Annotations for Micah

1:1 Moresheth. Located approximately 6 miles (9.6 kilometers) northeast of Lachish in the Shephelah, Moresheth (Tell Judeideh, about 20 miles [32 kilometers] southwest of Jerusalem) would have been one of the suburbs of the Philistine city of Gath (Tell es-Safi). After the establishment of David’s kingdom, Gath served, along with Lachish, Adullam and Mareshah, as a fortified center (2Ch 11:7–10). All of these sites, along with countless villages, were destroyed by Sennacherib’s Assyrian army in 701 BC. Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah. Their reigns cover the last half of the eighth century BC. Micah’s first oracle (vv. 2–7), which deals with Israel’s northern capital of Samaria, would date to just prior to that city’s destruction by the Assyrians in 722 BC.

1:3 coming from his dwelling place. Magnifies the sense of majesty inherent to this theophany of Yahweh. treads on the heights of the earth. An expression of power used very often of vanquishing enemies (Dt 33:29; Ps 108:13). However, in this case the image is of God displaying control over creation, using the earth’s mountains as stepping stones (Am 4:13). A similar image is created of the swift, mountain-hopping movements of the divine messengers in the Ugaritic Baal Cycle. Cities were typically built on hills because of their natural defensibility, and armies chose hills as strategic points of control. The metaphor of treading on the heights therefore also speaks of victory and security. Another image that may also be implied derives from the fact that the word translated “heights,” besides referring to elevated terrain, often carries the idea of a cultic high place. The image of the god’s feet founded on the high cultic mountains is also depicted in cylinder seals from Ugarit. So perhaps Micah also includes a subtle jibe as the venerated high places are trampled underfoot.

1:4 The mountains melt . . . the valleys split apart. When he comes forth or calls forth from his lofty abode, all creation trembles at the sound of the Divine Warrior. A roughly contemporary inscription from Kuntillet Ajrud relates that when the god El appeared, “the mountains melted.” The more vivid rendering of Micah’s metaphor “like wax before the fire” aptly catches the intense reaction of creation to the appearance of Yahweh. The reaction of the valleys is not as clear. It may be that Micah pictures an earthquake with fissures appearing in the valleys (Jdg 5:4–5), but more likely, the image here is of the “waters below” (see Ge 1:6–7) gushing after having been stirred by the passing of the Almighty (Hab 3:10), with those waters making an appearance as “water rushing down a slope.”

1:5 Judah’s high place. The bamot of Judah are often condemned in the Former Prophets, but the irony here is that Jerusalem itself is pictured in this category. Elsewhere the bamot are condemned in favor of worship in Jerusalem (see note on 1Ki 3:2). The condemnation of Jerusalem, however, might make sense if this diatribe is located in the time of Ahaz, whose specific sins, according to the book of Kings, included the installation of an additional altar in the temple precinct (see 2Ki 16:10–16 and note), just one of several changes “in deference to the king of Assyria” (2Ki 16:18).

1:6 Samaria. Micah’s denunciation of Samaria uses several vivid images, with the force that the thriving urban capital will be transformed into an agricultural plot, its formidable buildings nothing more than stones to be cleared for the crops. Evidence of the prosperity of Samaria is found in the excavations revealing, e.g., the extensive fortifications that defined the acropolis beginning in the days of Omri. Of additional interest, archaeologists recovered the Samaria ostraca, a series of receipts for goods delivered from the surrounding area. These receipts were probably the contribution of the estates of various nobles supplied from abroad but living in the capital. pour her stones into the valley. While earlier summaries of the excavations at Samaria spoke of the Assyrian destruction of Samaria around 722 BC, recent archaeologists are no longer certain if the Assyrians razed the city or whether they merely replaced its political structure and many of its inhabitants while leaving its architecture substantially intact. Some of this imagery may, while retaining the concept of destruction, also hint at ritual defilement. Isaiah speaks of the cultic “smooth stones of the ravine” (Isa 57:6) and a fifth-century BC Phoenician inscription uses the uncovering of foundations as an evidence that something has been cursed. The language here might be focused on the cursing of Samaria rather than on the disposition of its architecture.

1:8 I. In this verse the first-person referent appears to shift from Yahweh to Micah. weep and wail . . . go about barefooted and naked . . . howl like a jackal . . . moan like an owl. Micah combines both the terms of mourning for death with a mimic of the desolation of exile. In the first couplet, Micah weeps and wails, using verbs that are almost always used in the context of mourning for the dead (see the article “Mourning”), in this case in anticipation of the devastation of Judah. Further, Micah strips off his clothing and shoes. While the tearing of garments is often a sign of mourning, the nakedness of the prophet seems more closely linked to the anticipation of exile (see note on Isa 20:2). The final metaphor can be related to mourning or to exile. Some propose that the jackal and the “owl” are mentioned here for their distinctive howl or piercing cry, perhaps paralleled with the cry of the mourner. The more likely connection, however, is to the jackal and the “ostrich,” two animals found on the fringes of the inhabited places, signaling that Judah is to be a desolate wilderness, left to these animals. Jackals are commonly used to signify wilderness areas (Job 30:29, Isa 13:21–22; 34:13; 43:20), and ostrich remains have been found in excavations on the border of the wilderness (Tell Jemmeh) and in pottery representation from the southern Negev site of Qitmit.

1:9 gate of my people. The text makes the transition here, as in v. 5, from Samaria to the southern kingdom of Judah, characterized by Jerusalem. In one sense, the “gate” can stand as the public place for the whole city. Assyrian kings often set up memorial stones or impaled kings in front of the gate in order to reach the whole population in the most public terms possible. And they summarized times of siege by noting control over the ability to enter or exit the gate. In this particular passage, two other suggestions have been made. First, there is a textual oddity with a new character “he” (NIV “it”), mentioned as arriving at the city gate. Some have argued that this is the Divine Warrior of the first few verses who has finally arrived at his destination of judgment. Others focus on the commercial function of the gate. The commercial injustice, which Micah will later discuss, has now even infected the very marketplaces of Jerusalem.

1:10–16 These verses are so difficult that scholars have resorted to a host of textual emendations to make sense out of the many oddities of the text. There is, however, no solid aspect on which to build. Even if the events that are described are contemporary with Micah, which most assume, it is clear that Micah lived through several attacks on Judah. Several very different periods have been proposed as the background for this section (see the chart “Proposed Dates for the Book of Micah”).

1:10 Gath. Likely Tell es-Safi, which had its power broken at the end of the ninth century BC (2Ki 12:17) and seems not to have survived the revolt of 712 BC.

1:11–12 Shaphir . . . Zaanan . . . Beth Ezel . . . Maroth. None of these sites can be positively identified and most are entirely unknown. Given the difficulty in identifying these sites, some have seen these either as distortions of names or as even created names intended as wordplays (see the article “Playing With Place-Names”). Shaphir (meaning “beautiful” or “pleasant”) will be naked, Zaanan (sounds like the Hebrew for “come out”) will not come out, Beth Ezel (perhaps has the unlikely meaning “standing place”) will not stand, and Maroth (sounds like the Hebrew for “bitter”) will wait for relief. These conjectured puns work in some cases (Shaphir and Zaanan) better than others (Beth Ezel and Maroth).

1:12 The translation of v. 12 is critical for understanding the surrounding text. Two distinct possibilities emerge that are related to the different possible historical contexts for all of vv. 10–16 (see the chart “Proposed Dates for the Book of Micah”). The first, and most common, is the translation that is suggested by the NIV. In this case, the idea of the verse is that Maroth, like the other cities on the list, is being attacked as part of a general attack on all of lowland Judah. From this translation, the attack of Sennacherib in 701 BC would be the most logical historical background. An alternate translation reads “Surely the inhabitants of Maroth hoped for good because evil has come down from the LORD to the gates of Jerusalem.” In other words, Maroth, part of Judah, is actually rooting against Jerusalem (Isa 8:6), perhaps rooting that an Israelite coalition would succeed and topple Jerusalem. Unfortunately for Maroth, not only would Jerusalem survive, but the Assyrians would soon be on the scene, threatening the Judahite lowland in concert with Jerusalem.

1:13 Lachish. Identified with Tell ed-Duweir, now called Tel Lachish, situated near the Wadi Ghafr—a main route from the coastal plain to the Hebron hills. Archaeological digs there have revealed (Stratum IV) a large fortified city in this period, which we may assume was constructed during the reign of Rehoboam (2Ch 11:5–12, 23). Among the finds were an impressive city-gate complex in the southwestern wall (the city’s only gate), and a palace-fort in the center of the city that was attached to a storehouse and a stable. It was to this city, then—the most important fortified city in Judah after Jerusalem—that Amaziah fled when Jerusalem was lost. harness fast horses to the chariot. Chariots were the shock troops of the ancient world, (see note on Isa 2:7), but their maintenance was a severe financial strain on the ancient kingdoms of the region. The Israelite Ahab stood out for his ability to muster 2,000 chariots to oppose the Assyrian Shalmaneser III at the battle of Qarqar in 853 BC. By Ahab’s time, chariots regularly appear in battles as part of Israelite and Judahite forces. In Micah’s discussion a century later, only a single chariot is mentioned. It is not clear whether this singular reference is merely a function of his poetic speech and the whole chariot force is meant to be mobilized or whether the chariot here, rather than being part of an organized resistance, is being harnessed to flee the oncoming invasion (Am 2:14–16). You are where the sin of Daughter Zion began. While this is part of a vague section (see note on vv. 10–16), it is most likely related to the sins that were introduced in v. 5, perhaps related to social injustice. If the “sin” referred to is specific to these verses, however, it is likely that it refers to the chariot forces (Isa 2:7; 22:18; 31:1) or the military fortifications of Lachish diverting attention away from the real source of strength for the kingdom of Judah.

1:14–15 Moresheth Gath . . . Akzib . . . Mareshah . . . Adullam. Moresheth Gath, the probable hometown of the author, is likely Tell Judeideh. Akzib is listed in this region in the district lists of Jos 15 and has been identified with Tell el-Beidah, which does have archaeological evidence of occupation in the late eighth century BC. Mareshah (Marisa) has been conclusively identified through inscriptions as being at Tell Sandanhanna, just northeast of Lachish. Excavations there have also uncovered evidence of occupation during the late eighth century BC. Adullam (Ge 38; Jos 15; 2Ch 11) has been identified with Khirbet esh-Sheikh Madkur, although it has not been excavated. All of these cities are identified, are in the same region of the low hill country (the Shephelah), and, to the extent that they have been excavated, have yielded evidence of occupation in the late eighth century BC. One question is whether the clear identification of these cities can help to explain the location or function of the first four cities (vv. 11–12). Some have opted for a contrast: these (vv. 14–15) are lowland cities, while the earlier cities (vv. 11–12) are from the highlands. Others have opted for continuity: all the cities should be located in the lowlands. kings of Israel . . . nobles of Israel. How these words are read depends, once again, on the historical background for this whole section (see the chart “Proposed Dates for the Book of Micah”). This section could be translated to imply that the “parting gifts” of v. 14 and the town of Akzib will fall to the kings of Israel. The “conqueror” of v. 15 and the “nobles of Israel” could actually be the Israelite king and his army. On the other hand, if a campaign after 722 BC is preferred, then the “kings of Israel” are kings of the southern kingdom (3:8–10; 5:1–3) and the “nobles of Israel” coming to Adullam may be a reference to inhabitants of Lachish headed to exile.

1:16 Shave your head. A sign of mourning (Isa 15:2) among the peoples of the region. Laws banning similar, but likely different, practices occur in the prohibition of Dt 14:1. bald as the vulture. Its scavenging role is nicely paralleled in the desolation and destruction that Micah envisions (Hos 8:1).

2:1–5 As with the story of Ahab and Naboth (1Ki 21), an inheritance in the land was a key part of not only agricultural life but also religious participation in Israel. Because of this, selling of land was akin to renouncing the promises and protection of Yahweh. In this case, land is seized or sold, and the tribal terms hint at the greater consequences. Micah describes the hierarchy of Israelite society, a nested series of father-son relationships: bet = house, v. 2; mishpahah > ah = family/clan (NIV “people”), v. 3; am = people, v. 4; qahal = assembly, v. 5. See note on 5:2. For this unjust act, jeopardizing the inheritance of a neighbor, the perpetrators are to be rejected entirely from the religious community (see Dt 23). Several attempts have been made to determine the exact nature of the offending land seizure—from an economic reorganization that disenfranchised smaller landholders to some sort of military conquest—but the text is not specific on this point.

2:5 divide the land by lot. When the father of a family died, the landholdings were divided among the sons by lot. The Laws of Eshnunna, the Code of Hammurapi and the Middle Assyrian Laws all make reference to this situation. Given this background, Micah would be suggesting that the one who has oppressively accumulated landholdings will have no one to pass them on to. Here, however, the focus is likely more specific to Israel’s covenant sense of land as divided among the tribes at the time of Joshua (Jos 18:8–10; Jdg 20–21). The oppressor and his family will not be counted among the “assembly of the LORD.” In this case, Micah views Joshua’s division as a narrative type of the future division of the eschatological promised land.

2:6–11 Micah, as many prophets before him, was confronted by rival prophets who supported the unjust actions of the people. In these verses, Micah defends his prophecy of judgment by noting that it is rooted in the unjust actions of the people (vv. 8–9). As in 1Ki 13 or Am 7, the false prophets described a future of blessing despite the injustice around them.

2:12–13 These verses provide a vivid picture of the king/shepherd leading the large and noisy flock of his people. The NIV translation obscures what is likely a geographic reference. The word translated as “pen” would be better translated as the proper name “Bozrah” (which, of course, means “pen”). Bozrah was the capital of ancient Edom. While many places across the valley in Transjordan were devoted to raising sheep and goats, Edom relied most exclusively on its pastoral economy. For that reason, the author here recalls the famed tumult of gathered flocks of sheep at the Edomite capital of Bozrah.

3:2–3 While human sacrifice, specifically child sacrifice, is attested not only in Israel and Judah but also in Ammon, Moab and Phoenicia (see notes on Lev 20:2; 1Ki 11:5; 2Ki 3:27; 16:3; Jer 7:31), Micah is not arguing that the rulers of Judah and Israel practiced cannibalism. Rather, he uses the distant reference to the horror of human sacrifice and combines it with the image of an everyday meal. The cooking pots of Israel and Judah were small enough that larger bones had to be broken up in order to make the common stew. The combination of human sacrifice with the mundane details of family dinner creates a particularly vivid image of the everyday cruelty of these leaders.

3:5 prophets who lead my people astray. Like Balaam in Numbers, the prophets of Micah’s day appear to have been offering their services to the highest bidder (v. 11). It seems to have been a typical practice, even with Israelite prophets, for the inquisitor to offer some present to the seer in return for their message (1Sa 9; 1Ki 14; 2Ki 5). At Mari, clothing and jewelry were demanded in exchange for the prophetic word, but a true prophet could still only relay the message given by the divine. Prophets went by the title apilum (“answerer”) at Mari, referring to their role in relaying the divine answer, and Micah turns this title against such prophets with the curse that they will not supply the “answer” that they advertised (v. 7). Micah uses the language of uncleanness (as in 2:10) and mourning with his metaphor “cover their faces” (v. 7; Lev 13:45) to describe their shame.

3:12 Jerusalem will become a heap of rubble. Micah foretells the ruin of a capital city, just as in ch. 1. Now it is Jerusalem and its temple that are to become a “heap of rubble” (see also 1:6) because they have built Zion with “bloodshed” (3:10), likely a metaphor for iniquity in general rather than a specific reference to human sacrifice. The image of de-urbanization and abandonment is created by Micah’s plow and forest language, but again, these are merely metaphors for destruction. Jeremiah quotes this prophecy and dates it to the reign of Hezekiah (Jer 26:18), but we do not know whether Hezekiah’s positive response to this prophecy should be related to the deliverance of Jerusalem in 701 BC, to the decision to stay away from Assyria altogether in 712 BC, or to some earlier conflict.

4:1–5 Like Isaiah, Micah presents both positive and negative pictures of the future, both occurring “in the last days” (4:1; Isa 2:2) or “in that day” (4:6; Isa 2:11). In this vision, the abandoned “mountain” (v. 1; see 3:12) is transformed into the center of the nations (v. 1). Zion produces justice (v. 2) instead of bloodshed (3:9–11). War (1:10–16; 2:8–9) is overcome by images of peace (v. 3). The lost inheritance (2:1–2) is restored (v. 4). But the placement of vv. 1–5 immediately after ch. 3 results in a mixing of mountain metaphors. The mountain of the Lord was both a physical place, the city of Jerusalem (3:12), and a religious symbol for the rule of any god. The Canaanite god El issued binding decrees from his mountain, and Baal used his mountain as a defensive stronghold. In ch. 4, Micah first talks of a mountain in this religious sense. Yahweh’s inviolable mountain, his heavenly abode, will issue decrees unopposed.

4:3 swords into plowshares . . . spears into pruning hooks. Micah’s vision rests on a visual rather than functional similarity between these items: a sword is short and straight, like a plow point; a spear is long with a blade at the end, as a type of pruning hook. Ancient plows were straight points of metal that attached to a wooden plow. The attachment of the metal and wood was specialized enough that there was no way to use a sword as a plow without considerable reworking by the smith. Similarly, the spear needed to be thoroughly reworked in order to be used as a pruning hook. This determined metallurgical effort provides the meaning for Micah’s use of the metaphor: farmers would only go to such trouble if they were sure of permanent safety.

4:4 own vine . . . own fig tree. The vine and fig were the two most important fruits of an ancient Israelite garden. The vine, because of the length of time necessary before good grapes were produced, was often a symbol of a sedentary life. The fig was known for its sweet produce (Jdg 9:11) and, like the vine, for its pleasant shade. Like the previous metaphor (see note on v. 3), the picture of the vine and fig tree also point to long-term investment and stability.

4:8 watchtower. Otherwise unknown as a construction in Jerusalem, but in this case it appears connected with the stronghold (lit. “Ophel”). The term “Ophel” was an architectural term denoting the acropolis on which the citadel of the city was placed. In Jerusalem, this highpoint was located at the north end of the city of David, just south of the temple mount. By emphasizing the highest, most fortified portion of the city, Micah is completing the reversal of the judgment described at the end of ch. 3.

4:10 Babylon. During the late eighth century BC, Babylon was not an independent power capable of threatening Israel or Judah. Rather, as in Hosea or Isa 7–11, Assyria was the dominant empire in the world. 2Ki 20:12–19, however, describes envoys from Babylon arriving in Jerusalem roughly at the end of the eighth century BC (likely in 713). These envoys may have been attempting to convince Hezekiah to join in the revolt against Assyria, which took place just a year later. While this does not explain how Micah’s readers would have understood the link between Babylon and exile in the eighth century BC, it at least allows that Babylon was part of the political landscape in Micah’s day.

4:12 threshing floor. See note on Ru 3:2.

5:1 strike . . . on the cheek. A common Biblical idea signifying humiliation and disrespect (1Ki 22:24; Job 16:10; Ps 3:7; La 3:30). This verse is a close parallel to vv. 9, 11, where Zion suffers before deliverance.

5:2 Bethlehem Ephrathah . . . small among the clans of Judah. This reference gives insight into the ongoing clan structure of Israel in the eighth century BC. Bethlehem is located five miles (8 kilometers) south of Jerusalem and had been home to Jesse and his sons, notably David. Ephrathah is a clan name claimed by some of the inhabitants of Bethlehem. The town and clan are not equivalent, although one was often used as shorthand for the other. Understanding the relationship between town and clan can be quite difficult because of shifting clan affiliations and clans shifting between localities. The Chronicler, e.g., links the Ephrathites and Tekoa, a town east of Bethlehem. And David is repeatedly referred to as an Ephrathite (1Sa 17:12; cf. Ru 1:2; 4:11), despite the fact that he presumably had no genetic relationship to the Ephrathite line (1Ch 2:19, 24; 4:5). One could join a clan/city and use its affiliation as a title without actually joining the clan itself (see Elkanah in 1Sa 1:1; 1Ch 6:23–27) or, as in David’s case, one could be amalgamated into both city and clan. This reference demonstrates that the tribal organization of Judah was not obliterated by the arrival of a king. The king was merely the father of tribes, just as tribal leaders were fathers to clans, just like clan/city elders were fathers of their extended households, and the patriarch was the father of his family—and this organization persisted throughout the Israelite and Judahite monarchies. It is clear that Micah is referring to a new Davidic king here, but he could have done this merely by referring to Bethlehem. The addition of the clan name (“Ephrathah”) intensifies the martial elements in this section. clans. Or “rulers” (see NIV text note); lit. “thousands.” In the military muster, all the warriors were organized by clan, with each clan constituting a unit known as a “thousand” (regardless of their actual number). In this passage even though the “thousand” of Bethlehem, specifically the clan muster of Ephrathah, was quite weak (see Jdg 6:15), it would still win the military victory.

5:4 shepherd his flock. While this phrase has clear overtones to the early life of David himself, it was also a stock phrase used by Egyptian and Mesopotamian kings. See note on Eze 34:2.

5:10–15 These verses list a series of things that the ancient Israelites would have relied upon instead of Yahweh.

5:10 horses . . . chariots. The premier offensive weaponry of an eighth-century BC army (see note on Isa 2:7).

5:12–13 witchcraft . . . spells . . . idols . . . sacred stones. Micah describes various cultic measures that might have provided some confidence for the people. Micah’s attempt here is not to delve into the details of these practices; rather, he mentions witchcraft and spells as a merism for all those things that might be used to tell the future. Similarly, idols and sacred stones stand for anything that might mark the presence of the divine. See note on Isa 2:6.

5:14 Asherah poles. See notes on Dt 7:5; 1Ki 14:23.

6:1–2 Micah depicts a courtroom, drawing on the covenant ratification language also visible in Dt 32:1. However, unlike courtroom indictments elsewhere (Isa 1; Hos 4), Micah’s proceedings are unconventional. After declaring that Yahweh will indict Israel, Micah presents a justification of Yahweh rather than a critique of Israel. It is possible to link the resumptive “Listen” (lit. “Hear”) of v. 9 with the “Hear” of v. 2, so that a more typical indictment follows in vv. 9–16. While it might be tempting to link Micah with everyday court or covenant proceedings based upon the language of the first verse, the succeeding verses follow no known pattern.

6:3 what have I done to you? This very expression, far from being a statement for the prosecution, is found as a pleading defense in the Amarna letters, which describe the weak defense of a petty prince before the mighty Egyptian pharaoh. Here, it is as if Yahweh is in the docket facing the accusations of the people. The mention of Miriam and Aaron (v. 4) is notable for its rarity outside the Pentateuch, and the reference to Shittim and Gilgal (v. 5) is simply a reference to the early events of the conquest narrative (Jos 2:1; 4:19), referring to staging areas on either side of the Jordan.

6:5 Balaam. See Nu 22–24; see also the article “Balaam.”

6:6–7 Micah lists a series of possible sacrifices to bring to God. Some have argued that this list is using extreme and exaggerated numbers. The reference to “thousands” and “ten thousand,” e.g., is a common idiom for numbers beyond counting (1Sa 18:7). However, the sacrifices listed here were all too real to the audience, even in their quantity. The year-old animal was the common requirement for a sacrificial animal in texts of Leviticus and Numbers, representing the ideal. Solomon sacrificed flocks without number as part of the dedication of the temple recorded in 1Ki 8. Oil was both a sacrifice in itself (Ge 28:18) and a part of a number of priestly ceremonies recorded in Exodus and Leviticus. Archaeological discoveries at sacred precincts from the Bronze through Iron Ages have found sacred oil to be one of the most significant offerings. The most extreme sacrifice, however, was the offering of a child to appease the gods or to fulfill a vow. Again, this was not mere hyperbole, as both Mesha in the ninth century BC and Ahaz in Micah’s own day had done this very thing—likely when both were faced with a difficult military situation.

6:8 The expectations listed here in a general sense summarize what the law called Israel to do, yet these expectations do not differ from what would have been expected of people throughout the ancient world if they desired to ensure that society operated smoothly. Consequently we can see that Micah is calling Israel to a minimal standard of behavior that is recognized as what any sensible people should do. This is the starting point for changing their direction, not a comprehensive statement of all expectations (for a more challenging list, see Dt 10:12–22).

6:10 ephah. A dry measure equal to about 3/5 bushel (22 liters). Just as Amos criticizes dishonest merchants for “skimping on the measure” (Am 8:5), Micah also cautions them against cheating their customers with a false (“short”) measure of grain. One of the offenses listed in the Shurpu incantation series from Mesopotamia was buying by a large measure and selling by a small one.

6:11 dishonest scales. Just as in ch. 2, Micah describes dishonest commerce. In the eighth and seventh centuries BC, there is a marked increase in the number of inscribed weights found in the archaeological record as determining exact weights and measures, for commerce became increasingly important. In addition, archaeological strata from the eighth and seventh centuries BC show a marked increase in the amount of Hacksilber (a German term that refers to small fragments of silver jewelry or ingots cut or fused to a standard weight). While payment using silver by weight was not new, its use also expanded in the eighth and seventh centuries BC. The growth of impersonal exchange networks over large distances, exemplified in the Phoenician expansion, greatly increased the need for weights and measures that could be counted on by all. It should come as no surprise that the legal literature of the ancient Near East is quite concerned with upholding just weights and measurements. The “Instruction of Amenemope,” e.g., includes two chapters entirely devoted to the upholding of accurate measurements. Several Mesopotamian texts are similarly clear on this point.

6:13–16 As a judgment for their violations of the covenant, God resolves to strike the people with a series of curses often called “futility curses” because inverse cause and effect characterizes them (Hos 4:10; Zep 1:13). This is a common curse form found throughout the length and breadth of ancient Near Eastern texts, from myths to land grants to vassal treaties.

6:16 statutes of Omri. The meaning of this is not clear from other Biblical texts since Omri is passed over with almost no comment by the author of Kings. This lack of comment in Kings is in stark contrast to the portrayal of Omri in ninth-century BC inscriptions. In the Mesha Stele, Omri’s rule over Moab is unchallenged by even the rebellious Moabite king, and in the Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III, Omri’s name is as famous in the northern kingdom of Israel as David’s was famous in the southern kingdom of Judah. Micah’s reference to Omri is juxtaposed with a reference to the works of the house of Ahab. While Ahab receives much more scrutiny in Kings, the author of Kings accuses him of so many things that it is difficult to pick out one thing in particular. Several suggestions have been made, including idolatry and foreign alliances.

7:1 Micah describes a time near the end of October, at the end of the dry season. During September and early October, the summer fruits—grapes, figs, pomegranates, and finally olives—were harvested. It was a time of work but also one of celebration for the productive harvest (Dt 16:13–15). But Micah describes the time after the celebration has finished and before the appearance of the “autumn rains” (Joel 2:23), which were necessary for the sowing of new cereals. In this interlude, nothing is growing, nothing is ripening and one simply hopes through the dryness for rain.

7:3 the ruler demands gifts, the judge accepts bribes. It was the height of injustice when those whose sole task was to be just arbiters were now subject to bribes. The administration of justice was the very definition of the Israelite judge and king (see notes on Ps 72; Isa 1:17), but this idea was hardly unique to the Israelites. The Egyptian tale of the “Eloquent Peasant” expects the Egyptian magistrate to uphold justice and the Egyptian lord to fight corruption as a fundamental moral responsibility.

7:6 Even the basic family structure falls apart as the day of punishment arrives. The groups Micah pairs here describe the spheres of authority within the Israelite family. The father had authority over his sons and the men of his household; the mother had authority over her unmarried daughters and married daughters-in-law. In this sphere the authority of the father or mother was virtually unlimited, and to oppose such authority was a serious offense. This image likely combines rebellion as a tragic corollary of the day of punishment and rebellion as the natural reaction to injustice of the parents by children waiting for the Lord (Mt 10; Lk 12).

7:10 mire in the streets. In the ancient town or city, the dirt streets and alleys were the dumping ground for household refuse, often including human refuse. This same “mire” could be found when the abandoned cistern was used as a garbage dump (Ps 40:2; Jer 38:7). The resulting concoction was not particularly hygienic, but it was a vivid metaphor for the destination of Micah’s mocker.

7:11 day for building your walls. This refers not to the fortification of a city but to the reapportioning of the inheritance of the people. The “walls” in this case are the small boundary walls, often at the edges of fields or vineyards, that marked out one plot from another (Nu 22:24; Ps 80:12; Isa 5:5; Hos 2:6).

7:14 Bashan and Gilead. Located in the northern Transjordan, they had enough rainfall that plentiful harvests were the norm. Their mere mention brought to mind abundance and fertility in the land since these areas only failed to produce if the famine was complete (Isa 33:9). Elijah was one who took refuge in this area when famine covered the land (1Ki 17), but Micah looks further back and recalls the reaction of Reuben, Gad and Manasseh to this ideal pastureland in Nu 32.

7:17 lick dust like a snake. Just as the serpent was cursed in the Garden of Eden to eat dust (see Ge 3:14 and note), so also the enemy nations will also be humbled (see Ps 72:9). Since foreign nations are often depicted as serpents (Isa 14:29; Jer 8:17), this may be a further condemnation of the use of snakes as fertility symbols and deities in Mesopotamian and Egyptian religious art. In the Amarna letters, eating dirt or dust is a metaphor for suffering defeat.

7:19 tread our sins underfoot. Yahweh’s forgiveness of Israel allows a conquest of sin in much the same way that a monarch triumphs over his enemy, treading the enemy underfoot (Ps 60:12) or placing the enemy’s neck under the monarch’s foot (Jos 10:24). Similar images of the activities of divine warrior gods are found in Anat slaughtering her enemies in the Ugaritic Baal Cycle and the military exploits of the Babylonian god Marduk and the Hittite god Teshub.