Micah 1-3

Micah is the first book in this series to definitely originate in the kingdom of Judah, likely in the period after the destruction of Samaria by the Assyrians. The book begins with the punishment of Samaria in a very kinetic scene:

“For lo, the Lord is coming out of his place, and will come down and tread upon the high places of the earth. Then the mountains will melt under him and the valleys will burst open, like wax near the fire, like waters poured down a steep place.” 

- Micah 1:3-4

Micah then echoes other prophets in comparing Israel to a prostitute. Is this a direct influence from Hosea, simple a very common insult at the time, or evidence of ritual prostitution occurring in competing cults? It will be interesting to see when that insult becomes less common.

The focus then moves to the impact on Judah. Verse 9 is very suggestive, “her [Israel’s] wound is incurable, it has come to Judah.” This appears to be blaming Israel for the destruction facing Judah, presumably the looming threat of Assyrian conquest - or possibly the actual campaign of Sennacherib against the kingdom. It seems as though, as with most prophets, the “wound” is probably the influence of Israelite religion, although Micah doesn’t actually specify here; there is a reading that could blame Israel for their rebellion against Assyria, causing the latter to take more of an “interest” in the region. That second reading is probably more of a modern historical reading on the situation, but I can’t be sure.

The prophet moves to more specific sins in the second chapter:

“They covet fields, and seize them; houses, and take them away; they oppress householder and house, people and their inheritance.”

- Micah 2:2

Later in the passage, the house of Jacob is specifically blamed for “ris[ing] up against my people as an enemy.” (2:8) And then more dramatically:

“Listen, you heads of Jacob and rulers of the house of Israel! Should you not know justice? - you who hate the good and love the evil, who tear the skin off my people, and the flesh off their bones; who eat the flesh of my people, flay their skin off them, break their bones in pieces, and chop them up like meat in a kettle, like flesh in a cauldron.”

- Micah 3:1-3

My best guess for the context of these statements (based also on what I have read about the time) is that wealthy Israelite refugees were likely buying/competing for the prime agricultural land. The idea that wealthy Israelites were perceived by Micah as the cause of Judah’s problems is further supported later in chapter three, where they are accused of bribing and corrupting Jerusalem’s political and religious systems. And the most encouraging oracle in this section of Micah refers to them, “like sheep in a fold”, breaking through “the gate”, which reads to me like a metaphor for returning home.

Chapter 3 then ends on a note of doom, as the rulers of the house of Jacob and those of Jerusalem are said to have condemned the city to become a heap of ruins, likely an allusion to pending destruction by the Assyrians.

It is always difficult to understand a society through a polemic. To merely accept its conclusions strains credulity, but at least the choice of topics can shed some light on relevant controversies, even if we do not get a clear picture of the true benefits and costs of a situation.

Take Micah's screed against the Israelites. I think we can deduce from his writing that there was social and economic conflict involving the new immigrants and elements of pre-existing Judahite society. Were there bribes to the king and priests? That seems plausible, though I'm sure one can find plenty of examples of false accusations of bribery throughout history. Was the bribery new or were the newcomers merely outbidding Micah's faction? There's no way to know of which I'm aware, but it could be a useful point of view for understanding and testing other archeological evidence from the same time.

I have similar questions about the economic picture painted here. Were the newcomers oppressing the people? Or did increased wealth lead to trade and urbanization? That could also be skewed as "taking away land" by a member of the local gentry who sees their power on the decline, even if it results in greater wealth and a better life for many people. (As you can read, I'm intrinsically suspicious of claims based on land ownership.) It's also possible that both are true to an extent.

Ultimately, it's interesting to see how much of the dispute between whatever faction Micah is representing and those he's opposing seems to be about land and power rather than anything else - including theology. Not surprising, perhaps, but instructive that those disputes seem to lie at the origin of the recording of these religious traditions.

Next time - in less than three months - I'll write about the second half of Micah, in which there is quite a shift in tone.