycle: God Gathers the Elect Remnant into Jeru salem (1:2-2:13)

C. God Preserves a Remnant in Zion (2:12-13) WALTKE

NRSV

12 I will surely gather all of you, O Jacob; I will surely assemble the remnant of Israel; I will set them together like sheep in a pen. Like a flock in its pasture they shall be thrown into confusion with no one [to care for them]. 13 The One who breaks forth will march out to battle before them; they will break forth and pass through the gate and go out. Their King will pass through before them, the Lord at their head.

12 I will surely gather all of you, O Jacob, I will gather the survivors of Israel; I will set them together like sheep in a fold, like a flock in its pasture; it will resound with people. 13 The one who breaks out will go up before them; they will break through and pass the gate, going out by it. Their king will pass on before them, the Lord at their head.

651

Micah 2:12-13

12. rptf (surely): This paronomastic infinitive absolute emphasizes the certainty of the situation represented by epK$ (I will . . . gather) and may help contrast this salvation oracle with the preced­ ing oracle of judgment (IBHS §35.3.la-f). It may also underscore Yahweh's promise in verse 7b. The first-person subject, though lacking an introduc­ tory formula—probably because verses 12-13 are excerpted from a larger pericope—must have Yah­ weh as its antecedent, for who else sovereignly shepherds Israel? “[^3 (all of you) underscores the

entirety of the nation, that is, as the parallel shows, of the remnant that survived the Assyrian invasion. The nation is frequently represented by the collective singular (Deut. 6:4-5). (I will set them): The masculine singular suffix has Jacob/ Israel as its antecedent. FHÿîl (in a pen) as vocalized by the Masoretes elsewhere refers to the Edomite northern fort-city of Bozrah (Gen. 36:33 II 1 Chron. 1:44; Isa. 34:6; 63:1; Jer. 49:13, 22; Amos 1:12) or Moabite Bozrah (Jer. 48:24). Accordingly, many attempts have been made to emend the text. Rashi

12-13. To set the interpretive frame for the meaning of its parts, three questions must be answered of the oracle in verses 12-13. What is the form! Lindenberger ("Micah 2:1213") notes that the following commentators inter­ pret verses 12-13 as a prophecy of disaster: Ephraem Syrus, Theodoret of Cyrus, David Qimhi, Calvin, Grotius, Tamovius, and Hoonacker; the Exegesis, however, bears out the more traditional interpretation that it is a prophecy of hope and sal­ vation. A major problem with the latter interpreta­ tion is the sudden shift of form from prophecies of reproach and doom to this one of hope. The same breath-taking shift, however, takes place between chapters 3 and 4; in the opposite direction between chapters 5 and 6; and between 6:1-7:7 and 7:8-20. As noted in the Introduction the book's theme is that after judgment the Lord will preserve a trium­ phant remnant. Micah intimated a future hope in verses 5 and 7; here he develops it. Westermann [Old Testament and Jesus Christ, pp. 27-35) help­ fully shows that the function of "the proclamation of salvation" was to tell those paralyzed by anxiety and exasperation not to give up hope, to assure them that God's saving acts could make a future possible, in spite of the disasters that threatened. In this oracle Micah contrasts the true prophet's message of salvation with that of the false. False prophets promised no judgment; true prophets threatened judgment but promised salvation through it for the righteous remnant. What is the historical situation! Several authors, regarding these verses as a continuation of the preceding oracle, place them in the mouths of the false prophets. Renaud (La Formation, pp. 11112) summarizes the arguments of Hoonacker and Vuilleumier against this view: (1) the oracle against the false prophets finds its normal conclu­ sion in verse 11; (2) when Micah quotes his adver­ saries he clearly hints at it (w. 6-7, 11); (3) it closely resembles 4:6-8, which does not stem from the false prophets,- and (4) the restoration after the

exile does not harmonize with the message of the false prophets who denied there would be an exile. Since Stade ("Bemerkungen über das Buch Micha," pp. 161-72) most scholars contend that the prophecy is exilic or postexilic. In their view the sheepfolds/city walls symbolize captivity in Babylonia, and Yahweh will break open a way for the exiles and lead them in a new exodus back to Judah. The Targum held a similar view, though assuming it to be from the mouth of Micah. Sellin (Micha, p. 276), however, reads it as an exact description of events of 701 b.c. when the popula­ tion of Israel fled for protection from the Assyrian invaders into Jerusalem and from which the Lord wonderfully saved them by decimating the Assyr­ ian army. Allen (Micah, p. 242) buttresses this view by noting the striking similarity of this oracle to Isaiah 37:32 (II 2 Kings 19:31), which he confi­ dently links with the Assyrian invasion of Judah in 701. Both oracles specifically mention §e>erit (rem­ nant) (v. 12) and yascB (to go forth) (v. 13). Other arguments can be added. The verbs "gather," "assemble," and "break forth" occur as military terms in connection with David (Willis, Structure, p. 202). The imagery of being brought together as a flock into a pen (v. 12) better suits a blockade of Jerusalem than exile in Babylon. Verse 13 envi­ sions some walled place, apparently a city, from which the Lord and his army break forth. The obscure mention of the gate most probably refers to Jerusalem's gate, the only gate mentioned in this book (elsewhere in 1:9, 12) (Mays, Micah, pp. 75-76). Finally, this venue provides a link with the preceding oracles of doom. As they stressed the doom of Judah and implied a hope for the remnant, this prophecy stresses the remnant's salvation but implies the destruction of Judah. Hillers (Micah, pp. 39-40), though rejecting the specific venue of 701, rightly says: "There is nothing decisive against thinking it early or even by Micah, if one allows for positive, visionary elements in his thought."

652

Micah 2:12-13

relates to (to fortify) (compare also Symmachus's and Theodotion's ev ¿xupcopcm, in a for­ tress), as did, independently, Hitzig {Die zwolf kleinen Propheten, p. 191). The Vulgate and Tar­ gum probably read □ as a preposition (in), in paral­ lel with and as an Arabizing form of (enclosure for livestock), vocalizing the word as rnya. Lindenberger ("Micah 2:12-13") validates this view by noting that the correspondence, though unusual, is paralleled in Sabean inscrip­ tions (Biella, Old South Arabic, pp. 217, 422-23). Although HH-cp never designates the enclosure of sheep, but always encampments for people or a rampart (Song 8:9; Ezek. 46:23[?|; Renaud, La For­ mation, pp. 104-5), the term may have been selected idiosyncratically to suggest human defenses. Whether one follows Rashi and some modems without repointing the text or most modems in repointing it, the word is best inter­ preted as meaning a secure enclosure. (in its pasture): In spite of the grammatical "barbarism" of combining an article with a pronominal suffix it is best not to emend this word by prefixing the final 1 as a conjunction with the following verb and revocalizing the noun by its absolute form as “lDHH (pasture). This emendation makes both preposi-

tional phrases (i.e., and TO?) modify MN, creating the inelegant combination: "I will set them together like sheep in a pen, / like a flock in its pasture." Qimhi considers the MT acceptable Hebrew, citing Joshua 7:21 (compare Josh. 8:33 and 2 Kings 15:16), though GKC §127i questionably regards all of them as scribal errors (IBHS §13.6). nzO’nri (they shall be thrown into confusion) is an internal hiphil, perhaps with a tolerative nuance, of the root (to allow themselves to be thrown in confusion/disquietude) [IBHS §27.2, §27.5). Although this rare form is attested in Mur 88 and used in Psalm 55:3, many (e.g., nrsv) revocalize the verb to the more common qal third-person feminine singular of HAH (to murmur, moan, be noisy; see Ps. 59:7, 15; Isa. 59:11; Ezek. 7:16). Tournay ("Bulletin," p. 303) appeals to Ezekiel 34:31 (compare also 36:38): "The enormous herds of the vast Edomite plateau raise an immense noise of confusion." There is no reason, however, why the rare word DH could not be used of animals. The feminine form calls for the feminine collective as subject (GKC § 145b). (with no one [to care for them]) is ambiguous. If be causal {IBHS §11.2.11), the sense is that the confusion is due to the multitude of people (see nrsv); if it be privative,

What is the structure! This proclamation of sal­ vation, so decisively distinct from the proclama­ tions of judgment in 2:6-11 and 3:1-4, has two parts as its structure: The Lord gathers the rem­ nant of his people within Jerusalem to protect them from the enemy (v. 12) and then delivers his people out of the besieged city (v. 13). In verse 12 the Lord himself is speaking, whereas in verse 13 he is spoken about, a stylistic feature shared with the similar prophecy in 4:6-7. Whereas in verse 12 the Lord presents himself under the image of a Shepherd-King, that imagery is replaced in verse 13 with literal military language and the Lord is called King. In spite of these differences, however, the two verses are linked by the imagery of an enclosed encampment and by assuming that those delivered from it (v. 13) are the remnant gathered there (v. 12). Above all, they are linked by the notion that the Lord, not a human, is Israel's Shep­ herd-King. The Lord alone is true Israel's leader and worthy of their trust. In the NT one finds the Second Person of the Trinity as the one who shep­ herds his church. 12. Dramatically and authoritatively the Lord introduces the oracle of hope. He will bring the remnant together as a grand army within the bas­ tion of Jerusalem. The infinitive absolutes (ren­

dered by "surely"), the repetition of the synonyms "gather" and "assemble," and the Lord speaking in first-person underscore the certainty of this salva­ tion. Willis {Structure, pp. 198-202) says that in addition to the notion of a divine shepherd gather­ ing sheep, the two synonymous verbs are often used in military contexts in the sense of mustering troops for battle. If that be the sense here, as it probably is, they connote that the Lord is bringing the remnant together to fight. The Lord bestows upon them the honorific names "Jacob" and "Israel." In Micah these terms refer to the ideal nation without political divisions. He underscores their unity and universal salvation by the adverb "together" and by specifying the object as "all of you," and he comforts them by using the I-Thou form of address. None of them will be missing (compare Luke 15; John 10:27-30). In contexts of restoration, "remnant" designates the fortunate survivors beyond disaster (4:7; 5:6-7 [7-8]; 7:18; Jer. 23:3). The emblematic parallel in verse 12Ab ("I will set them together like sheep in a pen") explicates, emphasizes, and adds to the notion of gathering all the remnant of Israel. Beyond gathering the rem­ nant together as a unity (Isa. 11:11), their Shep­ herd-King will provide them with the security of

653

Micah 2:12-13

it means the opposite: the confusion is due to the lack of anyone. The latter meaning comports bet­ ter with the singular, forms a better contrast with Yahweh as King (v. 13), and best suits the histori­ cal situation (see 4:14 [5:1]). Lindenberger ("Micah 2:12—13") cites Zechariah 10:2 as a particularly close parallel, if it be translated, "Therefore the people wander like sheep, / bleating for want of a shepherd" (he defends the meaning "bleating" for IdJT in that passage from the Deir cAlla text i:8; see Hackett, Balaam Text, pp. 25, 29, 46). 13. (will march out to battle): This unex­ pected perfective is confirmed by Mur 88 and viv­ idly represents the future as a single, independent situation (IBHS §30.5.1). According to Wehmeir (THAT 2:277) may have the technical mean­ ing "to march out into battle, to attack" even when used absolutely (Judg. 20:28; 1 Sam. 17:23, 25; 1 Kings 12:24 II 2 Chron. 11:4; Isa. 21:2; Jer. 6:4-5). ’P’lSH (the one who breaks out) is an inde­ pendent relative (IBHS §37.5). Err:?*? (before

them): The pronominal suffix refers ad sensum back to the remnant army that stood behind the flock metaphor of verse 12. That army is also the subject of (they will break forth). The plural matches the following verbs. -roiTj (and pass through) represents a sequential situation to 'iHE with the same force as the perfective (GKC §11 lw; IBHS §33.3.1; Isa. 9:5), (and pass through) car­ ries on the sequence. The remarkably diverse prep­ osition 5 in B means "through" with this verb of movement in space (IBHS §11.2.5b). ([their king] will pass through [the gate]): Wdw-relative must have an epexegetical function (IBHS §33.2.2), not sequential, for how could the army pass through followed by the Lord at their head? HTH (even the Lord): Waw here is best taken as ascensive, not copula, because this prophecy makes no reference to a human king in contradistinction to Yahweh. Rather, the consistent focus has been on Israel's Shepherd-King in contrast to any human ruler.

Jerusalem's wall, to judge from the oracle's proba­ ble historical background. The Lord protects (Ps. 23:1-4; 80:2 [1]) the people of his pasture (Ps. 95:7; 100:3; Ezek. 34:31). The figure of the remnant as a united flock is reinforced by the second simile: "like a flock." The remnant in verse 12b, however, instead of being compared to sheep in a protected pen, are represented as "a flock in its pasture, thrown into confusion" for there is "no one" (i.e., a human shepherd-king) to care for them (see 4:14 [5:1]). 13. Having gathered and secured the remnant within Jerusalem's secure walls, the ShepherdKing now breaks the enemy's siege and leads them forth victoriously. The identity behind the antimeria, "the one who breaks forth," is debated (see Willis, Structure, p. 197 n. 1). The parallel verset identifies Yahweh as the Shepherd-King. Linden­ berger ("Micah 1:12-13"), arguing that this is a judgment oracle, thinks the enemy is the one breaching Israel's walls, but he has to adopt the unusual meaning "against them" for lipnehem. A number of commentators continue the flock meta­ phor of verse 12 and see Yahweh as the lead ram, a "divine bellwether," battering through the wall of the sheepfold (or leaping over it), so that the flock can follow him out. Hillers (Micah, p. 39) rightly notes: "This departs from the picture of the shep­ herd-king, and offers an unparalleled and down­ right bizarre conception." Lindenberger supports his thesis that this is a judgment oracle by claim­ ing that paras (to break forth) is virtually always used of a destructive act, never of a salvific one. When the Lord, however, broke out against the

Philistines in 2 Samuel 5:20 did it not entail Israel's salvation? So also here, by breaking out violently against the besieging Assyrians, he saved Israel. The verb can mean "to break forth, burst out" from within (Gen. 38:29) or "to break down" from without. The following verb (wayyese’u, they will go forth) shows the former is in view. The martial image in verse 13Aa with reference to the Lord is elaborated upon in verse 13Ab with refer­ ence to the grand army. As the one who makes a breach (i.e., the Lord) marches forth in battle before them (i.e., the remnant), so also they make a breach, pass through the gate (of Jerusalem), and go out victoriously. The scene is similar to the first exodus. The Lord brought the waters of the sea back over the Egyptians after the Israelites passed through on dry ground (Exod. 14:29-31). "They will pass through the gate" clarifies that the previ­ ous action was not by the enemy breaking into the city through its gate but by the Lord and his army breaking out of the enclosed city. The explanatory parallel verset b, linked with verset A by the verb "pass through," aims to keep the focus on the Lord as Israel's Shepherd-King. "Their King before them" should be equated with the parallels: "the one who breaks forth before them" and "the Lord at their head." Our poet holds his audience's suspense about the identity of the Breaker and King—who spoke in first-person in verse 12 and of whom he has been speaking in verse 13—until the climatic parallel in line 13Bb: "the Lord at their head." The consistent focus has been on Israel's God in contrast to any human ruler.

654

Micah 3:1-4

II. Second Cycle: God Restores Jerusalem's Former Domin­ ion to the Purified Remnant (3:1-5:14) [3:1-5:15]

A. Old Jerusalem and Its Corrupt Leaders Fall (3:1-12) 1. Shepherds Turned Cannibals (3:1-4)

NRSV

WALTKE

3

Then I said: Listen, you leaders of Jacob, even you rulers of the house of Israel. Should you not know justice?— 2 [you] who hate good and love evil, who tear their skin off them and their flesh off their bones? 3 [you] who eat my people's flesh. Now they had stripped off their skin from them and broken their bones in pieces; and they chopped [them] up like meat thrown into the pan and like flesh into the pot. 4 Then they will cry out to the Lord but he will not answer them. Yes, he will hide his face from them at that time because of the evil they have done.

3

And I said: Listen, you heads of Jacob and rulers of the house of Israel! Should you not know justice?— 2 you who hate the good and love the evil, who tear the skin off my people, and the flesh off their bones,3 who eat the flesh of my people, flay their skin off them, break their bones in pieces, and chop them up like meat in a kettle, like flesh in a caldron. 4 Then they will cry to the Lord, but he will not answer them,he will hide his face from them at that time, because they have acted wickedly.

655

Micah 3:1-4

1. nnki (then I said): The MT accents this form as part of the verse because it so treats introduc­ tory editorial notices of less than three words (e.g., Ps. 12:1; 13:1). For poetic analysis, however, it is better treated as an anacrusis. Kj is a logical parti­ cle of entreaty. Dpir (of Jacob) refers to the nation viewed ideally as a unity. In verse 12 the leaders in Jerusalem are specified. Some text critics favor the LXX and Syriac "leaders of the house of Jacob"

because of the parallel in verse lAb and the repeti­ tion of FT? in verse 9, but Mur 88 supports the MT. Instructively, the LXX also adds rcwTOt (= fW) from verse 9, suggesting it is harmonizing the verses. (even you rulers): The LXX has oi koctcxXoitcoi (the remnant [so also v. 9]) because, according to Wolff (Micah, p. 90), sounded like or H^p—all meaning "end." Waw replaces the repetition of the verb (Brong-

1-12. The next three prophecies, verses 1-4, 57, and 9-12 (but not v. 8), are related both by their common addressees (the ruling classes of Israel), their common form (judgment prophecies), their essentially common length, and their common theme (the miscarriage of justice for personal advantage). In each oracle Micah grafts on to the addressees an accusation by means of a relative participle followed by an announcement of judg­ ment. The accusation and the judicial sentence are linked together by appropriate particles: ’az (then) (v. 4) and laken (therefore) (vv. 6, 12). Since the last oracle is attributed in Jeremiah 26:18 to Micah, none denies his authorship of these proph­ ecies. These prophecies have clear thematic and ver­ bal links with those of chapter 2. They are addressed to similar groups: to powerful persons who are exploiting the defenseless (2:1-5; 3:1-4) and to prophets (2:6-11; 3:5-8). But whereas chap­ ter 2 condemns the venal land barons, chapter 3 condemns the magistrates. Both in their own way rip off (gazal} (2:2; 3:2) and strip (pa§at] (2:8; 3:3) the helpless. This prophecy against the magis­ trates assumes the victims have been identified (v. 2) and that judgment has been announced (v. 4). 1-4. Micah 2:13 and 3:1 are hooked together by the verbal link ro’sam (their head) and ra’se (lead­ ers). This coupling not only links the prophecies but contrasts the noble divine leadership of Israel's true Shepherd-King with Israel's ignoble savagelike magistrates. After an introductory anacrusis, "then I said," this doom oracle has three parts: (1) address: Micah appeals to Israel's magistrates to listen (v. 1a); (2) accusation: they debauch their charge to maintain justice (w. 1b—3); and (3) sentence: the Lord will not relent his judgment (v. 4). Micah begins and ends his indictment by accusing them of rac (evil) (w. 2, 4). 1. Many moderns emend the editorial anacru­ sis because of their a priori assumption that Micah did not author the salvation prophecy in 2:12-13, but Willis agrees substantially with Mar­

golis and Goldman that wa’ornar functions as the redactor's way of indicating the arrangement of the book, namely, that it separates chapters 3-5 from chapters 1-2, a view Hillers (Micah, p. 41) weakly calls "improbable." Willis ("Note on "Wl," p. 54) defends his view from Amos 1:2 where a similar anacrusis, "and he said," intro­ duces Amos's prophesies or a major section of his book (1:2-2:16). Renaud (La Formation, p. 121) objects arbitrarily that Isaiah 57:14 offers a "bet­ ter" parallel. In fact, however, Amos 1:2 offers the best parallel because it too is an uncommon expression involving a personal pronoun with ref­ erence to the prophet mentioned in the super­ scription and using past tense, whereas Isaiah 57:14 is a more common expression involving an impersonal pronoun with reference to a future event (see Isa. 65:8). Micah interjects himself also in 1:9, 2:8, and 3:8. "Listen" characteristically begins a prophecy (v. 9) or a section of prophecies (1:2; 3:1; 6:1). Here it is addressed to Israel's magistrates, "leaders," who stand in sharp contrast to the faithful Lord, Jacob's/Israel's true head in 2:13. The original address may have been delivered in the courtyard of the temple (as in Jer. 26:2). In early usage r’s (lit., heads) was used in a tribal context of exercis­ ing leadership in military and judicial matters. The latter function is in view here, for Micah accuses them of derelict ignorance of the law, of perverting justice, and of accepting bribes (vv. 1, 9). Bartlett ("CÍK“I," p. 5) notes: "The word 'head' . .. has a clear association with the courts of ancient Israel." The title was applied to judges of the tribe, city, and nation. De Vaux (Ancient Israel, pp. 152-53) argues that, besides the local judges and village elders, the king instituted pro­ fessional judges over the nation even as Moses had appointed competent laity to dispense justice (Exod. 18:13-26; Deut. 1:15-18). Alongside of these elders and appointed judges stood the priests. The final court of appeal was located at Jerusalem and consisted of priests(s) and the officiating judge (Deut. 17:8-13). Jehoshaphat

656

Micah 3:1-4

ers, " Waw Copulativum''). FT? (of the house of Israel) occurred earlier in 1:5. The rhetorical negative question rW“Ti7 CD1? K'frn (should you not know) "expresses] the conviction that the con­ tents of the statement are well known to the [magistrates], and are unconditionally admitted by [them]" (GKC §150e; see also 2:7; 4:9; IBHS §40.3). CD1? (you): 5 functions as the so-called ethi­ cal dative, explicitly marking the leaders as the ones who should know justice (IBHS §11.2.10).

Fiinb (to know): b marks the topic of the nominal clause (IBHS §36.2.3); the infinitive construct fre­ quently functions as both noun (here as subject) and verb (here taking the direct object justice) (IBHS §36.1.2). The article is generic (IBHS §13.5.1), marking out justice as unique and determined in itself. 2. ([you] who hate): The stative participle functions as relative (IBHS §37.5) and captures the subjects in a state of being (IBHS §30.2.3). For

appointed the high (r?s) priest for all matters touching the Lord, and a chief of the house of Judah for the king's matters (2 Chron. 19:11). Their identification as judges is underscored by the parallel qasin (rulers). According to van der Ploeg ("Les Chefs," p. 52) qasin is connected to the Arabic root qaday (to sanction, judge) and the corresponding Hebrew root qasa (to cut). In Hebrew, qasin is the one who ought to decide, cut (off), or settle a question. In some texts (Josh. 10:24; Judg. 11:6, 11; Dan. 11:18), qasin clearly designates the military chief, the commander. In Proverbs 25:15 it signifies the chief who preserves order. Isaiah (1:10-17) holds the qasin responsible to uphold the law and accountable to encourage the oppressed and defend the cause of the widows and fatherless. While r?s(ym) and qsyn(ym} occur often in isolation, Micah idiosyncratically con­ nects them (v. 9). The two terms overlap in that both designate chiefs and guardians of the law. Micah parallels them to emphasize the judicial responsibility of Israel's magistrates to protect the oppressed. Though the prophets normally do not single out the king (compare Isa. 1:10-23; 3:14; Amos 2:6-7; 5:7, 10-13), he cannot be excluded from their indictments. Hillers (Micah, p. 42-43) thinks he is not mentioned because the common people who are oppressed believe the king to be innocent, "ignorant of their plight and surrounded by evil ministers." A prophet differs from com­ mon folk, however. Hosea (5:1) censures the bet hammelek (niv: "royal house") directly. Undoubt­ edly the magistrates, though not restricted by any means to the royal house, certainly include it (v. 12). Instructively, Hezekiah repents in response to Micah's sermon (Jer. 26:18). These privileged magistrates should have known the disposition of the law. Justice (mispat) designates the act of judging a matter. Its root, sapat, implies the interaction of three parties: the oppressor, the oppressed, and the judge, who has the sanction to condemn and punish the former and to clear and reward the latter. Here it refers to

the decisions, which had that aim in view, col­ lected in the sacred law (Exod. 21:1-23:19), and to other verdicts of the court (Deut. 17:8-11) as well as to the ability to decide cases fairly (1 Kings 3:28; 7:7). In 2 Chronicles 19:8 Jehoshaphat appointed some of the Levites, priests, and heads of Israelite families to administer mispat yhwh (the law of the Lord) and settle disputes. When righteous magistrates delight in God's just laws (Ps. 1:2; 19:8-12 [7-11]; 119:1) and in giving righ­ teous decisions, justice benefits the land as living, flowing water (Amos 5:24). The chiefs of Micah's epoch despised it and ruined the pleasant land (see Isa. 1:17, 21-23, 26; 5:7, 23). Jeremiah 22:15-16 equates knowing the Lord with doing what is right and just. Dacat mispat (knowledge of justice) entails moral taste as well as intellectual prowess and implies a power of discerning and of making judgment—a sympathy for the outcasts of fortune, not merely an intellectual knowing of precise rules. To "know justice" is to let the climate of justice reign inside the community and the cli­ mate of family reign inside the covenant commu­ nity (Renaud, La Formation, pp. 123-24). 2. The need for moral taste by these magis­ trates, who should have delivered the covenant families from the tyranny of oppressive land bar­ ons, is borne out in the accusation condemning their character: they "hate good and love evil." Hate (sane>) signifies an intense feeling of dislike coupled with a strong desire to rid oneself of the disliked object (Judg. 11:7). Sometimes the object of one's hatred is metaphorically described as stinking (1 Sam. 13:4; 2 Sam. 10:6; 16:21). Paral­ lels of this term for strong emotional revulsion include tcb piel (to detest) (Ps. 119:163; Amos 5:10), qwl hithpael (to become nauseous) (Ps. 139:21), nqc (to turn away from in disgust) (Ezek. 23:28), m^s (to reject) (Amos 5:21), and n’s (to spurn) (Prov. 5:12). Good (tob) is a metonymy for righteous and compassionate decisions (see 6:8). Love (>aheb) signifies a spontaneous affection one feels in various relationships: between the sexes

657

Micah 3:1-4

objective genitive □io (good) see the Exegesis of 6:8. Wolff [Micah, p. 90) says that Qere (XTJ) along­ side 310 is to be preferred to Kethiv (HIT)) and □iCD occur together in Isa. 5:20; Amos 5:14). There is no difference in meaning (see and 7UH in 2:1, 3). D7& (their skin) is another objective genitive. The lack of an antecedent for the pronominal suf­ fix causes some to put verse 2b after verse 3 or verse 5, making "my people" the antecedent in ad sensum agreement (GKC §145b), but this entails emending the text by conjecturing a finite verb. Hillers (Micah, p. 42) finds the antecedent in "Israel" and "Judah." That is acceptable if the synonymous parallels are regarded as a metonymy for the peoples, not as countable plurals, (off them): occurred earlier in 2:9. In a parallel to verse 2Ba, (and their flesh off their bones) has the emphatic force of "and what is more" (,l7T3, tear, is gapped in verse 2Bb). On the grammatical level the clauses are paratactic, but on the semantic level they are consecutive: first their skin off their bodies, then their flesh off their bones. The fourfold repetition of the pronoun in verse 2b keeps the focus on the plight of the vic­ tims.

3. The change of the syntactic construction modifying the vocatives "leaders/rulers" of verse 1 (from relative participles [v. 2] to the indeclin­ able relative pronoun with third-person finite verbs) to elaborate the figure parallels the same construction in 2:1. The perfective ([you] who eat) is a constative, persistent (present) per­ fective (IBHS §30.2.1). “18$ (flesh) designates the inner meat full of blood, next to the bones. The pronominal suffix on ’’OP (my people's) probably refers to Micah (1:9; 2:8)—though sometimes it clearly refers to the Lord (6:3, 5)—because Micah introduced himself as the speaker, □niP’l lO'pSH (now they had stripped off their skin from them): Waw is disjunctive, for the situation described in this clause must have occurred prior to the first clause; in that case the perfective is pluperfect (IBHS §30.5.2b). E“]iP repeats verbatim verse 2. The verb EES links the oracle with verse 8. in^S cnwSP'HK’l (and [they had] bro­ ken their bones in pieces): Waw is conjunctive (IBHS §39.2.5). The change to the more common form EHTO^P from CTriOSP in verse 2 is stylistic. Perfective TO2 is again pluperfect. Piel has a resultative force: "They make their bones tom to

(Gen. 24:67), between father and son (Gen. 22:2), or between friends (1 Sam. 16:21). Here it is used of the bonding of morally perverse people to evil (raaz (v. 4) and lakén (v. 6). The sentence against the prophets is similar to that against the magistrates: silence from God when they call upon him (w. 4, 7). The magistrates vainly cry out to God for deliverance from sword and exile; the prophets vainly cry out for a revelation from God in order to retain their social status. In both oracles the Lord hands down the sentence in first-person (vv. 3, 6) followed by Micah's elaboration (w. 4, 7). The introduction of the oracle includes the author ("thus says the Lord") and the addressees ("against the prophets") (v. 5Aa|. To this Micah grafts on the accusation by means of a relative clause "who lead my people astray" (v. 5Ab), elab­

orated in the rest of the verse (v. 5b). The Lord himself hands down the sentence to the false prophets: no more revelations (v. 6), and Micah comments that they will be disgraced when their uncleanness is thus exposed (v. 7). 5. The messenger formula "thus says the Lord" introduces the whole prophecy, though in fact God speaks only in verse 6 to stress that the source of Micah's authority lies in the Lord, not in himself, a necessary reminder when reproving prophets who, if one may judge from parallels (I Kings 22:11, 24; Jer. 28; Ezek. 13:7), claim to represent the Lord (see v. 7). Micah's addressees (the false prophets) are a part of a standing con­ frontation spanning centuries, from Micaiah ben Imlah to Ezekiel, between mostly lone individuals (the true prophets) who attack the works of the false majority. True and false prophets both prophesy in the name of the Lord, both claim to prophesy through the Spirit of the Lord, and both proclaim peace and doom (Isa. 7:1—16; Mic. 3:5). In a nutshell, Micah accuses and portrays the false prophets as those "who lead my people astray." The root t(h (to err) is used of the wander­ ings of a lost person (e.g., Hagar in the wilderness, Gen. 21:14) or of staggering in drunken stupor (e.g., priests and prophets reeling with wine, Isa. 28:7). To judge from Isaiah 28:7 and Hosea 4:5 the figure for their moral staggering may have been suggested by their swaying and stumbling as drunkards in their vomit. Jeremiah spells out the specifics of the metaphor in the case of the proph­ ets of Baal who led Israel astray: "They commit adultery and walk in lies; / they strengthen the hands of evildoers, / so that no one turns from wickedness" (23:14; see also vv. 13, 32). False prophets are distinguished from true by their motive, message, and manner. The second

662

Micah 3:5-7

§4.7). On the other hand, it also functions as a pro­ tasis to that clause, (does not give): The sin­ gular personalizes the individuals in who must confront the group of false prophets. Crrsr^P (what they demand; lit., according to their mouth [word]) does not mean "into their mouths" (contra LXX's rig to oiopa ocutcov or Vulgate's in ore eorum] but "according to their command." According to van der Woude [Micha, pp. 109-10) "to put something into the mouth" must be expressed by either HD? (Exod. 4:15; Num. 22:38; Deut. 31:19) or (Deut. 18:18; Jer. 1:9;

5:14). (¡ro) means "to give on the strength of a word, by order of, according to the wish of" (Gen. 45:21; Num. 3:51; 2 Kings 23:35). Wolff [Micah, p. 102) says, "Here HE) denotes not the organ but—as frequently—its function." lEHpl (then they sanctify): Wdw-relative with the suffix conjugation introduces the apodosis [IBHS §32.2.lb), and the piel is factitive [IBHS §24.2), that is, they transfer HEfte (war) to the sphere of the holy (see Jer. 6:4; Joel 4:9 [3:9]). As the parallel •iHnp'l shows, they consecrate the battle by their proclamation.

characterizing clause, "who bite with their teeth," begins to supply the motive for the misguided teachings of the false prophets. Micah crassly illustrates their motives by concentrating on their biting teeth as they eat. Nasak (to bite) in ten of its other eleven uses has to do with snakes, and in the one exception (Hab. 2:7) it is a play on nesek (interest). Innes ("Notes on Micah," p. 109) sup­ poses that this intentionally harsh expression metaphorically infers "the deadly effect of these prophets on the community." If so, like malevo­ lent serpents they kill their victims to feed them­ selves. Wolff [Micah, p. 102) says: "What comes out of the mouth of these prophets depends upon what has been put into it." For them, as Mays [Micah, p. 83) puts it, "money talked louder than God," and so the Lord deluded them into mislead­ ing the people (Jer. 3:12; 9:14 [15]; 23:13; Lam. 2:14). "They proclaim peace" pertains to their false message. Labuschagne [THAT 2:669) says that in prophetic literature qara> (to proclaim) becomes the technical term for "making an announce­ ment." Significantly, as Kutzsch ("fcTJpO," pp. 249-50 n. 2) remarks, qara> and qds piel stand in parallel (Joel 1:14; 2:15; Mic. 3:5); indeed these verbs can be interchanged and used as synonyms (Lev. 23:2, 4, 37; 1 Kings 21:9, 12; 2 Kings 10:20; 2 Chron. 20:3; Ezra 3:5; 8:21; Jer. 36:9; Lam. 1:15; Joel 1:14; 2:15; Jonah 3:5). This synonymity sug­ gests that qr> with a prophet as subject means a sacred proclamation. The issue between the two contesting groups that spanned the centuries hinged on the catch­ word salom (peace, well-being). Salom, according to Durham ("Di^ and the Presence of God," p. 280) describes "a comprehensive kind of fulfill­ ment or completion, indeed of a perfection in life and spirit which quite transcends any success which man alone, even under the best of circum­ stances, is able to attain." In OT theology salom is a gift from the Lord and may be mediated to those

in a covenant of peace with him through the word of his prophets (Ps. 85:9-14 [8-13]). Both true and false prophets claimed that power (Jer. 28:9). Von Rad [TDNT 2:404) says: "D’frtp seems to have been the culminating point of the theology of some prophetic circles, and therefore the term became the centre of bitter controversy between two par­ ties." Like those whom Jeremiah braved, the false prophets had tradition on their side. Did not Israel celebrate in song the Lord's faithfulness to his covenant in giving Israel salom in the face of her enemies? True prophets, however, saw that, unless Israel repented, the curses of the covenant would be enacted and that Saldm belonged only to the godly remnant who survived the judgment. These true prophets saw the will of the Lord in the approaching menace from Mesopotamia, while their antagonists clung to a message of salom regardless. As Ezekiel (13:10-16) complained, they "whitewashed" the true situation. True prophets had insight into Israel's history from a sympathy with God's kingdom perspective,- false prophets could not discern the hand of God in his­ tory because they saw life through vested inter­ ests. True prophets conditioned the nation's well­ being on its fidelity to the Lord; whereas false prophets arrogantly conditioned it on fidelity to themselves. True prophets seek the Lord's gain,false prophets their own. Micah singles out the prophets' use of money for food to connect their sanguine behavior with that of their cannibalistic patrons (vv. 2-4). The prophets cheered the cannibals on so long as they got their fair share of the chopped-up bones. The religious system joined the judicial system in pro­ tecting the criminal and left the actual or poten­ tial victims at their mercy. The false prophets did not merely accept bribes, but demanded them. Against the righteous who defied their unclean ways and against the poor who could not pay them, they (the prophetic establishment) in personal animosity "consecrate

663

Micah 3:5-7

6. ]p5 (therefore) shows that the sentence (vv. 6-7) will fit the crime (v. 5). Judging by the con­ nection elsewhere of visions with dreams (Num. 12:6; Deut. 13:1 [2]; Joel 3:1 [2:28]) and by explicit references to visions coming at night (Dan. 2:9; 7:1; Zech. 1:8)z rfr4? (night) and TDpn (darkness) would have the normal, concrete meaning here. Other considerations, however, suggest they are figures. The shift to the second-person pronoun (you will have) with reference to the false prophets suggests that the sentence is handed down once by the Lord in an I-Thou encounter (see 1:6-7; 2:3-4). b probably expresses possession. ]□ in j"iTnp (instead of vision) and EOpp (instead of divining) can be privative (i.e., without) (IBHS §11.2.1 le), as in the LXX and Syriac—in which case night and darkness would be literal. It can also be substitutive, as in the Vulgate (proptera nox vobis pro visione) (compare in Ps. 52:5 [3]; Hos. 6:6; Edelkoort, "Prophet," p. 187; GKC §119w)—in which case night is figurative (i.e., darkness instead of visions or divination). Renaud (La Formation, p. 131) attenuates the two mean­ ings since visions came mostly at night. The par­ allel in verse 6b underscores at the least the figura­ tive sense, however. For the meaning of HTn see the Exegesis of 1:1. nosin’! (and ... darkness): Many critics revocalize this qal infinitive construct (GKC §45c) with a feminine shape (IBHS §36.2.1)

into rp$rn as read in the LXX to make a better par­ allel with rfr*?, but kaige-Theodotion reads [koi]i GKOTaor[nG£Tai vpjeiv with the more difficult MT and Syriac. Moreover, the MT's normally superior vocalization (IBHS §1.6.3) matches admirably the following infinitive with the substitutive preposi­ tion, CbpO. The assonance with Jim may explain the choice of construction. The repetition of Dp5 in verse 6Ab emphasizes verse 6Aa. HIO (and so the sun will set): Wdw-relative is consequential (IBHS §33.2.4a) with this idiom for the sun setting (KB, p. 112, #10); the language is metaphorical because the sun otherwise sets for everyone. The sun is a metaphor for ptn and CQp. (upon) has its locative sense as part of the metaphor (IBHS § 11.2.13b), perhaps with a nuance of pathos. □’’K’PSH (the prophets): The article is anaphoric, referring to the false prophets singled out in verse 6. Because verse 6Ba is probably parallel to verse 6Aa, and verse 6Bb to verse 6Ab, the vraw-relatives are consequential: to 6Aa and Tlj?') to 6Ab. The stative perfective (and . .. will become dark) is ingressive. Repeating in this synony­ mous parallel intensifies the pathos. 7. ItO (and ... will become ashamed): Wawrelative with this suffix conjugation is (conse­ quential to verse 6. The shift to third-person from second-person suggests that Micah is comment­ ing on the Lord's sentence, □’’inn (the seers): The

against him war." Milhama (war), the opposite of salom, with qds becomes the equivalent of holy war. Holy war was initiated and carried through by charismatic individuals, such as these prophets claim to be. Since, however, they are concerned not with what the holy Lord will gain in victory but with their own unholy, selfish gain, Micah represents their own pretensions sarcastically. As in holy war the Lord hands the enemy over to his servants, so these false prophets hope to exact their will over those who refused to comply by defeating them. 6. The logical particle laken (therefore) shows that the sentence will fit the crime; it hits the false prophets on their own ground. In no less than eight clauses the Lord and his true prophet forecast that the false ones will lose the Lord's gra­ cious gift to them, the source of their pretensions and illicit gain. Like Samson, who lost his gift for abusing it and was plunged into darkness, so also these prophets—who should have been the moral eyes of the nation—will lose their gifted insight. They will no longer be able to look through the wall of darkness to the bright mystery of divine

things. Instead, the sunlight and daylight of clairvoyancy will become night; being plunged into darkness, like the setting sun, the day will become dark. The light that gave hope to the cor­ rupt and powerful will become black in eternal night. Qesem (divining) refers to the prophets' false methods. In addition to visions, a legitimate man­ ner of prophetic revelation, they imported the pagan practice of divination, forbidden among the covenant people (Deut. 18:10; Josh. 13:22; 1 Sam. 15:23). The term is always pejorative in the proph­ ets (as in the references just cited and Num. 23:23; 1 Sam. 28:8; 2 Kings 17:17; contrast Prov. 16:10). Alden (TWOT 2:805) notes that Ezekiel 21:27-28 [21-22] is "the only clue to exactly how qesem may have been practiced. Shaking or flinging down arrows, consulting teraphim, and hepatoscopy (looking at the liver) may be subcategories of qesem." 7. Micah now reflects upon the results of the prophets' loss of vocation. First, they will become ashamed at their loss of position and influence. Seebass (TDOT 2:52) says: Bos "expresses the idea

664

Micah 3:5-7

article is anaphoric, referring to the false prophets of verses 5-6, and the qal active participle func­ tions as nomen agentis (IBHS §37.2). The root Hjn links verse 7a with verse 6a. The LXX explicates it by oi opwvTEg id evutmoc (those who see dreams) and the Syriac and Vulgate by "those who see visions." In this synonymous parallel (and . . . become disgraced), waw is also consequential to verse 6. "iDn as often elsewhere is an emphatic synonymous parallel with 2Tb, and both perfectives with these stative verbs are ingressive (IBHS

§30.5.3a). Wrtw-relative with the suffix conjuga­ tion iiDXri (and they will cover) is consequential to the preceding parallel situations. I HOÿ plus means "to cover, wrap" (Lev. 13:45). One covers the DEÙ (their mustache) as a sign of mourning (Ezek. 24:17-22). The meaning "mustache" is based on 2 Samuel 19:25 [24]. □‘pS (all of them) is determinate and therefore indicates the aggregate, the entirety, none excepted (GKC §127b). (because) introduces the reason why all the false prophets cover their mustaches.

that someone . .. underwent an experience in which his ... former respected position and importance were overthrown. Someone risked something to a power ... and thus undertook a daring venture. Now he receives the conse­ quences of that venture so that he must suffer the opposite of what he sought, viz., dishonor." "Pre­ viously," says Wolff (Micah, p. 104), "they could with power and strength speak of peace or war, salvation or doom,- now they must stand about, timid and dejected." Public disgrace occurs in contexts of calamity (Isa. 1:29; 33:9; Jer. 15:9; Mic. 1:11). Second, they will be exposed as unclean. Micah's prediction that "all of them will cover their mustaches," in addition to symbolizing their mourning (Ezek. 24:17, 22) and that they have nothing more to say, also alludes to their unclean­ ness, which is like that of a leper, barred from the worshiping community, who had to engage in the same ritual (Lev. 13:45). When prophets were exposed as frauds, they were regarded as unclean. Indeed, in Lamentations 4:13-15 sinful prophets are treated as lepers by the people. Moreover, Micah could have used other rites of mourning and bereavement (1:9; 7:16), had he not intended this allusion. Third, God will not answer them when they ask for the restoration of their gift. Indeed, it is that impotency in prayer that exposes them and causes them to behave like unclean lepers. Edelkoort ("Prophet and Prophet," p. 188) thinks that Elohim (God) is used rather than yhwh (the Lord) "because those prophets sought their oracles not

only from the God of Israel but also from other gods." The evidence, however, is too slim for such a far-reaching conclusion. >elbhim occurs eight other times in Micah but either as a parallel to yhwh (4:2; 6:6, 8; 7:7), in conjunction with yhwh (5:3 [4]; 7:10, 17), or in connection with a conver­ sion from gods to yhwh (4:5), so that its use alone here is unique and requires explanation. Wolff (Micah, p. 104), comparing it with dacat >elbhim in Hosea 4:1, 6:6, thinks Micah may have picked up a term coined in the prophetic circles. Possibly Micah is making a point of not associating the actions of these unholy prophets with the sacred name, though they themselves may claim to speak in the name of the Lord (1 Kings 22:11, 24). In any case, the God of Israel is probably in view. Elsewhere, the prophets of pagan gods are identi­ fied as such (Jer. 23:13-14, 32), but Micah does not castigate the prophets in Jerusalem who preach for hire in that way. Sometimes the false prophets are charlatans (Jer. 14:14; Ezek. 13:17). Jeremiah says in his polemic that the Lord has not sent them (14:14-15; 23:21, 32; 27:15; 28:15; 29:9, 31) and that their words come from their own hearts (14:14; 23:16, 26). Ezekiel's charges are similar (13:2-23). This is not always so, however, as in the case of Balaam (Num. 22-24) and of the prophets who opposed Micaiah ben Imlah (1 Kings 22:1923). These false prophets received their revela­ tions from the Lord, albeit in the last instance by a lying spirit. The prophets in verses 5-7 are not forgers, because the Lord's sentence of not restor­ ing their gift would make no sense.

665

Micah 3:8

IL Second Cycle: God Restores Jerusalem's Former Domin­ ion to the Purified Remnant (3:1-5:14) [3:1-5:15]

A. Old Jerusalem and Its Corrupt Leaders Fall (3:1-12) 3. A True Prophet (3:8) WALTKE

But indeed I am full of power, namely, of the Spirit of the Lord, and of justice, and of valiant might, to declare to Jacob his transgression, and to Israel his sin.

666

NRSV

8 But as for me, I am filled with power, with the spirit of the Lord, and with justice and might, to declare to Jacob his transgression and to Israel his sin.

Micah 3:8

8. (but indeed): A striking parallel is found in Job 5:6-8 where the speaker, in firstperson, contrasts himself as a seeker of God to humankind in general (compare Mic. 7:6—7). 'piK (I) assists the antithesis (IBHS §16.3.2d). As in verse 1, Micah is the only suitable candidate as the antecedent. (namely), attested in all ver­ sions and of theological interest, may mean "with

(the help of)" (BDB, p. 86, #la) or it may be a sign of specification (i.e., that Micah's energy is the Spirit of the Lord) (IBHS §10.3.2d; Exod. 1:14). HIT (the Lord) is a genitive of relationship (IBHS §9.5.li). CDSOT (justice): See the Exegesis of verse 1. (to declare): The root "ED fundamentally means "to place a matter high, conspicuous before a person" (HALAT, p. 629). For verse 8Bb see 1:5.

8. Verse 8 stands apart from verses 5-7 by its speaker (Micah in contrast to the Lord; v. 5), in its topic and form (a rare autobiography in the con­ text of judgment prophecies; compare Amos 7:1415), and in its addressees (Jacob and Israel, not just the prophets). By the rhetorical janus it looks both ways. "But indeed I am full of power" looks back to verses 5-7, contrasting Micah's superlative spiritual method, manner, and message with his perfidious peers; "Jacob" and "Israel" look ahead to verses 9-12 (esp. v. 9). The key word justice links the oracle with verses 1^1 and with verses 9-12. In sharp contrast to the deflated windbags (2:11; 3:5-7), Micah presents himself in verse 8 as so full of the Spirit of the Lord that he contends valiantly and victoriously in the cause of justice by denouncing Israel's sins—its breaking of its covenant with the Lord. There are times when fools must be answered according to their folly (Prov. 26:5). "I am full of power" entails that Micah has the spiritual dynamism to prophesy. He has both the physical and psychic strength to endure in opposi­ tion and discouragement (Isa. 40:29, 31). He iden­ tifies his unvacillating power as that of the Spirit of the Lord himself (Isa. 40:26). The presence of the Spirit of the Lord is the sine qua non for effec­ tive ministry (illustrated by the niv's translation of ’is haruah [lit., man of the Spirit] in Hos. 9:7 as "inspired man"). It is instructive to note that such a prophet will be considered by his enemies as a maniac. Ezekiel also associated the Spirit with force, more specifically, with lifting him up to perform his prophetic tasks (2:2; 3:12, 14, 24; 8:3; 11:1, 24; 37:1; 43:5). The Spirit also gifted people with a sense of justice, as in the case of the messi­ anic King (Isa. 11:2-9), the redeemed people (Isa. 32:15), and the anonymous Suffering Servant that brings salvation (Isa. 42:1; 61:1). The Spirit does not come from within the human soul, but comes as an extension of the Lord himself. The true prophet does not so much carry the Word of God to the people, as the Spirit of God carries the prophet to them.

That same Spirit fills Micah with justice (see v. 1) and gebura (valiant might). This word moves beyond koah (the general word for strength or power) to valor. Renaud (La Formation, p. 136) notes that it comes from the language of war and represents the prophet as brave, as capable of con­ fronting redoubtable adversaries. Kosmala (TDOT 2:369) notes: "In case of a war, it is not mere words, but planning and military power that decide the outcome (2 Kings 18:20; Isa. 36:5)." In sum, "valiant might" connotes the power and cunning in executing a triumphant, victorious battle. Since Micah is engaged here in an acerbic battle with false prophets who consecrated war against him, it is proper to look to this meaning in the word war, which is often associated, as here, with the Lord's victory on behalf of justice (Ps. 89:14-15 [13-14]; Isa. 42:1-4). The juxtaposition of "power," "justice," and "valiant might" refer, as Wolff (Micah the Prophet, p. 150) says, to "a hendiatreis; all three of them refer to one total con­ cept." We may paraphrase: "Micah is gifted with courageous readiness to get involved in the cause of justice." Wolff (p. 152) appropriately quotes Pascal: "Justice without power is powerless. Power without justice is tyrannical... . Justice and power must therefore be connected so that what is just is also powerful and what is powerful is also just." Power, justice, and valor—not ecstasy—are the signs of the Spirit's presence in Micah (see 2 Tim. 1:7). The true prophet does not flinch from the lonely role of standing against the entire power structure of Jerusalem. Later on the Lord holds every person accountable for justice (Mic. 6:8). Wolff (p. 151) says: "In Jesus justice has come to its maturity, not only in the authority of his words but in the fact that he suffered injustice and overcame it. By suffering injustice in place of the unjust, he put justice in force with final authority." Those spiritual virtues enabled Micah "to declare to Jacob his transgression." "Micah focuses on the sin in Israel, not its gross national product, because it is only in seeing themselves under the judgment of God that the guilty can

667

Micah 3:8

grasp the reality of what is happening to them in their history," says Mays {Micah, p. 86). The syn­ onymous parallelism of verse 8Bb to verse 8Ba emphasizes the message. The stereophonic mes­

668

sage is that the whole nation is corporately identi­ fied by its sin. The two words for sin signify that Israel broke off their relationship with their Lord in every kind of wrongdoing.

Micah 3:9-12

II. Second Cycle: God Restores Jerusalem's Former Domin­ ion to the Purified Remnant (3:1-5:14) [3:1-5:15]

A. Old Jerusalem and Its Corrupt Leaders Fall (3:1-12) 4. Jerusalem to Be Leveled (3:9-12) WALTKE

9 Listen to this, you leaders of Jacob, even you rulers of the house of Israel, you who detest justice, and pervert all that is upright; 10 you who build Zion with bloodshed, and Jerusalem with injustice— 11 Its leaders judge for bribes, and its priests teach for hire, and its prophets divine for money; yet they lean upon the Lord, saying: "Is not the Lord in our midst? No harm shall come upon us." 12 Therefore, on account of you, Zion will be plowed as a field, And Jerusalem will become a heap of rubble, and the temple mountain will become a height in a forest.

NRSV

9 Hear this, you rulers of the house of Jacob and chiefs of the house of Israel, who abhor justice and pervert all equity, 10 who build Zion with blood, and Jerusalem with wrong! 11 Its rulers give judgment for a bribe, its priests teach for a price, its prophets give oracles for money,yet they lean upon the Lord and say, "Surely the Lord is with us! No harm shall come upon us." 12 Therefore because of you Zion shall be plowed as a field; Jerusalem shall become a heap of ruins, and the mountain of the house a wooded height.

669

Micah 3:9-12

9. In contrast to verse 1, verse 9 adds FW after KTWQ0 and rr? before Dp XT. Some, under the delu­ sion that a gifted poet may not vary his style, con­ form against all manuscripts and versions of verse 9a precisely to verse 1a. The subjectivity of the procedure is seen in that some withdraw the pluses from verse 9a and others add them to verse 1a. rw (this), a neutrum, anaphoric, demonstra­ tive pronoun, is weakly emphatic (IBHS §17.4.2). The magistrates are again, as in verse 2, character­ ized and condemned by a relative participle with the article, D”3pri5n (you who detest): Piel with

the root has an estimative nuance, literally, "who regard as detestable" (IBHS §24.2f-g). The pointing of 5 is exceptional. In the chiastic paral­ lelism of verse 9Bb the definite object of the verb ([they] pervert) is signaled by the emphatic particle (IBHS §10.3.1); the conjunction com­ bines their taste and character as depicted in verse 9a with their conduct and actions related in verse 9b. (all that is upright): 5s is in the con­ struct case and with the article denotes the "entirety, all, the whole" (GKC §127b). (lit., they make twisted) is a factitive piel (Ryder,

9-12. This judgment oracle has a classic form: addressees with an invitation to listen, accusation with development, and judicial sentence. The address to the magistrates is in second-person (v. 9a). To this the accusation is grafted by a partici­ ple ("who detest justice," v. 9b) and developed per­ haps by an infinitive absolute ("who build Zion with bloodshed," v. 10). The general indictment is specified, using third-person against three groups of leaders (v. 11) who first prostitute their office for money (v. 11a) and then justify themselves by substituting a profession of faith for its reality (v. 11b). The judicial sentence is then handed down in second-person: Zion will become desolate (v. 12). This prophecy shares many links with verses 1-4 and 5-7 (see the Exposition of v. 1), but uniquely shifts from second-person (w. 9-10) to third-person (v. 11) and back to second (v. 12). More significantly, as Renaud (La Formation, pp. 141-48) notes, the three prophecies are moving toward this climax. With regard to the address, the first (w. 1^4) has in view the judicial magis­ trates, the second (vv. 5-7) the prophets, and, while the third (vv. 9-12) is again principally against the magistrates, it adds prophets and priests so as to gather together for the indictment the three principal institutions governing the the­ ocracy. With regard to accusation, the first oracle denounces the shameless exploitation of the defenseless,- the second, the bribe required by the prophets; and the third takes up the first accusa­ tion in verse 10 and the second accusation in verse 11, while widening it to all those responsi­ ble. In addition, the third prophecy adds the motif that aggravates the guilt of these three responsible groups: the theological justification of such guilty behavior, a justification that leads to making one feel secure and to a closing of the heart to conver­ sion. With regard to the judicial sentence, in the first oracle God contents himself with being

silent; in the second, this silence becomes dark­ ness. In the third, he becomes absent by destroy­ ing the temple. One cannot say whether the three prophecies were delivered in the same situation or for the same occasion. The announcement of the fall of Jerusalem must be credited to a time in Hezeki­ ah's reign before he initiated his reforms (2 Kings 18-20; 2 Chron. 29-31; Jer. 26:18) and before the prophetic promises to the repentant monarch that the Assyrian tyrant would not lay Jerusalem waste (Isa. 36-37; Mic. 1:8-16). Hezekiah's repen­ tance and the turning aside of the threat serves as a classic illustration that, if a nation warned by the Lord repented of its evil, he would relent and not inflict on it the disaster he had planned (Jer. 18:8-10). On account of this implication, all judi­ cial sentences are in effect threats (Isa. 1:18-19). 9. Micah again addresses all the judicial leaders of all Israel (see v. 1). Allen (Micah, p. 317) notes that Isaiah specifies people of influence: "Warrior and soldier, judge and prophet, diviner and elder, captain of fifty and dignitary, counselor and skilled magician and expert enchanter" (Isa. 3:2); to these Micah adds priests (v. 10). These at the top echelon of Israel constituted the "corporate personality" of the nation, as the parallel in Jere­ miah 26:18 shows: "Micah . . . said to all the peo­ ple of Judah." What amazing grace prompts God to appeal to vile sinners to listen. This oracle of reproach extends hope to the sinful people so they can avert God's final and decisive judgment by repentance. Micah labels the people as those who detest justice, once again tracing the source of the prob­ lem back to the magistrates' moral appetites (v. 2; Isa. 5:20; Amos 5:10; Matt. 15:8-9). In Hebrew usage tcb (to detest) denotes having one's sensibil­ ities offended by someone or something. The abominable thing is relative to the character, val­ ues, and culture of the individual. From their

670

Micah 3:9-12

D-Stem, p. 114) and an antonym of HET (to be straight); like that word it is used metaphorically with reference to executive and administrative activity. As in verses 1 and 5b, Micah shifts from a relative participle to a relative clause with a finite verb, but here he omits the sign of the relative. After a vocative modifying clauses, Micah regu­ larly uses third-person, as in Classical Arabic (see 1:2; 3:3). 10. (you who build): This participle is unlikely because the form is singular, not the expected plural, and lacks the expected article. The plural forms in the versions agree much bet­ ter with the plural forms in verse 9, but are indeci­ sive because the versions were compelled to use plurals in harmony with verse 9. Mur 88 has a lacuna here. Schwantes [Critical Study, p. 95) and Renaud [La Formation, p. 140) think the singular form in the parallel text of Habakkuk 2:12 con­

taminated the MT. Hillers (Micah, p. 47) wrongly rejects proposals to repoint the form as an infini­ tive absolute (n±) as being "stylistically most improbable." The infinitive absolute, however, often functions to epexegete preceding verb forms of various constructions (IBHS §35.5.1). (Zion) may refer specifically to the ancient Jebusite city (2 Sam. 5:7 II 1 Chron. 11:5; 1 Kings 8:1 II 2 Chron. 5:2; Kenyon, Jerusalem, pp. 19-53) or to the tem­ ple mount where the Lord dwells (Ps. 2:6; 110:2; Kenyon, pp. 54-62) or it may be used as a syn­ onym for the whole city of Jerusalem (Isa. 2:3; 4:3; Kenyon, pp. 63-77). The parallelism of the two terms suggests the latter sense here. The plural DnP"J5 represents shed blood (IBHS §7.4.1; com­ pare the Targum's TE?N □“□, by blood shed). "Blood" is a synecdoche for the life of the defense­ less victims who, having been "murdered" in vil­ lainous courts, lost their property. In the parallel

darkened hearts and deformed characters came distorted actions and detestable conduct: They "pervert all that is upright" (Exod. 23:1-3, 6-8; Lev. 19:13, 15; Deut. 16:19; Amos 5:7, 10, 14-15; 6:12). The root ysr originally had the graphic meaning "to be straight" (in contrast to crooked; e.g., a straight leg, Ezek. 1:7), but it occurs pre­ dominantly in the metaphorical sense to be right. Liedke (THAT 1:793) points to its parallels with saddiq and lam and draws the conclusion that yasar also gives expression to a unified covenantal relationship. Instead of being a covenantal com­ munity bound in love to God and to one another and instead of being a theocracy under God's law, Israel had become an oligarchy under criminal tyrants. 10. As in other oracles of doom, Micah elabo­ rates the general indictment (v. 9b) with the spe­ cific charge that they built Jerusalem with deadly injustice. The epithet "Zion" invests Jerusalem with a theological quality. The Lord chose it to be the religious center of the world. Here it is meton­ ymy for the splendid religious and political edi­ fices built in it, as the verb "build" shows. The Chronicler records the unusual building projects achieved under Hezekiah (2 Chron. 32:27-29), who tried to model himself after Solomon and his renaissance. The Siloam tunnel, which brought water into the city and whose inscription com­ memorates this feat of engineering, still exists to corroborate Micah and the Chronicler. Under the protective umbrella of the temple, Jerusalem's "skyline" reached upward and its building projects flourished. Instead of being caught up in

the proud capital's élan and instead of praising its business leaders for their bravery in adventuring capital and its architects for their brilliant engi­ neering and sophisticated tastes, Micah saw beneath the sham to the economic base: the exploitation of the weak. His condemnation that they built "Zion with bloodshed and Jerusalem with injustice" recalls 2:2, 9, where Micah accused the big landowners of appropriating the houses of defenseless folk by unscrupulous actions, and 3:2-3, where he accused the magis­ trates of behaving like cannibals. Instead of upholding the sixth commandment, "you shall not murder," those responsible to bestow the right to life on others, took it from them. More than a century earlier Elijah confronted Ahab for taking Naboth's vineyard through bloodshed (1 Kings 21), and about a century after Micah, Jere­ miah lodged a similar accusation against Shallum son of Josiah (22:13-17). "Bloodshed" would have triggered in Micah's audience the truth that God requires payment in kind for shedding innocent blood (Gen. 4:10; 9:6; Num. 35:33; Deut. 19:13; 21:9; 2 Sam. 1:16; 4:11; 1 Kings 2:32; 2 Kings 9:7; 2 Chron. 19:10; Hab. 2:12). cawlâ (injustice) often refers to violent deeds, such as murder (2 Sam. 3:34; Hab. 2:12), which is the reference here according to the parallel "bloodshed." Micah has in mind not violence in general leading to a fatal outcome, but in view of verse 9 (the magistrates' abuse of justice) and verse 11 (taking bribes to per­ vert justice) the mishandling of justice that resulted ultimately in the death of innocent vic­ tims.

671

Micah 3:9-12

TZ is gapped, Zion is expanded to include all Jerusalem, and the agent for building is rfTXEl (with injustice). 11. Micah shifts from the vocative of direct address in verse 9 to an elaboration about them in the third-person T0KZ (its leaders). The feminine singular pronominal suffix refers to Zion/Jerusalem, which are treated as feminine because TP is beheaded (IBHS §6.4.1). Whereas in verse 10 Zion/ Jerusalem are literal, here it is a metonymy for its inhabitants. znoz (for bribes): □ is beth pretii ([in exchange] for) (IBHS §11.2.5). "TO (bribes) has its usual sense to give money to pervert justice. This conventional collective singular noun (IBHS §7.2.1) is rendered in all versions, except Syriac, by plural. The non-perfective ^3?? ([they] judge), as all the verbs in verse 11a, denotes persistent (present) imperfective aspect (IBHS §31.3). THTi (and its priests) functions in the same way as HW1 Normally reflects the more restricted concept of a minister for sacred things. The root of ([they] teach) is disputed. Liedeke and Petersen (THAT 2:1032) draw the conclusion that "the question can only be advanced through the dis­ covery of new materials." The use of the hiphil depends on that answer. The LXX paraphrases

with ocncKpivovTo (answered). Renaud (La Forma­ tion, p. 140) comments that "the LXX 'answered/ apparently a little free, corresponds in fact to the exact function of the priest, who consulted on a precise point of the law, had 'to give an answer.' " Presumably the Torah with its apodictic and casu­ istic laws is the understood object. P]PP3 Wp” (and its prophets divine for money): See the Exegesis of verses 5-6. means "silver," not in its native state but as mined and smelted, and was the usual standard for trade. WET (yet they lean upon the Lord): The conjunction in combines in a hendiadys the paradoxical activities of Israel's magistrates, priests, and prophets. The combined phrase is a figure for "trust" (BDB, p. 1043; Isa. 50:10) that results in salvation (2 Chron. 13:18; 14:10 [11]; 16:7-8; Isa. 10:20). The infinitive Ibtf? (saying) is epexegetical; verse llBb explains the circumstance or nature of the preceding action in verse 11 Ba. The explanation is necessary, for Micah is not saying that these feckless leaders trust in the Lord, but that they profess to trust him. (is not) functions as in 2:7b and 3:1. HIT (the Lord) in the mouths of these sinners is blas­ phemy (Exod. 20:7; Ps. 139:20). The two clauses in verse 1 lBb beginning with and on the sur-

11. Micah now explicates his accusation in third-person, grouping magistrates, priests, and prophets together in accusing them of prostituting their sacred talents and offices for money. First, he indicts the political rulers who were not oriented toward justice but toward money. "Its leaders judge for bribes" and so perverted justice (Exod. 23:8; Deut. 10:17; 16:19; Prov. 17:23; 21:14; Isa. 1:23; 5:23; 33:15). The law pronounced a curse on the person who accepted a bribe to kill an inno­ cent person (Deut. 27:25). These laws are unique in the ancient Near East. Finkelstein ("SulmanuTexts," p. 79) notes that, although there is suffi­ cient evidence that bribery of judges was regarded at least as a moral offense, there "is no known cuneiform law outlawing bribery specifically." Furthermore, he (p. 80) notes that in Middle Assyrian texts "it [bribery] was not only a com­ mon practice, but was recognized as a legal trans­ action." Next Micah charges the religious leaders: priests who "teach for hire" and prophets who "divine for money." Both ecclesiastical offices had been corrupted by love of money, the root of all kinds of evil (1 Tim. 6:10). As ministers of sacred things the priests were custodians and administra­ tors of the law and had responsibility to keep the

received law available and alive for legal matters as they arose in the ongoing life of Israel (Deut. 17:8-10; 33:10; Hos. 4:6). Honoraria and royalties now dictated where and what was taught by the priests, who evidently wanted to enrich them­ selves beyond their tithes, and deluded the vision of the prophet (Num. 22:18; 1 Kings 13:7; 2 Kings 5:15-16; Neh. 6:12-13). Like some modem politi­ cians, this unholy trinity of rulers, priests, and prophets regarded their talents as opportunities to advantage themselves and their offices as prizes they had won rather than as positions from which to serve God and fellow humans. In verse 11b Micah brings his accusation to a climax by accusing all three hacks mentioned in verse 11a of audaciously justifying themselves by professing to trust the Lord. They held their immunity from the true prophet's messages of reproach as unanswerable: "Is not the Lord in our midst?" The temple on Mount Zion silently but incontestably seemed to support them. As a result they felt no contradiction and no pangs of con­ science between their commitment to profit mak­ ing and their verbal commitment to the Lord. They had immured themselves against repen­ tance: "Is not the Lord in our midst?" they asked. Micah's citation of their professed faith and false

672

Micah 3:9-12

face structure are presented asyndetically and in parataxis, but in the deep structure they are in hypotaxis, namely, the second expresses the result of their conviction that Yahweh is among them. 12. |(therefore) again links accusation with sentence (as in v. 6). (on account of you) is a frozen prepositional compound consisting of inseparable □ plus the noun ^53 plus the pronomi­ nal suffix. Jerusalem will fall on account of the magistrates' immorality, not on account of Yah­ weh's impotence. The sentence is handed down in second-person, an inclusio with verse 9. (Zion): See the Exegesis of verse 10. GKC §12Id interprets THE (as a field) as an accusative of result, which would be translated "into a field." More probably it is an accusative of state specify­ ing that Zion will be in the state of being a field (IBHS §10.2.2). Micah probably chose the adver­ bial accusative construction over a prepositional for the striking effect: "Zion a field . .. Jerusalem a heap of rubble." 7H0, as the verb CTinFi (will be plowed) shows, has the sense of a cultivated field in contrast to pasture land. The conjunction in P^TT) (and Jerusalem) functions as a hendiadys. The three clauses in verse 12 present three aspects of Jerusalem's complex situation, (a heap of rubble) is an Aramaic plural form of ’V (compare 1:6 and DTP in Jer. 26:18; see also Ps. 79:1), a plural of extension looking at the rubble in all its com­ plexity (IBHS §7.4.1), from the root 7HP (to twist,

distort). Difference in style elsewhere in his book (e.g., v. 9 versus v. 1) suggest that the form ought not to be made to conform to either 1:6 or Jere­ miah 26:18. rrnn (will become) has its active notion, "become," as suggested by b in the paral­ lel with gapped TTH” (BDB, p. 226, #IL2d). "1711 rrZH (and the temple mountain): The conjunction introduces yet another aspect of Jerusalem's plight, rrzn, an attributive genitive (IBHS §9.5.3), designates the city as a cultic center. In contrast to 4:2 TDTT is omitted. Doubtless rTZin "171 refers to the temple (normally TOTT n-p). The subtle change and omission serve to desacralize the mount, not merely to vary the style. There is no need to emend FriOZl to the expected (high places of) because, though the MT form could be a haplography due to following "1XT, Jeremiah 26:18 confirms the MT. The plural TO-l (see 1:3) may be a count­ able plural, "mounds in a jungle," but a countable plural seems an unlikely predicate for the geo­ graphical singular subject "mountain." More probably it signifies the noun as a complex (IBHS §7.4.le), Symmachus and Theodotion allowed only a geographical sense: "height" and "hill" respectively. The sense of a geographical height is more probable than a cultic high place because Micah accused the city of being the latter in 1:5. The judgment presumably transformed it into something else. Transforming it into a pagan high place would not serve Yahweh's purpose. Schwantes (Critical Study, p. 96) notes that verse

security is important, for it shows that Micah is not saying that they lean upon the Lord (were that true they would indeed be saved), but rather that they claim to lean upon the Lord. They had deluded themselves into a false faith (Matt. 7:15— 27; James 2:14-18). Allen (Micah, p. 255) says: "If the most sacred institution was not serving its purpose but in the hands of religious perverts was acting as a barrier to God, of what further use could it be to him?" 12. As in verse 6, "therefore" entails that the sentence will fit the crime. Jerusalem, with its fine buildings surrounding the temple summit, had given them a false sense of God's blessing and security. Now "on account of" the perversion of justice by which this unholy trinity built the "holy" city, "Zion will be plowed as a field," its buildings will become rubble, and the temple mountain "a height in a forest" (i.e., an unholy height). Their secret crimes, so covertly concealed in the courts under the ruse of justice, and their whitewashed preaching will be exposed for the

sham they really were. When the Holy One for­ sook his temple, the whole land became unholy. The prophecy ends on the climatic note that Zion, historically the most holy city in Judah because of the Lord's presence, will become the most unholy place. "Forest" is a metonymy for unclean ani­ mals and death. Hillers (Micah, p. 48), though wrongly making an association with animals on textual rather figurative grounds, rightly notes that prophets frequently threatened that wild ani­ mals would live in the deserted city (Isa. 13:21-22; 34:11-17; Jer. 50:39; Zeph. 2:13-15). Hillers also cites a similar threat from the first Sefire treaty (ca. 750 b.c.): the city becomes a ruin-heap and then is infested by wild animals. Micah's shocking threat was taken to heart. The priests in Jesus' day, however, refused to respond to him, the very Son of God, but crucified him. No wonder the city was leveled (Luke 24). The prophetic word of judgment needs to be taken to heart by every generation.

673

Micah 3:9-12

12 "enjoys the distinction of being the only verse of the OT quoted verbatim by another OT writer, namely Jeremiah (Jer. 26:18)." That quote, how­ ever, adds: HiO HIT "WTD (thus says the Lord of hosts)—with riiKZlS omitted in the shorter Greek version of Jeremiah—and appropriately omits "therefore, on account of you." The sup­

674

porters of Jeremiah formally added what was always understood, namely, that the Lord himself stood behind the divine sentence to underscore its authority and truth. Indeed, it was that recogni­ tion that brought them to their knees and spared Micah.

Micah 4:1-5

II. Second Cycle: God Restores Jerusalem's Former Domin­ ion to the Purified Remnant (3:1-5:14) [3:1-5:15]

B. New Jerusalem and the Remnant Exalted over the Nations (4:1-8) 1. Jerusalem Exalted over the Converted Nations (4:1-5) NRSV

WALTKE

4

2

3

4

5

And it shall come to pass in the latter days the mountain of the house of the Lord will be established as the highest mountain, and it will be lifted up above the hills, and peoples will flow [to it and walk] upon it; and great nations will come and say, "Come and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, and to the house of the God of Jacob, that he may teach us from his ways, so that we may walk in his ordained paths." For the law will go forth from Zion, and the word of the Lord from Jeru­ salem. And he will judge between great peoples, and he will reprove powerful [and] far-off nations. And they will beat their swords into hoes, and their spears into pruning knives. Nation will not lift up sword against nation, and they will learn no longer to wage war. And each man will sit under his own vine and his own fig tree with none terrifying [him]. For the mouth of the Lord of hosts has spoken. Although all peoples walk, each one, in the name of his god, we will walk in the name of the Lord our God forever and ever.

4

2

3

4

5

In days to come the mountain of the Lord's house shall be established as the highest of the mountains, and shall be raised up above the hills. Peoples shall stream to it, and many nations shall come and say: "Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob; that he may teach us his ways and that we may walk in his paths." For out of Zion shall go forth instruction, and the word of the Lord from Jeru­ salem. He shall judge between many peoples, and shall arbitrate between strong nations far away,they shall beat their swords into plow­ shares, and their spears into pruning hooks,nations shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more; but they shall all sit under their own vines and under their own fig trees, and no one shall make them afraid; for the mouth of the Lord of hosts has spoken. For all the peoples walk, each in the name of its god, but we will walk in the name of the Lord our God forever and ever.

675

Micah 4:1-5

Excursus: The Text of 4:1-3 Instead of treating in isolation the textual differences between the synoptic passages of Micah 4:1-5 and Isaiah 2:2-5, they are collected here, and their differences are considered as a whole:

1. po: occurs at the end of Mic. 4:1a but at the begin­ ning of Isa. 2:2a. 2. Kin in Mic. 4:1a is not in Isaiah. 3. in Mic. 4:1b but T*?K in Isa. 2:2b. 4. trap in Mic. 4:1b butD’isn^? in Isa. 2:2b. 5. in Mic. 4:2a but C'QP in Isa. 2:4a. 6. in Mic. 4:2a but rrz’^K in Isa. 2:3a. 7. irif ] in Mic. 4:2a but irri in Isa. 2:3a.

1-5. In a breathtaking turn, Micah shifts from the judicial sentence reducing Jerusalem into a heap of rubble and its temple into forested height to a vision of a future in which Jerusalem and its temple will become the center of global justice and righteousness and of international peace and prosperity. The prophecy is marked off from 3:912 by (1) an abrupt change in form and mood: from an oracle of doom to one of hoped-for salvation; (2) a change of speakers: from Micah (3:8-9) to the Lord (4:4b); (3) a change of addressees: from Jerusa­ lem's apostate leaders (3:9-12) to faithful remnant (4:5); and (4) rhetorical features that bind 3:9-12 and 4:1-5 into unique prophecies. Though distinct, verses 1-5 are nevertheless artistically linked with 3:9-12 by striking verbal contrasts. Willis ("Structure of Micah 3-5/' p. 196 n. 24) notes five: (1) the role of Zion (3:10, 12; 4:2); (2) the diminution of the "temple mountain" (3:12) versus its exaltation (4:1); (3) the wicked heads (rT1, for though the noun means "anguish" or "fear," its verbal root means "to writhe in birth contractions, be in labor, pains," also one of the uses of ‘Tin. The ety­ mological connection of these roots, however, so similar in form and in some meanings, is dis­ puted. In any case, the twisting and writhing in child labor is in view here (compare Isa. 13:8; 23:4-5; 26:17). The root of nnTi (and bring forth) is disputed. Wolff {Micah, p. 130) thinks that this context suggests an unusual imperative of HTO, which in Psalm 22:10 [9] describes the "coming forth" of a child at birth. In that case, however, the form should have been Til As an unusual imperative of the doubly weak root m, it could mean "to burst forth" as of a breaching brook (fob 38:8; 40:23), with the understanding of either

to go into exile in Babylon (v. 10) cause the cries of distress, the anguish that grips. The parallel "King" and "Counselor" are not two persons (compare 2 Sam. 15:12; Isa. 3:2-3; 9:5 [6]) but the Lord. He is "wonderful in counsel" (Isa. 28:29; Jer. 32:19) and counsel belongs inher­ ently to him (Job 12:13; Dan. 2:20). He is above every counsel (Ps. 16:7; 20:5 [4]), and he executes infallibly his immutable plans (Ps. 106:13; 107:11; Isa. 5:19; 23:8-9; 25:1; Jer. 49:20; Mic. 4:12). A counselor not only elaborates plans but brings them to beneficial fruition. De Boer ("Counsel­ lor," p. 56) shows that counsel is practically iden­ tical with action, an action that has in view the maintenance or the recovery of life and whose effects are security, victory, and salvation. The Lord designs and wills to bring the history of his covenant people to a successful end, life from the dead, as it were. The heathen do not know his plan/counsel (v. 12), but he expects his elect to understand it. The second rhetorical question "did your Counselor perish?" expects, like the first, the answer "of course not!" The original meaning of >bd seems to have been "to run away," and this meaning was expanded to mean "to perish" with the nuances of becoming lost (Lev. 26:38), going astray (Ps. 2:12), or dying (Esth. 4:16). The notions

of becoming lost or going astray are particularly apt, and so perishing is particularly ironic and poignant with reference to a counselor. 10. Whereas in verse 9 Micah rebuked daughter Zion for crying as a woman in the panic and agony of labor, he now, in a pun, commands them to "writhe and bring forth" because from their labor pains will come forth the new salvation. This indeed is their Counselor's plan. Wolff (Micah, pp. 139-40) suggests that the two imperatives sound like a midwife who challenges daughter Zion not to despair but to strain every nerve to persist through the pain to the delivery. Similarly, Renaud (La Formation, p. 196) says this image in any case would accord well with the representa­ tion that runs through all these verses. Daughter Zion must understand her cry of pain as a cry of deliverance. The suffering of the present moment prepares for the liberation to come. Jeremiah often likens the pain and agony of the people at the time of the captivity to labor pains (4:31; 6:24; 13:21; 22:23; 49:24). The figure of the pangs of childbirth is now unraveled in three consecutive predictions of his­ torical events. First, daughter Zion must leave the security of Jerusalem (2 Kings 25:2-7; Jer. 52:7). Micah's word for city, qirya, was probably chosen because it refers especially to a city's excitement

694

Micah 4:9-13

Vuilleumier (Michee, p. 54 n. 3), "to shout forth a yelling," or Fuente ("Notas al Texto de Miqueos"), "to leap, jump." There are good Semitic parallels of gyhjgwh meaning "to gush" (Arabic) or "to burst forth" (Syriac), though admittedly never with childbirth. Nevertheless, it probably means "to burst forth" into the light in connec­ tion with childbirth as understood also by Vulgate and Syriac. For the vocative |V¥TI3 (O daughter Zion) see the Exegesis of 1:13. The logical particle '3 (for) connects the command employing the sim­ ile of child labor in verse 10a to the explanation in verse 10b, also addressed to daughter Zion, namely, that out of the pain of the exile she will give birth through the Lord's redemption to a new situation. Like "now" introducing verse 9, the temporal deictic adverb HFIX? (now) in verse 10 is also wide enough to encompass both the distress of entering into Babylon and of being redeemed from there (BDB, p. 774, #lb). The non-perfective (you will go forth) signifies a specific future (IBHS §31.6.2b), beginning with the "now" of dis­

tress. nnpQ (from the city): The city must be Jerusalem for daughter Zion is being addressed. The anarthrous construction probably aims to contrast the changed situation from dwelling in a city to camping in a field (IBHS §13.2). The two vraw-relative constructions (FuDdl [and you will camp] and nKZB [and you will enter]) refer to a sec­ ond and third subsequent painful situations (IBHS §32.2.1). (there) is a constituent deictic loca­ tional adverb showing that (Babylon), its ante­ cedent, is a remote place relative to the prophet (IBHS §39.3.1). Though (you will be deliv­ ered) is an incomplete passive (IBHS §23.2.2), the Lord is clearly the agent in the parallel. one of those mixed verbs in which the passive is indi­ cated by niphal and the active sense by piel or hiphil or both (IBHS §23.6.2-3). In contrast to the future tense up to this point, here it refers to the future beyond the distress and implicitly announces freedom in association with the Lord, rpp (from the hand of) is used figuratively for the enemies' "power" or "strength" (BDB, p. 496, #2).

and noise (1 Kings 1:41, 45) and strength (Deut. 2:36; 3:4), whereas the customary word cir desig­ nates the highest cities. Second, they "will camp in the [open and unprotected] field." Sakan means "to hold up, stop, stay, dwell." Other modifiers must determine the duration and character of the staying. It can be forever (Ps. 37:27, 29; Isa. 34:17) or the circumstances may be dwelling in tents (Gen. 9:27; Judg. 8:11). A temporary dwelling in tents is suggested by the qualifying prepositional phrase "in the field." The field, vivid in the proph­ et's imagination (IBHS §13.5.1), designates the open country, the unfrequented country exposed to violence (Gen. 4:8; Deut. 21:1; 22:25; Mic. 3:12), wild beasts (Exod. 22:30 [31]), or the sword (Jer. 6:25; 14:18; 40:7, 13), between the cities of Jerusalem and Babylon, as the preceding and fol­ lowing clauses show. Finally and climactically, she "will enter into Babylon" (2 Kings 24:16; 25:7; Jer. 34:3). What Rome was to the Middle Ages, Babylon was to the ancient Near East. It was the "Mecca" of the pagan religions, the very antithe­ sis of Jerusalem. From its very commencement it was the type and symbol of pagan imperial power (Gen. 10:10). This prophecy is among the earliest references to the Babylonian captivity in prophetic literature (Isa. 39:1-7). Because of the ironclad strictures imposed by the canons of historical criticism upon the prophetic gift, many scholars delete verse 10Bap-Bb as a later insertion. Others, such as

Kapelrud ("Eschatology," p. 399) and Schwantes (Critical Study, p. 116) more cautiously retain it. Renaud (La Formation, p. 207) rejects the idea that it is a gloss because the style and structure of the piece "forbid one to appeal to such an easy expedi­ ent." He rejects Jeremiah as the author because the oracle was not incorporated into Jeremiah, and he speculates that someone in Jeremiah's school authored it. Renaud fails, however, to answer the question why material from Jeremiah's school is found in Micah and not in Jeremiah. Willis ("Review of Structure et Attaches Littéraires," p. 403) plausibly locates the composition of the ora­ cle in 705 b.c., when the embassy from King Merodach-baladan of Babylon came to Hezekiah in his quest for Judah's military assistance in throwing off the Assyrian yoke. Hezekiah responded favor­ ably (2 Kings 20:12-19; Isa. 39), but Isaiah denounced it, and in that connection predicted that Hezekiah's house would be ruined, that his wealth would be carried to Babylon, and that his sons would serve the king of Babylon as eunuchs. In sum, Isaiah foresaw that, by making an unholy alliance with the very epitome of pagan religion, Judah sold its soul to a treacherous enemy that in the end would destroy it. Halpern ("Jerusalem," p. 32) thinks that Sennacherib's policy of deporta­ tion "accounts] for seemingly prescient predic­ tions of Mic. 4.10 and 2 Kgs 20.17-18 . .. about exile to Babylon."

695

Micah 4:9-13

Though not specified, the location identifies the powerful enemies as the fierce Babylonians. The singular rp may suggest their singularity, and the plural (your enemies) may individualize them and emphasize their strength in contrast to the weakness and vulnerability of daughter Zion. 11. nnpi (but now): See the Exegesis of verse 9 for the meaning and function of this adverb. Here

too it has a thickness, for "now" includes both the distress inflicted by the Assyrians and Jerusalem's victory over them. (are gathered): The niphal is essentially reflexive with a reciprocal force: the many nations mutually gather themselves (IBHS §23.4); the perfective denotes a persistent present single situation (IBHS §30.5.1). For the root see the Exegesis of 2:12. The feminine singular

Following these three excruciatingly painful events, there Yahweh will deliver and redeem Zion from the hand of (her) enemies. "There," repeated twice for emphasis, in Babylon, the epit­ ome of evil and death, they become the new Israel. Bergmann (THAT 2:97) contrasts the Hebrew words for deliver: "While ... ys( hiphil designates the removal of the oppressor and mlt/ pit the making escape possible, nsl hiphil [the verb in v. 10] designates similarly as pdh the departing from the sphere of distress." The word choice aptly suits Israel's restoration from Baby­ lon. The nontheological uses of ga’al (to redeem) have the legal notion that the family or tribal leader protected disadvantaged members by pay­ ing off a debt, by freeing them from slavery, or by avenging a murder. This legal sense carries over with the Lord as subject, but in this use the notion of setting free or liberating comes to the fore and so forms an apt parallel to nsl. "The accent at the end of the saying is upon the redeeming will of Yahweh, which is mightier than all the affliction from the present enemy," says Wolff (Micah, p. 140). 11-13. The form of the prophecy in verses 1113 is the same as that in verses 9-10, but the sub­ stance is different. In the former, the distress con­ sists of going into the Babylonian captivity and the salvation consists of being redeemed from there; in the latter, the many nations gathered against Jerusalem constitute the distress, and Jerusalem's pounding them into submission and devoting their booty to the Lord by totally destroying it constitute the salvation. In verses 910 Babylon is identified as the oppressor; in verses 11-13 the "great nations" (v. 11) (or the "great peoples" of v. 13) are not identified. No sources mention great nations as joining King Nebuchad­ nezzar of Babylonia in his siege of Jerusalem; they are all his victims. In Isaiah 8:9 and 17:12-14, however, great nations are identified with Assyria in its conquests. Second Kings 24:2 mentions other nations with the Babylonian invaders, but they are represented as individual armies, not as comprising a common army (25:1-4). Lindblom

(cited by Allen, Micah, p. 247), citing Isaiah 22:6 and 29:7 (compare Hos. 10:10), refers the many nations to the various national units that made up the imperial Assyrian army. Lutz (Jahwe, Jerusa­ lem und die Volker, pp. 91—97) also calls attention to the songs of Zion, which may be dated to the crisis in 701 b.c. Although Renaud (La Formation, p. 210) dates the oracle to the time of the Babylo­ nian exile, he concedes that "the mysterious pres­ ervation of the city at the time of the siege of 701 could provide a good anchorage point" for this motif. In sum, the nations are best identified with the international horde of mercenaries that com­ prised Sennacherib's standing army in his inva­ sion of Jerusalem in 701. Micah will mention the Assyrians explicitly in the next prophecy (5:5 [6]). The present situation of distress, represented by "but now," seems hopeless for daughter Zion. Standing isolated and alone, with no apparent means of help, and with great nations, each under its own proud ensign, gathered against her, she is no match for them. It seems inevitable that the united imperial armies, which are so well disci­ plined and heretofore so successful will certainly plunder and rape her along with all their other vic­ tims. By quoting what they say, Micah dramati­ cally and vividly brings the scene immediately into his audience's imagination (as in v. 2). More­ over, by restricting himself as a reporter to what he sees and hears, he allows the nations to con­ demn themselves by their own words (Matt. 12:33-37; Mark 7:20). 11. The jussive "let it be desecrated," an oratio variata (IBHS §34.3), vents the strong emotions of the uncircumcised horde against daughter Zion. Many think that the enemy desecrated the city through unexpiated blood (compare Num. 35:33; Ps. 106:38; Isa. 24:5). That may be, but the parallel "let our eyes gloat over Zion" suggests that in unison they intended to expose her sacred pre­ cincts to public view and with malicious joy to gaze irreverently on Zion. Throughout the ancient Near East, most temples had holy places reserved for sacred personnel, so that the notion of defiling a temple by exposing its sacred sanctuary is not

696

Micah 4:9-13

suffix (against you) shows that this prophecy is also addressed to daughter Zion. D’ia (great nations): See the Exegesis of verse 2a. The ambig­ uous (let it be desecrated) is jussive according to the unambiguous parallel rnrn. According to Seybold (TDOT 5:38), the adjectival stative with (earth, land) as subject means "to pol­ lute," hence "to desecrate," but with human sub­ jects, "to fool oneself and others." The versions seem to be guessing at the meaning and cannot be confidently retroverted. The parallel best suits the idea of desecration. Horst (Hiob, p. 132) defines the root: "act or attitude through which a state of sacral relation to the Godhead is intentionally set aside." (let ... gloat): HTn here may designate close inspection, not a prophetic form of revela­ tion (as in 1:1), though Jepsen (TDOT 4:289) hesi­ tates to distinguish its use here from (see 7:10). |Y33 (over Zion): This adverbial phrase prob­ ably has reference to the city, not the inhabitants. The preposition □ adds the nuance "to look on maliciously, to gloat over" (as in 1 Sam. 6:19; Obad. 12; Mic. 7:10; this meaning is also sup­ ported by the LXX). The dual subject with the first-person common plural suffix 177^ (our eyes) can be considered as a collective and the verb put

in the feminine singular (Joüon §150d; GKC §145n). 12. HQrn (but they): Adversative waw contrasts the strategy of the nations with the Lord's plan, and the personal pronoun HQH, looking back to the "many nations" of verse 11, sets an explicit antithesis between them and the Lord (IBHS §16.2). WT &Ó (do not know): also occurs in 3:1. nüpno (plans) refers to both the action of cre­ ative, rational planning and its results (IBHS §5.6; Seybold, TDOT 5:231, 233). Verse 12Ab emphati­ cally reinforces verse 12Aa and probably no dis­ tinction is intended between the two versets. '3 (surely) is an emphatic causal adverb modifying the clause that explains the immutable plan the Lord has designed. (he assembles them together): The piel denotes the resulting state (Ryder, D-Stem, p. 116), and the perfective denotes a persistent present single situation (IBHS §30.5.1), the same as in verse 11. Both verbs are colored with martial overtones (see the Exege­ sis of 2:12). TIJXO (as newly cut grain): Stalks were cut off just under the ears so that the word does not mean "sheath" (Holladay, Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon, p. 277).

uniquely Israelite and would have been under­ stood by the pagans. Of course, in the process they would have plundered its gold, also sacred by its consecration to the Lord. In any case, they aim to rid the earth of Israel's holy God. Mays (Micah, p. 109) comments: "When nations see themselves as the centre of history and seek a destiny that ful­ fills their power, they can tolerate no Zion; they are gripped with a compelling need to destroy whatever stands in judgment and restraint on their pride." 12. The scene of distress (the nations fighting against Zion in v. 11) is dramatically reversed in verses 12-13 to a scene of salvation: the Lord fighting against the nations. The act of salvation takes place in two scenes united by a common hero (the Lord) and a common setting (a threshing floor). In the first scene (v. 12) the Lord plots the destruction of the nations by bringing them to his threshing floor. In the second (v. 13), after person­ ally arming Jerusalem, he eliminates his enemies by commanding daughter Zion to pulverize them and bum up their plundered, filthy wealth and their military hardware. In verses 12-13 Micah puts aside his guise as reporter and resumes his role as prophet, speaking as the Lord's plenipoten­ tiary.

As in 2:1, 3 the plans of the wicked are con­ trasted with the Lord's plan. His immutable pur­ pose—to destroy them (v. 13)—will creatively and appropriately reverse the malevolent schemes of the uncircumcised multitude to desecrate his holy city and house. The heathen armies "do not know" and so fall into the Lord's trap because they are insensitive to right and wrong and lack the moral logic to link sin and hubris against God with punishment from him. The meaning of cesa (counsel, advice) means "immutable purpose, unchangeable plan" when the Lord is the subject (Ps. 33:10-11). Gilchrist (TWOT 1:390) reminds us that cesd is translated in the LXX by boule, which occurs in Ephesians 1:11 with reference to the immutable foreordination of God's will and in Hebrews 6:17 in the expression "the unchange­ able character of his purpose." Elsewhere the two terms cesa and mahasabot (plans) also occur together, probably to denote the Lord's compre­ hensive plan (Ps. 33:10-11; Jer. 49:20; 50:45). From this vantage point the present distress is seen in an entirely new light: it is part of God's plan! What had seemed to be a setback for the city of God is in fact an opportunity for its advance. The pagan throng do not understand that they are in the Lord's hands and the unwitting tools of

697

Micah 4:9-13

13. V'p (arise): See the Exegesis of 2:10. The o sound, instead of the expected u, in Vhl (and thresh) is unexplained (Jouon §80k); perhaps an intensifying variant after qumi. For the vocative (daughter Zion), see the Exegesis of 1:13. For the meaning and function of *5 (for) see the Exegesis of verse 12. The distinction between the city and its inhabitants is attenuated; the inhabit­ ants are now in view (contra w. 8, 11). CfpK (I will make) breaks up the Lord's commands to daugh­ ter Zion with his parenthetical promise in the indicative mood (the root also occurs in 1:6-7; 2:12; 4:7, 14 [5:1]). The verb is preceded by the emphatic first accusative of the thing made, (your horns), and followed by the second accusa­

tive of material, (of iron) [IBHS §10.2.3). The double accusatives depict daughter Zion as having invincible superiority. HOT] (and [I will make] your hooves of bronze) also comes under the government of “S and emphatically reinforces the parallel, Dipnrn (and pulverize): Wdvv-relative picks up on the first two impera­ tives [IBHS §32.2.2). ppn means "to grind fine" both in qal (Isa. 28:28; 41:15) and in hiphil. The hiphil is probably elliptical, and one should under­ stand a second accusative (“12X?1?, into dust; see 2 Kings 23:6, 15; IBHS §27.3). (great peo­ ples) also occurs in verses 1-3, 11. Tnnnni (and devote ... by destroying it) consists of a subse­ quent ial waw-relative and either an archaizing

their own destruction. The Lord turns their ani­ mosity against him to bring about their defeat, just as he outwitted Satan in the cross of Jesus Christ (1 Cor. 2:8). "The deliberate intentions of the nations are merely a link in the chain of Yah­ weh's grand design," says Wolff [Micah, p. 141). What they thought was their own will goes back instead to God's immutable will (compare Gen. 50:20). They came to Jerusalem to strip its temple, but in the Lord's comprehensive plan precisely there they will be stripped; where they conspired to desecrate the Lord's name and sanctuary, their filthy loot will be consecrated to the Lord for destruction,- where they hoped to rid the earth of the transcendent and holy God, the Lord of all the earth will rid the earth of them. Their thrashing and winnowing as wheat in the Lord's hand serves as an earnest that the Son of God will burn up the chaff of the ungodly with unquenchable fire (Matt. 3:7-12). 13. Micah now unpacks the Lord's plan by quoting the Lord's address to daughter Zion, which expands upon the figure: "He assembles them together as newly cut grain to the threshing floor." Now that the mulling crowd has been brought to the Lord's threshing floor like a multi­ tude of heads of cut grain, the Lord addresses daughter Zion first with two commands in line Aaa, then with two promises in line Aap, and then with new two new commands in line Ab—B. The threshing-floor scene begun in verse 12 is devel­ oped by implicitly likening daughter Zion to a threshing heifer that one drives over the grain, as the subsequent mention of iron horns and bronze hooves shows. The first command, "arise," resonates with Israel's old cry to commence holy war (Num. 10:35-36). Instead of that old command, addressed

by Israel to the Lord, now it is the Lord's battle orders to Israel. The second command, "thresh," refers to the pulverizing process accomplished by treading oxen (Deut. 25:4; Hos. 10:11) and so means to crush them brutally (Isa. 21:10; Amos 1:3) and destroy them (Isa. 41:15; Hab. 3:12). In Amos 1:3 and Isaiah 41:15 the focus is on the threshing sledge; in Micah's zoomorphism the focus is on the threshing heifer. The imperative makes the promise or prediction more emphatic and vivid than would be the case were it indica­ tive, and it matches the imperatives of the attack­ ers to desecrate Zion. In their willfulness the nations vainly exhorted one another; now the tri­ umphant Lord commands daughter Zion to pre­ vail. Daughter Zion has nothing to fear in accom­ plishing the divine command because her Lord promises supematurally to equip her for this supernatural task. The metaphor "your horns," implicitly likening daughter Zion to a threshing heifer, symbolizes her power (Deut. 33:17; 1 Sam. 2:10; 2 Sam. 22:3; Ps. 22:22 [21]; 75:11 [ 10]; 132:17; Jer. 48:25; Lam. 2:3). Horns commonly depict power in ancient Near Eastern literature and ico­ nography. The material of which they are made, iron, symbolizes both hardness or strength (Ps. 2:9; 105:18; Isa. 48:4; Jer. 17:1) and harshness (Deut. 28:48; Dan. 7:7). A century earlier the prophet Zedekiah made iron horns to symbolize Israel's superiority over Aram (1 Kings 22:11). The double accusatives (horns, iron) depict daughter Zion as having invincible superiority. "Your hooves" also refer to Zion's might (Isa. 5:28; Jer. 47:3; Ezek. 26:11), and this is further reinforced by their material, bronze, which also evokes hard­ ness and harshness (Judg. 16:21; 2 Chron. 33:11; 36:6; Jer. 52:11). The twin image of iron horns and

698

Micah 4:9-13

second feminine singular (GKC §44h) or an erro­ neous first-person common singular suffix due to the twice repeated DW. The latter explanation is unlikely in light of the parallel nip’iHV The object (their unjust gain), from the root (to cut off), yielding "to take one's cut, profit" in connec­ tion with material gain, refers to "(illegal) profit or gain" (Exod. 18:21; Isa. 33:15; 56:11; Jer. 6:13; 22:17; Ezek. 22:12-13, 27; 33:31). (even their wealth): Waw is epexegetic; ‘rn in parallel with CX?^3 means "strength and power" with a strong

nuance of military might, not just "wealth" (Eising, TDOT 4:349; compare the LXX's rqv ioxuv ocuTcbv and Vulgate's fortitudinem eorum). More precisely, pillage and booty are in view (as in Num. 31:9; Zech. 14:14). In the chiastic, emphatic synonymous parallel of verse 13Bb to verse 13Ba, 'WnnH*! is gapped and rnirp (to the Lord) is expanded by (to the Lord of the all the earth). For the meaning of piR see the Exegesis of 1:2. bb is a genitive of mediated object (IBHS §9.5.2), see the Exegesis of 1:5, 3:9, and 4:5.

bronze hooves emphasizes daughter Zion's invin­ cibility. The hard and harsh iron horns defend by goring the attackers; the hard and mighty hooves pulverize the heads of enemies exceedingly fine. The third and final metaphorical imperative, "pulverize great peoples," brings the scene to its dramatic conclusion. One may cease threshing before totally pulverizing the grain into powder and nothingness (Isa. 28:28), so the Lord com­ mands the supematurally equipped daughter Zion to complete the task by grinding them as fine as dust (Isa. 41:15; Hab. 3:12). Having been pulver­ ized into dust, they will be blown away with the wind and forever removed from the earth (2 Sam. 22:43; 2 Kings 23:6, 15). In this way he will, as Mays (Micah, p. 110) says, "crush the pretensions of all the peoples who plot the desecration of the city of God." In verse 13b the final command, not continuing the metaphor, is given: "Devote their unjust gain

to the Lord by destroying it." Whereas verse 13a speaks of the annihilation of the enemy in a mili­ tary defeat, verse 13b vividly predicts the subse­ quent sacred destruction of the unholy loot. In this passage, as in Joshua 6:17 and the Mesha inscription, the two uses of herem—for war and for the sacred—overlap: "devote ... by destroy­ ing." Daughter Zion will irrevocably give over the unholy loot of the "great peoples" to the counter­ sphere of the holy Lord by totally destroying it (Isa. 43:28). The land is now rid of the unclean swarm and their filthy wealth and arms. Whereas pagans reused the gold and silver of the gods they pillaged to enhance their own unclean temples, the Lord puts an end to all that by calling upon Israel to devote it to him by destroying it. By that devotion daughter Zion shows clearly that it is the Lord's holy war, and she too is a link in his chain. Only the Lord who performs all this is wor­ thy of the title "Lord of all the earth."

699

Micah 4:14-5:5 [5:1-6]

IL Second Cycle: God Restores Jerusalem's Former Domin­ ion to the Purified Remnant (3:1-5:14) [3:1-5:15]

D. Birth and Exaltation of Messiah (4:14-5:5) [5:1-6] WALTKE

14 Now marshal yourself as a troop, O troop­ like daughter, a siege has been set against us. With a scepter they strike on the cheek Israel's ruler. But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, a little [town] to be among the clans of Judah, from you on my behalf he will come forth to be a ruler over Israel; and his origin will be from of old, from days long ago. 2 (Therefore he [the Lord] will give them up, until the time [when] she who brings forth will bear [the child], and [when] the rest of his brothers will return to the sons of Israel.) 3 And he will stand forth and shepherd [his flock] in the strength of the Lord, in the majesty of the name of the Lord, his God; and they will live securely, because now he will become great to the ends of the earth. 4 And he will be the one of peace. As for Assyria, if he penetrates into our country, and if he marches through our lands, then we will raise up against him seven shepherds, even eight sheiks over humankind. 5 And they will shepherd the land of Assyria with the sword, and the land of Nimrod with a drawn sword. And so he will deliver [us] from Assyria when he penetrates into our country, and when he marches through our territory.

5

700

NRSV

5 2

3

4

5

6

Now you are walled around with a walk­ siege is laid against us,with a rod they strike the ruler of Israel upon the cheek. But you, O Bethlehem of Ephrathah, who are one of the little clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to rule in Israel, whose origin is from of old, from ancient days. Therefore he shall give them up until the time when she who is in labor has brought forth; then the rest of his kindred shall return to the people of Israel. And he shall stand and feed his flock in the strength of the Lord, in the majesty of the name of the Lord his God. And they shall live secure, for now he shall be great to the ends of the earth; and he shall be the one of peace. If the Assyrians come into our land and tread upon our soil, we will raise against them seven shepherds and eight installed as rulers. They shall rule the land of Assyria with the sword, and the land of Nimrod with the drawn sword; they shall rescue us from the Assyrians if they come into our land or tread within our border.

Micah 4:14-5:5 [5:1-6]

14 [5:1]. HFW (now): See the Exegesis of verse 11 for function and meaning. ”~n3r»H (marshal your­ self as a troop): The hithpolel of TT3 normally means "to cut oneself," but in Jeremiah 5:7 and Psalm 94:21 it means "to throng together." According to the former meaning, Micah sarcasti­ cally calls upon Zion to engage in heathen mourn­ ing rites that involved cutting oneself (1 Kings 18:28; Jer. 16:6; 41:5), which the law forbade (Lev. 19:28; Deut. 14:1). The congeneric noun TH?, however, always means "band" or "troop," except in Jeremiah 48:37, where it means "cuttings upon

the hands as a sign of mourning," and in Psalm 65:11 [10], where it means "furrows." If this sta­ tistical preference be followed and the verb be regarded as a productive denominative (IBHS §24.4), then Micah is ordering Zion to form itself into a troop. The latter interpretation is preferable because, as in verse 9 where the figure of sarcasm was also disallowed, it better fits an oracle of sal­ vation. This interpretation was also adopted by Syriac and Targum. The non-perfective denotes injunction (IBHS §31.5). The LXX's qi(|)paxOqoETat ... (completely walled in) is

4:14-5:5 [5:1-6]. The prophecy beginning in verse 14 is linked with the preceding two oracles in verses 9-13 by moving from a situation of present distress (4:14) to future deliverance (5:1— 5). The distress section in all three prophecies involves an introduction, the word "now," and an injunction addressed to Jerusalem under the expression "daughter" (4:10, 13). The deliverance section in 4:14-5:5, however, differs so radically from those prophecies that it must be distin­ guished from them. Moreover, its theme (the Mes­ siah) and its own rhetorical unity mark it off as a distinct prophecy. With the exception of 5:1, Micah speaks throughout. The rough transitions between the verses suggest that prior to their collection into this ensemble, these verses existed in isolation. Whatever the history of its redaction, this section is now strongly unified not only by the form of moving from distress to deliverance, but also by the inclusio of using the first-person pronoun "us" in connection with mention of Assyria's siege and invasion of the holy land in 4:14 and 5:4-5. By the end of the oracles the tables are com­ pletely turned from Assyria's attack against the remnant to the remnant's attack against them. The distress and deliverance motifs are linked by adversative waw in 5:1 (but) (which radically contrasts the defeat of the present epoch with the future glorious victories of Messiah) and by con­ trasting Israel's present humbled sopet (ruler), who depended on his own military hardware (cf. 5:9-10), with her future humble mosel (ruler), who will conquer "in the strength of the Lord, in the majesty of the name of the Lord, his God" (5:3). The section pertaining to salvation (5:1-5) falls into two halves: a focus on the victorious messianic shepherd-ruler (w. 1-3) and on his tri­ umphant undershepherd-leaders (w. 4-5). Micah's diverse currents of eschatological hope in the prophecies of 4:1-13 are here sewn together into a unique tableau. He links the vision of the

law going forth from Mount Zion to instruct con­ verted nations that are afar off (4:1-5) with Messi­ ah's rule over all of true Israel and reaching to the ends of the earth (5:3). The universal salvation envisioned in 4:1-5 will not transpire until the advent of Messiah and Israel's restoration in con­ nection with it. The notion of Israel's universal dominion is also prepared for in the closing words of 4:12-13: "the Lord of all the earth." The resto­ ration of Jerusalem's former memsald (dominion) (4:8) finds an echo in the coming mbSel (ruler) (5:1), suggesting the two are related. These two prophecies are also bound by sharing a common form: the Lord himself addresses the honored city (seen from "but you" in 4:8; 5:1). The remnant in Jerusalem, who has been likened to a woman in labor in 4:9-10, is now said to give birth to Mes­ siah in 5:2 and so to renewed Israel. Finally, Jeru­ salem's triumph over the nations predicted in 4:11-12 is now seen to be accomplished ulti­ mately by Messiah and his shepherd-sheiks. The divine blessings flow through Messiah. The prophecy was probably delivered during Sennacherib's siege of Jerusalem. Renaud (La For­ mation, pp. 252-53), who assigns parts of this unit to later periods, establishes that 5:4-5, by its men­ tion of Assyria with Babylon subordinate to it, should be dated to the eighth-century prophet. Furthermore, the rare word nesike (sheiks) in 5:4 also occurs in an Assyrian inscription from 720 b.c., helping to corroborate this early date. More­ over, Micah's use of the first-person plural pro­ noun in connection with the Assyrian invasion in 4:14 and 5:4-5 strongly suggests that the siege of Jerusalem mentioned in 4:14 is that of Assyria, more specifically of Sennacherib. Mays (Micah, p. 114) dates the prophecy to the Babylonian siege on the faulty argument that "in descriptions of a par­ ticular historical occasion [masor] is used only of Nebuchadnezzar's sieges of Jerusalem (2 Kings 24:10; 25:2 Jer. 52:5; Ezek. 4:3, 7; 5:2)." In fact, however, the Chronicler (2 Chron. 32:10) quotes

701

Micah 4:14-5:5 [5:1-6]

based on -I’D . . . ’"nriTI, probably regarding the expression as a metaphor for the siege. The root "TD, however, does not occur elsewhere in hithpael. Moreover, it facilitates with an easier read­ ing the MT's unique figure, "trooplike daughter." The MT is difficult and satisfying, suggesting that original “I was corrupted into the similar shaped "I in both the angular and square scripts. HHrra (O troop[like] daughter): The nomen regens n? func­ tions the same as in (vv. 8, 10, 13), and the nomen rectum "IH? functions as an attributive genitive (compare TTDH *55 in 2 Chron. 25:13). The epithet is an incomplete metaphor for Zion. Tl"D is neutral (as in Job 25:3; 29:25), not pejorative, "a raiding band" (Gen. 49:19; Jer. 18:22; Hos. 6:9; 7:1; so Vulgate: [ilia latronis). TTD, versus (army), connotes the smallness of Zion's army against the hosts of nations besieging it (see v. 11). D2? (has been set) is indefinite, rendered here as passive (IBHS §4.4.2a); the tense is present perfect. This asyndetic clause substantiates the command in verse 14Aa. D*5x? (against us): See BDB, p. 963, #lb. The preposition provides another link with the distress in verse 11, but the change of pronoun alters the perspective. Now Micah identifies him­ self with the besieged Jerusalemites. E5$5 (with a scepter): In a verset dealing with a ruler, 05$ means a "rod of authority, truncheon, scepter." The subject of O* (they strike) could be either the implied rulers of the nations or, more probably, an indefinite subject in parallel with verse 14Ab. The non-perfective, in parallel with the perfective may denote a present progressive imperfective (i.e., they keep on striking) or a present incipient imperfective (i.e., they begin to strike) (IBHS §31.3). (Israel's ruler) is a reference to

the king ("king" and "ruler" are connected in 2 Kings 15:5; Ps. 2:10; 148:11; Isa. 16:5; Amos 1:15; 2:3). The epithet "judge" for the king came about because the king himself had to render jus­ tice (2 Sam. 15:2-6; 2 Kings 15:5; Isa. 11:5; Prov. 29:14; Macholz, "Die Stellung des Königs"). Note the assonance of iDDÖ with tDDÖ. Micah reserves the title King for Yahweh (2:13; 4:9). 1[2]. (but you): Waw is adversative, con­ trasting the role of Bethlehem in Israel's future salvation with Jerusalem's present distress; the pronoun in this casus pendens construction is emphatic (IBHS §4.7; see also 4:8). HTO crf7Ti*5 (Bethlehem Ephrathah): On the basis of the LXX's bt|0X£e|li oikoc; tou E^paOa (= nm^rr»*5 □rtrrn) many think the original text read nrrWTl*5 (house of Ephrathah) and that crfTTTS was later added as a gloss to identify Ephrathah with its later location south of Jerusalem (see Gen. 35:1920) instead of with its earlier location on the northern border of Benjamin. Moreover, it is argued, that one expects an address to people, not to a locality. DrfrTTS, however, is found in all texts and versions (see Mur 88, which lets one sur­ mise the final m of Bethlehem). Probably the addi­ tional Fi*5 in the LXX's Vorlage is due to dittography. Moreover, Ephrathah elsewhere in Scripture is a place, never a people (which is designated by the gentilic ‘TH?#, Ephrathite; see Renaud, La For­ mation, p. 220). Finally, in the very parallel 4:8 a place-name is also personified. In Matthew 2:6 BtiOXeeji yfj ’lou5a (Bethlehem in the land of Judah) explains the textual tradition. The indefinite adjective TJ2S (little), emphasizing the nature of the Bethlehem, occurs twenty-two times. In all but two or three instances it designates "young"

Sennacherib as using this very word for his siege against Jerusalem! Israel cherished this prophecy in the first cen­ tury a.d., at which time the Lord Jesus Christ ful­ filled it (Matt. 2:5-6; John 7:42). Readers need to remind themselves that, although Micah clothed this prophecy in the earthly garb of the eighth century, it finds fulfillment in the heavenly garb of the Son of God. 14 [5:1]. Israel's humiliation is remedial not penal, temporary not permanent, because God covenant with it is eternal (7:20). In the light of ultimate victory, not final defeat, Micah exhorts the faithful remnant who are holed up within Jerusalem during the Sennacherib's siege to galva­ nize themselves "as a troop," a description that suggests their puniness before the powerful na­

tions (4:11). The prophet who wept over the fall of Judah in 1:8-9 now shares their affliction and humiliation in the besieged capital: the siege is "against us." The siege, representative of Satan's forces arraigned against God's people throughout their history, threatens the life of the resolute remnant sheltered behind Jerusalem's wall. Israel's ruler, who should have wielded his truncheon for righ­ teousness, now cringes, as it were, like a criminal beneath the repeated blows of the uncircumcised's scepter (¿ebet) (Isa. 10:5-19). The Assyrians "strike on the cheek Israel's ruler," signifying that he can no longer defend himself (2 Kings 18:2324). 1 [2]. In this dark context, Micah now gives the faithful troop bright hope to fight on against the

702

Micah 4:14-5:5 [5:1-6]

of two or more, almost always with the additional coloring of inferiority in strength and/or social stature. Occasionally the idea of young is lost, leaving only the sense of small in contrast to many/great (Ps. 119:141; Isa. 60:22; Dan. 8:9). Its parallels include (poor,- Judg. 6:15), (small; 1 Sam. 9:21), andnp: (despised; Ps. 119:141), mak­ ing the notion of weakness in physical or social stature explicit. Whatever the age of Bethlehem among Judah's clans, it was "small" in physical and social stature and, hence, insignificant for leadership in government and prowess in war. Though the construction is not comparative, Bethlehem is implicitly being compared with the other clans of Judah. If Micah intended a compara­ tive of capability (i.e., too little to be among the clans of Judah) (IBHS §14.4), however, one would have expected the comparative JÇ (as in Isa. 49:6). Conscious of the grammatical irregularity, Fitzmyer ("Ie as a Preposition") appeals to Ugaritic to identify the of ntn5 as lamed comparativum. Why a unique Ugaritic construction here, how­ ever? Weiden (Le Livre des Proverbes, p. 45) unconvincingly discovers lamed comparativum in Psalm 30:8 [7]; Ecclesiastes 7:19; Song of Songs 1:3; Ezekiel 16:13; Micah 5:1 [2]; and Nahum 1:7. Others emend the text in various ways (Renaud, La Formation, p. 222). 5 denotes purpose: "little to be among the clans of Judah." Matthew 2:6 reads oùôapœç ÈXa/ioTri éi (you are by no means the least). His text could have been influenced by several LXX manuscripts that read pq before the superlative oXiyooTÔç, yielding "are you then too small to be. . . ?," but no other versions attest the negative. More probably, Matthew's rendering is interpretive; he is looking at the result of the divine choice of the town that historically had no preeminence. HTH(among the clans of

Judah): means "thousand" (Mic. 7:1). Origi­ nally a reference to a military unit of a one thou­ sand men that a clan provided when a tribe sum­ moned itself to arms (Num. 31:4; Deut. 1:15; 1 Sam. 8:12), from that it may have come to desig­ nate the largest political or military unit (Exod. 18:21; Num. 1:16; Josh. 22:14; 1 Chron. 13:1; 27:1) and even the united clan itself (Judg. 6:15; 1 Sam. 10:19) or the territory it occupied within the tribes, which can be identified with a city itself (Amos 5:3; Mic. 5:1 [2]). These clans varied in power and prestige (Judg. 6:15). Instead of -2^5, Matthew reads fiyqiómv (= among the chiefs), which is found in some Greek manu­ scripts instead of the LXX's ev xt^tdcnv. The dif­ ference is again interpretive, not textual. By this change the apostle aims to form a better contrast between f|y£póotv (the chiefs) of the other clans with fiyobpEvoc; (ruler) (= 5tíl0) in verse lAbp. The syntax and meaning of K2T **5 (from you on my behalf he will come forth) is ambiguous and so occasioned emendations, none of which is satisfy­ ing. Matthew 2:6 omits it, but its interpretive ren­ dition undercuts its textual value. The versions support the MT. Willis ("Micah 5:1"), while main­ taining the MT, offers an unusual interpretation based on parallels: "From you [a city] will come out to me [a person]," meaning that the Messiah will come out of Bethlehem as an inferior king to meet Yahweh, his superior king, in order to sub­ mit himself to him. Renaud (La Formation, p. 224) objects that, among other arguments, all of Willis's invoked parallels are located in a clear context of surrender, whereas here the context is one of victory, not surrender. Besides, none of the parallels use t7. It is best, then, to return to a more traditional interpretation of the passage, (from you): The suffix resumes the casus pendens (HFIK).

insurmountable odds by predicting and depicting the coming of Messiah. Micah first focuses on his place of origin. The little town of Bethlehem is sublimed with glory as the Lord himself addresses it: "But you, Bethlehem." As in Micah 1:10-16 one may presume nomen est omen and Beth­ lehem (house of bread) and Ephrathah (fruitful) pregnantly portend Messiah's career. More significantly, however, the collocation of place-names (Bethlehem, Ephrathah, and Judah) reminds one of David's father Jesse (1 Sam. 16). Matthew ties Messiah even closer to David by calling him hegoumenos rather than archonta (as in Mic. 5:1 LXX), taking his term from the Davidic tradition in 2 Samuel 5:2 and 7:8 (LXX).

Bethlehem, David's cradle, represents a new com­ mencement, a new beginning, in the house of David. God will not frustrate his covenant with David but will gloriously fulfill it with a new David in the last days. Amazingly, God bypasses Jerusalem, the city he chose and loved above all cities (Ps. 46, 48, 76, 84, 87, 122), and in his divine election and enablement returns instead to the portal through which David stepped onto the stage of salvation-history when the Philistines threatened Israel with annihilation centuries before. Isaiah expressed the same truth of Messiah representing a new start by linking him with Jesse: "A shoot shall come out from the stump of Jesse, / and a branch shall grow out of his roots"

703

Micah 4:14-5:5 [5:1-6]

The skewed syntax is due in part to the desire to make "from you" emphatic. The focal point in redemptive history is none other than the insig­ nificant town of Bethlehem, showing that Israel's future greatness does not depend on a great human king but on divine intervention to bring greatness out of nothing. The usual understanding of ’5 (on my behalf) (IBHS §11.2.10), referring to God, is clear enough. The syntax, however, is fur­ ther twisted by placing before the verb to emphasize that Messiah comes to serve the Lord, not himself (see in 1 Sam. 16:1). The subject of N2T (he will come forth) is mysterious, holding Micah's audience in suspense as he fills in Messi­ ah's features one by one in the rest of the oracle. Matthew 2:6 paraphrastically supplies T|Yonpevoadam (human beings) denotes the human race as dependent crea­ tures. Maass (TDOT 1:86) says: "There is no guar­ antee that he can determine his own destiny or think that his life will be prosperous by his own efforts and accomplishments." 7 [8]. But to those people who refuse to acknowledge the remnant as God's mediators of blessing, it becomes a lion that proudly and sover­ eignly passes by, tramples its victims into subju­ gation, and tears them fatally with none to deliver. The figure also functions as a polemic against the great nations of Micah's day. Egyptian rulers are represented as lions in both their ico­ nography and literature. More significantly, the Assyrian kings liken themselves to lions (Botter­ weck, TDOT 1:380): Sargon II becomes furious "like a lion" and stalks through the land of his enemies "like a raging lion that strikes terror."

713

Micah 5:6-8 [7-9]

7, it is generic and no distinction is intended (Bot­ terweck, TDOT 2:7). "TED (young lion), according to Botterweck [TDOT 1:376, based on studies by Noldeke and Koehler), "originally . .. meant a 'young animal,' but then especially a 'young lion' who goes out on his own in search of prey." This parallel to rr"IK emphasizes the lionlike character of the remnant and is appropriately used with iKZT'TiJS (among flocks of sheep). The plural noun ""H-p stands in contrast to the singular "lion/ remnant," and "flocks" stands in contrast with "beasts." The qualifying relative clause intro­ duced by "OK (which) consists of a conditional protasis introduced by the conditional particle CK (when) and the apodosis introduced by apodosis waw, probably with ] -KL The condition is not only capable of fulfillment but likely, so that CK seems to have a more precise sense of "when." The verbs of the protasis ^"101 Oft'T "QX7 (it passes by, tram­ ples and tears) are gnomic perfectives (IBHS §30.5.lc), and so waw is not relative and sequen­ tial, but conjunctive (i.e., when he passes by, and when he tramples, and when he rends). The sequence of situations is semantic, not grammati­ cal. Exegetes differ regarding the identification of apodosis waw, but the disjunctive accent tipha

with rpEfi favors ’pK’l. If so, verse 7Ba presents through three grammatically identical verbs the remarkable lexical crescendo: "pass by, trample, rend." 8 [9]. ChFI (let . . ., [O Lord], be raised trium­ phantly) is jussive [IBHS §34.3d), not non-perfective (i.e., will be raised) (contra versions = DDFl). In textual variants pertaining to vocalization, every­ thing else being equal, the MT is preferred [IBHS §1.6.3). (your hand): T denotes the forearm, wrist, and hand (e.g., bracelets are worn on it in; Gen. 24:22) and is often associated with power (Ackroyd, TDOT 5:418-22). The antecedent could be the remnant or Yahweh. If the former, the raised hand could symbolize either prayer (Exod. 17:11) or rebellion (1 Kings 11:26-27). It seems unlikely the prophet would call upon the remnant to rebel, having said that their success depends on the divine initiative. Although a command to the remnant to raise its hand in prayer would proba­ bly have been expressed by C1"l in the hiphil stem, the issue must be decided by literary form and context. A liturgical petition to Yahweh in verse 8 after the prophetic vision of verses 6-7 best suits the liturgical form (other petitions in Ps. 17:6; 19:15 [14]; 20:10 [9]; 21:14 [13]; 108:6). Moreover,

Similar comparisons are made concerning Sen­ nacherib, Esarhaddon, and ASSumasirpal. The majestic lion is also a favorite motif as a decora­ tion in the temples and palaces of Mesopotamia. Tourists to the British Museum can still see ASsurbanipal's stone reliefs portraying him in contest with lions. The proud lion, who retreats before none, is mighty among beasts (Prov. 30:30; Botterweck, TDOT 1:382). The remnant of Jacob will inherit the ancient benedictory blessings of the patriarchs and proph­ ets (Gen. 27:28-29; 49:9; Num. 22-24). Whereas Hosea in his oracle of judgment (5:14) against Israel prophesied that the Lord would become a rending lion from whom none could deliver Israel, Micah in his oracle of blessed salvation reverses the curses, fulfilled in most of Israel, prophesying that the remnant will become the rending lion from whom none can deliver (see also Zech. 8:13). The remnant will be like the ferocious lion both "among the beasts of the forests" and "among flocks of sheep." Since "beasts of the for­ est" are themselves dangerous and predatory, the simile aims to accent the surpassing pride, prow­ ess, and predatoriness of the lion, and so the exceeding greatness of the singular remnant to the many great nations. Moreover, the "beasts of the

forest" (i.e., predatory wild animals) and "flocks of sheep" (i.e., preyed-upon domesticated animals) is a merism, exact opposites, representing all ani­ mals. The merism of similes represents the rem­ nant of Jacob dominating all nations, both great and powerful, weak and small; none is exempted. Whereas, according to verse 5b Messiah will deliver Israel from Assyria, according to verse 7 none can deliver the enemy from Israel (both using nsl). 8 [9]. Micah, and probably the remnant with him, in a liturgical conclusion (also in 4:5) peti­ tions God, the only one sufficient to the task, to raise his hand against his adversaries to initiate the eschatological victory. The gesture of a raised hand in Psalm 89:14 [13] and Isaiah 26:11 clearly symbolizes God's triumphant power in obtaining mastery over his enemies. To capture the thought, the niv interpretatively adds "in triumphant." The symbolic gesture could have been extended to the remnant of Jacob (compare Exod. 14:21; 15:6; Deut. 32:27). The petition comports well with the promise in the preceding prophecy that God would raise up Messiah to deliver Israel and con­ quer all her enemies. Sar and >oyeb (the latter found also in 2:8; 4:10) are, according to Jenni [THAT 2:582), general des-

714

Micah 5:6-8 [7-9]

the parallel TTp” (and let . . . be cut off) provides the semantic and lexical link with the next proph­ ecy in which Yahweh says, "I will cut off," sug­ gesting the agent is Yahweh, not the remnant, and

the hand that powerfully destroys the adversary is Yahweh's. The parallel CHFI shows the form is jus­ sive. For the meaning of TO see verse 9.

ignations for an enemy or adversary, which, with the exception of Esther 7:6, are used generally or collectively, not for individuals. The root behind sar (adversaries) deals with the harassment and torment engendered by those who oppose the Lord's kingdom, both its King and his subjects, and supplant it with a rival one. The addition of koi (all) in the parallel "and all your enemies" heightens the meaning: none is exempt and so, by impheation, the Lord's kingdom becomes co­ extensive with his creation (i.e., it extends "to the

ends of the earth" [v. 3]). By cutting off all his ene­ mies the sovereign Lord reigns extensively, entirely, and eternally. To the King of kings and Lord of lords belongs the praise both now and forever. The prayer entails, as Calvin (Twelve Minor Prophets, p. 316) comments, "not that the Church shall be in a quiet state, but victorious, and declares also that there will never be wanting enemies." Their prayer paves the way for the promise in verses 914 that God will vanquish his enemies.

715

Micah 5:9-14 [10-15]

II. Second Cycle: God Restores Jerusalem's Former Domin­ ion to the Purified Remnant (3:1-5:14) [3:1-5:15]

F. The Lord Protects His Purified Kingdom (5:9-14) [10-15] WALTKE

NRSV

9 And it will come to pass in that day says the Lord, I will cut off your horses from among you and I will destroy your chariots,10 and I will cut off the cities in your land, and I will tear down all your strongholds,11 and I will cut off sorceries from your hand, and you will not have diviners; 12 and I will cut off your idols and your cultic pillars, and you will bow down no longer to the work of your own hands,13 and I will uproot your Asherahs from among you, and I will destroy your temple precincts; 14 and I will avenge my sovereignty in anger and wrath against nations who do not obey [me].

10 In that day, says the Lord, I will cut off your horses from among you and will destroy your chariots; 11 and I will cut off the cities of your land and throw down all your strongholds,12 and I will cut off sorceries from your hand and you shall have no more sooth­ sayers,13 and I will cut off your images and your pillars from among you, and you shall bow down no more to the work of your hands; 14 and I will uproot your sacred poles from among you and destroy your towns. 15 And in anger and wrath I will execute ven geance on the nations that did not obey.

716

Micah 5:9-14 [10-15]

9 [10]. For initial rriT (and it will come to pass) with the adverbial phrase WHH’Dr? see the Exege­ sis of 4:1, 6. rnrr"EW (says the Lord): See the Exe­ gesis of 4:6. Tnprn (I will cut off): Wdw-relative is left untranslated because it typically introduces the clause after ¡THl with temporal modifier (Lambdin, Introduction to Biblical Hebrew, p.

123). Who is the antecedent of the pronominal suffix in T[*’p-O (your horses)? Renaud (La Forma­ tion, p. 270) argues that on the literary level it is the nations of verses 6-7. In his view, the purifica­ tion of Israel has become the purification of the nations. He finds support in the Targum, which replaces "your" with "of the peoples" in verses 9-

9-14 [10-15]. Verses 9-14 are marked off from the preceding prophecy in verses 6-8 by the intro­ ductory formulas "in that day" and "says the Lord" and by its own rhetorical unity. After the introductory anacrusis in verse 9Aa, the oracle falls into two unequal parts (w. 9Ab-13 and v. 14), distinguished from each other by both structure and theme. In the first part, the Lord introduces the first verset of each verse (with the exception of v. 13a) with the refrain "and I will cut off"; he introduces the second verset of each verse with a synonymous parallel: "I will wreck, tear down, destroy" (with the exception of w. 11b, 12b); and without exception he concludes each verset with the second-person masculine singular suffix "you/ your" with reference to Israel. In the second part of the oracle (v. 14) the pronominal suffix "you/ your" and the direct address to Israel is dropped and instead one finds "nations who do not obey" spoken of in third-person. In verses 9-13 the Lord promises through the repeated refrain and synonymous parallels to purge his kingdom from those things that fracture its covenantal relation with him: trust in its mili­ tary power, divination, and idolatry. The theme of purging Israel from these false securities is under­ scored by the refrain "from among you" in the first and last verses (w. 9, 13), forming an inclusio around this section. Verse 14, on the other hand, presents the Lord as taking punitive vindication against the nations that do not submit to his rule. The first section limits his empire to within Israel; the second expands it implicitly to the ends of the earth. On the other hand, the two uneven parts are connected by structure, theme, and situation. Both share the initial first-person pronoun with reference to the Lord as speaker, "I will . ..," thereby showing clearly that verse 14 also belongs with the section introduced by "says the Lord." Moreover, both pertain to the theme of the Lord protecting his imperium by purifying his realm: in the first, by purging unbelief and attendant un­ holiness from among nominal Israel and so pre­ serving it from his final wrath; in the second, by taking punitive vindication against those nations that rebel against his rightful claim to universal

sovereignty through Israel. Calvin (Twelve Minor Prophets, p. 318) notes: "The salvation of God [v. 14] could not otherwise come to them than by stripping them of all vain and false confidence [vv. 9-13]." To "cut off ... from among you" (vv. 913) and to "avenge sovereignty" (v. 14) share the common notion of punishment to preserve a com­ munity. The first pertains to enemies within, and the punishment is remedial; the second pertains to enemies without, and the punishment is penal. In both cases the enemies trust in something other than the Lord. The oracle aims to sober unbelievers and to strengthen believers. This theme and aim fit the situation in 701 b.c. Willis ("Authenticity and Meaning," p. 356) says: "5:9-14 is parallel in structure and thought to 4:910. An enemy army is attacking Israel, and Israel is retaliating with human power—both military and religious, thereby demonstrating her lack of faith in Yahweh. Yahweh declares that He Him­ self will remove these objects of faith, and will then give Israel the victory over her oppressors." Willis also argues for the authenticity of the ora­ cle by noting that according to Jeremiah 26:16-19 Hezekiah instituted the kinds of reforms pre­ dicted here. Hezekiah's trust was vindicated when the Lord delivered Israel from the Assyrian oppressors. Within verses 9-13, verses 9-10 are linked by the merism of the purging of horse-drawn chariots in verse 9 and of fortified cities in verse 10. Verses 11- 12 are linked by the reference to "your hand(s)." By this motif, Israel's false security in its military power is linked with divination (v. 11) and idolatry (v. 12), both of which religious prac­ tices are expressions of their own power. Verses 12- 13 are linked by changing the refrain from "I will cut off" to "I will uproot" with reference to idolatry. This concluding oracle of promise in chapters 4-5 shares many links with the earlier one in these chapters: the mention of nations in 5:14 functions as an inclusio with nations in 4:1-2, but whereas the first one deals with obedient nations, this one with the disobedient. The connection is enhanced by the unique repetition of wehaya, by the motif of the destruction of weapons, and by

717

Micah 5:9-14 [10-15]

10 and 12-13 (e.g., "the horses of the people"). The introductory formula, however, clearly marks off this prophecy from verses 6-8, and the cultic cleansing in verses 9-13 pertains to those matters that break covenant between Yahweh and Israel. In that light the apostate covenant people, Israel,

is in view. The interpretation is validated by a par­ allel prophecy in Isaiah 2:6-8, which accuses Israel of placing their confidence in the very objects specified here: pagan divination (2:6), financial resources to support their military might (2:7), and idols, "the work of their/your hands"

linking the fortunes of the nations with eschato­ logical Israel. The penultimate oracle (5:6-8) matches the second oracle (4:6-7), so in an envel­ oping chiasmus the last pericope (5:9-14) matches the first (4:1-5). Micah 5:9-14 also has links with 4:6-7 by the introductory formulas bayyom hahu’ and neiim yhwh. Finally it is linked with 4:14-5:5 by wehayd in 5:4, 6, 7, 9; the prediction of spiritual con­ version of all Israel in 5:2 and 5:9-13; the motif of Messiah's protection of the Lord's imperium in 5:4-5 and the Lord's protection in 5:14; and the explicit promise that the Lord's rule will extend to the ends of the earth in 5:3, a promise implied in 5:14. Isaiah (2:6-8) accused Israel that at the time of the Assyrian threat Israel was full of horses and chariots, soothsayers and magicians, and vain idols. The striking similarities between Isaiah's complaint and Micah's promise suggest that the two oracles derive from a common oracle includ­ ing accusation (Isaiah) and threat, transformed in Micah into promise. This linkage strongly sup­ ports the historical credibility of Micah's super­ scription (1:1). Nothing is said here about how the Lord will purge his imperium from these false securities that alienated it from its covenantal relationship with him. Perhaps one should suppose from the oracles of judgment in chapters 1-3 that the Lord began to purge Israel from its artificial supports through the harsh political rod of Assyria. Under that chastening rod, Israel learned the futility of its false securities. After the scourge of 701 b.c., Israel, as Isaiah (2:20) foresaw, for the moment threw away to the rodents and bats the idols of sil­ ver and gold that they had venerated, a presenti­ ment confirmed by the historical books. Hezekiah radically reformed the nation by replacing apos­ tasy with a faithful adherence to the Lord and his law (2 Kings 19:14-19; 2 Chron. 29-31; Isa. 37:14). Only the miracle of God's intervention in response to these reforms preserved the remnant through that perilous time. Hezekiah's reform, however, was temporary, whereas Micah foresees a time when false confi­ dences will no longer exist in true Israel. His vision finds fulfillment in the church of Jesus

Christ that he gave himself up for, "in order to make her holy by cleansing her with the washing of water by the word, so as to present the church to himself in splendor, without a spot or wrinkle or anything of the kind—yes, so that she may be holy and without blemish" (Eph. 5:26-27). 9 [10]. The introductory deictic temporal clause "and it will come to pass in that day" deftly fits the oracle in verses 9-14 into the tab­ leau of salvation prophecies in chapters 4-5 per­ taining to eschatological Israel's golden age under Messiah's rule (see 4:1, 6; 5:3-5 [4-6]). The second introductory clause, "says the Lord," invests it with heavenly authority. The repeated refrain "[and] I will cut off" intro­ duces a series of divine initiatives by Israel's Sov­ ereign to purge his realm from Israel's reliance on human power, both military (vv. 9-10) and reli­ gious (w. 11-13). Israel's independent spirit frac­ tured the covenantal relationship based on faith in God and prevented Israel from fulfilling its sacred mission of sanctifying the earth. Many scholars recognize that the purifying laws of excommuni­ cation in Leviticus color this divine promise to cut off Israel's false confidences. Mays (Micah, pp. 125-26) says: "The verb is a feature of a sacral for­ mula for the removal of persons who have vio­ lated the holiness of Israel (e.g., Lev. 17:10; 20:3, 5, 6; niphal in Lev. 7:20f., 27; 19:8; 20:18); the removal is not only a judgment upon the persons, but a measure to preserve the corporate people in the face of Yhwh's wrath against the unholy." Vuilleumier (Michee, p. 66) notes the cultic use of "cut off" with "from among you" and adds that it designates excommunication by extermination. The objects consigned for annihilation are those that threaten Israel's covenantal relationship with the Lord and are thus proscribed in Deuteronomy: military might (vv. 9-10; Deut. 17:16), sorcery (v. 11; Deut. 18:9-13), and idolatry (w. 12-13; Deut. 7:5; 12:3; 16:21). These things offend the Lord's sovereignty. Anaphoric "I will cut off" (w. 9-12) explicitly shouts out its promises. In Israel's eschatological future the Lord himself will purge his imperium from unbelief and its correlative unholiness "from among you," thereby preserving it in the future from his righteous wrath. Micah may have given

718

Micah 5:9-14 [10-15]

(2:8). Besides, if the nations were in view, one would expect plural suffixes, not singulars, and the plural form in verse 10, not singular •rpTlK. The pronoun "you" (singular) is also found frequently in the Book of Deuteronomy for all Israel (e.g., 5:6). Robinson (Micha, p. 145) thinks the horses are cultic objects, citing 2 Kings 23:11. The immediate parallels—chariots, cities of your land, strongholds—suggest, however, military horses are in view, not the idols in verse 13. ■rnpKH'1 (and I will destroy): Wczw-relatives in this section seems to function as part of a longer series of iden­ tical forms acting as a semantic unit, that is, rep­ resenting different aspects of "in that day." There­ fore, each is better construed as functioning in the same way as with TOPHI in verse 9Ab rather than as sequential to one another. "QK also occurs in 4:9. Yrwno (your chariots): is the common term for a vehicle drawn by a horse. Employing hyperbaton, Micah has broken up a coordinate stereotyped phrase "horses and chariots." The combined expression means "horse-drawn chari­

ots" (as also in Ps. 20:8 [7]). Israel did not possess a cavalry, troops mounted on horseback. 10 [11]. The precise repetition THprn (and I will cut off) is rare and, so, emphatic (O'Connor, Hebrew Verse Structure, p. 109). (in your land): JHK means "country of Israel" as in verse 4 and is a genitive of location (IBHS §9.5.3). For grammar and syntax of ’’FD’ini (and I will tear down) see the Exegesis of in verse 9b. The root O“H means "to tear down," often with the object "cities" (2 Sam. 11:25; 2 Kings 3:25), and so it becomes a technical term for warfare (Jer. 45:4; Lam. 2:2; Ezek. 13:4). 7[,’’lùŒ"l7p (all your strong­ holds): The root “1^2 means "to cut off, make inac­ cessible, fence, fortify." One need not decide the question of etymology here except to note that according to Oswalt (TWOT 1:123) "of the sev­ enty-three occurrences of bâsar and its derivatives, all but eight have to do with fortification (or in­ accessibility)." The parallels and are also best construed as a hyperbaton (e.g., Num. 32:17, 36; Josh. 10:20; 19:35; 2 Kings 3:19;

pride of place to the removal of Israel's false mili­ tary guarantees—horse-drawn chariots (v. 9) and fortified cities (v. 10)—because they had first place in their unbelieving hearts. Lachish, Israel's strongest fortified city, is said to be the beginning of sin in Judah (1:13). Scriptural notices that the land bristled with military hardware at the time of Sennacherib's invasion (2 Kings 18:13, 24; 2 Chron. 32:1-5; Isa. 31:1) find mute support in Hezekiah's still extant water tunnel. To many modems, having embraced a secular point of view, this first sin is less obvious than the other two: faith in military hardware, however, as effec­ tively breaks covenant as turning to false gods. Isaiah, Micah's contemporary, accused Israel of putting this screen between themselves and the Lord (2:7; 30:16; 31:1), and Hosea, also Micah's contemporary, shared a similar vision for Israel's golden age (14:4 [3]). As noted in the Exposition of 4:1-5, when peo­ ple obey God's moral laws they can throw away the paraphernalia of war, but when they disobey they arm themselves to the hilt to protect their evil ways. This promise is addressed to "you," Israel, the theocracy where no distinction was made between church and state, not to modem nations, and finds its fulfillment in the new Israel, the church. 10 [11]. Predicting that the Lord will purge Israel of its fortified cities, verse 10 stands in a synthetic and antithetic relation to verse 9: syn­

thetically by moving from offensive horse-drawn chariots to defensive fortified cities,- antitheti­ cally, as a merism, representing all armament. "Cities" designate any permanent, usually forti­ fied, settlement without regard to size and claim, though Deuteronomy 3:5 mentions unwalled towns. Hulst (THAT 2:268) and Strathmann (TDNT 6:522) say that one ought to think of cir as some form of fortification. When enemies invaded the land, the populace that worked the fields fell back behind the walls of the fortified cities, with thick walls and special watchtowers, to preserve their lives and families from slavery in foreign lands. Oswalt (TWOT 1:123) notes that these for­ tified cities were almost impregnable until the perfection of siege techniques by the Assyrians (Jer. 5:17). Since these cities were so strong, they tempted Israel to put their trust in them, not in God. The prophets are at pains to show the folly of such trust (Isa. 17:3; Lam. 2:5; Hos. 10:13-14). God alone, however, is humankind's stronghold (Ps. 27:1). Verse 10b intensifies verse 10a by the specific and telic word tear down, by adding "all," and by enlarging upon the basic notion of cities as strong­ holds. Munderlein (TDOT 3:462) says that the verb haras (to tear down) becomes a term for Yah­ weh's act of judgment. When enemies are finally destroyed, the walls of their cities and their foun­ dations are thrown down (Jer. 50:15; Ezek. 26:4, 12; 30:4). In contrast to old Israel, which allowed a

719

Micah 5:9-14 [10-151

10:2, 17:9; 18:8; [er. 4:5; 5:17; 8:14; 34:7). The com­ bined idea is "your fortified cities." n [14 (and I will cut off): See the Exe­ gesis of verses 9-10. C’SEfo means some sort of sor­ ceries (2 Kings 9:22; Isa. 47:9, 12; Nah. 3:4; com­ pare Deut. 18:10; Jer. 27:9; and Akkadian kussupu, to practice sorcery), but the precise species of divi­ nation is not known. **[TD (from your hand): T entails "power" as in 2:1 and the ablative proba­ bly means "out of the hand," that is, "out of the power of" (BDB, p. 391, #5g). In short, sorcery will no longer be in their power. (and . . . divin­ ers): Waw is coordinate and the poel participle is a nomen agentis of the root II which also per­

tains to practicing some form of divination (see Deut. 18:10, 14; Isa. 57:3; Jer. 27:9). Ahituv (Encjud 6:114) holds that it is related to the Arabic canna (to appear) and so thinks that is the one who causes the spirit of the dead to appear. 12 [13], Tn?ni: Sec the Exegesis of verses 9-10. ■^*702 (your idols): See the Exegesis of 1:7. Isaiah 19:19 also assumes that (your cultic pil­ lars) were an accepted part of the Judean cult in Micah's day. ¡TnFpH (you . . . will bow down): The root is disputed (IBHS §21.2.3d). yr TOTO*? (to the work of your own hands) is a synonym for idol in Hosea 14:4 [3] (see also Exod. 20:4; Deut. 27:15; Isa. 44:9-20).

moderate amount of military hardware (Deut. 17:14-16; Neh. 4:3 [9]; Ps. 149:6), the new Israel will have none. It advances and defends itself by faith in God alone (Ps. 20:8 [7]). The church is a miracle. No earthly means raised Jesus from the dead or sent his Spirit upon the church, and its weapons are not carnal (2 Cor. 10:4). 11 [12]. Micah turns to Israel's religious power in verses 11-13: manipulated divination (v. 11) and handcrafted idolatry (vv. 12-13). The precise species of divination denoted by the terms sorcer­ ies and diviners is unknown. Perhaps, to judge from other parallels in this passage, together they constitute a merism to indicate all forms of divi­ nation and magic. The addition of "from your hand" suggests objects that can be manipulated, such as arrows, lots, liver (Ezek. 21:26 [21]), and staves (Hos. 4:12). Isaiah 2:6 associates divination with the Philistines and apparently with supersti­ tions from the east. As known from Assurbanipal's library, its practice entered very largely into the religious life of the Babylonians and Assyri­ ans, from the personal religion of individuals to the most important departments of the national religion. Its complex rites were jealously guarded, as elsewhere, and were practiced by a large and organized priesthood. The zeal for divination is due to human desire to advantage self and disad­ vantage others by prescience and magic. Sorcery was a capital offense in Israel (Exod. 22:17 [18]), and Malachi (3:5) saw sorcerers being judged along with other classes of sinners (similar groupings are found in Rev. 21:8; 22:15). This judgment shows how seriously the Lord regarded the attempt by Israel to annex to itself spiritual forces outside of himself, thereby opening Israel to demonic and dark forces. In place of diviners the Lord gave Israel prophets who mediated his word

to the people, a word that demanded faith in the one who rules the future according to ethics. 12 [13]. Finally, the Lord promises in verses 1213 to purge Israel from idols, the incarnate repre­ sentations of pagan deities. These verses function together as a merism for all kinds of idolatry. Verse 12 refers to the rock representations of the Canaanite fertility-god Baal and verse 13 to the wood representation of his consort Asherah. Along with >asera (the stylized tree or wooden statue of the goddess Asherah), the fertility-god's cultic stone pillars (masseba) (2 Kings 10:27) were erected beside the altar, sometimes receiving sac­ rificial blood and, as appears from the polished surface, being kissed by devotees. These sexually opposite emblems are often associated in the OT (Judg. 2:13; 3:7; 10:6; 1 Sam. 7:4; 12:10; 1 Kings 18:19; 2 Kings 23:4). The second commandment proscribed making idols (Exod. 20:4; Deut. 5:8; 7:25) and the law mandated that Israel tear down Baal's detestable stone pillars (Exod. 23:24; Deut. 7:5; 16:21-22), which could be adorned (Hos. 10:1). An idol gave concrete expression to two pagan concepts: animism and voodooism. Pagans did not distinguish between the Creator and his creation but confounded spirit with matter and so vener­ ated the innate forces of life within nature with the hope of participating in that life. Furthermore, they thought that through magical voodoo in the cult, including both the magical recitation of myth and magical mimetic ritual, they could manipulate the idols to endow annually their crops and wombs with life. Unlike Israel's God who connected the future and life with ethics and sexual purity, these gods pandered to the sensual lusts of their devotees, demanding no moral recti­ tude. Idolatry and the stone pillars not only seduced Israel into pagan thinking and eroticism, they also caused them to substitute the true Rock

720

Micah 5:9-14 [10-15]

13 [14]. T10m (and I will uproot): See ’FTOKT in verse 9 for syntax of this verb. Wolff (Micah, pp. 151-52, 159-60), noting that "Asherim" and "cit­ ies" (see below) make a bad parallel, emends YTijS (your Asherahs) to (your enemies) and (your cities) to yTS (your adversaries), fol­ lowing the Targum (see v. 8 for the same paral­ lels). Although Bro never elsewhere has ETB^ as object but ordinarily becomes a technical term for the deportation of nations and groups of people (1 Kings 14:15; Ps. 9:7; Amos 9:15), and although the elimination of the CTBK is described else­ where with other verbs, it is best to stay with the MT because it is supported by all texts and ver­ sions and is not unintelligible. Although nor­ mally means "your cities," that parallel is curious because "cities" have already been mentioned in verse 10 and form a very bad parallel to the Asherah poles. Many emend the text (Willis, "Authenticity and Meaning," pp. 353-54). Jeppe­ sen ("Micah 5:13") defends "cities" from Jeremiah 2:28 and 11:13 ("your gods are just as many as your cities, O Judah!"), where “careka is clearly meaningfully combined with ’eloheka in conjunc­ tion with Judah." His argument, though appeal­ ing, questionably assumes that Micah's audience

would have equated "cities" with "gods." Others have sought to derive the word from a different root than its usual meaning of "city" (it occurs 1,092 times according to Hulst, THAT 2:270). J. P. Michaelis and many commentators since under­ stood as a place of trees. Gaster ("Notes," p. 163) notes that in one of the Ugaritic texts gr (= TX?) stands in parallel with psi (carved image), making an excellent parallel here to the Asherah; he also connects the word with Arabic gyr (bedaubed stone). Sasson ("Flora, Fauna and Min­ erals," pp. 435-36) on the basis of the Ugaritic par­ allel translates "forest" or "statutes of wood." Gray (I and II Kings, p. 562), commenting on 2 Kings 10:25 and not mentioning Micah 5:13, says that TP is related to gr in one Ugaritic text and may mean "inmost recess, or shrine, of the temple"; it "may be a cognate of the Arabic gawr ('a hollow'), cf. mugara ('cave')." Fisher ("Temple Quarter") does not look to a cognate Ugaritic root but argues that TP is a flexible term meaning "temple quarter or even of the inner room of the temple," citing 2 Kings 10:25, but not Micah 5:13. Van der Woude (Micha, p. 187) also, without cit­ ing either Gray's or Fisher's studies, appeals to 2 Kings 10:25 and applies the meaning "temple

with rocks associated with demonic forces (Deut. 32:15-18). The reference to idols as "the work of your own hands" (Deut. 4:28; 27:15; 31:29; 2 Kings 19:18; 22:17; Ps. 115:4; 135:15; Jer. 1:16; 10:3; 25:6) shows that they belong to the same spiritual stuff of trusting in oneself, and correlatively of not trusting in the Lord but rather in one's military might and manipulated sorcery. Allen (Micah, p. 357) comments: "The hands of God's people must be emptied of all that smacks of help not derived from God if he is to give vic­ tory to their hands when they strike in battle." Finally, they sought to probe the future through the wind whispering through these stone and wood objects instead of listening to the clear voice of the Lord through Moses and his prophets (see 6:4). 13 [14]. By changing the initial verb from karat to nataS Micah indicates that verse 13 continues the attack against pagan idolatry begun in verse 12. In the OT, Asherah, who is primarily a fertil­ ity-goddess, appears as Baal's consort (Judg. 3:7; 1 Kings 18:19; 2 Kings 23:4). Her cultic object, from which she is inseparable, was a tree or some other wooden object driven into the ground (Judg. 6:26; 1 Kings 16:32-33; 2 Kings 17:16; 2 Chron. 33:3). Its precise description is unknown (perhaps

a grove, a stylized or carved tree or pole, or a cult image), possibly because Israel's prophets refused to elaborate upon such a detestable object. A liv­ ing tree cannot be in view, as de Moor (TDOT 1:442) notes, because the Tiserd was made (1 Kings 14:15; 16:33) and stood under green trees (1 Kings 14:23; 2 Kings 17:10). De Moor (TDOT 1:443) thinks the >d$era might have been a stylized tree, for among other reasons it appears as such on a clay model of a cultic scene from Cyprus. On the other hand, he notes that pesel ha’asera (the carved image of Asherah) in 2 Kings 21:7 is stated simply ha^aserd in 23:6, favoring the view that it was an image of the goddess. The sacred personnel associated with the Baal stone pillars and Asherah trees involved themselves in erotic sex acts. Of interest in Micah 5:9-13 is the function of stones (Baal's symbol) and trees (Asherah's symbol) in giving oracles: they murmur and whisper (mantics were associated with Asherah in Hos. 4:12; see de Moor, TDOT 1:440, 443). Trees and stones play a similar role at Ugarit. Taanach letter 1:20-21 mentions a mantic of the Asherah. Once again, the formula for purging through excommunication and annihilation is used: "from among you." This is reinforced by the promise: "I will destroy your temple precincts." Vetter

721

Micah 5:9-14 [10-15]

recess" to Micah 5:13. Because these researches derived from D1T (to be hot). The noun can also do not dialogue with other views, no consensus mean "venom" and possibly "fiery wine." "It is has been reached. This last solution, based on OT easy to understand," says Johnson [TDOT 1:352), usage elsewhere and not just on a Ugaritic cog­ "how bodily 'heat' is brought about by anger as nate, seems best. well as by poison or wine." The coordination of 14 [15]. Willi-Plein [Vorformen der Schriftexe­ the two words bring to a flash point the holy gese, p. 97) arbitrarily says that .. TrtpiTi (and Lord's burning anger against rebels defying his I will avenge) cannot be linked. Buhl [Hand­ sovereignty. The emphatic particle (against) is wörterbuch, p. 623, #2) notes other instances used here with the definite adverbial accusative of besides this one of TO with an abstract object. limitation "with regard to" (IBHS §10.3.1) and is BDB (p. 794, #1.2) notes other occurrences of the translated "against" because Dj?D signifies defen­ verb with Pfc (against), n^ro-i (in anger and sive vindication with regard to or against rebels, wrath): The preposition □ situates the psychologi­ □’’’fen (the nations): See the Exegesis of 4:3. For a cal circumstances of the Lord's action [IBHS rebuttal of conjectures that would remove §11.2.5) and could be rendered by an adverb: see Willis, "Authenticity and Meaning," pp. 355"angrily and wrathfully." The etymology of the 56. WQip tfb (do not obey): Since presumes that noun from the root (to be angry), always the nations in view are rebellious, the clause is with God as subject, is debated and can mean tautologous; nevertheless, this pleonastic con­ either "nose" or "anger," reflecting its original struction removes all ambiguity about the nations connection with angry snorting. It is used most in view and contrasts these disobedient nations in frequently in parallel with HQFI, thirty-three times this closing prophecy of salvation oracles in chap­ according to Johnson (TDOT 1:354). "Other ters 4-5 with the converted nations described in words," says Johnson, "used synonymously with the opening oracle of 4:1-2. WQ0 (obey): Although >aph are cebhrah, 'fury' (10 times), zacam, 'indig­ always means "to hear," in most texts it has a nation' (8 times), and qetseph, 'wrath' (4 times). more precise meaning, such as "to pay attention, Words meaning 'compassion,' 'grace,' and 'mercy' understand, examine, obey," depending on the sit­ . . . are used as antonyms of 'anger.' " non is uation and the social status of the speaker and

(THAT 2:965) says that samad hiphil means "visi­ ble elimination" and that "it takes the place of krt hiphil/niphal with separative min with reference to excommunication in an echo of the formula in Deuteronomy 4:3 and in a late formulation in Ezekiel 14:9." According to him, it corresponds to the law of excommunication that ordered from the cultic community the physical elimination of the thing banned (herem) out of its midst (Josh. 7:12; 2 Sam. 14:7, 11, 16). This verb constitutes an appropriate ending of the series begun with karat hiphil. 14 [15]. Having purged his imperium within and thereby protected it against the divine anger against unholiness, the Lord now promises to pro­ tect it against enemies without. Verse 14 is offen­ sive to modem taste because it speaks of both the Lord's vengeance and his wrath. Behind "avenge" stands naqam, a legal term that signifies a ruler secures his sovereignty and keeps his community whole by delivering his wronged subjects and pun­ ishing their guilty slayers who do not respect his rule. Mendenhall (Tenth Generation, p. 70) draws the conclusion on the basis of the biblical and prebiblical ancient Oriental usages that "the 'ven­ geance' of Yahweh actually designates those events in human experience that were identified

722

as the exercise of the sovereignty—what the ancient Romans called imperium." After studying a number of examples of naqam in the Amama letters, he draws the conclusion "that the root nqm designates what we have termed defensive vindication. ... Nowhere does nqm specifically imply anything similar to vengeance" (p. 82). Mendenhall then turns to the use of the root in the Bible, fifty-one of which involve situations in which either the Lord himself is the actor or an agency to which he has delegated power to act. "Thus in over two-thirds of the total occurrences, the root designates the exercise of the divine imperium either directly or indirectly" (pp. 8283). This exercise of force is directed against ene­ mies of the divine imperium, whether it be Israel itself or foreign nations. In the exercise of his sov­ ereign power the Lord both punishes the aggressor and protects his subjects, and so the word may sometimes be translated "defeat" or "rescue" (Anderson, Out of the Depths, pp. 90-91). Micah 5:14 belongs to the category of punitive vindica­ tion. Mendenhall (Tenth Generation, p. 95) goes on to note that self-help without authorization from the Lord was an attack upon God himself. One could not resort to force in order to redress a wrong. The Lord was sovereign and force belonged

Micah 5:9-14 [10-15]

audience. Schult (THAT 2:980) says that it pre­ dominantly pertains to humankind as hearing God's commands and means to do what God or his representative said and wanted. Furthermore, he notes that the content of what ought to be heard (or is not heard) cannot be enlarged upon in isolated instances (e.g., Exod. 6:12; 16:19-20; Num. 14:22-23; Judg. 2:2; 1 Kings 20:35-36; Zeph. 3:2; Hag. 1:12; Zech. 7:11). Occasionally the con­ tent (even in context) is not stated, but TO is used

absolutely, so that the one being addressed must either know precisely what is meant or cannot know (1 Sam. 15:22; Isa. 1:19). In verse 14 the expression is used absolutely, but what Schult fails to realize is that this absolute use does not presume an elided object. Rather, the point of this absolute expression is that these nations do not submit to the Lord's rule but stand rebelliously against his sovereign lordship.

to him alone. An individual's or a society's help­ ing of self, of taking matters in one's own hands without the Lord's authorization, was an attack upon him. To redress wrong committed against oneself was an act of unbelief. To fight on one's own behalf entailed the conviction that the Sover­ eign could not defend his own imperium. The Lord protects his imperium against rebels in fiery "anger and wrath." Today there is wide­ spread neglect, if not denial, of the concept of God's wrath. "Anger in every shape and form is foreign to God whose mercy is infinite," says Berdyaev (Freedom and the Spirit, p. 175). Accord­ ing to others, divine anger originally belonged to demons that later became associated with Yah­ weh; according to Otto (Idea of the Holy, p. 74) the lower "daemonic dread" in primitive religions "has already been long superseded by the time we reach the Prophets and Psalmists." The doctrine, however, is found throughout the OT (2 Sam. 3:39; Ps. 110:5; Isa. 13:9, 16; Amos 3:2). Marcion disassociated the angry God of the OT from the loving God of the NT, but Tasker (Wrath of God, pp. 27-48) demonstrates the importance and sig­ nificance of the doctrine in the NT (Rev. 6:16). Some have sought to make God's "strange work" (Isa. 28:21) more palatable by restricting the notion of God's wrath to retributive justice. Saint Augustine (City of God 15:25) says: "The anger of God is not a disturbing emotion of his mind, but a judgment by which punishment is inflicted upon sin." To be sure, retributive justice with its rewards for righteousness and punishment for sin is associated with God's wrath in scores of OT passages, but this notion does not exhaust or

explain God's wrath in scores of other passages. His wrath against the nations is aroused by their pride (Isa. 16:6), wickedness and brutality (Amos 1:3—2:3), oppression of Israel (Obad. 10-15), and violation of his holiness (Ps. 2:12). His anger is also aroused by those who violate his holiness and thumb their noses at him. God extends his holi­ ness in his contact with his property and servants. Those who fail to recognize his holiness in these tangible and visible expressions of his presence with humans violate his very character and incur his awesome wrath, as seen when Uzzah and the men of Beth-shemesh desecrated the ark (1 Sam. 6:9-11; 2 Sam. 6:7) and when the sons of Korah tried to supplant Moses and Aaron in the handling of the sacred vessels (Num. 16). David feared to touch the Lord's anointed (1 Sam. 26:19; 2 Sam. 1:14). An affront against his person must be met with a wrath that vindicates his honor and holi­ ness. Saphir (Mysterious Wrath, p. 200) says: "God affirmed and accomplished his absolute claim of lordship and 'otherness' by his wrath which struck back the offenders of his holiness." Ezekiel proclaimed judgment to vindicate God's honor and holiness (20:41; 28:22; 36:21-24). God is not a machine but a person, and some things need to be said and done with passion. God's burning wrath and punitive destruction, Micah says, is "against nations who do not obey." The nations who disobey him snub his lordship and profane his holiness and therefore properly incur his wrath and punishment in an affirmation of his very character. The expression assumes that the Lord's legitimate exercise of power extends to the ends of the earth.

723

Micah 6:1-8

III. Third Cycle: God Forgives the Remnant of His Sinful People (6:1-7:20)

A. Israel Accused of Breaking Covenant (6:1-8) NRSV

WALTKE

6 2

3

4

5

Hear what the Lord is saying! "Arise [O Micah]! Make an accusation before the mountains! and let the hills hear your voice!" Hear, O mountains, the Lord's accusation! [Hear], O enduring ones, you foundations of the earth! for the Lord has an accusation against his people; even against Israel he will establish what is right. "O my people, what have I done against you? and how have I overburdened you? Testify against me! Surely, I brought you up from the land of Egypt, even from a slave house I redeemed you; and I sent before you Moses, Aaron, and Miriam. O my people, remember what he plotted, that is, King Balak of Moab, and how he responded to him, that is, Balaam son of Beor; [remember the crossing] from Shittim to Gilgal, in order to know the saving acts of the

6 2

3

4

5

6

Lord."

6 "How can I come before the Lord? [How] should I bow down to God on high? Should I come before him with burnt offerings? with calves a year old? 7 Would the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams? with myriads of torrents of oil? Should I give my firstborn as my transgression offering?

724

7

Hear what the Lord says: Rise, plead your case before the moun­ tains, and let the hills hear your voice. Hear, you mountains, the controversy of the Lord, and you enduring foundations of the earth; for the Lord has a controversy with his people, and he will contend with Israel. "O my people, what have I done to you? In what have I wearied you? Answer me! For I brought you up from the land of Egypt, and redeemed you from the house of slavery; and I sent before you Moses, Aaron, and Miriam. O my people, remember now what King Balak of Moab devised, what Balaam son of Beor answered him, and what happened from Shittim to Gilgal, that you may know the saving acts of the Lord." "With what shall I come before the Lord, and bow myself before God on high? Shall I come before him with burnt offer­ ings, with calves a year old? Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams, with ten thousands of rivers of oil? Shall I give my firstborn for my transgres­ sion,

Micah 6:1-8

WALTKE

the fruit of my body as my sin-offering?" 8 One has told you, O human being, what is good. And what does the Lord require from you? Rather, [he requires you] to practice justice and faithful love and walking wisely with the Lord your God.

NRSV

the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?" 8 He has told you, O mortal, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

725

Micah 6:1-8

1. (hear) is plural (elsewhere in 1:2; 3:1, 9; 5:14 [15]). The prosaic *0$ (what) suggests this is another editorial introduction in the book (as in 1:1; 3:1). The predicate participle HON (is say­ ing) presents a durative situation (IBHS §37.6). Dip (arise): See the Exegesis of 2:10. (make an accu­

sation): Limburg's form-critical study ("Root pp. 291-97) confirms the philological studies by Würthwein ("Der Ursprung") and Harvey ("Le 'Rîb-Pattem' " and Le Plaidoyer Prophétique, chap. 1) that the root means "complaint, accu­ sation." Only in Exodus 21:18, out of about

8. Since the interpretation of the parts of this 1oracle (w. 1-8) depends on the right understand­ ing of its form, it will pay to sketch some of the history of determining its form and setting. The prose anacrusis in verse 1A represents an editorial addition to the original prophecy (v. 1b—8) (as in 3:1). The editorial notice calls upon the book's audience to hear the new and final section of Micah's book, chapters 6-7, and validates its divine source and timelessness. Many scholars identify verses 1b-8 as a rib (a lawsuit speech), which is also found in Isaiah 1:23, 18-20; 3:13—15; [perhaps 5:1-7]; Jeremiah 2:413; 25:31; Hosea 2:4-17 [2-15]; 4:1-6; 12:3-15 [214]; and Malachi 3:5. Gunkel [Einleitung in die Psalmen, pp. 364-65; also Huffmon, "Covenant Lawsuit," pp. 285; Westermann, Isaiah 40-66, pp. 17-19) posits this essential form for the rib:

which vv. 1-8 belong), in contradistinction to the latter (to which vv. 9-16 belong), lacks an empha­ sis on coming punishment. On this basis Ramsey draws the plausible conclusion that the complaint speech aimed to move the Israelites to contrition: "At least in its cultic use, the purpose of the 'Complaint Speech' was to facilitate restoral of the covenant relationship" (p. 46). His analysis, however, fails to do full justice to verses 6-8. Many scholars now distinguish between the forms of verses 1-5 and 6-8. Since the suggestive study of Begrich ("Die priesterliche Tora," pp. 7980), what was labeled the "refutation" motif of the covenant-lawsuit (or complaint) speech in verses 6-8 can also be categorized as "torah ora­ cle" or "entrance liturgy." Koch ("Tempeleinlassliturgien") states the form precisely: the question of the conditions for access into the sanctuary (Ps. 15:1; 24:3; Isa. 33:14) is found in verses 6-7, and the priestly response formulating the divine requirements (i.e., torah-, Ps. 15:2-5; 24:4-5; Isa. 33:15-16) is found in verse 8. In verses 6-7 the petitioner is concerned to determine how to "meet with the Lord" and secure his favor, to which the reply is given in verse 8 in the form of torah. Willis ("Review of Micha 6:6-8,” p. 276) says, "The verbs CHp and rpD in v. 6 certainly may refer to entering the sanctuary to worship." Apparently Israel's very existence is being threat­ ened and so the people flee to security of the tem­ ple. Derelict priests, however, have corrupted the temple and fail to guard its holiness. As a result Micah assumes the sacerdotal function and deliv­ ers the torah requirement for entrance. In conclusion, verses 1-8 comprise two literary forms, the Lord's complaint speech (vv. 1-5) and Micah's torah liturgy (w. 6-8). The torah liturgy, however, also functions as the refutation motif of the covenant-lawsuit speech. At the end of the complaint the Lord calls upon Israel to remember (i.e., to actualize or renew) the covenant and so opens the door to salvation. The petitioners, how­ ever, close that door by their response. Instead of the spiritual commitment that a covenant rela­ tion requires, they offer instead ritualistic sacri­ fice. They have no heart for the covenant. If verses 6-8 are not connected with verses 1-5, then the

I. A description of the judgment scene II. The speech of the plaintiff A. Heaven and earth are appointed judges B. Summons to defendant (or to judges) C. Address in second-person to defendant 1. Accusation in question form to de­ fendant 2. Refutation of defendant's possible arguments 3. Specific indictment

Limburg ("Root pp. 291-97) finds that the rib functions in three settings: the court at the city gate (Exod. 23:2-3, 6; 2 Sam. 15:2, 4; Prov. 18:17), the cult where the Lord functions as advo­ cate for the individual or for the people (Ps. 35:1; 43:1; 74:22; 119:154; Lam. 3:58; Mic. 7:9), and international relationships (Judg. 11:12-28; 12:2; also in eighth-century Aramaic steles). The latter setting fits Micah 6:1-5 because the Lord lodges his complaint through his plenipotentiary Micah, though, as we shall see, the complaint was proba­ bly made in the temple. Ramsey ("Speech-Forms," pp. 45-^48), enlarging the discussion to include Judges 2:1-5; 6:7-10; 10:10-11; and Psalm 81, divides the covenant-law­ suit oracles into two subdivisions: complaint speech and judgment speech. The former (to

726

Micah 6:1-8

twenty nontheological uses of its sixty-six occur­ rences, does it have a reciprocal sense, "to quarrel (with one another)"; otherwise, it denotes an oral complaint made by an aggrieved party against the party held responsible for the grievance. Harvey (Le Plaidoyer Prophétique, p. 117) defines it "to reclaim the right of." Renaud [La Formation, p. 291) thinks DN (before) must mean "against." The LXX, however, rightly reads rcpôç. nN means "before" in Genesis 20:16 and Isaiah 30:8 (BDB, p. 86, #n.lc; Limburg, "Root p. 301), and it means "against" after □n only with personal objects,- here is governs "mountains." The paral­

lels in verses lBb and 2Aa screen out the usual, but unintended, meaning of nN. Wolff [Micah, pp. 169, 173), taking nN as a sign of the accusative, hesi­ tantly interprets D’nnn (the mountains) and rfto?n (the hills) as "a cipher for the nations," but his parallels from Micah 1:2; Nahum 1:5; Ezekiel 6:3; 36:4, 6 are unconvincing. The imperative parallels show that HJJTOrr) (let ... hear) is jussive, (your voice) shows that the prophesy was origi­ nally given orally, before being collected into this book. 2. Most commentators follow Wellhausen's conjecture [Die kleinen Propheten, p. 146), read-

accusing appeal in verses 3-5 is left hanging and the retorts in verses 6-8 are left without context. The question may be asked whether these two forms demand two settings: at the gate (w. 1-5) and at the sacred hills (w. 6-8). Mays (Micah, p. 138) thinks so, and thus denies the unity of the piece. Other scholars unify the piece by supposing the covenant lawsuit also has a temple setting (Lescow, "Das Geburtsmotiv," p. 184). In truth, the question of original settings is somewhat beside the point, as the unit is now a literary integrity. The two sections are also united by motifs and rhetoric. Lohfink (Das Hauptgebot, pp. 134-35) discerns "the scheme of demonstration" from cer­ tain texts in Deuteronomy 5-11 (with traces in Deut. 32; 1 Sam. 24:10-23 [9-22]; Jer. 26:7-19; Mic. 6:3-5). The complete form, he says, appears only in Deuteronomy 8:2-6 and 9:4-7, and it is composed of three members introduced by the three verbs: zkr (to remember), ydc (to know), and smr (to keep). To be sure this is not a form that explains the whole prophecy, but it does show the connection between "remember" and "know" in verse 5 and "practice" in verse 8. Others arrive at a thematic unity by comparing the connection of verses 3-5, 8 with the covenantal formulations in Exodus 19:3-6, Joshua 24, and 1 Samuel 12. These formulations consist of a recital of the Lord's sav­ ing deeds and a call to obedience (Allen, Micah, p. 249). The thematic unity is enhanced by the rhetori­ cal device of a key word. After the dramatic sum­ mons of the witnesses to the court scene in verses 1-2, the rest of the passage unfolds dramatically in the form of a dialogue, allowing the audience to participate in the event (vv. 3-5, 6-7, 8). Each speaker begins the argument with ma (what?). The Plaintiff-Prosecutor asks the accused Israel "what" fault they find with him (w. 3-5). The

false worshiper asks "with what" sacrifice the Lord would be pleased (w. 6-7). Micah has the last word: the Lord has made known "what" he wants (v. 8). 1a. In the prosaic introduction to whom is the invocation "hear" addressed? Unlike 1:2; 3:1, 9, where the addressee is identified, none is given here. Since verse 1A is best construed as an edito­ rial insertion, the plural "you" is the book's audi­ ence. The verbal form of "says" underlines a durative circumstance. The Lord still speaks through this prophesy and calls upon his people to listen. 1b-2. The judgment scene (w. 1B—2) introduces the Plaintiff (the Lord), the accused (Israel), the messenger on behalf of the Plaintiff (Micah), and the witnesses (the enduring mountains). They are linked lexically by the chiastic construction of "mountains" and "accusation." Rib (accusation) is here a technical term accusing the people of having broken the covenant. This accusation, however, differs from the accusations in chapters 3. 2Whereas those accusations sentenced the venal land barons (chap. 2) and Israel's corrupt leadership (chap. 3) to judgment, here, with a bro­ ken heart, God tenderly addresses "my people" and asks them to renew covenant (w. 3, 5). First, the Lord summons Micah as his envoy. Mays (Micah, pp. 128, 131) thinks that "arise" (singular) is addressed to Israel, but this is unlikely because Israel is the accused, not the Plaintiff. In light of the prophecy's form, it is best construed as addressed to the Lord's envoy, Micah. The prophet reports the Lord's summons to authenticate his investiture authorizing him to summon witnesses and to arraign the defendant into court to hear the Lord's complaint. But why should he "make an accusation before the mountains"? Huffmon, following other stud­ ies (especially that of Mendenhall, Law and Cov­ enant), demonstrates that biblical covenant law-

727

Micah 6:1-8

ing -in^n as a parallel to as in Judges 5:3; Isa­ iah 1:2, 10 (compare Hos. 5:1), instead of □ ■DPttH’! ([hear], O enduring ones). The MT, however, is supported universally in its lexically more rare and grammatically more difficult reading, and yet provides a helpful explanation as to why the cos­ mic elements are being summoned in this arraign­ ment. The MT's substantival adjective derives from the root and means "permanent" or "enduring" (Exod. 14:27; Num. 24:21; Job 12:19; Jer. 5:15). It is in apposition with (you foundations of the earth). Normally in such con­

structions the characterizing word comes second (IBHS §12.2), which may give support to Well­ hausen's emendation, but possibly it is first for emphasis. In Jonah 2:7 [6] "the roots of the moun­ tains," on which the earth was thought to rest, were at the bottom of the sea. In short, "moun­ tains" and "foundations" represent by a merism opposite extremes of mountains: their heights in the clouds, their depths at the foundations of the earth. The construction nirr1? (the Lord has an accusation) always designates a trial where the person introduced by the preposition b seems to

suits are analogous to second-millennium Hittite international treaties and an eighth-century Aramean treaty. These treaties invoke the cosmic elements and the deities that belong to them to bear witness to the treaties. Huffmon validates this appeal to extrabiblical literature by noting that within biblical literature the appeal to natu­ ral phenomena, other than in connection with the lawsuit (Isa. 1:2-3; Jer. 2:4-13; Mic. 6:1-8), is con­ nected with covenant ceremonies (Deut. 4:26; 30:19; 31:28). On these two bases he draws the conclusion: "The natural elements appealed to in the 'lawsuit' oracles ... are addressed because they are witnesses to the (prior) covenant" ("Cov­ enant Lawsuit," p. 292). In short, the cosmic ele­ ments are part of Israel's legal and linguistic heri­ tage. The mountains, then, are summoned as wit­ ness because of their enduring nature. They were present when the Lord and Israel entered into cov­ enant at Sinai and served as sober and silent wit­ nesses of its terms and the validity of the Lord's complaint. Huffmon (p. 293) says: "The witnesses serve as an indication or guarantee that an unful­ filled obligation exists, which justifies Yahweh in actually invoking the curses of the covenant." Without witnesses or written contract there could be no case (Deut. 19:15-16). One can understand such language in polythe­ istic thought in which the gods are confounded with the cosmic elements, but how is it intelligi­ ble within biblical monotheism? Some (Huffmon, p. 290) think "heaven" and "earth" in Isaiah 1:2 are not cosmic elements but a metonymy for the heavenly hosts and the people on earth. This interpretation may be valid for "heaven" and "earth," but it is not convincing for "mountains" and "hills" in Micah 6. Wright (Old Testament, p. 36; "Lawsuit of God," p. 46) and Cross ("Council of Yahweh," p. 275 n. 3) equate the mountains with the Divine Assembly or the angels, which

constitute this host of heaven and of earth. Huff­ mon (p. 291), however, rightly objects to this interpretation because "there is no direct evidence for it." Huffmon (p. 293) thinks the natural ele­ ments serve as judges in the sense that they can "carry out the curses and blessings." But in the treaties and prophetic lawsuits based on them, the cosmic elements are called upon merely as wit­ nesses, not as judges (how exactly can they exe­ cute judgment?). More probably the mountains function in the same way as memorial stones served as witnesses to covenants between peoples as recorded in Gen­ esis 31:43-50 and Joshua 22:21-28. In these two passages the covenant makers erected a stone pil­ lar surrounded by a heap of stones and an altar as tangible witnesses to an inviolable, spoken cov­ enant or agreement. In connection with a treaty handed down by tradition, they bore witness to the parties and their successors of the binding nature of the covenant/agreement. Likewise, the Creator of the cosmic elements, which outlast generations, appointed the mountains, earth's old­ est natural phenomena, as witnesses to the cov­ enant/agreement between him and Israel, a cov­ enant that was passed on by tradition from generation to generation. The appeal to inanimate elements as witnesses to a treaty could have carried conviction to the parties entering into treaty only if the parties had an assurance that its terms would be faithfully transmitted through generations. Furthermore, in order for the Lord's appeal to the mountains as witness to the prior covenant to carry weight with Micah's audience, they must have presumed that their fathers in the intervening generations had not altered it. Here one finds a strong argument for the antiquity and authenticity of the biblical material ascribed to Moses. In the same way the church through the centuries has celebrated the Eucharist, confident that it accurately recounts

728

Micah 6:1-8

take the initiative (2 Sam. 15:2, 4; Jer. 25:31), whereas the person introduced by the prepositions CV or 5 after this construction is the adversary of the plaintiff, the accused (Hos. 4:1; compare 12:3 [2]) (Renaud, La Formation, p. 292). □P') (even against): The conjunction is ascensive, introduc­ ing a specifying and intensifying parallel clause with the preposition. The singular hithpael ¡"DlIT (he will establish what is right) is benefactive

reflexive (i.e., he will establish what is right for himself; IBHS §26.2e). 3. (O my people) signals the beginning of Yahweh's legal complaint. The casus pendens construction focuses attention on the elect people (IBHS §4.7b). ^5 (against you): expresses disad­ vantage (IBHS §11.2.10, §18.3); the pronominal suffix is the resumptive pronoun of the vocative. The singular is used earlier in 5:9-13. ? n?P (tes-

her Lord's enactment of the new covenant that he made with her at the beginning. In the second part of the judgment scene, in solemn dignity Micah summons the enduring mountains to hear the Lord's accusation against Israel. Allen (Micah, pp. 364-65) notes that Israel is deliberately not mentioned as the accused until the climatic end of the trial's setting. The roots of the mountains in Micah's cosmology were consid­ ered the "foundations of the earth." They are enti­ tled "enduring ones" precisely because they existed long before Israel appeared on the stage of history. 5. The Plaintiff's case against Israel is based 3on his sovereign grace in Israel's formative period. This unit is linked with the description of the judgment scene by shifting from "his people" (v. 2b) to "my people" (v. 3a). It has two parts, each introduced by "my people": verses 3-4 and verse 5. The two parts, however, are united by being part of the accusation in the lawsuit and by their common theme: the Lord's saving acts accompa­ nied with charismatic leaders at the founding of Israel. Verse 4a, in connection with the godly leadership of Moses, Aaron, and Miriam (v. 4b), refers to the liberation of the nation from Egypt at the beginning of its formative period; verse 5, in connection with ungodly leadership of Balak and Balaam, who in spite of themselves bless Israel (v. 5a), refers to the entrance into the land at the end of that formative period (v. 5b). Note the chiastic arrangement of the saving acts (w. 4a, 5b) and of the leaders (vv. 4b, 5a). The implication is clear: if the Lord miracu­ lously saved Israel at its inception from the bond­ age and affliction of Egypt and Moab, can he not unshackle it from the ruthless tyranny of any of its enemies? The church fails not because the Lord has failed in his covenantal commitment, but because it fails to respond properly to its obli­ gations. In the first strophe the Lord begins with sum­ mary questions that both accuse Israel of false allegations and defend him against any accusation

of wrongdoing (v. 3), to which verse 4 brings some concrete precision. Furthermore, in verse 4 the Plaintiff seizes the initiative in implicitly accus­ ing Israel of nonreciprocated fidelity. Verses 3-4 are linked in several ways: theme (moving from a general accusation/defense to specific instances), syntax (emphatic ki [surely] introducing v. 4), and phonology (the pun between heketika [I have overburdened you] in v. 3 and he(elitika [I brought you up] in v. 4). Wolff (Micah, p. 175) suggests: "This must have sounded to Israel something like: 'I am said to have overburdened you? I have rather unburdened you!" 3. True to the covenant-lawsuit form, the Plaintiff initiates his complaint in the form of questions as part of what Ramsey ("SpeechForms," p. 49) calls the "pre-trial encounter." With pathos and tenderness aimed straight at Israel's heart the Lord calls them "my people." His speech is filled with grace and truth. Pusey (Micah, p. 80) says: "This one tender word, twice repeated, contains in one a whole volume of reproof." The first question ("what have I done against you?") is both defensive, protecting the Plaintiff's innocence, and accusing, for it implies Israel's distrust in the Lord. Instead of acting to Israel's disadvantage, as they implicitly accuse him (compare 1 Sam. 20:1; 26:18; 29:8), it turns out that Yahweh has acted to their advantage. And what grace that he should stoop to become involved in Israel's history with saving acts! Com­ menting on csh (to do) McComiskey (TWOT 2:701) says: "God is not only transcendent, but he is also immanent in history, effecting his sover­ eign purpose." The second question ("how have I overbur­ dened you?") also implies that Israel has been murmuring against Yahweh. Limburg ("Root □’’V' p. 302) remarks: "The people think that they have a complaint against Yahweh, but in reality Yahweh is the one who has the complaint." Their implied afflictions are not due to his unfaithful­ ness, as apostate Israel seems to allege, but to their unfaithfulness.

729

Micah 6:1-8

tify) is a fixed expression in legal proceedings (Num. 35:30; 1 Sam. 12:3). 4. ’D (surely) is a disjunctive adverb conveying the Lord's zeal (IBHS §39.3.4). (even from a slave house): Wrwis ascensive. JT? is char­ acterized by DHnp, a genitive of species (i.e., a house where slaves live; BDB, p. 109, #l.a.(c).(9);

IBHS §9.5.3g), always of Egypt (Exod. 13:3, 14; Deut. 5:6; 6:12; 7:8; 8:14; 13:6, 11 [5, 10]; Josh. 24:17; Judg. 6:8; Jer. 34:13; Mic. 6:4), most instruc­ tively in Yahweh's introduction to the Ten Com­ mandments (Exod. 20:2; Deut. 5:6). 5. KT“DT (remember): The particle KJ shows that the command is based on the general situa-

He invites the accused to "testify against me," that is, to formulate precise accusations before the tribunal (compare Num. 35:30; 1 Sam. 12:3; 2 Sam. 1:16; Isa. 3:9). Their nonmotivated hostil­ ity against God lacks formulation. 4. With an emphatic "surely" the Lord points concretely to his initial saving act: Israel's redemption out of Egypt. Presumably after a period of embarrassed silence, the Lord advances his case that instead of complaining against him they should have praised him (compare Ps. 95). The accusation surprisingly does not explicate Israel's sins in terms of overt transgression as in chapters 2-3, though the rejoinder in verse 8 has those in view. Rather, he recounts his saving acts and points to a guilt more profound; namely, a hardness of heart that did not respond to his grace. This too is the condemnation of the world today. In grace he sent his Son to be Lord and Savior, but the world rejected God's grace and crucified his Son. This cold response to grace can lead to only one verdict: "Light has come into the world, and people loved darkness rather than of light because their deeds were evil" (John 3:19). The Lord initiated his relationship with Israel with two benevolent acts: he brought them out of the land of Egypt and provided them with the superior leadership of Moses, Aaron, and Miriam. Allen (Micah, p. 366) comments on "brought up": "God did not only bring Israel out but up: the impheation is that it was a prelude to bringing them safe and sound to the promised land" (see also Wijngaards, "K^H und H^n," pp. 98-101). Stamm (THAT 2:389) distinguishes between "redeem" in legal and cultic literature and its "religious linguistic use." In legal and cultic liter­ ature pdh signifies to ransom, that is, to transfer or free someone from another's ownership through the payment of a price (Exod. 21:7-11; 34:19-20; Lev. 19:20; Num. 18:15-18). The reli­ gious use of pdh is distinguished from the legal and cultic in that it knows only the Lord as the subject of the freeing/liberating action and corre­ spondingly never the paying of a compensating price. "In this use," says Stamm (THAT 2:395), "the specifically legal notion steps to the back­ ground and the liberating-saving notion steps to

the foreground." According to Lestienne ("Les Dix 'Paroles,' " esp. p. 502), wherever "the God who redeemed from the house of slavery" occurs (Deut. 5:6; 6:12; 8:14; Josh. 24:17; Judg. 6:8; Jer. 34:13; esp. Deut. 7:8; 13:6 [5]), the expression seems aimed to support a claim of the Lord or concerning him. It is a title that gives to him the right to speak as master or that supports a claim made with regard to him. In addition to freeing Israel from the ruthless tyranny of Egypt to fulfill its destiny to serve him as priest, the Lord gave them exceptional leaders (v. 4b). The credo that the Lord sent before them the noble Moses, Aaron, and Miriam contrasts strikingly with the magistrates, priests, and prophets who were condemned and sentenced in chapter 3. According to the Targum the three prophets are Moses, who teaches the tradition and the law,- Aaron, who brings reconciliation to the people; and Miriam, who instructs the women. In addition, Moses bore the administrative-judicial burdens of the people, particularly their judicial burdens (Deut. 1:12); Aaron the high priest removed their religious burdens (Exod. 28:12); and Miriam celebrated in song Israel's release from the burden of Egypt (Exod. 15:20-21; Num. 26:59; 1 Chron. 5:29 [6:3]; Jer. 31:4) (for other references to Moses and Aaron, see also Josh. 24:5; 1 Sam. 12:6-8; Ps. 77:21 [20]; 99:6; 105:26-27; 106:16). The implication for Micah's audience is clear: their poor leadership under corrupt magistrates, venal priests, and extorting prophets (chaps. 2-3) is not due to a lack of divine power or grace, but to their phlegmatic hearts toward God's grace. 5. The second strophe adds to the accusation a call to renew covenant. The command to remem­ ber (zakar] God's saving acts serves the manifold purpose of justifying God's innocence, of accusing Israel of ingratitude and unbelief, and above all of opening the door to them to participate anew in God's saving acts. According to Childs (Memory and Tradition, p. 56) zakar denotes actualizing the past into the present, not merely recalling past events as in a history examination. By "actualiz­ ing the past" Childs means that generations removed in time from the event by remembrance of the former events "can have an intimate

730

Micah 6:1-8

tion accusing Israel of breaking covenant and of calling upon it to testify against Yahweh. (Balak) means "lay waste." HOi (and how): np has a broad repertory of senses (IBHS §18.3); here best glossed by "how." (Balaam) is the subject of the verse ad sensum and may derive from belac cam (destruction of the people; Kaiser, TWOT 1:112). The biblical tradition about Balaam son of Beor in Numbers 22-24 and Micah 6:5 finds con­ firmation in the Balaam inscription found in Tell Deir cAlla, which is generally dated to the time of Micah on paleographic grounds (Hackett, Balaam Text, p. 18). Sellin (Micha, p. 295), on the dubious grounds of metri causa, wants to delete both appositives, nwo “^0 (King of Moab) and (son of Beor), but they are attested in all textual witnesses. The Balaam pericope represents a cen­ tral episode in salvation history, on the same plain as the coming out from Egypt (Deut. 6:21-23; 26:6-9; Josh. 24:2-13). Wolff [Micah, p. 165) sug­ gests the "haplography of “Pin ](*)□ [sic,- should be

TO |p)H] (assuming a defectively written and metathesis of □/!?)." In his view some such reading is necessary at the beginning of verse 5b because either the gapped NTTO needs an object or a paral­ lel imperative or both. His proposal merits consid­ eration. The united textual witness can be main­ tained by suggesting that in addition to KT"DT being gapped, JD in □’WITJQ (from Shittim) is a pregnant preposition implying a word of motion, such as a verbal noun TQ# (crossing over) (GKC §117ee—ff; IBHS § 11.4.3d). The article with elevates a common word tjW (acacia), trees that grow in dry places, into a proper name (IBHS §13.6). Shittim is to be located at Tell el-Hammam, about six miles east of the Jordan rift lead­ ing to Jericho, and Gilgal lies on the other side of the Jordan close by to Jericho. (in order to): Brongers ("Die Partikel p. 87) says that "the rendering 'in order to' is especially apt, indeed even demanded, where it is a matter of a transi­ tive verb," which is the case here. HITT nlpTS (the

encounter with the great acts of redemption. Remembrance equals participation." Eising (TDOT 4:65) agrees: Zakar "denotes the presence and acceptance of something in the mind." Robin­ son (Micha, p. 146) likewise says: "To speak of the past is to make it effectual, authoritative for today." In sum, memory entails commitment to the God who performed signs and wonders in the past and so actualizes the past into the present. Such remembrance will lead one "to know the saving acts of the Lord." "Know" (yadac) denotes both cognitive and affective knowledge of someone or something. Comprehension entails not only reflection upon the object to be known (a thought process), but also an intimate and practical acquaintance of it. The object being perceived is at first external to the knower; through psychological processes—in this case through remembering in faithful and active acceptance—it becomes internalized into one's heart. Had Micah wanted to say "that you may know about the saving acts," he would have said yadac ki (as in Isa. 45:3-4). Specifically, Israel is to remember sidqdt yhwh (lit., the Lord's righteousness). His righteousness toward Israel entailed saving them from tyranni­ cal oppressors, and so it comes to mean "saving acts of the Lord" (Judg. 5:11; 1 Sam. 12:7; Ps. 51:16 [15]; 103:6), specified here as Israel's triumphant march into the promised land, beginning at Shittim (Num. 22:1) with God's triumph over King Balak of Moab, through Balaam, and ending

at Gilgal with the swollen Jordan miraculously behind them (Josh. 3:1-4:9). So also the church through memory and faith recalls its decisive for­ mative period with the death, burial, resurrection, and ascension of its heavenly King. 6-8. The torah liturgy section is linked by questions (w. 6-7) and answer (v. 8); by the dia­ logue between the people and Micah, in contrast to the Lord's dialogue with the people in verses 35; by the repetition of yhwh in each verse,- and by ki dm (rather) in verse 8, which contrasts the questioner's assumptions with the Lord's answers. By his questions—the questioner is perhaps the king, to judge from his ostentatious gifts—the worshiper condemns himself. He realizes his alienation from God (v. 6) and his need for a sinoffering (v. 7), but instead of thinking within the frame of the covenant of grace, he thinks reso­ lutely in terms of assuaging gifts. The Lord's ques­ tions had stirred Israel's sluggish conscience but not to godly repentance. The worshiper's ques­ tions proceed from an understanding of the cult as fulfillment of the covenant that is conducted ad absurdum (Willi-Plein, Vorformen der Schriftexegese, p. 99). "They would offer everything, . .. excepting what alone He asked for, their heart, its love and its obedience," says Pusey (Micah, p. 82). The blindness is incredible and inexcusable, as Micah answers. Out of sovereign grace and with­ out cost to Israel, the Lord had saved the nation from Egypt and Moab and brought them to their

731

Micah 6:1-8

saving acts of the Lord): Lindblom (Micha, p. 99), Robinson (Micha, p. 144), and BHS conjecture reading Tip’ll (my saving acts), since Yahweh is the speaker. Wolff (Micah, p. 165), however, thinks it is a fixed expression within the Yahweh speech (as in Judg. 5:11; 1 Sam. 12:7; Ps. 103:6), and Renaud (La Formation, p. 296) notes frequent sliding from God to his messenger in prophetic lit­ erature. 6. EHpK (can I come before) is a denominative piel (IBHS §24.4) of the root D"Tp (front), that is, "to come or be in front, to meet." The parallel question in verse 7 ("would the Lord be pleased ...?") and Micah's answer in verse 8 show that the non-perfective has a deliberative nuance (should I bow down), from the (IBHS §31.4). root in qal depicts the posture of one bent over like a reed. Surprisingly, it is not found else­ where in cultic language. The niphal is reflexive (IBHS §23.4) and describes the deportment of the petitioner, who in deep humiliation humbles

him- or herself by bowing down the whole body before "the God on high." QhQ (on high) is a geni­ tive of location (IBHS §9.5.2), a not uncommon metonymy for heaven as the place of God's throne and his dwelling (Ps. 93:4; Isa. 33:5; 57:15). 7. The subject HTT (the Lord) appears in all three verses of this liturgy (w. 6-8) as the expressly mentioned subject and must be main­ tained (Lescow, Micha 6:6-8, p. 48). (with thousands of) is a vague indicator of great magni­ tude (IBHS §15.2.5). irar'prr? (with myriads of torrents of oil): rQZH (multitude, myriad, ten thousand) designates vaguely a very large number and is the normal parallel to ^5» (thousand). II (torrents) denotes "a dry river bed or ravine which in the rainy season becomes a raging torrent, and/ or the resulting torrent" (Coppes, TWOT 2:570; see also Ps. 104:10; Ezek. 47:5; Amos 5:24). ’JXpB (as my transgression offering) functions as an adverbial accusative of state (BDB, p. 833, #6), specifying a feature of the firstborn when it is

promised destiny. How could the nation now sup­ pose extravagant gifts were required to save them from the enemy? Profound unbelief in God's gra­ cious character and actions induces such spiritual blindness, and as a result it debases the covenant of grace into a nonloving, bargaining contract. Moreover, in those initial acts of salvation the Lord had graciously shown himself immanent with his people. Why does the obtuse petitioner now think it would take extraordinary sacrifice on his part to bridge the gap between the Lord and himself? Israel ritualistically recited its creeds, but because it refused to live by a faith that risks itself in doing justice, it never comprehended their meaning. Outwardly the worshiper appears religious, but in truth his insulting questions betray that he is desperately wicked within. Blinded to God's gra­ cious character and acts, he reasons within his own depraved frame of reference: he need not change, God must change. In effect, by refusing to repent of his unbelief and injustice, he suggests that God, like humans, can be bought! Verses 6-7 are tightly linked by the four ques­ tions about what constitutes acceptable sacrifice. Each consists of two versets framed as a polar question, demanding a yes or no answer. 6-7. The petitioner's first question raises the issue: "How can I come before the Lord?" That is, as the parallel question in verse 7 clarifies, "Would the Lord be pleased with.. . ?" so I can find security in his presence? His next question,

"Should I bow down to God on high?," betrays the remoteness he feels from God in contrast to the reconciling God who spoke with tender compas­ sion to "my people." "Should I come before him with burnt offerings?" begins the bargaining and is coupled with the introductory question by echoing >dqaddem (should I come before?). He escalates the bargaining from holocausts, to oneyear-old calves (already more costly), to thousands of rams, to ten thousand torrents of oil, and finally to the cruel sacrifice of offering his child. In con­ nection with offering thousands of rams, Wolff (Micah, p. 178) says: "That an individual would offer a thousand rams is a somewhat unusual act of this kind, for otherwise only kings such as Solomon are reported to have done so, and only on unique occasions (1 Kings 3:4; cf. 8:63; 1 Chron. 29:21; 2 Chron. 29:32)." In venturing "myriads of torrents of oil," the bargaining becomes so extreme that it becomes apparent even to the densest observer that this absurd approach has no limit and establishes neither covenantal relation­ ship with God nor assurance of salvation. Oil is measured by the pint or quart (Exod. 30:24; Num. 15:9; 28:5). The absurd question thus caricatures this nonsensical approach to God. The last ques­ tion, "Should I give my firstborn as my transgres­ sion offering?," betrays the dark heart of a pagan who is ignorant of God's gracious covenant as the way of salvation (2 Kings 3:27; 16:3; 21:6; Jer. 7:31; 19:5; 32:35; Ezek. 16:20-21; 20:26, 31). Wolff (Micah, p. 179) draws the conclusion: "The

732

Micah 6:1-8

given (IBHS §9.5.2). Robinson (Micha, p. 146), fol­ lowed by Lescow (Micha 6:6-8, p. 54 n. 41) and Willis ("Review of Micha 6:6-8,” p. 274), says this is an accusative causae. Deissler and Delcor (La Sainte Bible, p. 343), followed by Renaud (La For­ mation, p. 296), render it "for the price of my transgression ... for the price of my sin," but none of these authors validates his interpretation grammatically. ’W (of my body) can mean either "womb" or "body." The latter is more probable here, but see Psalm 132:11 (BDB, p. 106, #3). DtW commonly means "sin offering" (Lev. 7:37; 2 Kings 12:17 [16]; BDB, p. 309, #4), but ^2 is used uniquely with this sense. 8. T37I (one has told) is an indefinite perfective (IBHS §30.5) of the root “IZD (to be conspicuous) (also in 1:10). The LXX's avr|yyEXr|, a second aorist passive, more probably reflects a translator's choice of rendering the indefinite singular "one" by a passive (IBHS §4.4) than an original hophal (contra BHS). □’fa (good) functions as a predicate nominative of identification (IBHS §8.3) and signi­ fies "moral good" (as in 3:2), a metonymy for Yah­ weh's requirements. 7101 (and what): Disjunctive waw has an explanatory or parenthetical function (Lambdin, Introduction to Biblical Hebrew, p.

164). The predicate participle (does . . . require) represents a durative situation, not an event (IBHS §37.6), and its root d"H (to seek with care) (Coppes, TWOT 1:198) implies movement, action, activity, and energy (Wagner, TDOT 3:294-95). DK (rather) is a clausal restrictive adverb intermediate in sense between negative and emphatic adverbs and highlighting the special status of the clause it introduces (IBHS §39.3.5d). The full thought is, "You thought Yahweh re­ quires sacrifice, but rather he requires...." On the basis of parallels in the Manual of Discipline, Hyatt ("Meaning and Origin") plausibly draws the conclusion that the infinitives ran# (to love) and rp*? (to walk) are not parallel to ThlJP (to do) but they are its objects. In that case, he further argues, Hpn is not the object of rQHK but an attributive genitive after the construct, meaning "hesed love" or "love of the hesed type." ^71*1 (and . . . wisely) is a hapax hiphil infinitive absolute, used adverbially to qualify TD1? (IBHS §35.3.2). The hiphil may be denominative and internal, "to cause oneself to behave wisely" (IBHS §27.4). Stoebe (THAT 2: 567) seems to take np5 as a paral­ lel to nl&P. That is possible because of the disjunc­ tive accent with non and because verse 8Bba per-

teacher who formulated the questions in w. 6f. has masterfully presented ad absurdum the possi­ bility of cultic sacrifices and indirectly indicates to the individual that Yahweh does not make these kinds of demands upon his people." 8. The Lord's prophetic messenger answers authoritatively. "With what seems a studied dis­ dain" (Mays, Micah, p. 141), he lays out the Lord's covenant requirements for those who would enter into covenant with him: covenantal fidelity to God and his community. According to verses 4-5 the Lord fulfilled his part of the covenantal rela­ tionship in liberating Israel into salvation. In verse 8 he rebukes Israel for ignoring its covenantal responsibility,- namely, a spiritual commitment to God and one another as evidenced by doing jus­ tice. The prophets did not repudiate sacrifice but subordinated it to ethics (1 Sam. 15:22-23; Isa. 1:12-20; Hos. 6:6; Amos 5:21-27). Sacrifices with­ out a spiritual commitment that displays itself in ethics profit nothing. The law itself taught that. God and Israel first ratified the Ten Command­ ments (Exod. 20:1-17) and the Book of the Cov­ enant (Exod. 20:18-23:13) in Exodus 24—before God instructed Moses on the mountain regarding the cult in Exodus 25-40. When Israel, however,

broke the ratified covenant (Exod. 32:1-6), God ordered Moses off the mountain (Exod. 32:7). Only after forgiveness for the breach of the prior cov­ enant had been secured, did God resume instruc­ tions regarding worship. Micah first rebuffs the pretentious worshiper for inexcusable ignorance: "One has told you, O human being." The worshiper's insulting ques­ tions cannot be chalked up to ignorance. The cov­ enant regulations had been faithfully transmitted; to that the mountains were witnesses. Micah's nomenclature for the worshiper as "O human being" connotes the identification of this external covenant partner with all humanity. Each mem­ ber of the covenant must not try to escape the fun­ damental condition of every human as human, who is required to search out what is tôb (good), like Adam in the Book of Genesis (Renaud, La Formation, p. 317). Having disallowed ignorance as an excuse, the prophet now sets forth that the Lord requires cov­ enantal solidarity (v. 8b). He expresses it first gen­ erally by calling it "what is good." Mays (Micah, p. 141) notes: "The prophets spoke of Yhwh's requirements under the theme of 'good' (Isa. 1:17; 5:20; Amos 5:14f.; Micah 3:2) and on occasion gave brief generalizing summaries of Yhwh's will

733

Micah 6:1-8

tains to one's behavior toward the community whereas verse 8Bb{3 has to do with behavior toward God. The parallels in the Manual of Disci­ pline and in this verse favor Hyatt's interpreta­ tion. BDB (p. 767, #d) thinks the preposition Dp

(with) here means "dealing with (i.e., toward) a person." But that does not tally well with the verb which suggests the more usual meaning of fellowship and companionship.

composed of two or three elements (Isa. 5:7; Amos 5:24; Hos. 4:1; 6:6; 13:7)." That demand, however, cannot be met apart from faith in the Lord, who saves those who put their lives in jeopardy on behalf of his justice. Nevertheless, nominal Israel and all humankind are held accountable to the covenant's standards and will be judged by them. In that sense the law condemns all unregenerate humankind. It is one thing to be "in law" by expe­ riencing through faith a spiritual union with its Author,- it is another thing be "under the law" in self-effort. The former posture saves; the latter damns (1 Tim. 1:8-11). When the Lord through the Holy Spirit regenerates a heart to trust him, he both justifies through the finished work of Christ on the cross and sanctifies by the Spirit that effected faith in the first place. Justification and sanctification, though distinct aspects of sover­ eign grace, are not chronologically separated spiri­ tual experiences but synchronic and unified min­ istries of the Spirit that accompany his gift of faith. A person who does not practice mercy and jus­ tice in covenantal solidarity with one's fellow (v. 8Bba) has never participated in the covenant of grace. Micah begins to specify "good" by another generalization: "to practice justice" (also 3:1), that is, to practice the dispositions of the law, such as the migpatim (the judgments) in Exodus 21-23. Beyond obeying commands, this encompassing, ethical term pertains to establishing a relationship that one gives back what is due and beyond that, as one is able, to deliver the oppressed and to pun­ ish the oppressor. The spiritual connotation of doing good becomes explicit in the clarification of what the Lord requires: the practice of "faithful love." Moran ("Love of God") demonstrates that the term >ahab (to love) in the covenantal relationship between the Lord and Israel is the juridical lan­ guage of international law. It is also the language of obedience, for it can be commanded (Deut. 11:1, 13, 22; Mic. 6:8). Hillers [Covenant, p. 154) shows that it is the language of emotional or spiri­ tual commitment. }ahab reinforces the nuance of the internal spiritual aspect that lies behind the practice of justice. This kind of love is true not false, constant not fickle, reliable not conditional,

and discerning. That kind of love springs from a regenerate heart, the same heart that can actualize God's saving acts by memory and faith. The cov­ enant is a matter of spiritual commitment, not contractual ritual. That the Lord requires a spiritual commit­ ment, from which right behavior will naturally ensue, is further heightened by the attributive modifier hesed (faithful), the most important term of all for describing the nature of the covenant and its spiritual obligations. Sakenfeld [Meaning of Hesed, p. 233), recognizing that it assumes a cove­ nantal relationship, defines the term for many texts as "deliverance or protection as a responsi­ ble keeping of faith with another with whom one is in a relationship." It connotes at one and the same time faithfulness, love, mercy, and grace; it describes the unfailing love, the keeping of faith between related parties. The relationship may be personal and intimate (husband-wife, father-son, brothers, friends) or voluntary and unintimate (spies-residents of enemy city [Josh. 2:12-14; fudg. 1:24], rival kings [1 Kings 20:31]). The word is usu­ ally found in a context where one of the parties is in a weaker situation and utterly dependent upon another, who is in a stronger position and who accepts freely the responsibility of providing deliverance and protection to the one in need (Gen. 20:13; 24:49; 47:29; 2 Sam. 16:17). The supe­ rior party is absolutely free not to respond to the weaker's appeal, and for that reason the word also involves the notions of mercy and grace. Should one fail to bring relief, however, the honorable badge of proclaiming someone as characterized by hesed would be stripped off. The practice of hesed is closely related to miSpat: both pertain to the deliverance of an oppressed, weaker party by a stronger party, but whereas the latter puts the accent on the action, the former puts the accent on the attitude. Verse 8 shows clearly that the Lord Jesus in his famous Sermon on the Mount did not add to the law but showed its true spiri­ tual nature (Matt. 5:17-48). Micah now moves from covenantal solidarity on the human, horizontal axis to the divine, verti­ cal axis—to covenantal solidarity with God (v. 8Bbp): namely, "to walk wisely with your God." Traditionally, haseneac, the hiphil infinitive of

734

Micah 6:1-8

root snc, is rendered "humbly," but Hyatt ("Mean­ ing and Origin") and Stoebe (THAT 2:566-68) favor the meaning "wisely, circumspectly." They cite the use of the word in Sirach 31:22, 42:8, and especially 16:25 (where the hiphil infinitive is ren­ dered en akribeia, with exactness) and 32:3 (where hsnc ski is rendered en akribei, with sound under­ standing) (Sirach verse numbers according to the nrsv). They also cite its use in the Manual of Dis­ cipline: IQS 4:5; 5:4; 8:2, which is exactly equiva­ lent to Micah 6:8. The three passages in the Qumran text pertain to the behavior of the member within the community, and here too it is a matter of insight and understanding for the furthering of the community. Stoebe stands against the consen­ sus of the versions that render sanuac in Proverbs

11:2 by "humility." Rather, he argues, it must be understood after the analogously constructed Proverbs 13:10 as an expression for discerning behavior, to which zadon (arrogance) stands in opposition. He finds this meaning confirmed in Sirach 34:22 and 42:8. Applying the meaning "cir­ cumspectly" to Micah 6:8, Stoebe argues that the expression ought to be understood in connection with verses 3-5 (which name Yahweh's saving acts) and thus signify a walk with God, which insightfully recognizes God's gifts and accepts the consequences that proceed from that for one's behavior, even toward other humans. Before God's love, humans are not free to grab what they can out of life or be indifferent to others.

735

Micah 6:9-16

III. Third Cycle: God Forgives the Remnant of His Sinful People (6:1-7:20)

B. Covenant Curses Fulfilled on Jerusalem (6:9-16) WALTKE

NRSV

9 The voice of the Lord proclaims to the city, —and whoever regards your name has sound judgment— Give heed, O tribe, and the assembly of the city! 10 Shall I forget the unjust bath? and the scanty ephah that is cursed? 11 [If I forget,] would I be innocent of your unjust scales, and of your deceptive weights? 12 The city's rich men are full of violence, and its inhabitants speak lies. Yes, their tongue is nothing but deception in their mouths. 13 And so I am going to strike you sorely, bringing horror upon you for your sins. 14 You will eat, but you will not be satisfied for dysentery will strike you in your inner parts. You will press toward birth, but you will not deliver; and what you do deliver, I will hand over to the sword. 15 You will sow grain, but you will not harvest it; you will press olives, but you will not anoint yourself with oil; you will tread out the new wine, but you will not drink wine. 16 And she [the city] observed the precepts of Omri, and all the deeds of the house of Ahab; and you [all] went in their counsels. So I am going to give you over to horror, and its inhabitants to scornful hissing; for you [all] will bear the reproach of the peoples.

9 The voice of the Lord cries to the city (it is sound wisdom to fear your name): Hear, O tribe and assembly of the city! 10 Can I forget the treasures of wickedness in the house of the wicked, and the scant measure that is accursed? 11 Can I tolerate wicked scales and a bag of dishonest weights? 12 Your wealthy are full of violence,your inhabitants speak lies, with tongues of deceit in their mouths. 13 Therefore I have begun to strike you down, making you desolate because of your sins. 14 You shall eat, but not be satisfied, and there shall be a gnawing hunger within you; you shall put away, but not save, and what you save, I will hand over to the sword. 15 You shall sow, but not reap. you shall tread olives, but not anoint yourselves with oil; you shall tread grapes, but not drink wine. 16 For you have kept the statutes of Omri and all the works of the house of Ahab, and you have followed their counsels. Therefore I will make you a desolation, and your inhabitants an object of hissing; so you shall bear the scorn of my people.

736

Micah 6:9-16

9. HIT 5lp (the voice of the Lord): Joiion (§162d) and GKC (§ 146b), each in his own way, take 5np as exclamatory (hark!, the voice of the Lord!, a voice!, listen!), but their evidence is less than compelling to overturn the normative grammar (Wolff, Micah, p. 191). Ty5 (to the city): The arti­ cle designates a unique referent, perhaps because the historic situation allows only one city (IBHS §13.5.1), probably Jerusalem, "the usual venue of Micah's oracles" (Allen, Micah, p. 377). The city is a metonymy for its citizens, ^np*’ (proclaims): The non-perfective signifies an incipient present imperfective situation (IBHS §31.3) of the root K"lp (to make sacred proclamation) (also in 3:5). TOTT (and ... sound judgment): Waw is a clausal conjunctive, linking those that regard Yahweh's name with the message given in his name. HTOF1 functions as a predicate nominative with an inde­ pendent relative clause as subject without (i.e., he who regards your Name is a sound judg­ ment or is reckoned as having sound judgment); compare Isaiah 41:24: □□□ nniT raylFI (an abomi­ nation is he who chooses you) (GKC §146f; IBHS §8.4.2). HKT (whoever regards): The non-perfective

signifies a habitual imperfective situation (IBHS §31.3), and HK") has its metaphorical sense "to regard" (as in Deut. 33:9). The shift to the secondperson suffix with ^£0 shows that this is an apos­ trophe by Micah. Though the oracle is spoken by the Yahweh, Micah breaks in to exhort his audi­ ence to pay regard to the name of the one address­ ing them. The MT of verse 9b is hardly possible. At best it reads "heed the rod and who ordained it," assuming is a rare relative (elsewhere in Josh. 24:15), not an interrogative. But who is the "rod"? And who are the antecedents of the pronouns? The LXX reads Kai, Koapfjaci noXtv (and who shall order [i.e., marshal?] the city) (= TO Tl> THT), which presumes that initial T$ in verse 10 is the last word in verse 9 and the common confusion of 1 and ’ and of “I and "I. On that basis, Wellhausen (Die kleinen Piophet en, p. 148), fol­ lowed by most scholars, plausibly emends the text to read TOT HtfTO (and the assembly of the city), which forms a good parallel to TJp5 in verse 9a. WDd (give heed): Presumably the "voice of Yah­ weh" is proclaiming (v. 9Aa). meaning "tribe" not "rod" in connection with TOT “iplQ,

9-16. The oracle in verses 9-16 is demarcated from the preceding by the prophetic formula "the voice of the Lord proclaims," the change of addressees from the mountains and Israel (w. 1-2) to "the city," and its form (a judgment oracle ver­ sus a legal complaint). The two prophecies are linked by the contrast between what the Lord requires and what the people in fact do. Instead of covenantal fidelity, expressed in deeds of justice and loyalty, they broke covenant by their turpi­ tude and violence. Therefore, according to the covenant curses the Lord will hand them over to plague, death, and wasted harvests. Both prophe­ cies refer to the covenant sanctions: its demands (vv. 1-8) and its curses (vv. 12-15) (see also Hos. 4:10; 9:11-12, 16; Amos 5:11; Zeph. 1:13; Hag. 1:6). Even though the text of this prophecy is the most damaged in the book of Micah, its structure is still clear: address (v. 9), accusation (w. 10-12), and sentence of condemnation (w. 13-15). Verse 16 recapitulates the structure: accusation (v. 16a) and sentence of condemnation (v. 16b). The accusation—commercial dishonesty— unfolds itself in two stages: the Lord (using firstperson) addresses the inhabitants with the specific accusation that they use false measures (v. 10) and weights (v. 11), and then (in third-person) he accuses them of false speech in the courts (v. 12).

Both parts are introduced by questions to show that the Lord must punish such deeds. The sentence of condemnation is introduced by "and so I [on my part]." It too develops in two stages. The Lord sentences them to disease and ruin in general (v. 13) and then he specifies the curses (w. 14-15): affliction of the body (v. 14a), loss of offspring (v. 14b), and fruitless harvests (v. 15). The accusation and the sentence both span three verses and have similar structures. This symmetrical structure argues against those schol­ ars who want to shift the lines around. In the recapitulation (v. 16) the southerners of Judah are accused of committing the same crimes as their northern counterparts who brought that kingdom to ruin. They can expect the same (see 1:8). 9. Micah introduces the prophecy by identify­ ing its author ("the Lord") and its addressees ("the city" = Jerusalem). The prophetic formula ("the voice of the Lord proclaims") is unique. Presum­ ably Micah is the Lord's voice. The Lord's voice, in conjunction with the parallel "heed," calls for a decision to obey (Deut. 4:36; 5:25-28 [28—31]; 8:20; 13:19 [18]; 15:5; 18:16; 26:14; 27:10; 28:1-2, 15). The addressees, the city of Jerusalem, are intro­ duced in verse 9Aa and unpacked in the parallel in verse 9b, as a "tribe" (i.e., a clan with a chieftain's

737

Micah 6:9-16

refers to a clan led by a chief with staff. Recon­ structed "WiO designates coming together at an appointed time (1 Sam. 9:24; 13:8, 11; 2 Sam. 20:5) or at an appointed place (Josh. 8:14) or both (1 Sam. 20:35). Here the sacred place, TOT (the city; i.e., Jerusalem), is in view. 10. See the Exegesis of verse 9 for emending initial “rip to TP and linking it with verse 9b. The rest of verse 10a of the MT also reads with diffi­ culty: "Is there in the house of the wicked wicked treasures?" or "Is there, O house of the Wicked, wicked treasures?" In this translation OTn is con­ strued as consisting of the polar interrogative H with a rare form of the particle of existence, (see 2 Sam. 14:19); its normal meaning—"is there fire?"—as read by the versions, is unintelligible. The text is better emended to HGWF (shall I forget). Although Innes ("Notes on Micah," pp. 217-18) defends OTn of the MT (and av), most scholars emend it. Wellhausen (Die kleinen Propheten, p. 148), looking for a parallel to the interrogative and first-person of initial in verse 11, proposes «OH, from root II (to forget), with interroga­ tive ¡1 (as in nrsv, niv). Duhm ("Anmerkungen," p. 90) suggests K&KH (shall I forgive or bear) from the root (to lift, carry). Though the latter provides

a better sense it is textually more difficult. In sup­ port of adding final H note the LXX's koci oiKog (= Tiyi). Could the *1 still reflect the remains of an original H, whose loss led to the confused state of the text? Regarding T3 Renaud (La Formation, pp. 329-30) looks for a parallel to PETtf in verse 10b. Accordingly, he attractively emends the frequent T? to the less frequent TO and repunctuates POT as POT, yielding "unjust bath." Bath, a liquid mea­ sure, equals one ephah of the dry measure, each being one-tenth of a homer (BDB, p. 144). Bath and ephah are also found together in Ezekiel 45:11. POT. rrhEK: Gaster ("Notes," p. 164) sug­ gests: "When [POT ra] had become corrupted, some editor attempted to mend matters by gloss­ ing . .. POT T? as = POT fiT^; these words must therefore be excised and POT substituted." His argument gains support from the frequent combi­ nation of "treasure house" (HALAT, p. 23; as noted by Wolff, Micah, p. 186). Verses 10-11, now of equal length, pertain to false measures (v. 10) and weights (v. 11) and closely approximate Ezek­ iel 45:10, which also mentions bath, ephah, and pans of a scale. Furthermore, verses 10-11 now both begin with interrogative H, and the Lord as subject with a non-perfective. POT (unjust) is an

staff) and as the (sacred) "assembly of the city." Leaders of Jerusalem and citizens alike are addressed, as the rest of the prophecy shows. His­ torically the leaders of Judah and its people were not only one of the sacred tribes of the Lord, but the one that bore the staff or scepter of rulership. In an apostrophe addressed to the Lord (v. 9Ab), Micah asserts the "sound judgment" of those that pay attention to the Lord's name, the name in which the prophecy is given (see 4:5). Sound judg­ ment (tusiya] is a technical term for the sober judgment that "leads to practical success" (Gold­ berg, TWOT 1:413). The imperative "heed" under­ scores the urgency of a proper response and begins the Lord's words themselves. 10. Using first-person, showing that nothing is hid from his eyes, the Lord accuses Jerusalem's assembly of turpitude in the marketplace. The city forgot the Lord, but he has not forgotten their crimes. Their cheating of one another shows clearly their loss of covenant fidelity both with their heavenly King and with one another (v. 8). But God does not violate his covenant based on his own righteous character. His question, "Shall I forget?," demands a negative answer. If the Lord had turned a blind eye to their unscrupulous prac­ tice, he would have become an accomplice with

them. Though addressed to ancient Jerusalem, the same answer resounds throughout history: the righteous Lord will never overlook commercial crimes wherever they are committed. One cannot declare "bankruptcy" and simply walk away from stealing from one's neighbor. The precise size of the bath (the liquid mea­ sure) and the ephah (the equivalent dry measure) varied from place to place. They may have equaled 6 gallons for the bath and 285 pounds for the ephah. Ancient weights had flat bases, were often inscribed with their weight, and were sometimes carved into shapes (e.g., turtles, ducks, lions), making them easy to handle and recognize. Because of restricted technology ancient balances had a margin of error of up to 6 percent (Diringer, "Early Hebrew Weights," p. 86); few weights inscribed with the same denomination are exactly identical according to modern standards. Weights were carried in a pouch and a visitor would need to check the weights current among local mer­ chants. Standard weights and measures require legal sanction to enforce their authority. The righteous Lord stands behind them (Lev. 19:35-36; Deut. 25:13-16; Prov. 11:1; 16:11; 20:23; Ezek. 45:10). In

738

Micah 6:9-16

attributive genitive (IBHS §9.5.2) and functions as the opposite of pT* ra (the just or accurate bath) (compare Deut. 25:13-15; Ezek. 45:10). rCD carries overtones of crime against that law and deserving punishment. The grammar of pri flETtf (the scanty ephah) is the same as JXlH TO. Elsewhere pn refers to leanness of the body, a taking away of fatness (Ps. 106:15; Isa. 10:16). HEWT (that is cursed) func­ tions as an attributive adjective. DJ?T refers to a human damning in Proverbs 24:24 and to a divine cursing in Numbers 23:7. In parallel with '"shall I forget," the latter is in view. A metonymy con­ nects the curse with the cheating seller. 11. HJWI ([if I forget] would I be innocent): The root TOT, a byform of means "to be clean, pure." Metaphorically, it means "to be pure of sin, to be innocent," either of humans (Job 15:14; 25:4) or of God (Ps. 51:6 [5]). If the qal is original, then is elided and must be supplied from verse 10. The non-perfective introduces the apodosis of an unreal conditional clause. Most commentators (see nrsv, niv) follow the Vulgate's superficially more easy reading numquid justificabo stateram impiam (I shall not justify the wicked balance, shall I?) and with Wellhausen (Die kleinen Propheten, p. 148) repoint the stem as piel investing it

with a delocutive or estimative value (IBHS §24.2). Nowhere else, however, is a preposition used to gloss the object of 7DT piel (IBHS §10.2.1), as Vulgate assumes. Ml (unjust scales): As in the parallel, the preposition signifies specifica­ tion (IBHS §11.2.5) and the construct dual, to judge from the absolute, D’JW, refers to both pans of the balance. is an attributive genitive. nQ“'iO (deceptive weights): has its more specific sense than "stones" here and is a genitive of mate­ rial in the sense that the 0”? ([leather] bag) is filled with weights (IBHS §9.5.3). HEpo is an attributive genitive (see Prov. 11:1, where it is the opposite of a "full (TTCbtf) weight"; 20:23; Hos. 12:8 [7]; Amos 8:5). 12. Indeclinable (whose), attested in all the versions, is clarified by the feminine singular resumptive pronominal suffix (IBHS §19.3) in pTti? and iTZlOp. The antecedent is Ttf (city) of verse 9. Appealing to Syriac, Wolff (Micah, pp. 186-87) interprets it as a causal conjunction ("because"), linking verse 12 with verse 13, not with verses 9-11. Though not grammatically objectionable, it suffers from not alleviating the problem of the suffixes Unking verse 12 to verse 9, from investing with its less usual meaning

practice the king (2 Sam. 14:26) and the priests (Exod. 30:13) set the standard. Unfortunately, they did not conform their own lives to the Lord's righ­ teous administration (Deut. 25:15) but took advantage of the potential for defrauding their fel­ lows, due to their powerful positions and the lack of technical expertise. Their unjust and scanty measures, however, were cursed. The divine wrath always falls upon the evildoer sooner or later. 11. The Lord turns from unjust measures to unjust scales. Balances could be falsified by inac­ curate pans, a bent crossbow, or mishandling. The law strictly proscribed diverse weights: namely, a small weight to cheat the buyer and a larger one to cheat the seller (Deut. 25:13). Again, if the Lord overlooked an inaccurate balance with deceptive weights, he too would be guilty. Because of his sublime character, unjust commercial practices must be judged. Even God's common grace teaches that deceptive trade practices are wrong. Wolff (Micah, p. 194) cites two ancient texts that do not mince their words but forthrightly name these sins:

the money by the small weight and the grain by the small measure, but when he got it back he got the money by the large weight and the grain by the large measure, that merchant shall forfeit whatever he lent. (Code of Hammurapi §94 [ANET, p. 169])

If a merchant lent grain or money at interest and when he lent it at interest he paid out

He who handles the scales in falsehood, he who deliberately changes the stone weights and lowers their weight, will make himself lie for the profit and then lose his bag of weights. (Hymn to Shamash §2.51-53 [ANET, p. 388) 12. The Lord now turns to condemn the vio­ lent speech whereby merchants protect their unjust commercial practices. The "rich men" of Jerusalem include the rich land barons (2:1-5), the royal family, the military elite, and the false prophets and unscrupulous priests (chap. 3) (see Amos 6.T-3). While cdser (wealth) is considered the gift of God (Prov. 8:18), the ca$ir (rich man) is usually condemned for making money the source of security and significance, or for wronging his neighbor in its pursuit (2 Sam. 12:2; Ps. 49:3, 5; Prov. 18:11, 23; 28:11; Isa. 53:9; Jer. 9:22 [23]; but

739

Micah 6:9-16

with resumptive pronouns, and from strangely linking the accusation of verse 12, not of verses 10-12, with the judicial sentence in verses 13-16. Note that in verse 16, after the gap in verses 1315, the same suffix also refers back to "city." (are full (its rich men) is the subject. of) refers to the inner psychological spiritual state of rich people, and OOn (violence) to their outward action, a metonymy of effect. (and its inhab­ itants) are to be distinguished from the "rich men," even as "tribe" was distinguished from "assembly of the city" in verse 9b. FOT (speak) is a persistent present perfective (IBHS §30.5). Ip© (lies): For the form and function of this noun, see the Exegesis of 2:11. It designates everything that occurs as fraud and trickery, with and without words, in daily life, especially in commerce. (yes, their tongue): Waw is ascensive because verse 12b does not add yet another group to the rich and inhabitants but epexegetes their speech by focusing on their tongues. The singular "tongue" is an unconventional collective (IBHS §7.2.1) and a metonym of subject for their speech, (deception) is a predicate nominative. Since the physical organ cannot be an abstract quality, it is probably a metonymy of effect; namely, the effects of the tongue or speech is nothing but treachery and deceit. In the adverbial phrase DJTB2 (in their mouths) the noun is another nonconventional collective. By naming both organs of speech in this short clause, Yahweh underscores the utter corruption of their speech. 13. (and so I): Clausal waw links the con­ demnation (vv. 13-15) with the accusation (w.

10-12). The connection is underscored by the cor­ relative particle C3 (in recompense) (IBHS §39.3.4d; BDB, p. 169, #4). The independent per­ sonal pronoun is emphatic, contrasting what the Lord will do with what the wicked merchants have done (IBHS §16.3.2). T^nn (I am going to strike you sorely) is hiphil of the root n5n (to be sick); the perfective signifies resolve (IBHS §30.5.1). Following the versions, most critics emend to (I have begun). Some critics retain the MT with Symmachus and Targum because the same two verbs ("to make sick" and "to strike, destroy") are juxtaposed. The construc­ tions are often obscure and idiomatic: H30 or rbro HDD may indicate a "blow or injury that makes sick" or an "incurable injury" (see Jer. 10:19; 14:17; 30:12; Nah. 3:19; Seybold, TDOT 4:403-4). See also Isaiah 53:10 f^nn 1K2H ’fBn npn, Yahweh was pleased to strike him, he made him sick [to strike him sorely?]) and Deuteronomy 28:59 (^rWTlK nyr K^Brn, and Yahweh will make wonderful the striking of you [will intensify your plagues?]). Verse 13a reads, literally, "I will make the striking of you sick" (i.e., will strike you sorely). The texts involving H^n are uncertain and confounded in the versions. In that light the ver­ sions are more easily explained away than the MT, whose reading is also probably idiomatic. 7DH (to strike) is used with reference to the bodily ill­ ness (1 Sam. 5:6), the sword (2 Sam. 20:10), and fruitless harvests (Amos 4:9), as in verses 14-15. The singular suffix, an objective genitive, else­ where refers to collective Israel (e.g., 5:9 [10]). The hiphil infinitive absolute DQ©H (bringing horror

see also Exod. 30:15; Ps. 45:13 [12]). Full of vio­ lence, they abuse the poor and powerless by bend­ ing the law to their advantage. Haag (TDOT 4:483) says: "A favorite instrument of chamas is false accusation and unjust judgment" (as in Ps. 25:19; 27:12; 55:10 [9]; 58:3 [2]). He adds (p. 484): "That the accused should experience chamas in court is all the more perverse, because it is in court that he should find protection from chamas" The corrup­ tion affects all of Jerusalem's inhabitants,- the leaven of the ruling class is leavening the whole lump. They all "speak lies ... their [collective] tongue is nothing but deception in their mouths." They speak lies, but the righteous Lord speaks the truth. 13. The Judge himself once again delivers the sentence (as in 1:6-7; 2:3-4). Whereas the accusa­ tion was delivered to the city impersonally in third-person (v. 12), the fudge hands down his sen­

tence in second-person singular to the whole city treated as a condemned individual. The correlative "and so" (in recompense) underscores that the Lord will match his punish­ ment to the rulers' crimes. As they despoiled oth­ ers, so the Lord will despoil them. The emphatic "I" strikingly contrasts the just God with the unjust ruler. The Lord is "going to strike [the city so] sorely," it will bring horror upon them, and they will know it was for their sins. Samern (to be appalled or awestruck, to grow numb) stresses the horror caused by the judgment. Its basic mean­ ing reaches from "desolation" (objective) to "appalled" (subjective). To judge from the per­ sonal object "you," the latter is in view here and in verse 16 (as in Jer. 8:21). The horror is produced by the appalling scenes unpacked in the rest of the sentence. All this is on account of their sins. They will reap what they have sown (Gal. 6:7).

740

Micah 6:9-16

upon you) functions as an adverbial complement describing the attendant circumstances of the idiom "to make sore the smiting of you" (IBHS §35.3.2). The "you" of verse 13a is gapped, (for your sins) functions as a parallel to the correlative D2*l, linking the crimes of verses 10-12 with the punishment of verses 13-15. 14. The emphatic pronoun ([as for] you) juxtaposes "I," the heavenly Judge (v. 13), with "you," Israel. tfDDD (you will eat but you will not be satisfied) is the first of the five judg­ ments that share the same syntax: future non-perfective verb + adversative waw + clausal negative adverb #5 (IBHS §39.3.3) + future non-perfective verb. (for dysentery will strike you): Disjunc­ tive waw signifies cause (IBHS §39.2.3b). is a hapax legomenon, giving rise to many emenda­ tions (Renaud, La Formation, pp. 331-34; Schwantes, Critical Study, pp. 166—68). Some emend on the basis of the MT, and others on the LXX's gkotocgei sv Got (there will be darkness in you) (= ^nR). None is without difficulty, and none has gained a following. Ehrman ("Micah 6:14") wisely stays with the MT and (contra his 'W") defends the Syriac's rendition of by "dysentery" with four arguments: (1) Its root is RTO (to be bent over). Ehrman asks: "In what physical condition of great anxiety and fear, such as Micah depicts, would a man not be sated with food that he eats? And in which physical condi­ tion would he be bent over?" (2) The Arabic cog­ nate of FTO means "to urinate, defecate." (3) Tar­ gum Jonathan and Rashi also understood to refer to a violent disorder of the bowels. (4) It fits the context admirably. Note the MT's (to be sick) in verse 13. Ehrman's solution has lexical, historical, and contextual support. If correct, the pronominal suffix is best construed as an objec­ tive genitive. ^3^?? (in your inner parts), though elsewhere in Micah glossed "amid" or "in the midst of" (see 3:1I; 5:6, 7, 9, 12, 13 [7, 8, 10, 13, 14]), here refers to the interior part of the body (as

in Gen. 18:12; 41:21). 2©rn (you will press toward birth): Clausal waw piles on another curse (IBHS §39.2.lc). The verbal root is disputed (Renaud, La Formation, p. 333; Schwantes, Critical Study, p. 168). Mention should be made of the nrsv's "you shall put away" and the niv's "you will store up" (compare LXX's ekveugei, and he shall depart [= XT]). In spite of their apparent differences, both understood the root to be I W (to move away). Elsewhere, however, that root in the hiphil means "to displace," always with the object (bound­ ary marker). The extension of its meaning "to remove" an implied object such as goods or arti­ cles lacks a parallel. Syriac, Vulgate, Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion all understood the root to be 202 (to reach, seize). On that basis Driver ("Linguistic and Textual Problems," p. 267) offers the best interpretation: "You shall bring (to the birth) but not deliver." Medieval Jewish commen­ tators (e.g., Ibn Janah, Ibn Ezra, and Qimhi) and modem Jewish exegetes (Margolis, Torzyner, and Goldman) interpreted also in this way. Verse 14Bb supports this interpretation, for life, not property, is given over to the sword. The jussive form may function as a non-perfective (IBHS §34.2.lc). Finally, as Sellin (Micha, p. 345) remarks, in the enumeration of curses in ancient Near Eastern lit­ erature, one expects mention of barrenness or miscarriage (e.g., Deut. 28:18; Hos. 9:11-12, 16). In that light waw is conjunctive. 0NrR (but you will not deliver): 0^2 in fob 21:10 means "to mis­ carry," the sense expected here after 200*1. In both cases the natural object ("offspring") is elided and assumed. The hiphil is causative (as opposed to resultative piel): "You cause the deliverance (of offspring)" (IBHS §21.2.2). The indeclinable RON (what) has the assumed object of the preceding as its antecedent and functions as the object of 0^20, which now expresses the verb in resulta­ tive piel (i.e., and what you will make delivered). The indirect object (ORrf?, to the sword) before the verb is emphatic. jFiK (I will hand over): The

14. In an anaphora ("you will ... but you will not ..."), repeated five times, the Lord catalogues what Hillers (Micah, p. 82) calls "futility curses," that is, "the guilty will undertake a course of action and inevitably be frustrated in it." The curses the Lord threatened in the covenant now fall (Deut. 28:30-31, 38-40; Lev. 26:26; Hos. 4:10; 5:6; 8:7; 9:12; 9:16; Amos 5:11). However, instead of the well-attested Deuteronomistic triad of affliction—sword, famine, plague—Micah pre­ sents the sequence of plague (v. 14a), sword (v.

14b), and loss of food not due to drought but to war (v. 15). The curses pertain to both the order of creation and to historical reverses. The Lord is sovereign over both. They "will eat" and "not be satisfied" because the Lord will plague them with sickness, more specifically with "dysentery in [their] inner parts." In addition, he will plague them with mis­ carriages (they "will press toward birth, but not deliver [their offspring]"). To this plague he adds the sword: What they "deliver" he will annihilate

741

Micah 6:9-16

expression "to hand over to the sword" means to "consign to total annihilation" (Kaiser, TDOT 5:164). 15. HFIK (you): The emphatic pronoun sustains the focus on the judged (see v. 14). inTFi (will sow grain) may refer to many agricultural activities, and “TiHpFl (you will ... harvest) to harvesting all kinds of crops. (you): The tautologous repeti­ tion is highly emphatic. (You press) plus the object rn (olives), a collective singular, is a zeugma; it is appropriate only with the second object (ETiTFl, new wine), a metonymy for grapes, because grapes were trampled by foot in the wine press, but olives were pressed in other ways, (you will . . . anoint yourself) is often reflexive. □iTrn probably denotes "new wine," the fresh produce of the field together with the grain and olive oil (Harris, TWOT 2:969). (wine): Dagesh calls the reader to pay special attention to the qui­ escent letter housed between the other two [IBHS

§1.5.4e). Note the LXX, which probably read ]TTOFi. 16. ’iQro’"): Waw is clausal conjunctive, adding the concluding indictment (w. 12-13) and sen­ tence (w. 14-15). Most emend the MT's third-per­ son masculine singular non-perfective hithpael [IBHS §26.lb) of "IOC? because the pronoun is unex­ pected and the versions give other readings, but the MT can be defended. The LXX reads Kat oa|)avio0TiG£Tai voptpa Xaou pou (and the ordi­ nances of my people will be abolished) (= “lEFlEri nipn), obviously a facilitating reading. Most emend the text, therefore, with Syrohexapla, Theodotion, Syriac, and Vulgate to (and you kept). The MT could easily be explained as due to metathesis of H and V, but ” is not so readily explained away. Elliger (BHS) and Hillers [Micah, p. 81) interpret the retroverted prefix (D) as thirdperson feminine singular, not as second-person

in war by handing it "over to the sword." Though wielded by the Assyrians, behind it lurks the hand of the Lord. 15. Continuing the anaphora in a sustained attack against the city, the Lord now adds three more futility maledictions, all pertaining to fruit­ less harvests from the scourge of war: grain har­ vest in the spring (v. 15a) and olive oil (v. 15Ba) and grape harvests in the fall (v. 15Bb). The spe­ cific maledictions that began with "you will eat but . .. not be satisfied" (v. 14a) now ends with "you will not drink." Seed was scattered by hand in the breaks between the early rainy periods around November/December, and the grain was harvested April/ May. Harvested in September/October, grapes were trampled by foot for their prized wine. Knocked down from the trees at the end of vin­ tage, olives were normally pressed for their oil by beating in a stone mortar (or bowl-shaped depres­ sion in a rock) or by rolling under a heavy cylindri­ cal stone in a rectangular or circular press. The olive tree, on account of its prized oil for food, medicine, fuel, cosmetics, and anointing, was regarded as king of the trees by both gods and humans (Judg. 9:8-9). Oil symbolized prosperity and joy (Deut. 32:13; 33:24; Ps. 45:8 [7]; Isa. 61:3). Oil and wine symbolized the joy from labor. The immediate cause of a harvest's loss could be enemies (Lev. 26:16; Judg. 6:3; Jer. 5:17), annihi­ lation and exile (Isa. 16:9; 24:7; Jer. 40:12), or drought (Deut. 11:13-14; 29:22 [23]). Ultimately,

however, the failure of harvest is due to the Lord's punishment. 16. The Lord recapitulates the indictment of verses 10-12 by comparing the degenerate city to the infamous apostasy of Omri and Ahab, and he elaborates upon the horrors of the judgment (of w. 13-15). This is the only verse in all the prophetic books, aside from superscriptions, where kings are mentioned by name. The precepts of Omri contrast sharply with those of David (1 Kings 3:3). Whereas David had prophetic sanction because he ruled after the law of Moses and the Lord's true prophets, Omri usurped the throne without prophetic sanction and ruled independently of God's law. What Omri decreed, the house of Ahab, his son, carried out. His house included the likes of Jezebel (1 Kings 21) and Athaliah (2 Kings 11), both of whom were notorious for unethical con­ duct and bloodshed. In the story of Naboth's vine­ yard, violence and lies play a prominent role (com­ pare v. 12). How galling it must have been to the house of David to be compared with this house that 150 years before had tried to kill them. The reference to "all" entails Ahab's heinous betrayal of Israel's covenant with Yahweh by substituting the worship of Baal (1 Kings 16:29-34). Indeed, their unethical conduct was based on Baal wor­ ship, a religion that pandered to the sin nature and demanded no moral rectitude (see 5:12-13 [1314]). As a result the Lord will hand over the city to "horror"—produced by the appalling scene of pes-

742

Micah 6:9-16

masculine singular. They are on the right track, but there is no need to emend * once it is recalled that it is the unmarked form and can refer to the feminine (IBHS §6.5.3). Had the text read n, the reader would presume the second-person singular of verses 13-15, not the third-person feminine sin­ gular made clear by IT??? in verse 16Bb. The ante­ cedent is probably "the city," a metonymy for its inhabitants (see vv. 9, 12, 16b). The hithpael func­ tions as a benefactive reflexive, "they observe for themselves" (as opposed to God?) (IBHS §26.2e). nOP (Omri): Is there a play on II which in hithpael means "to deal tyrannically" (Deut. 21:14; 24:7; IBHS §9.5.1c)? (and all the deeds of): ‘T’D’I is absolute, not to be rushed over, and TOD stands in apposition to it as the third object of The collective singular treats the "deeds" as a group (IBHS §7.2.1b). ZIKnNTril (the house of Ahab): ¡T3 here designates the family: father, wife, children, dependent relatives, and cli­ ents. (and you [all] went): Wdw-relative after the prefix conjugation referring to a present-time situation represents here an explanatory situation (IBHS §33.3.3c). The second-person masculine plural, though unanticipated, is perfectly accept­ able within Micah's style (see 1:11; 2:12). is used metaphorically for a journey "in which the spatial element recedes into the background, albeit not its dynamic, purposeful character" (Helfmeyer, TDOT 3:391). The nation purposively directs its course away from God toward pagan­ ism. ontoo? (in their counsels) looks back to Omri, Ahab, and his house. Outside of Proverbs 22:20 the other six uses of (plan, decision) have negative overtones. (so that): Brongers ("Die Partikel ]P05," p. 89) shows that this parti­

cle sometimes, as here, must be elliptical and a paraphrase is necessary: "The consequence of which will be that I will make you into a waste" (compare Exod. 10:1; 11:9; Deut. 29:18 [19]; Isa. 30:1; Jer. 44:8). This logical particle demands the infinitive construct ’’Fin (I am going to give . .. over) (IBHS §36.2.2b). (you): The singular pro­ noun reverts back to the parallels in verses 13-14. Commentators emend the text to smooth the style, but the discontinuity of pronouns in this book, as attested elsewhere in relevant literature (see 1:11 and 2:11), is too pervasive to make the emendations convincing. The third-person femi­ nine singular suffix in ¡Tner*! (and its inhabitants) again looks back to the city. Hjp’ld1? is a syntactic and lexical parallel to the inward FlOd4? (to horror) of the oppressed is paralleled by the out­ ward nplP1? (to scornful hissing) of the oppressor (see 2 Chron. 29:8; Jer. 19:8; 29:18; 51:37). ranm ([and] . .. the reproach): Clausal conjunction waw introduces a clause amplifying the scorn. HB“in signifies the act of slandering that one party, here an implied enemy, puts on another. If one stays with the MT, is an objective genitive, and the first-person singular suffix refers again to Yahweh, a genitive of relation. The LXX, however, reads Xawv (peoples) (= □’EX?) (see Obad. 13), probably the original text, closely matching Ezekiel 36:15. In that case the genitive is agency (IBHS §9.5. lb). WFI (you will bear) shifts back to the second-per­ son masculine plural at the end of verse 16Ab. ICE with this object can mean "to take up reproach against someone" (Ps. 15:3), but here it means "to bear upon oneself the enemies' taunts" (as in Gen. 4:13).

tilence, annihilation of offspring, and wasted crops of verses 13-15. In addition, he will hand the city's inhabitants over to scornful hissing, for

the nation that failed to be a light to the nations must now bear the reproach of the peoples,

743

Micah 7:1-6

III. Third Cycle: God Forgives the Remnant of His Sinful People (6:1-7:20)

C. Jerusalem's Social Structures Break Apart (7:1-6) WALTKE

7

2

3

4

5

6

Woe is me! for I have become as in the gathering of summer fruit, as in the gleanings of a vintage [when] not a cluster remains to be eaten, not one first-ripe fig, such as my soul yearns for. A faithful person has ceased from the land; and there is not an upright person among humankind. All of them lie in ambush to shed blood, each one hunts for his brother with a net. They set both hands upon the wicked [net to weave it] skillfully— the officials demand [compensation], and the judges [make rulings] for a bribe,and the great one speaks the craving of his soul— and so they weave it. The best of them is like a brier-hedge, the most upright is [like] a hedge. The day of your watchmen —of your punishment—is at hand; now their panic will come. Do not rely on your friend, do not trust your intimate friend! From the one who lies in your bosom keep the doors of your mouth [sealed]! Surely a son treats his father as a fool; a daughter rises up against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. A man's enemies are the men of his own household.

744

NRSV

7

2

3

4

5

6

Woe is me! For I have become like one who, after the summer fruit has been gathered, after the vintage has been gleaned, finds no cluster to eat; there is no first-ripe fig for which I hunger. The faithful have disappeared from the land, and there is no one left who is upright; they all lie in wait for blood, and they hunt each other with nets. Their hands are skilled to do evil; the official and the judge ask for a bribe, and the powerful dictate what they desire; thus they pervert justice. The best of them is like a brier, the most upright of them a thorn hedge. The day of their sentinels, of their punish­ ment, has come; now their confusion is at hand. Put no trust in a friend, have no confidence in a loved one; guard the doors of your mouth from her who lies in your embrace,for the son treats the father with contempt, the daughter rises up against her mother, the daughter-in-law against her motherin-law; your enemies are members of your own household.

Micah 7:1-6

1. (woe is me): To judge from the only other use of this exclamation (Job 10:15), could be a woe pronounced upon one who is found guilty. In both passages, perhaps for asso­ nance, it is followed by (to me), a lamed of dis­ advantage (IBHS §11.2.10). (as in the gathering of summer fruit), after the comparative preposition 3, consists of ”SpK, the masculine plural construct of the nominal use of the qal infinitive construct (IBHS §36.1.1, §36.2) of the root rjQK (to gather, remove), and the objective genitive pp (summer fruit [especially figs]) (KB, p. 838). A superficial reading of the MT yields, "I am like the gleanings of the harvest," an inapposite notion for it represents the speaker as being like a first fig or cluster of grapes, the very comparison he denies in the b verset. The LXX and Vulgate stumbled over the difficulty. The LXX reads dx; ouvaycov (like one who gathers) and has a double reading for KaXdpriv ev apiiTCO (stubble at har­ vest). The Vulgate reads sicut qui colligit autumno racemos vindemiae (as one who gleans in autumn the grapes of the vintage), making pp a temporal accusative. Many commentators follow these ancient versions and emend the infinitive to ’DOto, a participle with yod compaginis or a plural

construct meaning "like one/those who pick(s)." Emendation, however, is unnecessary once it is understood with Symmachus that the preposition P can "absorb" another preposition such as 3 (IBHS § 11.2.9a). The same construction occurs in Isaiah 17:5, except it is singular (see also Isa. 24:13). The countable plural indicates that the harvest was gathered several times so as to leave no gleanings whatsoever. Similarly, ri^Pp (as in the gleanings of a vintage) consists of the comparative 3 (which again "absorbs" p), its object (a poel feminine plural construct of the root to act severely,- thus, to go over a sec­ ond time = gleaning), and the objective genitive T2£p (vintage) from root I meaning "to cut in pieces." The countable plural again emphasizes that nothing is left. ([remains] to be eaten): 5 with the infinitive construct in a verbless clause has its normal modal significance, here of capabil­ ity: "There is not a cluster of grapes for the possi­ bility of eating." ¡TTO? has the restricted sense "first-ripe fig" (so Vulgate), not the general mean­ ing "first fruits" (so LXX and Syriac) and is the parallel subject with gapped . .. ptt. The sin­ gular is a countable (IBHS §7.2.1), not a collective (as in Isa. 28:4; Jer. 24:2). nniH (such as my

1-6. The new prophecy is marked off from the Lord's reproach oracle against Jerusalem in 6:9-16 by the change of speaker from the Lord to Micah, who speaks in an autobiographical "I" (v. 1; com­ pare v. 7), and by the unified reproach prophecy, including accusation (vv. 1-4a) and condemnation (vv. 4b-6). He uses a lament form for the thinly disguised accusation, in contrast to the direct reproach in 6:10-12 that uses second-person. The condemnation is introduced by the proclamation in verse 4b that the prophesied day of the Lord's judgment has come. As in 6:9-16 Jerusalem's unrighteous leaders are principally in view. There, however, the accusation pertained to deceit in the marketplace; here to deceit in the court. More­ over, this prophecy brings to light the extent of the corruption: not one upright person remains. The entire lump has been leavened. The time of judgment is at hand. The crimes of the nation's leadership in the accusing lament can be analyzed into an allegory describing a vineyard stripped of its fruit (v. 1) and its interpretation (w. 2-4a). The interpretation consists of a summary statement that there are no upright people (v. 2a) and two metaphors depict­ ing the depraved leadership: hunters (i.e., they prey upon their subjects; w. 2b-3) and hedges (i.e.,

they obstruct justice; v. 4a). The condemnation consists of a general statement that the time of anarchy is at hand (v. 4b), and specific illustrations of it are then given (vv. 5-6). 1. Micah commences his song with an unusual expression of lament: "Woe is me!" or "What mis­ ery is mine!" The repetition of liquids in ’alelay li and the placing of the interjection in an anacrusis (i.e., outside of the meter) make the cry of suffer­ ing more heart-rending in its sobriety (Renaud, La Formation, p. 346). In an allegory the prophet, who represents the Lord, enters a vineyard in summer (i.e., June) hop­ ing to find one cluster of grapes or one ripe fruit leftover from the harvest (Lev. 19:9-10; 23:22; Deut. 24:19-22; Ruth 2:3, 7, 15; Isa. 17:6). Accord­ ing to the law, gleaners were not to go back a sec­ ond time for what they had missed, but to leave those pickings for the poor. Alas, however, the poor prophet finds that the vineyard has been picked over not just once, but several times, and so not one cluster of grapes—not one ripe fig— remains to be eaten and so satisfy his yearnings. The allegory does not attempt to explain this. Clusters of grapes were desired because they were delicious for eating (Deut. 32:32) and making wine (Isa. 65:8). The prophet probably chose ’eSkol

745

Micah 7:1-6

soul yearns for): This asyndetic relative clause qualifies HTO? (IBHS §19.6). The denominative piel HTO denotes producing the state indicated by the noun (IBHS §24.4e). '2223 signifies the speak­ er's animated passion, appetite (Waltke, TWOT 2:589). 2. Ton (a faithful person) has a pattern that may be active ("one who practices hesed”), pas­ sive ("one who receives hesed”), or stative ("one who is hesed”) (IBHS §5.3). All three have been argued for. The last is probably best (Morgenstern, ”Hasîdîm”) and Sakenfeld, Meaning of Hesed, pp. 241-45). (from the land): See the Exegesis of 1:2. EHN2 (among humankind) is a nonconventional coilective (BDB, p. 9, #2; IBHS §7.2.Id). c5p (all of them): 5b indicates totality; the parallel 22'K (each one) distributes them to each individual. The plural pronominal suffix looks back to the collective CÏK. The plural noun E'OT (to shed blood) is a plural of composition (i.e., plural of result; IBHS §7.4.lb), "blood shed by rude vio­ lence" (BDB, pp. 196-97, #lf). D5HT (lie in ambush): The plural, in pausal form, is in ad sen­ sum agreement with collective 5b as subject. It is a progressive non-perfective (IBHS §31.3b). The plural TO (hunts) agrees ad sensum with the dis­

tributive "each one (of them)." In this metaphor of hunting and pursuit E"in (with a net) is a deriva­ tive of II □“¡n (net), not of I □“in (destruction [so Symmachus] or death [so Vulgate]) (Lohfink, TDOT 5:182). It functions uniquely with the verb as an accusative of manner (IBHS §10.2.2e). 3. Although the general sense of verse 3 is clear enough, the text and its details are not. The ver­ sions do not represent so much variant readings but bold attempts to make sense of a difficult text. Renaud (La Formation, p. 349) and Schwantes (Critical Study, pp. 180-85) survey the many attempts to emend the MT, but none are satisfy­ ing. I will content myself with trying to make sense of the MT. 5.12 (they set) in this nominal clause demands a verb such as "set" (IBHS §11.4.3d). i21H (the evil) is probably a metonymy for the deadly "net," and the article signifies something that is vivid to the imagination (IBHS §13.5.le). D'E-rf? (to do [it] thoroughly): The hiphil with the stative verb 22T means "to cause (some­ thing) to be good" (i.e., do something well, thor­ oughly) (IBHS §27.2f; BDB, p. 405, #3). It modifies the gapped verb ¡TIDEST] (and so they weave it), derived from the end of the verse. In verse 3Aba-p one may encounter what Miller labels "synony-

(cluster of grapes) because of its assonance with le’ekol (to eat). Though "soul" is almost an equiv­ alent of the personal pronoun "I," it uniquely con­ notes appetite. The ripe fig at this time of the year is the early fruit of a young shoot from the previ­ ous year (compare 6:15). ’wh (to yearn for) speaks of strong desires and, by impheation, of the bitter disappointment of finding one's cravings unmet. The implied futility of labor matches the futility curses handed down in 6:13-15. 2. The allegory in verse 1 and its interpretation in verse 2 are linked by ’en (not) and ’ayin (there is not). The vineyard is the land of Israel (Ps. 80:9-17 [8-16]; Isa. 5:1-7), and the missing sweet cluster of grapes and ripe fig are the "faithful person" and "upright person." Hasid (the faithful) can be used of anyone in a covenantal relationship or of a spe­ cial religious functionary. They are characterized by unfailing love to their community (6:8). The upright display moral rectitude in their conduct. The indefiniteness focuses attention on their character. The width of the nation's decadence is underscored by the verbal phrase "cease from the land" (v. 2Aa), the negative adverb "there is not" (v. 2Ab), and the nouns of quantity (the aggregate "all" [v. 2Ba] and the distributive "each one" [v. 2Bb]). The singular "faithful person" and "upright

person" matches the singular "cluster" of grapes and "ripe fig." There is not one. Nevertheless, the limits of "all" must be decided by the parameters set up within a discourse. Here, according to verse 3, it refers to the rulers. By contrast, Micah him­ self was part of the faithful remnant. The vile quality of the rulers' decadence is sig­ nified by metaphors: "all lie in ambush to shed blood" and "each one hunts for his brother with a net." Both metaphors connote sinister and deadly practices. Lie in wait (’rb) describes the lurking actions of an animal or criminal before striking the victim, ’ah (brother) signifies either a person's own blood brother (Gen. 4:8-11) or more broadly any male kin (Gen. 14:14, 16), fellow citizen, or tribe member (Num. 20:3; Josh. 1:14-15; Judg. 9:18). Ringgren (TDOT 1:190) notes: "Basic to this latter use of the word is the idea that the tribes and the nation descended from a common father." Since the Israelites are "brothers," they had a responsibility to help each other (Lev. 25:35-36; Deut. 15:7, 9, 11-12). 3. The prophet now explains how the hunters' deadly net operates. "Both hands" refers to the corrupt officials and the lustful high official. Together they make the wicked net so skillfully that none escapes. The metaphor "to weave" adds

746

Micah 7:1-6

mous-sequential parallelism/' that is, versets "in which some elements are synonymously parallel and some are sequential or continuous with one another" ("Synonymous-Sequential Parallelism," p. 256) Here “W (the officials) and OBOT (and the judges) are synonyms—in fact a hendiadys, "the judging official"—and (demand) depends on gapped for its object and vice versa. "The officials demand [a reward], / and the judges [demand] a reward." Melamed ("Stereotype Phrases," pp. 131-33), following Cassuto [Exodus, p. 23), quotes a similar usage from Ugaritic (docu­ mented from Ps. 148:11; Prov. 8:16; Amos 2:3; Zeph. 3:3) where HOT and a stereotyped hen­ diadys, are broken up. If so, a zeugma is also involved, for in the phrase (for a bribe) beth pretii ("in exchange for"; IBHS §11.2.5d) is appro­ priate only with an elided form of or (make rulings) after CDB&H. The article with the collective singular subjects 1EH and BB$H is generic, signifying class [IBHS §13.5.If), because "all" in verse 2 indicates that not just one or two magistrates are in view. The participle func­ tions as the predicate and so signifies a durative situation [IBHS §37.6). in its two other uses refers to God's retribution. Like its congener (parallel to "TO, bribe, in Isa. 1:23), it proba­ bly means "repayment" or "compensation." (and the great one): The emphatic WH precludes

taking this singular as a collective, the article probably representing a unique referent [IBHS §13.5.lb). This substantival adjective functions as an antimeria for the high official who represents the king himself [IBHS §14.3.3d). The predicate participle (speaks) is also durative [IBHS, p. 410 n. 39). ¡TH (the craving of) must be a meton­ ymy for "decrees, precepts," for a word of speak­ ing cannot have a psychological state as its object. is a genitive of source, pointing to the admin­ istrator's depraved appetite as the source of his perverse speech. On dB? (soul), see the Exegesis of verse 1. The independent personal pronoun stands in apposition to the pronominal suffix, emphasizing his lustful appetite. ¡TIDBIT] (and so they weave it together): Waw-relative summarizes the activity, clarified by the three preceding cir­ cumstantial participial clauses [IBHS §33.2.Id). The plural subject looks back to the corrupt mag­ istrates and the greedy great one. The feminine singular verbal suffix does not look back to D1H, for that would be an inelegant thought, but to the activity of weaving the net. The piel is resultative (i.e., they make the mischievous [thing] woven) [IBHS §24.3.1). 4. □□’¡B (the best of them) is a comparative superlative degree [IBHS § 14.5c, ##31-32). HD10QQ: The initial □ cannot be comparative, for that is proscribed by verse 4Aa; therefore emend the text

to the figure of the hunter's net the notion that the wicked scheme of the king's official and his minions are so fashioned that it contains no loop­ holes. The corrupt officials (i.e., the judges) per­ form their duties in exchange for repayment. The powerful officials then hand down precepts dic­ tated by their lusts. And so the net is woven with­ out a loophole. The arrangement is so smooth and thorough that none escapes the system. They not only fail to turn a blind eye to the bribe (Exod. 23:8; Deut. 10:17; 16:19; 27:25), but they all con­ spire together to wring payment out of their kin. Sar denotes ruling officials of various rank under the king (Deut. 1:15; Isa. 32:1; Hos. 3:4). Here, according to the hendiadys, they are the judges. The Masoretic accentuation system unites the officials and the judges over against "the great one," whom Wolff [Micah, p. 206) helpfully inter­ prets as the king's confidants and higher adminis­ trative officials (citing 2 Sam. 3:38; 2 Kings 10:6; Jonah 3:7). Here, however, the form is emphati­ cally singular. The meaning of hawwa (craving) is debated. Erlandsson [TDOT 3:356-58) rejects Guillaume's

opinion that it means "command, curse," even though Ugaritic hwt seems related to Akkadian awatu/amatu (word) and occurs in eight of its six­ teen uses with organs of speech or beside a word that denotes speaking, as here. He suggests instead that it means "both the inner root of evil, 'the inordinate desire,' and its consequences, falsehood, perversity, deception, and misfor­ tune." When rulers are unwilling to submit them­ selves to God's revealed, good ordinances, but fol­ low their own lusts, the result is unjust judgment, oppression, and the shedding of innocent blood, not justice, righteousness, and mercy. The inordi­ nate desire of the official's soul stands in marked contrast to the appetite (= soul) of the prophet for righteous rulers in verse 1. Whereas the prophet is driven by a desire for justice (3:8), the corrupt offi­ cials are guided by money. 4. Micah now moves from comparing the depraved officials to hunters with deadly nets to likening "the best of them, the most upright [of them]," to "brier-hedges." The best they can man­ age is to obstruct justice. These legal sharks have so conspired together that none can negotiate the

747

Micah 7:1-6

by suffixing 0 to "lET, yielding (the most upright of them) (compare 2:7), forming a parallel with mlO. !WD ([like] a hedge) is a metaphor (see Isa. 40:6 for another mixture of simile and meta­ phor). DT (the day of): See the Exegesis of verses 11-12. (of your punishment) is part of a construct override in this high poetry, showing the close connection between (your watch­ men) and "your visitation in judgment" (IBHS §9.3b). When the verbal noun ^rnpB denotes a punitive visit, a punishment, as here, it always has a passive sense (Jer. 8:12; 10:15; 11:23; 23:12; 46:21; 50:27; 51:18; Renaud, La Formation, p. 355). In that light, the pronominal suffix cannot refer to Yahweh (pace Lisowsky, Konkordanz, p. 1181; Reicke, "Liturgical Traditions," pp. 358-59; and Wolff, Micah, p. 207), but the Judean magis­ trates, and is a genitive affected by the construct: "your being punished" (i.e., when you are pun­ ished) (IBHS §9.3b). For singular "you" see the Exegesis of 6:13. HTiri (will come): See BDB, p. 225, #11.la. The shift from second-person masculine singular suffix to third-person masculine plural in

the parallel DTOW (their panic) is acceptable Hebrew, especially in Micah (see 1:11). 5. (do not rely): The hiphil is internal (IBHS §27.2) with a tolerative sense (IBHS §27.5), that is, "do not allow yourselves to trust." The preposition in JTQ (on your friend) glosses the object (IBHS §11.2.5f). (do not trust): The grammar is the same as in the parallel. Instead of the MT's vigorous, asyndetic construction, Mur 88 and the LXX link verse 5Aa with verse 5Ab with a smoothing, conjunctive waw. ’’¡p’n FI3P&D (from the one who lies in your bosom): pTi func­ tions as a genitive of location (IBHS §9.5.2f) and designates below the breast between the arms. The adverbial phrase by its prominent place before its verb is emphatic, an antimeria for one's wife. The alternation between plural in verse 5a and singular in verse 5b is acceptable Hebrew (see 1:11; 2:11). The preposition is elliptical for "keep­ ing (what you say) away from" (IBHS § 11.4.3d). "Ibd with "mouth" as object means "guard" in the sense "be prudent of speech" (BDB, p. 1036, #lb). (the doors of your mouth): Wolff (Micah, p. 202) explains: "The Hebraic dual expresses the

tangle of laws and rulings, and to attempt it will result in only painful injury. What a contrast to the sweet grapes and figs they should have been! The prophet abruptly shifts from accusation in verses 1-4a, to judgment in verse 4b—perhaps to suggest the suddenness with which judgment strikes. Nevertheless, they are linked by the asso­ nance between mësûkâ (hedge) at the end of verse 4a and mëbûkâ (panic) at the end of verse 4b. "Your," though singular, refers to the officials and the nation. "Watchmen" designates the lookouts posted on a city's wall to warn the nation's leader­ ship of approaching danger (1 Sam. 14:16; 2 Sam. 18:24-33; 2 Kings 9:17-20). Hartley (TWOT 2:773) says that failure in this duty carried the death pen­ alty. Moreover, as Reicke ("Liturgical Traditions," p. 356) notes, the grammatical form here stands for prophets (as in Isa. 52:7-10; 56:10; Jer. 6:17; Ezek. 3:17-21; 33:7). Because the nation paid no heed to these faithful sentinels (Mic. 2:6-11; 3:56; Isa. 30:10; Hos. 9:7-8; Amos 2:12), "the day of [their] punishment" from God "is at hand" (Isa. 10:3; Hos. 9:7). Schottroff (THAT 2:483) notes that, in conjunction with temporal terms such as day, the punishment "pertains to a definite time of Yahweh's judgment within history." According to Speiser (cited by Hamilton, TWOT 2:731), "to visit," the root meaning behind "punishment," originally meant "to attend to with care, to take

note," and, as expressed by Hamilton, "points to action that produces a great change in the position of a subordinate either for good or for ill." The imminent Assyrian invasion will throw the nation into confused panic (Isa. 22:5). 5. Specific illustrations of the confusion, the social anarchy, in the besieged city are now given (compare Isa. 3:4-7). In Micah's rhetorical admo­ nitions to recognize that covenant bonds have been completely severed, he progressively height­ ens the relationships involving trust. Kühlewein (THAT 2:787) invests the broad term reac (friend) with its more narrow sense: "(personal) friend, confidant, companion, comrade." This meaning is supported by >allûp (intimate friend), whose root means "to instruct" and may refer to the intimate sharing between two parties. The second half of the verse is devoted to one's closest companion, the wife "who lies in your bosom" and bears your children. Micah states the commands negatively in verse 5a: in the crisis "do not rely on," emphatically, "do not trust," what your most "intimate friend" tells you. Then he asserts it positively in 5b: guard what you say even from your wife for she may use it against you. None is to be trusted. The bonds of covenant have completely broken down. The judgment fits the crime: the leaders broke cov­ enant with the people; now the ship of state

748

Micah 7:1-6

notion that the (two) lips are the doors of lan­ guage"—a metonymy for what one says. 6. '3 (surely): See IBHS §39.3.Id. p (a son), along with the other family members (father, daughter, daughter-in-law), is anarthrous to underscore the class to which they belong (IBHS § 13.2b). 5®? (treats ... as a fool): Piel with this

root signifies an estimative or delocutive force; that is, the son esteems his father a fool and pub­ licly pronounces him to be one (IBHS §24.2f). rfo (a daughter-in-law) refers to the son's wife. Hrorp (against her mother-in-law): Since this word func­ tions grammatically in the same way as FB3, nOj? (not 5EDQ) is gapped.

breaks apart in God's judgment. The leaders could not be trusted; now all are suspicious of each other. 6. The suspicion one should have toward one's closest associate is validated by the individualism and hardness that fractures the household, soci­ ety's foundational unit. Children, instead of giv­ ing honor to their parents (Exod. 20:12; Lev. 19:3), disdainfully attack them. Enemies turn up in one's own household. "Men of his own house­ hold," according to Bratsiotis (TOOT 1:224), stands for the male residents within the house­

hold: sons, sons-in-law, adopted males, and ser­ vants with their families. In short, this is a world turned upside down, for parents were to discipline children (Exod. 21:15, 17; Lev. 20:9), and a man was expected to direct his household (Gen. 18:19). The advent of Jesus Christ into this fallen world brought the same divisions (Matt. 10:35-39; Luke 12:53), but turned a world where human beings hate and are hated (Titus 3:3) right side up. He nourishes a vine that brings forth good fruit (John 15).

749

Micah 7:7

III. Third Cycle: God Forgives the Remnant of His Sinful People (6:1-7:20)

D. Micah's Confidence in His Saving God (7:7) WALTKE

7 But I will watch [and trust] in the Lord; I will hope for my saving God. My God will answer me.

750

NRSV

7 But as for me, I will look to the Lord, I will wait for the God of my salvation,my God will hear me.

Micah 7:7

7. ’’jNH (but I): The conjunction functions as a disjunctive to contrast the prophet's salvation with the nation's perdition (IBHS §39.2.3b). The pronoun is for the logical contrast between the faithful prophet and the unfaithful community (IBHS § 16.3.2c). A similar contrast occurs in 3:8. 71*171’3 (in the Lord): 2 is elsewhere not attested with and is thus unexpected; probably an appropriate verb, such as IW (to trust), should be supplied (IBHS § 11.4.3d; §il.2.5f, #35; BDB, p.

105, #3). (I will watch) is a frequentative, iterative piel (IBHS §24.5). The ambiguous form is cohortative to judge from its unambiguous paral­ lel rfrrriK (I will wait), a cohortative that expresses resolve (IBHS §34.5.la). Also, it is an internal hiphil (i.e., I will cause myself to wait) (IBHS §27.2f). ’’IX?’ (my saving God): The first geni­ tive is attributive, and the suffix modifies the whole chain (IBHS §9.5.3b).

7. Scholars are about evenly divided whether verse 7 belongs to verses 1-6 or verses 8-18 (Wolff, Micah, p. 203). The dispute can be resolved by rec­ ognizing that, in editing his book, Micah uses the rhetorical device known as janus (i.e., something that looks both ways). He employed the same device in the autobiographical account of 3:8. The autobiographical "I" with reference to Micah relates verse 7 to verses 1-6 (esp. v. 1). This con­ nection is further strengthened by the repeated use of sph (vv. 4, 7). These links, however, also contrast the reproach prophecy of verses 1-6 with this confession of faith. There he was in misery,here he is full of hope. There the prophets watched for judgment; here he watches for the sal­ vation that outlasts God's judgment. These differ­ ences at the same time link it with the prophecy of salvation in verses 8-16, which begins with Lady Zion autobiographically confessing her faith that the Lord will save her from the judgment (vv. 8-10). This brief autobiography has two parts: in verse 7a Micah asserts his faith in his saving God, and in verse 7b he prophesies his salvation. The same sequence is found with reference to Zion in verses 8-10 and 11-13. "But I" contrasts sharply the dark unfaithful­ ness of the magistrates and of the nation and their

doom (vv. 1-6) with the bright faith and salvation of the prophet and the faithful remnant he repre­ sents. Hartley (TWOT 2:773) says that sapa (to watch) "conveys the idea of being fully aware of a situation in order to gain some advantage." The prophetic expectation of doom was based on the threats of the Mosaic Covenant (Lev. 26; Deut. 28); beyond that, the confidence of salvation is based on the faith that God will keep his covenant with Abraham and Jacob (v. 20; Deut. 30:1-10). To "hope for" means to wait for something because one confidently expects its realization. Micah's strong resolve to hope for God who saves him entails that he is praying to God for deliverance from the national judgment and so has become part of the remnant (2:13; 4:6-7; 5:6-7 [7-8]). Verse 7b assumes and further adds to that entailment: the Lord will hear him favorably and so save him. Yasac means not only to deliver from distress, but has an original forensic sense to do so because it is one's right or due (Sawyer, "Mosiac," p. 484). That hope for salvation is based not on wishful think­ ing but on the character of God himself: He "will answer me." The personal relationship between the saving Lord and his dependent prophet is underscored by the mention of one or the other or both with every word of this verse.

751

Micah 7:8-20

III. Third Cycle: God Forgives the Remnant of His Sinful People (6:1-7:20)

E. Victory Song: Who Is like the Remnant's Pardoning God? (7:8-20) WALTKE

8 Do not rejoice, my enemy, over me. Though I have fallen, I will rise; though I sit in darkness, the Lord is a light to me. 9 I will endure the fury of the Lord— surely I sinned against him— until he pleads my case and executes justice for me. He will bring me forth into the light; I will gaze on his salvation. 10 And let my enemy gaze [on it] so that shame will overwhelm her, the one who said to me, "Where is he, the Lord your God?" My eyes will feast on her; now she will become a trampled place, like mire in the streets. 11 In a time to rebuild your walls, in that time your borders will become remote. 12 It is a day when they will come to you from Assyria even unto "Affliction-Place," and from "Affliction-Place" even unto the River, and from sea to sea, and from mountains to the Mountain. 13 And then the earth will become a desola­ tion on account of its inhabitants, as a result of their evil deeds. 14 Shepherd your people with your rod, the flock of your inheritance, those who dwell apart in a forest, in the heart of a garden. May they graze in Bashan and in Gilead as in the days of old.

752

NRSV

8 Do not rejoice over me, O my enemy,when I fall, I shall rise; when I sit in darkness, the Lord will be a light to me. 9 I must bear the indignation of the Lord, because I have sinned against him, until he takes my side and executes judgment for me. He will bring me out to the light; I shall see his vindication. 10 Then my enemy will see, and shame will cover her who said to me, "Where is the Lord your God?" My eyes will see her downfall; now she will be trodden down like the mire of the streets. 11 A day for the building of your walls! In that day the boundary shall be far extended. 12 In that day they will come to you from Assyria to Egypt, and from Egypt to the River, from sea to sea and from mountain to mountain. 13 But the earth will be desolate because of its inhabitants, for the fruit of their doings. 14 Shepherd your people with your staff, the flock that belongs to you, which lives alone in a forest in the midst of a garden land; let them feed in Bashan and Gilead as in the days of old.

Micah 7:8-20

WALTKE

NRSV

15 "As in the days of your going out from the land of Egypt, I will show him wonderful deeds," [says the Lord]. 16 Nations will see and be ashamed, deprived of all their power,they will clap [their] hands over [their] mouths,they will turn a deaf ear [to blasphem­ ers]. 17 They will lick dust like a snake. As those who crawl in the earth, they will come trembling from their strongholds. Unto the Lord our God they will [come] quaking, and be afraid of you. 18 Who is a god like you, one who forgives iniquity, who even passes over transgressions, for the remnant of his inheritance? He will not retain forever his anger, because he is one who delights in un­ failing love. 19 He will again have compassion upon us; he will subdue our iniquities. Yes, you will hurl into the depths of the sea all their sins. 20 You will bestow fidelity to Jacob, unfailing love to Abraham, which you swore to our fathers in days of old.

15 As in the days when you came out of the land of Egypt, show us marvelous things. 16 The nations shall see and be ashamed of all their might; they shall lay their hands on their mouths,their ears shall be deaf; 17 they shall lick dust like a snake, like the crawling things of the earth; they shall come trembling out of their for­ tresses; they shall turn in dread to the Lord our God, and they shall stand in fear of you. 18 Who is a God like you, pardoning iniquity and passing over the transgression of the remnant of your possession? He does not retain his anger forever, because he delights in showing clemency. 19 He will again have compassion upon us; he will tread our iniquities under foot. You will cast all our sins into the depths of the sea. 20 You will show faithfulness to Jacob and unswerving loyalty to Abraham, as you have sworn to our ancestors from the days of old.

753

Micah 7:8-20

8. (do not rejoice): The jussive, an oratio variata {IBHS §34. lb), is feminine because the city of Nineveh, the enemy behind this incomplete metaphor is feminine {IBHS §6.4.Id). The pronominal suffix in (my enemy) refers to Lady Zion, not Micah (contra v. 7), for it stands in juxtaposition to the implied city. In verse 12 Micah addresses Zion. (over me) is a lamed of disadvantage {IBHS §11.2.10d). The concessive particle (though) introduces the real conditional clause {IBHS

§38.2a, §39.3.4e; BDB, p. 473, #2c.(b)). (I have fallen) is present perfect, representing the city's situation as a result of its defeat {IBHS §30.5.2b). ’D (though): The protasis of verse 8ßa expands verse 8Aa as the apodosis of verse 8ßb expands verse 8Ab. 308 (I sit): The present pro­ gressive non-perfective {IBHS §31.3b) with this constative verb {IBHS §30.2.lc) underscores the ongoing aspect of the present situation intro­ duced by the present perfect {IBHS §30.5.2b).

8-20. Micah concludes his book with a liturgi­ cal hymn, consisting of expressions of confidence, petition, and praise. The composite, yet coherent, prophecy consists of four almost equal stanzas. In the first (vv. 8-10), Lady Jerusalem confesses to an unidentified enemy her faith in the Lord. In response to that confession, in the second stanza (w. 11-13), Micah promises that Zion will become a grand and vast sheepfold offering salva­ tion to the elect from a world under judgment. In the third stanza (w. 14-17), Micah turns in prayer to the Lord, who formerly led his people out of Egypt, to again shepherd them (v. 14); the Lord answers that he will (v. 15), upon which Micah reflects (vv. 16-17) that all of Zion's enemies will submit to God's rule through Israel. The rising crescendo of confidences climaxes in the fourth stanza (vv. 18-20), the people's hymn celebrating the wonder that God can hurl their sins into the sea in order to fulfill his covenantal promises to the patriarchs. The last two stanzas have striking inter-textual connections with Israel's first victory song: the Song of the Red Sea. In both, the vanquished trem­ ble (Exod. 15:14; Mic. 7:17b), quake (Exod. 15:15; Mic. 7:17b), and become mute (Exod. 15:16; Mic. 7:16). In both, the Lord does wonders (Exod. 15:11; Mic. 7:15), shows unfailing love (Exod. 15:13; Mic. 7:18-19), and refers to Israel as his inheritance (Exod. 15:17; Mic. 7:14, 18). Both hymns celebrate God's incomparability, asking "Who is a god like you?" (Exod. 15:11; Mic. 7:18), and use both the picturesque and completely original imagery of God throwing his enemies into the depths of the sea (Exod. 15:1, 4-5; Mic. 7:19). Formerly he miraculously threw pharaoh's picked troops into the sea; now he will do the even greater saving deed of hurling Israel's sins into the depths and so make his people universally victorious. 8. Micah, prophesying against the historical background of the Assyrian invasions, presup­ poses Jerusalem's fall to Assyria (v. 12). However,

Hezekiah repented (Jer. 26:18-19) and so spared the city for the moment (Jer. 18:7-10). The proph­ ecy originally looked to Jerusalem's salvation beyond this anticipated fall. As it turned out, Jerusalem ultimately fell to Babylon and was delivered from there (Mic. 4:9-10). The prophecy is stated abstractly, never naming the enemy, because it is applicable to the salvation of God's people from any enemy, for its salvation rests on God's fidelity to the Abrahamic covenant (v. 20). Lady Zion, using first-person "I," commands her enemy, also personified by the feminine, not to rejoice over her fallen state because she will again rise. Sameah (rejoice) denotes "being glad or joyful with the whole disposition" (Waltke, TWOT 2:879), here against God and his holy city. The word has a cultic nuance because the enemy celebrates its military victories and triumphant joy in temples to its pagan deities. "Fallen" is often used metaphorically for experiencing calam­ ity, as in battle (Judg. 20:44). When used of a city, it means that the city has met a catastrophic end (Jer. 51:8; compare Ezek. 33:21, where the form hukketa occurs). "Rise," its antonym, in this mil­ itary context signifies to rise from the state of defeat (Prov. 24:16). The accidental perfective form of this verb vividly and dramatically repre­ sents this future situation as complete and unex­ pected {IBHS §30.5.le). The repetition of "though" followed by the main clause that celebrates Zion's salvation sig­ nals a heightening and focusing of verse 8Ab. "Darkness" is a metonymy of adjunct for the anticipated gloomy imprisonment or captivity and may be equated with blindness (Isa. 42:6-7, 16; 49:9; Ringgren, TDOT 5:253). Zion will rise because of her unique covenantal relationship with Yahweh. As darkness is a metonymy for imprisonment, light is a metonymy for freedom. The metaphor "the Lord is light" (= freedom) is a metonymy of cause: he is the one who will bring Zion back into freedom's light.

754

Micah 7:8-20

9. HTT (the Lord): The genitive of inalienable possession refers to God's fury against sin as something intrinsically proper to him (IBHS §9.5. lg). (surely): See the Exegesis of verse 8. 1WI1 (I sinned): The perfective a constative situa­ tion in past time (IBHS §30.5.lb), 'b (against him): See the Exegesis of verse 8. After the temporal preposition "W (until), the independent relative pronoun (untranslated) means "when" (IBHS §19.3b-c). *’□**") (my case) is a cognate effected accusative (i.e., the Lord effects Zion's complaint against her adversary) (IBHS §10.2.If). HOP] (and executes): W^w-relative signifies the Lord's sequential act (IBHS §32.2.lc-d). The root TOP with tDStip, as in 6:8, denotes the responsibility of a person to execute justice for another person. 'CpEOT (justice for me): The pronominal suffix is an adverbial genitive of advantage (IBHS §9.5.2e). (he will bring me forth): The hiphil shows that Yahweh will cause Zion to participate in its exodus out of the dungeon darkness (KIT also in

2:13). (into the light): The article, as with "[OH in verse 8, denotes class, and Hi« is a figure for the freedom the Lord effects (see v. 8Bb). (I will gaze): The root HH") plus 5 means "to look at or into something with interest"; here, more specifi­ cally, with joy and pleasure (BDB, p. 908, #8a.(5)). (his salvation): The pronominal suffix with this verbal noun is a genitive of agent (IBHS §9.5.lb). 10. 8“!rn (and let ... gaze): The jussive expresses implicitly an imprecation addressed to the Lord (IBHS §34.3b). The root HfcT) links verse 10 with verse 9 and TQ’K (my enemy) links verse 10 with verse 8. This verbal linkage suggests that the same object should be supplied; namely, IrpTp. The oratio variata, the switch of subjects, is common in poetry, especially with jussives (IBHS §34.3c). The ambiguous form n©?rn (so that . .. will overwhelm her) is probably jussive, and waw introduces a final clause (IBHS §34.6a). HC3, with the subject HEh- (shame) denoting a psycho-

9. Unlike repentant Cain, who complained, "My punishment is greater than I can bear," repentant Lady Zion is ready to endure the fury of Yahweh for several reasons. First, she admits the punishment is deserved: "I sinned against him." Second, the punishment is temporary ("until"). Third, the God of "justice" will punish the male­ factor and bring Zion out of humiliating captivity; it will then see his righteous salvation. The for­ merly faithless city now by faith accepts the pro­ phetic threats of l:2-7:6 and interprets its fallen state as due to the Lord's wrath against sin, not to the enemy's immediate military superiority. Hata> means "to commit an offense against some­ one with whom one stands in an institutionalized community relationship" (Koch, TDOT 4:311). Though sin can be an offense against another per­ son in the community, it is normally, as here (evi­ denced by 16), against God the Lawgiver. By add­ ing, however, "until he pleads my case," the faithful city also assumes that God has not aban­ doned it for good. His wrath toward the elect is remedial and so temporary, and not penal and so final (as for the nonelect). "Plead" (rib) means "to make a complaint or accusation," often a legal one, sometimes, as here, in the sphere of interna­ tional relationships. In 6:1-2, however, Micah is the messenger carrying to Jerusalem the Lord's accusation against his people; now, after his fury is spent, the Lord is their advocate, not their accuser (Limburg, "Root p. 303). The goal of the legal process is mispat (justice). Justice occurs

in a "three-cornered relationship": two humans (or two groups of humans) whose relationship is not intact with one another are restored to a situa­ tion of peace through the mispat of a third party (Liedke, THAT 2:1001). Nineveh's unprovoked attack against Zion must be righted by the Lord, the Judge, for peace between the ancient rivals to be repaired. An act of justice, not only a decision, is in view. "Salvation" (sidqá), the parallel to "jus­ tice," signifies satisfaction of the claims of a covenantal relationship. On that basis, Zion is confi­ dent that the Lord will bring salvation, the extended meaning of the word. Since Zion has been wronged by Nineveh it is only right that God, who entered covenant with Zion, save Zion. 10. Zion's negative command to her enemy, "do not rejoice, my enemy, over me" (v. 8), is now matched by the positive prayer, "let my enemy gaze" on my salvation, linking the verse with the end of verse 9. As a result of that sight, the enemy will be overwhelmed with shame (see 3:7). The enemy expressed its hubris against God by asking derisively, "Where is he, the Lord your God?" This rhetorical taunt expected a very emphatic negative answer: "Nowhere!" This abused name signifies that the only God, the Lord, chose Israel for a unique covenantal relationship to make it a light to the nations, punishing and rewarding it as it kept covenant with him (Ringgren, TDOT 1:276). In verse 9b Zion confidently anticipates gazing on God's salvation; in verse 10b Zion confidently

755

Micah 7:8-20

logical state, is best translated "overwhelmed" (BDB, p. 492, #5; Ps. 55:6 [5]; Ezek. 7:18; Obad. 10). n’lQHH (the one who said): The definite feminine, relative participle modifies TQ5* and the tense is past (IBHS §37.5b, e). TO (where is he): The mascu­ line singular suffix with the interrogative pronoun anticipates the appositive, yrfrK HTT (the Lord, your God) (IBHS § 18.4b). Whereas HIT is a proper name, identifying God's person and his covenantal relationship with Israel, Q’rfTS is a unique appellative (IBHS §13.4b-c), distinguishing him from all else in the universe he created. The femi­ nine suffix, a genitive of relation (IBHS §9.5.li), underscores this relationship and clearly shows that the first-person speaker elsewhere in verses 8-10 is feminine. The subject TP (my eyes) signi­ fies "to see with one's own eyes" (as in Num. 14:14; Deut. 19:21; Isa. 52:8; Jer. 32:4; 34:3), with the secondary meaning "to feast one's eyes (on)" (Jenni, THAT 2:262}. The first-person suffix, a gen­ itive of inalienable possession (IBHS §9.5.lh), shows that Lady Zion is the speaker once again. HZ HTO*Tl (will feast on her): The unique dagesh alerts the reader to pronounce 3; see verse 9 for the idiom 3 HR-! The shift from the jussive to the non-perfective signals a change from an irreal volitional to real indicative, from imprecation to certainty. Nineveh's fall is certain because she defied Yahweh. HTO (now): The deictic, stative, temporal, clausal adverb (IBHS §39.3.lh) denotes the imminent or impending future (BDB, p. 774, #lb). (a trampled place): Preformative 0 with the root 00“) (to trample) may designate loca­ tion or abstraction (IBHS §5.6b); the former is more intelligible in this metaphor, ntan (in the streets): Masculine noun yin may have the general sense "outside" or the specific sense "street" (BDB, p. 300, #2). The genitive is locative (IBHS §9.5.2f), and the countable plural connotes an extensive humiliating defeat. 11. Qi’ (in a time) refers to a state, more than to a precise time in the cultic calendar, in the more

or less immediate future, not the eschaton (von Rad, TDNT 2:946). It can be glossed by "time." This anarthrous construction, when placed at the beginning of a verset, is normally an accusative of time: "in (the) day" (IBHS §10.2.2c). nip1? (to rebuild) is best construed as its adverbial com­ plement (i.e., a day to build your walls; IBHS §36.2.3b). (your walls): The feminine suffix, presumably addressed to Zion, validates the inter­ pretation that "I" in verses 8-10 is feminine. Ci’ Kinn (lit., in the day of that one): The demonstra­ tive pronoun looks back to the parallel infinitival phrase after initial Of, and so is best glossed by "in that time." Normally one expects N1HH DfH (that day), as in Mur 88 (see Mic. 4:6; 5:9 [10]), but that easier reading should be rejected because of the irregularity of the parallels in verses 11a and 12a; besides, the LXX reads with the MT. Probably Micah avoided the expected syntagm pointing to the future time in order to correlate emphatically the extending of Zion's walls and boundary at the same time. Moreover the poet is using anaphora, repeating initial anarthrous Df in three successive versets. prrr (will become remote): The root expresses the state of the subject (pn), with which it has an obvious assonance, as being far, remote, or distant from everyone. The combination entails that there will be ample space for all in restored Zion. The non-perfective with this stat­ ive verb has an ingressive force. According to Willi-Plein (Vorformen der Schriftexegese, pp. 107-8), pn (your borders) is always about limits imposed by God: to the rain (Job 28:26), to the sea (Prov. 8:29; Jer. 5:22), to the heavens (Ps. 148:6), to time (Job 14:5, 13). Here it refers uniquely to walls, to judge from the parallel. BDB (p. 349, #5) defines it as a "prescribed limit, boundary." The English idiom demands that the singular be glossed as a plural. There is no need to emend to ^pn on the basis of some LXX (Lucianic), Ethiopic, and Armenian manuscripts. These translations, probably following a common recension within

predicts the enemy's abject humiliation, because of the enemy's blasphemy, likening the enemy to "a trampled place, like mire in the streets" (com­ pare Isa. 10:6; Zech. 10:5). "One cannot be brought down any lower," says Wolff (Micah, p. 223). The mocker is now mocked. 11. Lady Zion, the speaker, is now addressed by the prophet, as shown by the feminine suffix in "your walls." The day of Zion's salvation is now expanded to include the salvation of all the elect within its secure borders (v. 12). The prophecy

finds fulfillment in the church, composed of all nations (Rom. 4:16-17), which come to the heav­ enly Zion, the "true" Zion, represented symboli­ cally by the earthly city (Heb. 12:22). It will find its consummation in the eschaton (Rev. 21-22). Yom. (in a time,- lit., a day) forms a nice transi­ tion with Zion's hope for light (w. 8-9), for though in Israel's calendar the day officially began in the evening (Exod. 12:18; Lev. 23:32) and ended with the light, yom emphasizes the latter. Micah repeats the word initially as an emphatic anaph-

756

Micah 7:8-20

the Greek tradition, rightly understood the pro­ nominal suffix at the end of verse 11a as gapped (Dahood, Psalms, p. 430). The gapping enhances the assonance. 12. DT (it is a day): Mur 88 reads uniquely the more customary KTIH 0T3 (so also GKC §126aa), but more probably the poet for the sake of anaphora and to avoid that technical term began this verset again with indefinite Df, this time as the predicate in a nominal clause: "It is a day." (when ... to you): Waw introduces a circumstantial clause (IBHS §39.2.3b), specifying the circumstances contemporary with Dt. There is no need to emend to T]"7X?,1, a form otherwise unattested, to be consistent with verse 11, for grammatical disagreement is consistent with Micah's style (e.g., 1:11; 2:11; 4:8). The word order is emphatic: "to you." KIT (they will come): Although grammatically Df could be the subject, the verse makes better sense by taking the thirdperson masculine singular as indefinite (IBHS §4.4.2a). There is no need to emend to IKtT, appealing to the unique plural in the LXX (f^oDcnv), for that translation is confused and des­

perately trying to make sense of the passage. Per­ haps an early metathesis contributed to the LXX's confusion. The compound preposition -205 (lit., as regards from out of) (IBHS §11.3.3), a long variant of ]D, means "from out of" or simply "from." ’’"Wl (even unto): The parallel in verse 12Ba strongly suggests that, as often happens, original 7 was cor­ rupted unintentionally into 7, making the original reading npi (and unto). Vulgate's et usque sup­ ports the supposition. 70*7 (and from): Waw is emphatic: "yea" (IBHS §39.2.4b). 7712 (the River) is often a proper name for the Euphrates even with­ out the article in poetry (BDB, p. 625, #1). D’0 D7 (and from sea to sea): If the difficult MT be retained, it is best to take D7 as an accusative of place with the gapped KlT, yielding "they will come to sea" (IBHS § 10.2.2b; so also Vulgate). The conjunction is emphatic: "even." The reading, however, is implausible. The LXX (Tipepa bSaroc; Kat Oopupou), reading □’’0 Dt followed by 1*1071 or some form of 0171 or 7107, is of no help. Rather, ini­ tial 0 in D’0 is probably due to dittography from the preceding 07 The prepositions of verse 12Ba (70*7 and 7P) have been gapped in both lines Bba

ora in three successive clauses (w. 11a, 11b, 12a). "To rebuild" stands in stark contrast to the ene­ my's fate of becoming a place trampled like mire in the street. Walls (geder) denotes a "wall of stones (without mortar)" (KB, p. 173) used to enclose a vineyard (Num. 22:24; Ps. 80:13 [12]; Isa. 5:5), flock (Num. 32:16, 24, 36; 1 Sam. 24:4 [3]; Zeph. 2:6), temple (Ezek. 42:7), or city (Ezra 9:9; Ps. 89:49 [perhaps metaphorical]; Ezek. 13:5; 22:30). It is probably unlike homa, the large pro­ tective walls around cities and buildings. Possibly geder is used metaphorically to compare Zion to a sheepfold. The word choice suggests that Zion lives securely, unthreatened by attackers. The plural of extension indicates that the wall is large (IBHS §7.4.lc), a point elaborated upon in verse 11B. "In that time," emphatically repeats the initial yom of verse 11a and introduces the B verset, which elaborates upon the A line. "Your borders will become remote" (yirhaq-hdq), an obvious assonance, entails that there will be ample space for all the restored elect in restored Zion. Micah did not know the "mystery" made known to Paul that in the new Israel, the church, Jew and Gentile become one body (Eph. 3:1-6). 12. Micah brings the anaphora to a climax with the third initial yom, the glorious time of salva­

tion. The subject of "will come" is indefinite: Are they the exiles or the converted citizens of those nations? The Targum rightly interpreted it with reference to the exiles. The exile is presumed in Zion's expectation to come out of darkness into light, a figure for salvation from captivity (see w. 8-9). Though the salvation of the nations is in view in 4:1-3, the rest of this prophecy contrasts Israel's salvation with the defeat of the nations. Zion's walls will be expanded to embrace all the elect, from the ends of the earth (Mark 13:27). The mention of Assyria, rather than Babylon (see the Exposition of 4:10) suggests the prophecy was given against the Assyrian invasions (see 5:7 [6]), as the superscriptions affirms, not against the Babylonian background, as most critics insist. The case cannot be pressed, however, because of the reference to Assyria in a similar merism in Zecha­ riah 10:10, which has a Persian background. On the basis of ye>dre masor (rivers of Egypt) in 2 Kings 19:24 (II Isa. 37:25; 19:6), most lexicogra­ phers interpret masor (Affliction) as another proper name for misrayim (Egypt). Probably because of its assonance with misrayim it became a pun for Egypt. Egypt, not Musri in Arabia (pace KB, p. 557), is in view because it constitutes the opposite of Assyria. Egypt, the nation on Israel's southern border, afflicted her at her birth, and

757

Micah 7:8-20

and Bbp, giving the expected sense "from sea to sea and from mountains to the Mountain" (so Codex Vaticanus). "inn “IHI (and from mountains to the Mountain): The first may be a uncon­ ventional collective singular (IBHS §7.2.1c), matching the singular and the second may be definite to signify Mount Zion, the well-known mountain (IBHS § 13.6a). 13. nrrrn (and then ... will become): Wdw-relative signifies a situation sequential to the future non-perfectives of verses 11-12 (IBHS §32.2.1). After the elect find salvation within Zion, the rest of the earth will become a desolation. Comple­ mented with b, the verb TH has its active (i.e., will become), not stative sense (i.e., will be) (BDB, p. 226, #IL2e). (the earth) has its universal sense since nations outside the holy land are in view (BDB, p. 76, #1; IBHS §13.5.lb). The preposi­ tion bp (on account of) signifies why the action occurred (IBHS §11.2.13e). (its inhabitants): See the Exegesis of 6:12. (on account of): signifies cause, "on account of" (IBHS §11.2.lid), more specifically "the remoter cause, the ulti­ mate ground on account of which something hap­ pens" (BDB, p. 580, #2f). (lit., fruit) is a figure for the consequence of an action. The cause of the

desolation is the inhabitants (v. 13a), but more basically and emphatically it is their actions, (their evil deeds) (v. 13b). This verbal noun is always plural, usually of evil deeds, and is used four other times (Isa. 3:10; Jer. 17:10; 21:14; 32:19) with a genitive of agent (IBHS §9.5. lb). If the metaphor is dead, it should be glossed prosai­ cally. 14. rnn (shepherd): The imperative is addressed, probably by Micah as representative of the faithful remnant, to the Lord. (the flock) functions as an accusative, an apposition to (your people), (your inheritance) functions as an abstract subjective genitive after the con­ struct and the pronominal suffix is a subjective genitive. In short, Yahweh inherited the flock. (those who dwell): The participle functions as a dependent relative, modifying the collective Final ’ is litters compaginis (IBHS §8.2e); here with a prepositional phrase after the participle (IBHS §9.6a-b). T725 (apart): TO normally occurs either by itself as an accusative of manner or, as here, with 5 signifying manner (IBHS §11.2.10d). It occurs with verbs of dwelling such as pD, □CT, or n-0 with the connotation of free from danger (Deut. 33:28; Ps. 4:9 [8]; Jer. 49:31). nxr (in a forest)

Assyria, on her northern border, brought her to ruin. These geographical and historical opposites, a merism, represent all the nations who threaten Israel's existence. In verse 12b Micah uses another merism to sig­ nify the universal salvation. "The River" stands for the Euphrates, Israel's northern and eastern extremity (Gen. 15:18; Deut. 11:24; 1 Kings 5:1 [4:21]), the geographical opposite of Affliction. "From sea to sea" and "from mountains to the Mountain" not only contain merisms within themselves but together form their own merism. How emphatically the prophet emphasizes the universal salvation of the elect. "The Mountain" is probably the well-known Mount Zion (4:1-3). 13. After the salvation of the elect from the nations under God's wrath and their entrance into Zion's secure sheepfold, "desolation" will fall upon the rest of the earth because of the wicked deeds of its inhabitants (Isa. 24:1-6; Obad. 16). Desolation (§emama], from the same root trans­ lated "horror" in 6:13, 16, has its objective sense here: it will become a place of horrible desolation (see 1:7). The verse will find its fulfillment at the Second Coming of Jesus Christ (1 Thess. 5:1-11; 2 Pet. 3:10-13).

14. The imperative and jussive forms "shep­ herd" and "may they graze," both from the same root (rh), signal the shift to Micah's petition for the restored remnant within rebuilt Zion (vv. 1415) and for the punishment of the wicked nations (vv. 16-17). Petitions in the Psalter often contain the motifs of deliverance and imprecation (or, prayers) to punish the enemy. "Your people," "your rod," and "your inheritance" show the Lord is being implored. Wolff (Micah, p. 225) says: "Yahweh as shepherd and people as flock are motifs of trust that appear frequently in the psalms of prayer (Ps. 80:2 [1]; 74:1; 28:9)." To "shepherd" is a common metaphor for rulers (see 2:12; 4:6-7; 5:3 [4]). White (TWOT 2:852-53) says: "From very ancient antiquity, rulers were described as demonstrating their legitimacy to rule by their ability to 'pasture' their people"; r