The book has been variously divided : Eichhorn cuts it into five Volksreden; Henderson and Stahelin (Spec. Einleit. p. 247) divide it into two parts— the first comprising the earlier five chapters, and the second the remainder. Caspari, Keil, Bunsen, and Ewald, virtually make three divisions, each in troduced by the warning 11/nti, hear ye ;' the : • first comprising chaps. i. and ii., the second iii.-v., and the last vi., vii. The objection to this arrange ment, that the word Ilmj stands too abruptly at the beginning of the second section, has no force ; especially if we suppose, with Knobel, Ewald, De Wette, Meier, Keil, and Pusey, that though the oracles were spoken at various times and as occa sion required, they were collected together and moulded into their present form and connection in the reign of Hezekiah. One consequence is that the various sections have an inner connection, while they may admit of formal separation. Each section begins with a warning or expostulation, and passes into blessed promise. The first opens with the awful descent of Jehovah to judge the people ; an nounces the doom of Samaria ; sketches the path of the conqueror toward Jerusalem ; reprobates the sins of selfishness, rapacity, and falsehood ; and menaces captivity to Jerusalem, but promises a return. The second deals with the iniquities of the rulers, their lawless refusal of justice, and their wanton cruelty in building up Zion with blood.' How can Sleek say that Micah does not blame politi cal misdeeds,' when he singles out oppression and maladministration, and pictures the rulers as flaying the skin, breaking the bones, and chopping in pieces the people as flesh for a cauldron ?"rhis section, while it threatens that Zion shall be ploughed as a field,' passes on to glorious prospects of restored nationality and worship. In fact, the oracles in this portion are the most magnificent in the book, ' culminating with the announcement of Messiah's I birth at Bethlehem. Tke third section is in part dramatic. God speaks (vi. s)—the people reply, or make inquiry (ver. 6). The prophecy concludes with a glowing anthem, which finds a fitting place in the ode of Zechariah (Luke i. 68).
The style of Micah is rich, full, and musical—as nervous, vehement, and bold, in many sections, as Hosea, and as abrupt, too, in transitions from menace to mercy. He presents, at the same time, no little re semblance to Isaiah in grandeur of thought, in rich ness and variety of imagery, and in roundness and cadence of parallelism. The sudden changes are so far hidden from the English reader, because our version interprets as well as translates. The simple connective 1, is often rendered by some logical term, as therefore' (L 6), then' (iii. 7), but' (iv. i.), 'notwithstanding' (vii. 13), etc. Concise and pointed questions are put suddenly ; persons are changed rapidly ; the people are spoken of, and then in a moment spoken to ; the nation is ad dressed now as a unit, and now edged appeals are directed to individuals. The language is also pure and classical—intercourse with northern countries had not yet debased it. An under-tone of deep earnestness pervades the book, everywhere are dis cerned the workings of an intensely pious and patri otic soul. The figures are drawn from pastoral and rural life ; the industrial life with which he was familiar in the vicinity of Moresheth-Gath, the low country of Plays upon words are not un common, as in chap. i. 10-15, in which the rest of the clause in which a proper name occurs has a corresponding meaning with it, or bears a parono mastic relation to it. In these verses there is also vivid grouping, as place after place is challenged along the line of the conqueror's march. Each town is seen to carry its doom in its very name. And that doom is told in many ways—either to them or of them ; either in the prophet's name or as a divine burden ; either as an event about to come or a judgment which will certainly over take them. Perhaps in vii. 18 there is an allu sion to the meaning of the prophet's own name. Correspondences to some extent with Isaiah may be seen—Mic. i. 1-4, Is. ii. 2-4 ; Mic. i. 9-16, Is. x. 28-32 ; Mic. ii. 2, Is. v. 8 ; Mic. ii. 6, 11, Is. xxx. so, 11 ; Mic. iv. so, Is. xxxii. s I ; Mic.
vi. 6-8, Is. L 11-17 ; Mic. vii. 7, Is. viii. 17 ; Mic.
vii. 12, Is. xi. 11. Allusions to the past history of the people are found in many places. There are also several expressions which are found in the Mosaic writings, though it might be rash to say that Micah takes them directly from the Pentateuch.
Nor would we indorse all the instances in which, as Caspari affirms, later prophets, as Jeremiah and Ezekiel, Habakkuk and Zephaniah, have adopted the language of Micah (Micha, 449, etc.) The prophecies of Micah thus comprehend many great events—the overthrow of Israel and ruin of Samaria ; the invasion of Judah ; the Babylonish captivity and the restoration ; with the re-establish ment of a new kingdom, and the birth of the great Ruler at Bethlehem. The punishment of the nations who oppressed the chosen people is also, but rather obscurely, fore-pictured. It requires some ingenuity to find the minutes shades of pro phecy which Jahn and others have detected, such as the Maccaban dynasty, with its victories and subsequent peace. For the future is Messianic and remote—a period of tranquillity and universal theo cratic dominion.
Micah vii. 6 is alluded to in Matt. x. 35 ; Mark Xiii. 12 ; and Luke xii. 53. Micah V. 2 is referred to in John vii. 42, and quoted with some variation in Matt. ii. 5, 6. In Micah the words are—' But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel.' In Matthew the quotation runs—' And thou, Beth lehem, in the land of Juda, art not the least an.ong the princes of Juda : for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel.' It is needless to say that the form in Matthew is only the Sanhedrim's quotation. Nor need we give the verbal criticisms of Meyer, Fritzsche, and others upon it. The variation is not very important. In Micah emphasis is laid on the actual smallness of Bethlehem to enjoy such an honour ; in Matthew the prominent idea is the honour itself, and its ideal grandeur—the converse side of the statement. Pocock cuts the knot by adopting Rabbi Tanchum's odd opinion that the term "IN means both little and great, the prophet selecting the one sense and the evangelist the other. Nor can we hold, with the Jewish Rabbis Kimchi, Abarbanel, and Ibn Esra, followed by Theodore of Mop suestia, Paulus, Strauss, and Davidson (Introduc tion, p. 289), that the prophecy simply implies that the Messiah was to be of Davidic descent. The evangelist adopts the quotation in proof that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, so that it ranks with the other quotations adduced directly by him in the earlier chapters of his gospel. The current interpre tation of the earlier Jews also contradicts this weak exegesis. The plain meaning is, that the Messiah, as David's son, should be born in David's town (Hofmann, Weiss. is. p. 249). Tertullian also presses the argument that the Messiah has come, for Bethlehem was deserted—neminem de genere Israel in civitate Bethlehem remansisse (fldversus 5' ideos, xiii. ; Opera, vol. ii. p. 734, ed. Oehler). To give the vague sense of Davidic ex. traction, and yet to deny that the words point out the place of birth, was thus a necessary but feeble Jewish subterfuge. Renan admits the usual inter pretation of the prophecy, though he affirms that Jesus was really not of the family of David, and was born at Nazareth (Vie de Yesus, chap. ii.) The application,of the oracle to Zerubbabel advo cated by Grotius is wholly out of the question (Opera, vol. i. p. 527, ed. London 1679). The same exposition was held in former times by some whom Chrysostom calls etvaco-xupro0yres, persons past shame, for the Hebrew leader was born in Babylon' (Chrys., Hoes. vii. in Matt. ; Opera, vol. vii. p. 121, ed. Paris 1836). The Targum gives the reference formally to the Messiah.
The genuineness of the book has not been called in question. Only Ewald in his Yahrb. xi. 29, is disposed to maintain that the two concluding chap ters are the work of a different author. His objec tions, however, have no force against the universal opinion.
Commentaries.—Bibliander, Comment. in Mi cham, Tiguri 1538 ; Luther, Com. in AL, Viteb. 1542, and in German, 1555 ; A. Gilby, Commentary upon Micha, Lond. 1551 ; David Chytrmus, Expli catio Micha, Viteb. 1565 ; Pocock, Commentary on Micah, Works, vol. I., Lund. 1740 ; Bauer, Animadversions, Altdorf 7790 ; Grosschopf, Die Orakeld. Prop& Ilficha ilbersatt, etc., Jena 1798 ; Justi, Micha men iibersetzt, etc.. Leipz. 1799 ; Hart main, do., Lemgo ]Soo ; Ewald, Die Propheten des A. Bundes, Stuttgart 1840; Henderson, Minor Pro phets, Lond. 1845 ; Caspari, caber .,1ficha den Mores thiten ii. s. Proph. Schrift., Christianise 1852 ; Hitzig, Die Zwolf kleinen Proph. erklart, 2d ed., Leipz. 1852; Pusey, Minor Prophets, Lond. 1861. J. E.