101131 Micah 1

Micah 1

The poetic and descriptive word play in this list of cities adds some poignant spice to this pronouncement.  Keil and Delitzch seem to do a good play by play and commentary on the passage.

.

1) 1.10  Beth-le-aphrah

Beth-le-aphrath: בֵּית לְעַפְרָה is probably the Ophrah of Benjamin (עָפְרָה, Jos_18:23), which was situated, according to Eusebius, not far from Bethel (see comm. on Josh. l.c.). It is pointed with pathach here for the sake of the paronomasia with עָפָר. The chethib הִתְפַּלַּשְׁתִּי is the correct reading, the keri הִתְפַּלָּשִׁי being merely an emendation springing out of a misunderstanding of the true meaning. הִתְפַּלֵּשׁ does not mean to revolve, but to bestrew one's self. Bestrewing with dust or ashes was a sign of deep mourning (Jer_6:26; 2Sa_13:19). The prophet speaks in the name of the people of what the people will do.

2) 1.11  Shaphir

The inhabitants of Shafir are to go stripped into captivity. עָבַר, to pass by, here in the sense of moving forwards. The plural לָכֶם is to be accounted for from the fact that yōshebheth is the population. Shâphı̄r, i.e., beautiful city, is not the same as the Shâmı̄r in Jos_15:48, for this was situated in the south-west of the mountains of Judah; nor the same as the Shâmı̄r in the mountains of Ephraim (Jdg_10:1), which did not belong to the kingdom of Judah; but is a place to the north of Jerusalem, of which nothing further is known. The statement in the Onomast. s.v. Σαφείρ ἐν γῆ ὀρεινῆ between Eleutheropolis and Askalon - is probably intended to apply to the Shâmı̄r of Joshua; but this is evidently erroneous, as the country between Eleutheropolis and Askalon did not belong to the mountains of Judah, but to the Shephelah. עֶרְיָה־בֹשֶׁת, a combination like עַנְוָה־צֶדֶק in Psa_45:5, equivalent to stripping which is shame, shame-nakedness = ignominious stripping. עֶרְיָה is an accusative defining the manner in which they would go out. The next two clauses are difficult to explain. צַאֲנָן, a play upon words with יָֽצְאָה, is traceable to this verb, so far as its meaning is concerned. The primary meaning of the name is uncertain; the more modern commentators combine it with צֹאן, in the sense of rich in flocks.

3) 1.11 Zaanan...

The situation of Zaanan is quite unknown. The supposed identity with Zenân see at Jos_15:37) must be given up, as Zenân was in the plain, and Zaanan was most probably to the north of Jerusalem. The meaning of the clause can hardly be any other than this, that the population of Zaanan had not gone out of their city to this war from fear of the enemy, but, on the contrary, had fallen back behind their walls (Ros., Casp., Hitzig). בֵּית הָאֵצֶל is most likely the same as אָצַל in Zec_14:5, a place in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem, to the east of the Mount of Olives, as Beth is frequently omitted in the names of places (see Ges. Thes. p. 193). Etsel signifies side, and as an adverb or preposition, “by the side of.” This meaning comes into consideration there.

4) 1.11 Beth-ezel...

The thought of the words mispad bēth, etc., might be: “The lamentation of Beth-Haezel will take away its standing (the standing by the side of it, 'etslō) from you (Judaeans), i.e., will not allow you to tarry there as fugitives (cf. Jer_48:45). The distress into which the enemy staying there has plunged Beth-Haezel, will make it impossible for you to stop there” (Hitzig, Caspari). But the next clause, which is connected by כִּי, does not suit this explanation (Mic_1:12). The only way in which this clause can be made to follow suitably as an explanation is by taking the words thus: “The lamentation of Beth-Haezel will take its standing (the stopping of the calamity or judgment) from you, i.e., stop near it, as we should expect from its name; for (Mic_1:12)

5) 1.11 Maroth...

Maroth, which stands further off, will feel pain,” etc. With this view, which Caspari also suggests, Hengstenberg (on Zec_14:5) agrees in the main, except that he refers the suffix in עֶמְדָּתוֹ to מִסְפָּד, and renders the words thus: “The lamentation of Beth-Haezel will take its stopping away from you, i.e., the calamity will not stop at Beth-Haezel (at the near house), i.e., stop near it, as we should expect from its name; for (Mic_1:12) Maroth, which stands further off, will feel pain,” etc. With this view, which Caspari also suggests, Hengstenberg (on Zec_14:5) agrees in the main, except that he refers the suffix in עֶמְדָתוֹ to מִסְפָּד, and renders the words thus: “The lamentation of Beth-Haezel will take its stopping away from you, i.e., will not allow you the stopping of the lamentation.” Grammatically considered, this connection is the more natural one; but there is this objection, that it cannot be shown that עָמַד is used in the sense of the stopping or ceasing of a lamentation, whereas the supposition that the suffix refers to the calamity simply by constructio ad sensum has all the less difficulty, inasmuch as the calamity has already been hinted at in the verb נָגַע in Mic_1:9, and in Mic_1:10 also it forms the object to be supplied in thought. Maroth (lit., something bitter, bitternesses) is quite unknown; it is simply evident, from the explanatory clause כִּי יָרַד וגו, that it was situated in the immediate neighbourhood of Jerusalem. The inhabitants of Maroth writhe (châlâh, from chūl, to writhe with pain, like a woman in child-birth), because they are also smitten with the calamity, when it comes down to the gate of Jerusalem. לְטוֹב, “on account of the good,” which they have lost, or are about to lose.

6) 1.13 Lachish...

 The inhabitants of Lachish, a fortified city in the Shephelah, to the west of Eleutheropolis, preserved in the ruins of Um Lakis (see at Jos_10:3), are to harness the horses to the chariot (rekhesh, a runner; see at 1Ki_5:8 : the word is used as ringing with lâkhı̄sh), namely, to flee as rapidly as possible before the advancing foe. רָתַם, ἁπ. λεγ. “to bind ... the horse to the chariot,” answering to the Latin currum jungere equis. Upon this city will the judgment fall with especial severity, because it has grievously sinned. It was the beginning of sin to the daughter of Zion, i.e., to the population of Jerusalem; it was the first to grant admission to the iniquities of Israel, i.e., to the idolatry of the image-worship of the ten tribes (for פִּשְׁעֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, see Mic_1:5 and Amo_3:14), which penetrated even to the capital. Nothing more is known of this, as the historical books contain no account of it. For this reason, namely, because the sin of Israel found admission into Jerusalem, she (the daughter Zion) will be obliged to renounce Moresheth-gath. This is the thought of Mic_1:14, the drapery of which rests upon the resemblance in sound between Moresheth and m^e'orâsâh, the betrothed (Deu_22:23). Shillūchı̄m, dismissal, denotes anything belonging to a man, which he dismisses or gives up for a time, or for ever. It is applied in Exo_18:2 to the sending away of wife and children to the father-in-law for a time; and in 1Ki_9:16 to a dowry, or the present which a father gives to his daughter when she is married and leaves his house. The meaning “divorce,” i.e., sēpher k^erı̄thuth (Deu_24:1, Deu_24:3), has been arbitrarily forced upon the word. The meaning is not to be determined from shillēăch in Jer_3:8, as Hitzig supposes, but from 1Ki_9:16, where the same expression occurs, except that it is construed with ל, which makes no material difference. For נָתַן אַל signifies to give to a person, either to lay upon him or to hand to him; נָתַן לְ, to give to him. The object given by Zion to Moresheth as a parting present is not mentioned, but it is really the city itself; for the meaning is simply this: Zion will be obliged to relinquish all further claim to Moresheth, to give it up to the enemy.

7) 1.14  Morsheth-gath...

Mōresheth is not an appellative, as the old translators suppose, but the proper name of Micah's home; and Gath is a more precise definition of its situation - “by Gath,” viz., the well-known Philistian capital, analogous to Bethlehem-Judah in Jdg_17:7-9; Jdg_19:1, or Abel-maim (Abel by the water) in 2Ch_16:4. According to Jerome (comm. in Mich. Prol.), Morasthi, qui usque hodie juxta Eleutheropolin, urbem Palaestinae, haud grandis est viculus (cf. Robinson, Pal. ii. p. 423). The context does not admit of our taking the word in an appellative sense, “possession of Gath,” since the prophet does not mean to say that Judah will have to give up to the enemy a place belonging to Gath, but rather that it will have to give up the cities of its own possession. For, as Maurer correctly observes, “when the enemy is at the gate, men think of defending the kingdom, not of enlarging it.” But if the addition of the term Gath is not merely intended to define the situation of Moresheth with greater minuteness, or to distinguish it from other places of the same name, and if the play upon words in Moresheth was intended to point to a closer relation to Gath, the thought expressed could only be, that the place situated in the neighbourhood of Gath had frequently been taken by the Philistines, or claimed as their property, and not that they were in actual possession of Gath at this time.

The play upon words in the second clause of the verse also points to the loss of places in Judaea: “the houses of Achzib will become Achzab to the kings of Israel.” אַכְזָב, a lie, for נַחַל אַכְזָב, is a stream which dries up in the hot season, and deceives the expectation of the traveller that he shall find water (Jer_15:18; cf. Job_6:15.).

8) 1.14  Achzib...

Achzib, a city in the plain of Judah, whose name has been preserved in the ruins of Kussabeh, to the south-west of Beit-Jibrin (see at Jos_15:44). The houses of Achzib are mentioned, because they are, properly speaking, to be compared to the contents of the river's bed, whereas the ground on which they stood, with the wall that surrounded them, answered to the river's bed itself (Hitzig), so that the words do not denote the loss or destruction of the houses so much as the loss of the city itself. The “kings of Israel” are not the kings of Samaria and Judah, for Achzib belonged to the kingdom of Judah alone, but the kings of Judah who followed one another (cf. Jer_19:13); so that the plural is to be understood as relating to the monarchy of Israel (Judah).

9) 1.15  Mareshah...

Mareshah will also pass into other hands. This is affirmed in the words, “I will bring the heir to thee again” (אָבִי for אָבִיא, as in 1Ki_21:29). The first heir of Mareshah was the Israelites, who received the city, which had been previously occupied by the Canaanites, for their possession on the conquest of the land. The second heir will be the enemy, into whose possession the land is now to pass. Mareshah, also in the lowland of Judah, has been preserved, so far as the name is concerned, in the ruins of Marash (see at Jos_15:44, and Tobler, Dritte Wanderung, pp. 129, 142-3).

10) 1.15  Adullam...

To the north of this was Adullam (see at Jos_12:15), which has not yet been discovered, but which Tobler (p. 151) erroneously seeks for in Bêt Dûla. Micah mentions it simply on account of the cave there (1Sa_22:1), as a place of refuge, to which the great and glorious of Israel would flee (“the glory of Israel,” as in Isa_5:13). .