Introduction

The wise Micah (Heb. Michah or in fuller form michajahu – 2 Chr 13:2 – means “who is like God”) is called “the Morasthite” (Heb. hammoraschthi) in the title of his book. This name is ordinarily understood as indicating the place of the prophet’s origin – Morasthah. According to Jerome’s testimony, Morasthah was located in the south of Judah, near Eleutheropolis. Modern commentators identify Morasthah with the Moreshah-Gath mentioned by Micah in Mic 1:14. Traces of Morasthah are said to point to insignificant ruins found south of Beit-Jibrin.

A native of Judah, Micah carried out his prophetic ministry in the Kingdom of Judah. According to the title of the book, this ministry falls in the reign of Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, that is, the end of the eighth century before the Christian era. In the Book of Jeremiah (Jer 26:18-19) it is reported that when the people wanted to put him to death for foretelling the destruction of Jerusalem, some of the elders of the land said to the assembly: “Micah the Morasthite prophesied in the days of Hezekiah king of Judah and said to all the people of Judah: ‘Thus says the Lord of hosts: Zion will be plowed as a field, and Jerusalem will become a heap of ruins, and the mountain of the house a wooded hill. Did they put him to death for this, Hezekiah king of Judah and all Judah?’” Without doubt, these words refer to Micah, the writer of the prophetic book. Since Micah is presented in these words as a prophet of the time of Hezekiah, some modern commentators limit the entire activity of the prophet to this period, supposing that the names of kings Jotham and Ahaz standing in the title of Micah’s book represent a later addition. But the testimony of Jer 26:18-19 confirms only that one known prophecy of Micah, namely the prophecy about the destruction of Jerusalem (Mic 3:12), was pronounced in the reign of Hezekiah, not that all the prophet’s activity was confined to this reign. It is true that we do not have direct and clear indications of the times of Jotham and Ahaz in the Book of Micah. But this may be explained by the fact that the prophet’s book presents not all the speeches he pronounced, but only ancient versions of them and excerpts from them. Moreover, the content of Micah’s prophecy from the time of Hezekiah may partly be considered a reflection of the mood of the Jewish people that developed in the reigns of Jotham and Ahaz. This pertains, for instance, to indications of a warlike spirit, which was especially strong under Jotham (Mic 4:8; cf. 2 Chr 27:1-7), and to witchcraft and idolatry, which were widespread under Ahaz (Mic 5:12-14, Mic 1:5). Just as there are no grounds for postponing the beginning of Micah’s activity to the time of Hezekiah, so there is no evidence for extending it into the reign of Manasseh (cf. Mic 7:6).

According to its content, the Book of Micah is ordinarily divided into three parts, the first of which encompasses chapters I–III, the second chapters IV–V, and the third chapters VI–VII. The subject of Micah’s prophetic speeches was Samaria and Jerusalem. The prophet begins his speeches with an announcement of the destruction coming upon Samaria. With similar threat he addresses Jerusalem, depicting in a series of images the impending calamity (ch. I). The cause of God’s wrath against Jerusalem is the impiety of the inhabitants of Judah, especially the transgressions of Judean nobles, priests, false prophets, and judges (ch. II–III). For these transgressions, the prophet announces, “Zion will be plowed as a field, and Jerusalem will become a heap of ruins, and the mountain of the House will be a wooded hill” (Mic 3:12). These threats in Mic 2:12-13 are interrupted by the prophet with a promise about the future union of the remnants of Israel and Judah and their return from captivity. Such is the general content of the first part of Micah’s book. The speeches of ch. I–III, predicting the destruction of Samaria, were uttered before this event, that is, before 722 BC. As may be seen from Jer 26:18, the prophet’s threats against Jerusalem had a conditional character. Since the people repented, they were not carried out. After the conquest of Samaria by the Assyrians, they ceased military operations in Palestine, and the threat to Jerusalem passed. But the spirit of the people was restless, and so the prophet addresses the people with consoling speeches. The second part of Micah’s book, ch. IV–V, presents a detailed unfolding of the consoling promise of Mic 2:12-13 and the announcement of messianic times. In these times all nations will turn to the law of Jehovah, and the Kingdom of peace will come (Mic 4:1-5). This will be preceded by the restoration of the people (Mic 4:6-8) and their triumph over enemies, those plotting against Zion (Mic 4:9-13). The author of this glorious future will be the one to be born in Bethlehem, the Ruler of Israel, whose “origin is from the days of eternity.” His dominion will give Israel power over enemies, like those of Assyria, and will make it the true people of God, in which false worship will no longer be present (ch. V). The third part of Micah’s book (ch. VI–VII) contains in its first half an accusatory speech of the prophet to Israel. Calling the mountains and hills as witnesses to the judgment of the Lord with Israel, reminding of God’s mercies (Mic 6:1-5), the prophet points out to the people their injustice – their falsity, deception, absence of mercy, in general “the customs of Omri and the deeds of the house of Ahab” (Mic 6:16). The people must bear punishment for their sins, and the prophet from the mouth of the Lord says: “I will strike you incurably with desolation for your sins” (Mic 6:13-15). Yet at the same time, the prophet again expresses confidence that the Lord will have mercy on the remnant of His inheritance, will blot out the people’s lawlessness, will show, as in the days of the exodus from Egypt, His wonderful deeds, will restore the theocracy and extend its boundaries (Mic 7:11-20). It is not entirely clear what kingdom the prophet is speaking of in ch. VI–VII. Most commentators understand the speeches of ch. VI–VII as a prophecy about Jerusalem and the Kingdom of Judah, about the captivity of the Jewish people and the restoration of the kingdom after captivity (Mic 7:11). But some expressions in the chapters under consideration give reason for other commentators to refer these chapters not to Jerusalem and the Judean Kingdom, but to Samaria and the Kingdom of Israel. Hoonacker correctly points out that in ch. VI–VII neither Judah nor Jerusalem or Zion nor Babylon is mentioned. Furthermore, in the prophet’s prayer for the restoration of the people (Mic 7:14 et seq.) we do not find a single one of those predictions of glorious future that are customary in descriptions of Zion’s greatness. The words of the prayer: let them pasture in Bashan and Gilead, as in the days of old (Mic 7:14) are more intelligible with respect to the Kingdom of Israel than with respect to the Kingdom of Judah. The overall picture of impiety of the people drawn in ch. VI–VII completely corresponds to what we see in the prophet Hosea (cf. Hos 4:1-2). Such an expression as Mic 6:16 is again more naturally understood with respect to Samaria than with respect to Jerusalem. The noted features of ch. VI–VII give basis for seeing in them a speech about Samaria, and specifically a retrospective review of the events accomplished in Samaria, a justification of God’s divine judgment that struck the ten-tribe kingdom, and an announcement to the remnant of that kingdom of hope for a bright future. Ch. VI–VII thus become an echo of those fraternal feelings that were aroused by the fall of the ten-tribe kingdom in the souls of the best representatives of the Jewish people. The speeches of the prophet Micah are distinguished by the depth and vividness of feeling. Especially strong are those accusations with which the prophet addresses the nobles of the people and false prophets. The vividness of feeling, animating the prophet, is reflected in his speeches by rapid transitions from one thought to another (from accusation to threat, from threat to promises (Mic 2:8-12), frequent use of comparisons and wordplay (Mic 1:10-15), abundance of images. Moreover, as a native of the village, Micah, like Amos, draws his images and comparisons most often from pastoral life (cf. Mic 2:12).

Recent criticism denies the authenticity of most of the Book of Micah, asserting that the original book of the prophet was reworked and supplemented in post-exile times. But the basis of such a view lies, first, in the unjust application to the book of requirements from a modern literary work, and second, in a special understanding of Old Testament prophecy, reducing the latter only to vague expectations of the future and not permitting definite predictions of that future.

The text of the Book of Micah presents many difficulties, since the original and translations transmit it differently.

Literature: Professor R. A. Yungerov, The Book of the Prophet Micah. Kazan, 1890. Archpriest Antony. Commentary on the Book of the Holy Prophet Micah. St. Petersburg, 1891. Roorda Commentanus in Vatic Michae, 1869. Ryssel, Die Textgestalt und die Echthert d Buches Micha, 1887. Cheyne, Micah with notes and Introduction 1895. See also commentaries by Nowack, Marti, and Hoonacker.