BOOK OF (rnrkah, bZiok Ow).
In the book of Micah we do not have the individual discourses which the prophet tittered at different times, but their essential contents united in a collected form and divided into three sections, mutually connected. and referring to one another (cc. i and ii, vi and vii). In the forin of prophetical discourses they threaten judgments on the theocracy,—namely, the destruc tion of Samaria and Jerusalem, together with the Temple, and the carrying of the people away cap tive, on account of the prevalent sins of idolatry, and the covetousness of the powerful classes, the injustice of the judges, and the lying spirit of the false prophets; but they also announce, as com in.g after the judgment, redemption from the mis ery, gathering of the delivered remnant of Israel, and glorification of Zion by the Messiah. It fol lows from the internal unity of the book, that the prophet composed it in the reign of Hezekiah. On account of the frequent rebukes of idolatry (i :5; v :it-13; vi :16), it appears to have been composed before the extermination of idolatry throughout the land, which followed the solemn celebration of the Passover (2 Chron. xxx, xxxi), and before the overthrow of the kingdom of the Ten Tribes, on account of the announcement of the destruction of Samaria (i :6, 7). It is therefore to be dated in the period B. C. 728-722. (Keil, int. to O. T.) Micah is the third of the minor prophets ac cording to the arrangement of the Septuagint, the sixth according to the Hebrew, and the fifth ac cording to the date of his prophecies.
(1) Analysis. Jahn (Introd.) points out the fol lowing predictions as contained in the prophet Mi cah : ( ) The destruction of the kingdom of Israel, which was impending when the prophecy was de livered, and which was fulfilled in the taking of Samaria by Shalmaneser, in thc sixth year of Hezekiall (2 Kings xvii), and then that of the king dom of Judah, with the destruction of Jerusalem (iii :I2; Vii :13). (2) The Babylonian captivity (iv: to, it vii :7, 8. 13). These predictions were deliv ered iso years before the event, when the Chal &cans. by whom they were accomplished, were scarcely known as a people. (3) The return from the exile. with its happy effects. and the tranquillity enjoyed by the Jews under the Persian and Grecian monarchies, which referred to events from 200 tO 5oo years distant (iv :18; vii:ri; xiv:12). (4) The heroic deeds of the Maccabees, and their vic tories over the Syrians or Syro-Macedonians, called Assyrians in Micah v. as well as in Zech ariah x (5) The establishment of the royal residence in Sion (iv :8). (6) Thc birth and reign of the Messiah (v :2). The last three prophecies, observes this learned writer, are more obscure than the others, by reason of the remote distance, in point of time, of their accomplishment from the period of their being delivered.
(2) Bethlehem. There is no prophecy in Micah so interesting to the Christian as that in which the nattve place of the Messiah is announced. 'But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah (though) thou be little among the thousands of Judah (yet) out of thee shall Ile come forth unto me (that is) to be ruler in Israel' (Eng. Authorized Version). It is thus translated by the Sept.: 'And thou, Bethlehem, house of Ephratah, although thou be least among the thousands of Judah, out of thee shall come unto me one that shall be a ruler of Israel.' The citation of this passage by the Evangelist differs both from the Hebrew and the Septuagint. "And thou, Bethlehem (in) the land of Judah, are not the least among the princes of Judah; for out of thee shall come a governor, that shall rule (Gr.
feed) my people Israel" (Matt. ii :6). The differ ence, however, is but verbal. Some suppose that the negative (caap.as) originally belonged to the Hebrew, and others to the Greek, while many read the Hebrew interrogatively, 'art thou little?' etc. Eichhorn supposes that the Greek translator of St. Matthew's Gospel interchanged thousands with rulers. Of more importance is the application of the prophccy. It is evident that the Jews in the time of Jesus interpreted this passage to mean the birthplace of the Messiah (Matt. ii :5; John vii :41, 42). The later Rabbinical writers, however, such as Kimchi, Aben Ezra, Abarbanel, etc., have main tained that it had only an indirect reference to the birthplace of thc Messiah, who was to be a descendant of David, a Bethlehemite, but not of necessity himself born in Bethlehem. Others, however, as David Ganz (B. Zemach David), ex pressly mention Bethlehem as the birthplace of the Messiah. The interpretation which consid ered this prophecy as intimating only that the Messiah was to be a descendant of David, was that current among the Jews in the time of Theodoret, Chrysostom, Theophylact and Entity mius Zigabenus, from whom we learn that it was maintained to have been fulfilled in Zerubbabel, the leader of the Jews on their return from Bab ylon, of which, and not of Bethlehem, he was a native. This interpretation was held among Christians by the celebrated Theodore of Mop suestia (as we learn from his condemnation by the council at Rome under Pope Vigilius), and afterwards bv Grotius (Comment.), who, how ever, regarded Zerubbabel as a type of Christ, and considered Christ's birthplace at Bethlehem as an outward representation of his descent from the family of David. Watus c.r Bethlehem° Zoro bab.7l 'Tete dicitur, quod ex Davidis famili4 e.sset, quer arta Bethlchcmi.' Many of the moderns have been attached to this interpretation of the prophecy, referring it to the general idea of the Messiah rather than to Zerubbabel, while some among them have, after the example of some Jews, ventured to assert that the account of the birth of Christ at Bethlehem was not to be de pended on. Some have asserted after Jerome (Comm. in Afic.), that the citation in Matt. ii :6 is that of the Sanhedrim only, not of the Evan gelist (Hengstenberg's Christology). Jahn (Ap pend. Hermeneut.) observes that it is evident that the Jews in the time of Christ expected the Mes siah's birth to take place at Bethlehem; and al though he admits that the prophecy may be. un dcrstood tropically in the sense applied to It b) Grotius, Ile contends that the context will not admit of its applicability either to Hezekiah or any other monarch than the Messiah ; nor is it possible to apply the prophecy fully and literally to any but him who was not only of the house and lineage of David, but was actually born at Bethlehem, according to the direct testimony of both St. Matthew's and St. Luke's gospels.
(3) Style. The style of Micah is sublime and vehement, in which respects he exceeds Amos and Hosea. De Wette observes that he has more roundness, fullness, and clearness in his style and rhythm than the latter prophet. He abounds in rapid transitions and elegant tropes, and piquant plays upon words. He is successful in the use of the dialogue, and his prophecies are penetrated by the purest spirit of morality and piety. (See especially chapters vi:6-8.; and vii:1-to.) See, besides the works on the minor prophecies collectively in De Wette's introduction, Pococke's Commentary on Micah; Groseschopf's Micah Uebersetzt ; and Jahn's, Eichhorn's and Kell's Introductions. W.W.