The Book of Micah

By James D. Nogalski

What is the balance between judgment and hope? 
 
Micah spoke powerfully to the people of Judah millennia ago. His prophecy has the same power to change the minds and hearts of Christians today. As a volume of the New International Commentary on the Old Testament, James D. Nogalski’s fresh commentary on Micah is academically serious and pastorally relevant.  
 
Based on Nogalski’s original translation of the Hebrew text, this commentary takes seriously the historical and theological contexts of the book of Micah. The thorough introduction considers the book’s literary form, its composition, and its function in the canon, especially within the Book of the Twelve. Ample notes point readers to the most relevant, up-to-date critical scholarship. Nogalski explicates Micah’s major themes, including fidelity to Yahweh, abuses of power, and the intriguing juxtaposition of judgment and hope for God’s people. 
 
Combining scholarly rigor with an evangelical point of view, The Book of Micah serves as the perfect companion for scholars, students, and pastors seeking to understand this essential prophet.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Eerdmans
• Release date: Apr 18, 2024
• ISBN: 9781467465717

James D. Nogalski

  James D. Nogalski is the W. Marshall and Lulie Craig Professor of Old Testament at Baylor University. He is best known for his work on the prophets, especially the Book of the Twelve.

Book preview

Introduction

I. HISTORICAL BACKGROUNDS

The book of Micah plays a pivotal role in shaping the prophetic evaluation of the eighth century as a crucial time in the religious life of Judah and Israel. Nevertheless, the book’s content also reflects editorial activity from later eras.¹ First, Micah’s early core of prophetic material deals with events in the latter part of the eighth century BCE. The second phase of the development of the book of Micah likely occurred in the aftermath of Jerusalem’s destruction, long after the lifetime of the eighth-century prophet for whom the book is named. This phase sought to clarify who was to blame for the events of 587. In this phase, editors incorporated chapters 6–7, creating an expansive update over the course of the sixth–fifth centuries BCE. The updates both affix blame for the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 BCE (6:1–7:7) and offer a salvific ending to the book (7:8–20). Finally, a later anthology (chapters 4–5) incorporates hopeful eschatological perspectives regarding the fate of Jerusalem and the nations while addressing the postexilic community. Because the final form of Micah takes shape over such a long time, a summary of the history of Judah and Israel over this time period will provide context for understanding the book as it came to be.

A. THE EIGHTH-CENTURY BACKGROUND OF THE EARLY CORE

Micah served as a prophet in the latter part of the eighth century BCE, and chapters 1–3 focus on two events from that period: (1) the fall of Samaria in 722 BCE, and (2) events surrounding the siege of Jerusalem in 701 BCE by the Assyrian king Sennacherib (705–681 BCE). Micah 1:5–7 specifically mentions Samaria’s destruction as a warning to Judah and Jerusalem that they will suffer the same fate if they do not change their behavior. These chapters do not explicitly mention the Assyrians, but they do condemn Judah’s behavior in a manner that anticipates Assyria’s subjugation of Judah and Jerusalem and culminates in Sennacherib’s siege. Both events likely occurred during the reign of Hezekiah (approximately 725–696 BCE).² Even though the superscription of Micah (1:1) dates Micah’s prophetic activity during the reign of three Judean kings (Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah), scholars seldom date texts in the book to the time of Jotham or Ahaz. Instead, events in the reign of Hezekiah best account for the eighth-century materials in Micah (unless one accepts the date of the death of Ahaz as 715 BCE). These situations include the destruction of Samaria in 722 BCE and the siege of Sennacherib in 701 BCE. Knowledge of Samaria’s destruction serves a rhetorical function in 1:5–7 as a warning to Jerusalem. Later, in the last decade of the eighth century, Hezekiah attempts to consolidate resources and buttress his defenses in preparation for the anticipated attack from the Assyrians. These actions prove dangerous for villages in the Shephelah (the hilly region west of Jerusalem through which Sennacherib’s army would march on its way to Jerusalem). Micah 1:8–16 presents the prophet’s message of destruction for those villages.

Over the same time, during the reign of Hezekiah, Jerusalem itself nearly doubled in size. Various explanations for this expansion have been offered, including the arrival of refugees who fled to Jerusalem after the Assyrians defeated Samaria as well as broader population shifts caused by the upheaval of Assyrian rule in the Levant and its extensive policies of population exchanges.³ Hezekiah was king when Samaria fell to the Assyrians. During Hezekiah’s reign, the western hill of Jerusalem was populated, and reports in 2 Kgs 18–20 and 2 Chr 29–32 credit Hezekiah with major religious reforms and building projects. He extended the city wall and built the Siloam tunnel to provide a source of drinking water inside the city and to make the city less vulnerable to foreign military incursions.⁴ He also built storehouses for keeping supplies (though he undoubtedly received these supplies by taxing the population). He also fought with the Philistines, but his success against one Philistine king played a key role in convincing the Assyrian king that Hezekiah had rebelled against him (see below). The population expansions likely necessitated some of the building, but they also reflect Hezekiah’s policies of centralizing power in Jerusalem.

The situation in Jerusalem as portrayed in Mic 1–3 does not, however, focus attention on Hezekiah’s contributions to the city. Rather, Mic 1–3 critiques the nation for abandoning Yahweh (1:5–9) and for the injustice perpetrated by the wealthy over others. The bulk of chapters 2–3 condemns the greed of those wealthy elites of Judah and Jerusalem who schemed to take land and property from the rightful owners to line their own pockets. They took advantage of Hezekiah’s desire to enhance fortifications in Jerusalem and in Judah. Micah condemns the heads of Jacob and the rulers of the house of Israel for instigating such behavior (3:1). These chapters do not mention Hezekiah by name or even specify the king as responsible. One suspects, however, that such behavior either came on orders from the king or at the very least had his tacit support. This behavior leads the prophet to castigate the wealthy who use brute force to take advantage of the population (see 2:1–2, 8–9). The prophet also condemns the resulting situation of lawlessness that leads to bloodshed (3:1–3). In so doing, he takes aim at the political leaders (3:1, 9), prophets (3:5–7), and priests (3:11). Instead of working to stop the oppression, they take advantage of the situation to extract money for themselves. As a result, the early collection of Micah’s sayings climaxes with the pronouncement of Jerusalem’s destruction in 3:12 (editors likely also added comments in 1:5–7, 9, 12, 13 to explain Jerusalem’s destruction in the second phase).⁵

B. FROM SENNACHERIB’S SIEGE TO THE DESTRUCTION OF JERUSALEM

Micah 1–3 alludes frequently to Sennacherib’s siege of Jerusalem in 701 BCE.⁶ We possess four accounts of these events, but the details differ among them: three biblical accounts (2 Kgs 18:13–19:37; 2 Chr 32:1–22; Isa 36:1–37:38); and Sennacherib’s own account.⁷ The three biblical examples share a common source, but each account has been altered for its literary location.⁸ The basic outline begins with an unprovoked attack by Sennacherib that took the fortified cities of Judah and then turned toward Jerusalem. In the biblical accounts, the siege concludes with a divinely initiated plague among the Assyrians that forces them to withdraw.

Sennacherib’s account adds historical context, but it does not mention massive casualties to Assyrian troops. Sennacherib’s account attributes his decision to attack Judah to Hezekiah’s rebellion. It references Hezekiah’s capture of a Philistine king named Padi with whom Sennacherib had an alliance.⁹ Sennacherib claims to have withdrawn from Jerusalem only after Hezekiah paid him a large tribute. The Assyrian king allowed Hezekiah to remain in charge of Jerusalem, but Sennacherib reinstated Padi and divided Judean territory among three Philistine kings (including Padi) who had not revolted against him.

Following the lifting of Sennacherib’s siege of Jerusalem, Hezekiah remained king, but he ruled a much smaller kingdom. Sennacherib withdrew his forces from Jerusalem in 701 BCE. The biblical accounts claim that the Assyrians withdrew because Yahweh sent the angel of death against the Assyrians who killed 185,000 of Sennacherib’s soldiers (2 Kgs 19:35–37; Isa 37:36–38; cf. 2 Chr 32:21–23). Further, the biblical accounts imply that Sennacherib was killed immediately after he returned from his campaign against Jerusalem. In reality, while Sennacherib was eventually assassinated by two of his sons, he continued to rule for another twenty years after the siege of Jerusalem ended.

Hezekiah died early in the seventh century and was remembered in Judah for helping to save Jerusalem from the Assyrians. He was replaced by his son Manasseh (696–641 BCE), whose lengthy reign made him the longest ruling king in Judah and Israel. Nevertheless, the biblical assessments of Manasseh’s reign roundly condemn his actions as king (2 Kgs 21:1–18; 2 Chr 32:32–33:20). The theological assessment of Manasseh by the biblical writers does not credit him for stabilizing the political situation, but his lengthy reign suggests he made peace with the Assyrians. The writer of Kings condemns Manasseh for adopting Assyrian religious practices and styles that lead the people of Judah astray:

⁹But they did not listen; Manasseh misled them to do more evil than the nations had done that the LORD destroyed before the people of Israel. ¹⁰The LORD said by his servants the prophets, ¹¹Because King Manasseh of Judah has committed these abominations, has done things more wicked than all that the Amorites did, who were before him, and has caused Judah also to sin with his idols; ¹²therefore thus says the LORD, the God of Israel, I am bringing upon Jerusalem and Judah such evil that the ears of everyone who hears of it will tingle. ¹³I will stretch over Jerusalem the measuring line for Samaria, and the plummet for the house of Ahab; I will wipe Jerusalem as one wipes a dish, wiping it and turning it upside down. ¹⁴I will cast off the remnant of my heritage and give them into the hand of their enemies; they shall become a prey and a spoil to all their enemies, ¹⁵because they have done what is evil in my sight and have provoked me to anger, since the day their ancestors came out of Egypt, even to this day. (2 Kgs 21:9–15 NRSV)

The length of his reign combined with the blame placed on him creates a dual conundrum that derives from the delay of divine punishment. Given the assessment of the writer of 2 Kgs 21:9, why did Yahweh wait so long to remove Manasseh? The writer of Kings leaves no doubt about Manasseh’s wickedness, but Manasseh ruled for fifty-five years during which time Yahweh could have removed Manasseh as king. Relatedly, Yahweh’s judgment pronouncement creates another problem. Given that this Kings account includes a prophetic oracle announcing that Manasseh caused Yahweh to decide to destroy Jerusalem (21:12–13), why does Yahweh not punish Jerusalem during Manasseh’s reign or immediately after his death? The destruction of Jerusalem does not happen for more than fifty years after Manasseh died. The Chronicler tries to solve the problem by eliminating 2 Kgs 21:10–15 (the prophetic judgment oracle) from his account and inserting a narrative detailing Manasseh’s radical conversion (2 Chr 33:11–17, 19).¹⁰

Manasseh’s son Amon takes the throne when Manasseh dies, but the king’s servants assassinated him after only two years (2 Kgs 21:18–26). He was replaced by Manasseh’s grandson Josiah (640–609 BCE). Only eight years old when he took the throne, Josiah becomes the paradigm of a pious king as described in Deut 17:14–20. In his eighteenth year, Josiah initiates a program of cultic, social, and political reforms after being presented with the Book of the Law found during renovation of the temple.¹¹ Josiah died in 609 at the hands of the Egyptian pharaoh Neco II (610–595 BCE). The religious reforms of Josiah put a heavy emphasis upon covenant obligations, which also led to calls for more equitable social structures. Josiah’s political reforms intended to centralize power through Jerusalem and to reunite Judah with territories that had been part of the Northern Kingdom. After Josiah’s death, succeeding kings did not pursue the reforms as vigorously, but pockets of aristocrats, priests, and prophets continued to push for reforms.¹²

Following Josiah’s death, a rapid series of events resulted in a succession of four kings in twenty years. More importantly, each subsequent king took the throne due to the untimely departure of the previous king. Josiah was killed by the Egyptian pharaoh, Neco II, and Josiah’s son, Jehoahaz, took the throne in his stead. The kingship of Jehoahaz lasted only three months because the Egyptians (under Neco II) replaced Jehoahaz with another of Josiah’s sons, Eliakim, whom Neco gave the throne name Jehoiakim. Neco deported Jehoahaz to Egypt where he died (2 Kgs 23:34). Undoubtedly, Jehoiakim convinced the Egyptians that he would serve their interests, but Neco nevertheless forced Judah to pay tribute (2 Kgs 23:35).

In 605 BCE Babylon defeated Egypt at the Battle of Carchemish in Syria, under the command of Prince Nebuchadnezzar. He forced Egypt to withdraw back to its traditional borders, thereby ceding the Mediterranean coast to Babylon. The Babylonian king Nabopolassar died that same year, and his son became Nebuchadnezzar II, king of Babylon (604–562 BCE). Babylon consequently controlled the Mediterranean coastal lands, and Nebuchadnezzar probably returned two of the next three years to solidify his hold on the territory.¹³ Sources for this period are difficult to reconcile with one another. The Babylonian Chronicles note that Nebuchadnezzar stayed in Babylon at least one year to enhance his military capabilities, especially his chariots. The biblical texts present conflicting dates for Nebuchadnezzar’s deportations of Judeans from Jerusalem.

While these dates cannot be reconciled, they do not differ that much. Despite the victory at Carchemish, Nebuchadnezzar never succeeded in his quest to conquer Egypt.

Egypt had taxed Judah heavily (2 Kgs 23:35), and Babylon continued to do the same. Jehoiakim complied but did so at great expense to the people of the land, the middle-class landowners, from whom he extracted the payments to the Babylonian king. For three years, Jehoiakim remained loyal to Nebuchadnezzar (2 Kgs 24:1), but then he decided to withhold tribute. Several countries staged rebellions when Nebuchadnezzar became king (a widespread practice), but eventually Nebuchadnezzar confronted Jehoiakim and laid siege to Jerusalem. Jehoiakim died during the siege when he was only thirty-six years old (2 Kgs 23:36), and his son Jehoiachin took over. Three months later, Jehoiachin surrendered to Babylon. Nebuchadnezzar then deports Jehoiachin to Babylon in 597 BCE where Jehoiachin lived as a prisoner until he died sometime after 560 (see 2 Kgs 25:27–28).¹⁴

Jehoiachin’s uncle, Zedekiah, was named king of Judah by Nebuchadnezzar II in 597 BCE. Zedekiah continued the line of Davidic descendants, but he undoubtedly had to convince the Babylonians that he would serve their interests. He did not, therefore, continue major portions of Josiah’s reforms. Ironically, within four years Zedekiah held a summit in Jerusalem attended by representatives of surrounding states. According to Jer 27, those attending included representatives of Edom, Moab, Ammon, and the Phoenician kings of Tyre and Sidon. Zedekiah hoped this summit would create an international force capable of overthrowing the Babylonians, but no formal action resulted from the conversations. It did, however, signal that Zedekiah had put Judah on a path of resistance to Babylonian control of Judah, resistance that would ultimately require Babylon to act against Judah. Zedekiah’s court remained divided over whether to acquiesce to Babylon or to seek help from Egypt. In the end, Zedekiah revolted against Babylon, and Nebuchadnezzar laid siege to Jerusalem (2 Kgs 24:20). Following the siege, Nebuchadnezzar razed the city by destroying the city wall and burning all the houses within the city, including the temple and the royal palace (2 Kgs 25:9–10; 2 Chr 36:19). Additionally, the Babylonians hauled away the temple furnishings and tools that had been covered with fine metals (gold, silver, and bronze). These valuable items were taken to Babylon where they were melted down and used to supplement the treasury of the Babylonians.

C. AFTER JERUSALEM’S DESTRUCTION

The destruction of Jerusalem in 587 BCE dramatically changed life in Jerusalem and Judah. The Babylonian conquest irreparably altered the physical and political landscape of the city. The Babylonians devastated the temple, the royal palace, and the city walls. The dynasty of Davidic kings who had ruled Judah from Jerusalem ceased to exist after more than four hundred years in power. The political leaders that supported the Judean monarchy were either killed, exiled, or forced to adapt to become vassals of the Babylonian Empire that occupied Judah. The temple, first constructed by David’s son Solomon in the tenth century, was demolished near the beginning of the sixth century. The complex structure of temple personnel who conducted the rituals were likewise set adrift or exiled to Babylon. Those who survived the Babylonian onslaughts of 597 and 587 all had to adapt. Those who were exiled included political leaders and temple personnel. Babylon did distinguish between the factions of Judean leadership that had supported continued relations with Babylon from those that hoped Egypt would provide military and economic support. The latter believed that Egypt would allow Judah to remain an independent kingdom. Many of the temple personnel supported Egypt, so most priests, Levites, and temple prophets in Jerusalem were exiled to Babylon.

The destruction of Jerusalem and its temple had a profound impact upon life in Judah, politically, socioeconomically, and theologically. For more than four hundred years, a descendant of David had ruled Judah as king (broken only by a seven-year period [841–835 BCE] when Queen Athaliah usurped the throne; see 2 Kgs 11; 2 Chr 22–23). The final two Judean kings, Jehoiachin and Zedekiah, were both exiled to Babylon, though Nebuchadnezzar brutally punished Zedekiah for his rebellion before sending him into exile.¹⁵ The administration of the kingdom was moved to Mizpah, where Gedaliah, a member of the family of Shaphan, was made administrator of the land. With the support of the Babylonians, he began to populate the farms with the poor from the land. This decision had the potential to change the social structure of Judah.¹⁶ He was, however, assassinated by Ishmael after serving only two months as administrator, so the policies he began to implement did not have time to play out.¹⁷ Yet, even without a temple, Judah’s ability to collect taxes did not suffer. With the support of Babylon, the economic importance of Mizpah continued until the Persians allowed exiles in Babylon to return to Jerusalem (beginning in 538 BCE). Gradually, over the next ninety years, Jerusalem again became the center of the province as Judeans rebuilt the temple (520–515 BCE) and restored the city walls (445 BCE).

Still, the theological emphases of the Zion tradition called for an explanation for Judah’s plight in 587. According to Zion theology, Yahweh chose Jerusalem as the place to establish his temple; he placed a descendant of David on the throne into perpetuity; and promised to protect Jerusalem from foreign nations. With the events of 587, all three pillars of Zion theology had failed. There was no longer a Davidide on the throne; Jerusalem lay in ruins; and Babylon demolished and looted the temple. Nevertheless, Zion theology did not die. It adapted.

The adaptation of the Zion tradition included changes to the texts we now have in the book of Micah, changes that increasingly spoke to those who remained in the land and to those who returned from exile in Babylon with a vision of rebuilding the temple. The content of Mic 4–7 responds to these changes in a series of additions (likely, first at Mizpah and later in the environs of the reconstructed city and temple of Jerusalem). First, chapters 6–7 clarify that Yahweh initiated the destruction of Jerusalem in response to poor leadership and the sins of the people of Judah. Second, 7:8–20 provides a message of hope that Yahweh has not abandoned the remnant that remained. Yahweh will act redemptively toward this remnant, just as Yahweh had brought Israel out of slavery in Egypt. Finally, someone compiled an extensive unit in chapters 4–5 that functions as a prophetic articulation of Yahweh’s future plan for Zion. These chapters anticipate Yahweh’s punishment and deliverance:

Writhe, and burst forth, Lady Zion, like the one giving birth,

but now you will go forth from a village

and you will dwell in a field,

and you will go to Babylon.

There you will be delivered.

And there Yahweh will redeem you from the hand of your enemy.

But now many nations will be gathered against you, saying,

Let her be defiled, and let our eyes gaze on Zion.

But they do not know the plans of Yahweh,

and they do not discern his counsel,

for he collects them like fallen grain on the threshing floor.

(Mic 4:10–12)

By placing chapters 4–5 in the book of Micah, with its eighth-century setting, editors insured that the readers understood that Yahweh reveals this plan to those who will listen. The later materials convey events that will happen in the future.¹⁸ Assyria and Babylon will fall, and Yahweh plans to make the nations subservient to Zion. For those living in the postexilic community, these words function as a promise on at least three levels. First, the content of these chapters speaks to Yahweh’s salvific intentions. Second, most of the sayings presume that either Yahweh or Yahweh’s designated prophet is the formal speaker. In either case, the speaker carries the weight of someone divinely sanctioned. Third, this divine sanction also enhances the trustworthiness of the promises themselves because the postexilic community knows the veracity of most of the promises already. The postexilic community can know that Assyria and Babylon have fallen. They recognize the claim as truthful that Yahweh punished Zion, but just as importantly, they know that people have begun returning from Babylon. By their own experience and knowledge, the remnant people know that Yahweh’s plans have so far unfolded as he said they would. Such knowledge, then, reinforces the belief that the remainder of the plan will also come about as Yahweh intends. While the eschatological formulas suggest this reconstitution of the glory of Zion will happen in the distant future when heard as a message from the eighth century, the postexilic community has the advantage of not living in the eighth century. They know what has already occurred and that knowledge provides comfort and confidence in Yahweh’s fidelity.

II. UNITY OF COMPOSITION

The book of Micah is a thoughtfully arranged collection of oracles and other compositions, but the content does not all come from the hand of the prophet from whom the book takes its name. Three or four major divisions are often noted: (1) the early core appearing in Mic 1–3, with its focus on events in the lifetime of the prophet, especially condemning the social inequity and cultic impropriety; (2) Mic 6–7, a composite block that begins with a trial speech condemning Judah’s guilt (6:1–7:7), followed by a series of speeches by different characters that express optimism that Judah will change its ways (7:8–20); and (3) chapters 4–5, which vacillate between judgment and hope, while looking to the more distant future.

A. THE EARLY CORE: FOCUS ON EIGHTH-CENTURY EVENTS

By most accounts, the early core of Micah appears in portions of chapters 1–3.¹⁹ This material highlights two thematic foci: the improper worship of deities other than Yahweh and ethical abuses (esp. the wealthy of Jerusalem and Judah taking advantage of those less well off). The biographic data in Mic 1:1 names Moresheth as the hometown of the prophet and lists three kings of Judah from the end of the eighth century BCE during which the prophet lived: Jotham (756–741 BCE), Ahaz (741–725 BCE), and Hezekiah (725–696 BCE). These dates imply that Micah was the youngest of the four eighth-century prophets (alongside Isaiah, Hosea, and Amos). In terms of content, Mic 1–3 presupposes two events from the late eighth century: the destruction of Samaria in 722 BCE and the siege of Sennacherib in 701 BCE (along with the royal centralization efforts leading up to the Assyrian incursion). The destruction of Samaria (see esp. 1:5–7, 9a, 12a) relates closely to the condemnation of the worship of deities other than Yahweh, while the bulk of Mic 2–3 condemns the actions of wealthy landowners in Judah and Jerusalem, who confiscated land to line their own pockets (esp. in the Shephelah).

B. SIXTH- AND FIFTH-CENTURY UPDATES

In response to the aftermath of Jerusalem’s destruction, proponents of Zion theology in the early exilic period placed the blame for Jerusalem’s destruction on the failure of the leaders and its people (see historical backgrounds above). Such is the case in the sixth-century texts added to Mic 1 and the way the chapter presents its message. Micah 1 castigates Jerusalem for following the Northern Kingdom practice of allowing sacrifices to gods other than Yahweh. This chapter repeatedly equates the religious behavior of Jerusalem to Samaria and classifies gifts to other deities as money paid to a harlot (Mic 1:5–7, 9a, 12b, 13b). In so doing, Mic 1 draws a parallel between the religious practices of the Northern and Southern Kingdoms for not worshiping Yahweh only. The harlotry language reflects influence of Hos 1–3 and the marriage metaphors that demand complete allegiance to Yahweh. The texts that articulate these points in Mic 1 appear to have been inserted into existing texts (1:5b, 9) or else took on new meaning after these insertions were added (1:12, 13). Elsewhere, 2 Kgs 17 articulates similar ideas by condemning Samaria for its worship of astral deities and Baal and by accusing Judah of the same behavior (2 Kgs 17:7–19).

Additionally, Mic 6–7 shows signs of having been added at the same time as the sixth-century additions to chapter 1 for a number of reasons. First, Mic 6–7 draws comparisons between Judah and Israel, as does Mic 1:5–7, 9, 12–13. Micah 6:16 also compares Jerusalem’s behavior to the policies of Omri and Ahab (see the mention of the city in 6:9, which assumes Jerusalem is the subject of the lawsuit). Omri and Ahab were both kings of the Northern Kingdom and were paradigms of evil in Kings (cf. 1 Kgs 16:25, 30, which claim first Omri and then Ahab was the worst king of Israel), especially since 1 Kgs 16:24 credits Omri for establishing the city of Samaria, and 1 Kgs 16:32 names Ahab as the king who built a temple for Baal in Samaria. This claim that Judah acted like Israel in the time of these kings thus comports well with the reference to the sins of Samaria that have reached the gates of Jerusalem in Mic 1:5–7, 9b, 12–13. Relatedly, the blending of references to Israel when referring to Judah and Jerusalem occurs in both places (1:5; 6:2, 9). Second, knowledge of other biblical texts includes Hosea and Amos in ways that assume the readers recognize that these two books condemn the Northern Kingdom.²⁰ The hallmark of these sixth-century texts in Micah thus centers upon the need to blame the people and their leaders for the destruction of Jerusalem.

Chapters 6–7 also contain a prophetic complaint (7:1–7) and a Persian period salvific ending to the book (7:8–20) that presents a series of optimistic statements and responses regarding the fate of Zion. The prophetic complaint in 7:1–7 bemoans the disappearance of the faithful and the upright from Jerusalem. Micah 7:8–20 has often been classified as a liturgy because of the speaker and response style that develops across the verses. The climactic moment in the liturgy comes with the prophet’s intercessory prayer in 7:14–15a followed by Yahweh’s brief but positive promise to show his people marvelous deeds (7:15b). The people then proclaim their gratitude that Yahweh will protect them from the nations. This proclamation alludes to Yahweh’s compassion toward his people, despite the current punishment.

C. POSTEXILIC REFRAMING

The third block of texts to enter the book of Micah, as suggested in this commentary, includes the bulk of chapters 4–5. These chapters presuppose knowledge of the exile to Babylon (see esp. 4:10), and they address the concerns of the postexilic community in Jerusalem. As such, they deal with the role of the (restored) temple and the nations (4:1–5), the restoration of the remnant (4:6–7; 5:7–8), the return of the dominion of Zion (4:8–13), the continuation of the Davidic dynasty (5:1–6), and Yahweh’s removal of cultic improprieties (5:9–14). They also reflect an eschatological orientation for the future as signaled by the eschatological day formulas in 4:1, 6; 5:10.²¹ Hence, they do not come from the eighth century. The cumulative effect of these topics on the book characterizes Micah as a prophet in the vein of Isaiah, a prophet from the eighth century BCE whose book addresses the postexilic community.²²

The role played by Mic 4–5 in addressing the postexilic community extends beyond the book of Micah as an isolated prophetic collection. These chapters play a significant role in the Book of the Twelve, both in terms of the topics they discuss and their location.²³ The topics that speak to the postexilic community noted above can in many respects be understood as a reconstitution of the Zion tradition. As noted in the discussion of the exilic update, the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 undercuts the three main pillars of Zion theology. The topics in Mic 4–5 (unlike chs. 6–7) do not focus on who was to blame for Jerusalem’s destruction. Rather, chapters 4–5 present a hope for the future restoration of Zion (after Jerusalem’s destruction). They reiterate the role of Zion as Yahweh’s chosen city, the role of David’s descendants as Yahweh’s chosen leaders, and Yahweh’s protection of Jerusalem from foreign nations. The nations in Mic 4–5 make a pilgrimage to Zion to learn torah and to hear the word of Yahweh (4:1–4). In the end of days (4:1), Zion will again serve as the mountain of Yahweh and home to Yahweh’s temple (4:2), and peace will reign (4:3). Zion’s realm will be restored (4:4–13), and David’s descendants will rule Israel as they had done in David’s lifetime (5:1–3). The kingdom will survive Assyrian aggression, and Yahweh will use the remnant of Jacob that has been exiled among the nations to defeat those nations (5:4–8). On that day, Yahweh will remove all the cultic maladies that had previously afflicted the country (5:9–14).

The location of these chapters that articulate the long-term vision for Zion is also no accident. Micah 4 begins immediately following Mic 3:12, a climactic verse for the early collection of Mic 1–3. That verse also manifests a marginal note from the Masoretes identifying the verse as the exact middle of the Twelve if one is counting by verses. The thematic juxtaposition of Jerusalem’s destruction in 3:12 followed immediately by the utopian message that the nations will stream to the city to learn torah and hear the word of Yahweh could hardly be more jarring. The eschatological orientation of the promise pushes boldly into the future when the action implies Yahweh has a plan to establish peace and security in the land.

These chapters also raise questions. While the content reflects a postexilic setting, one cannot help but wonder whose vision these chapters represent. By most accounts they have a very different message for Jerusalem than either the core collection (that appears mostly in chs. 1–3) or the exilic update (chs. 6–7) that seeks to lay blame for Jerusalem’s destruction upon the leaders and the people who turned away from exclusive worship of Yahweh. By contrast, the message of Mic 4–5 conveys a strong sense of hope in Yahweh and conveys little fear concerning the nations. What, then, can one say about the identity of the author(s) of this postexilic block of texts? Recent suggestions have highlighted the likelihood that a group of scribal prophets are responsible for shaping the books comprising the Latter Prophets.²⁴ These works stress the importance of scribal education in composing these collections. Prior to Jerusalem’s destruction, major scribal projects were funded by the king, but in the postexilic period, the temple became the funding source for such projects.²⁵ Over time, collections of prophetic texts were compiled, and the scribes who compiled the Twelve incorporated several distinctive ideas into the collection. These conceptual elements include at least the following: a chronological structure that runs from the eighth century to the Persian period; recurring use of the concept of the day of Yahweh to anticipate Yahweh’s intervention in the affairs of Judah, Israel, and the nations; the fertility of the land as a sign of the covenant curse or blessing; the fate of God’s people over time as a means of stressing the need for obedience to Yahweh; and dealing with the problem of theodicy.²⁶

The assumption that Mic 4–5 derives from scribal conversations concerning Yahweh’s plans for his chosen people over a lengthy chronological period helps one understand the purpose of the Twelve as a collection and Micah’s role therein as a vehicle for expressing theological convictions that were considered important. Highlights include a range of affirmations in these chapters: an emphasis upon Zion as the place of instruction (torah) and the word of Yahweh (prophecy) for Yahweh’s people and the nations (4:2); the dual foci on the centrality of the temple and a reassertion of the theological pillars of the Zion tradition (described above); a positive attitude toward the nations (4:1–5) that counterbalances the expectations that the nations will still represent a force that will need to be subdued (note the anticipation of Assyrian empirical rule in 5:5–6, 7–8, 15); the need for cultic purification is anticipated (5:9–14). The scrolls of the four Latter Prophets (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the Twelve), as a group, came to carry considerable weight in explaining Judah’s situation after the reconstruction of Jerusalem and the temple.²⁷ By most reckonings, the Prophets became recognized as an authoritative collection of scrolls not long after the Torah takes shape, and the significance of these scrolls for helping to shape the identity of the postexilic community should not be underestimated.²⁸

III. AUTHORSHIP AND PLACE OF ORIGIN

The book of Micah sets its sights on the faith community of Jerusalem and Judah, though the prophet for whom the book is named was born in the Shephelah, specifically in a village called Moresheth (Mic 1:1; Jer 26:18) or Moresheth-Gath (Mic 1:14). Most scholars identify this village as Tell-el-Judeideh, an ancient town located a little more than twenty miles southwest of Jerusalem.²⁹ The territory of the Shephelah was often disputed territory between Judah and the Philistines, and Hezekiah’s capture of a Philistine king, Padi, certainly exacerbated those strained relationships (see the discussion of the historical backgrounds above). The mention of Moresheth-Gath appears in a unit (1:9–16) that warns a number of cities in the Shephelah regarding the danger they will face when the Assyrians decide to destroy them on their way to Jerusalem. In fact, the Assyrian king Sennacherib claims to have destroyed forty-six fortified cities in Judah during his march against Jerusalem. He then laid siege to Jerusalem but was unable to destroy it. While the biblical accounts emphasize the miraculous delivery of Jerusalem from the siege, Sennacherib’s account claims victory. Sennacherib claims he only lifted the siege because Hezekiah paid him a large bounty to leave. In addition, Sennacherib divided up most of Hezekiah’s Judean territory among the Philistine kings of Ashdod, Ekron, and Gaza, who were loyal to him.

The charges leveled against Jerusalem in Mic 1–3 include cultic infidelity and ethical abuses. These charges culminate in the pronouncement of judgment against Jerusalem in Mic 3:12. Micah 1 focuses on the charge of Jerusalem’s cultic infidelity, including offering gifts to deities other than Yahweh (1:7–8, 9, 12). These accusations accentuate their problem by associating Jerusalem’s sins with emulating the infidelity of Samaria (1:5, 9, 12), the capital city of the Northern Kingdom