Micheas

MICHEAS (Hebrew Mikhah). - Prophet of Judah, a native of Moresheth, in the Shephelah (Mic. 1:14), south of Beit Guvrin. A contemporary of Isaiah, he carried on his activity under the kings (ibid. 1:1) Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah (ca. 740-700 B.C.). The book gives only the essential themes of his oracles; one cannot therefore, on the basis of questionable internal criteria, reduce M.'s activity to the reign of Hezekiah alone. M. contributed greatly to the reform of this pious King (2 Kings 18:3-7; cf. Jer. 26:18 ff.); the fall of Samaria (722), which he foretold, struck hard those of Judah, who had to fear the same fate, threatened them equally by M. Thus Hezekiah was able to carry out his reform without serious difficulties (2 Chron. 30:1-12). It had, however, limited effects and duration.

There is agreement in dating the oracles of the first three chapters a little before 722; and a tendency to hold those of chaps. 4-5 as almost contemporary with the reform; while the last ones of chaps. 6-7 would be earlier than the first (Van Hoonacker, A. Clamer, J. Chaine, etc.) or later than the second. It is difficult to determine precisely.

The popular religion (religious syncretism, idolatry and moral depravity), which had reached its perverse perfection in the Northern Kingdom in the time of Hosea, was already developed in Judah. The covenant of Sinai was by then understood on the same footing as the external cultural relations that bound the other peoples to their divinities; a reciprocal obligation: sacrifices on one side, an automatic commitment of salvation and protection on the other; the presence of the Temple and the ritual immolation of the victims, performed in it, sufficed to keep every threat far from Judah (Mic. 2:7; 3:11). M., like the other prophets, fought this deviation.

The book of M. was composed by the prophet himself or by one of his disciples (cf. Jer. 26:18 ff. = Mic. 3:11 ff.). It is divided into three parts. The first contains the announcement of the imminent destruction of Samaria (Mic. 1:2-9a): a warning for that of Judah (ibid. 1:5, 9b-16), to which M. henceforth reserves the term Israel, Jacob, as the sole heir of the covenant (ibid. 1:14 ff.; 3:1, 8b, 9a in close parallelism with Zion, Jerusalem, v. 10). The sins of Judah, rapacity and violence (ibid. 2:1-6), cannot remain unpunished, despite the assurances of the false prophets (ibid. 2:7-11). A remnant, however, will be saved and will be led back to its homeland by Yahweh (ibid. 2:11 ff.). M. denounces and vehemently attacks those responsible for the moral depravity of Judah: leaders and magistrates (ibid. 3:1-4), false prophets (ibid. 3:5 ff.). Zion will become a heap of ruins (ibid. 3:8-12).

In the second part the perspective is grand and splendid: from Jerusalem the covenant extends to all the nations (ibid. 4:1-5 = Isa. 2:2-4); it is the triumph of Yahweh, brought about against the coalition of the peoples (Mic. 4:6-14 [Vulg. 4:6-5:1]), through the work of the Messiah, of Davidic stock, who will be born in Bethlehem (ibid. 5:3-4). Through him, Judah is freed from the foreign yoke (ibid. 5:5 ff.) and dominates like the lion over the beasts of the forest (ibid. 5:7 ff.; cf. Gen. 49:9). Messianic characteristics: sovereign peace and an immaculate worship (Mic. 5:10-14).

In the third part there is a return to the depravity of Judah. History of the covenant of Sinai: benefits on the part of Yahweh, faithful to his promises, and wickedness of the chosen people (ibid. 6:1-5). The quantity of victims (with the insane practice of human sacrifices taken from the Canaanites: cf. F. Spadafora, Ezechiele, Turin 1948, pp. 164 ff.) is abhorred by God; let there be a return to the practice of justice and to obedience to the precepts of the covenant (Mic. 6:6 ff.). Instead fraud, violence and lies reign (ibid. 6:9-12); the punishment will therefore fall inexorably (ibid. 6:13-16). In view of it, the nation laments the corruption of its children (ibid. 7:1-6); it expresses in a song, an echo of the poetry of the Psalms, its firm hope in the mercy and goodness of Yahweh toward his people; the nations will acknowledge the power of the true God (ibid. 7:7-20).

The text (esp. 1:10-14) is the most corrupt among the prophetic books, after that of Hosea; and the versions are of little help. Criticism acknowledges the authenticity of the first part; it has alternatives for the third; it raged (especially the Wellhausenian school) against the second. Besides the false postulates about the essence of the covenant of Sinai, and about the study of Israelite religion, these critics fall into an error of perspective: they regard the prophetic book as if it were a doctrinal treatise. And yet there are only fragments of a varied and manifold preaching. M.'s style is vivid and dramatic. So great was the impression he produced on his contemporaries that even a century later the elders of Jerusalem remember him as a preeminent example of holy boldness (Jer. 26:17-19).

Francesco Spadafora

ARCHAEOLOGY

The high priests and the scribes, in response to the Magi's question as to where the newborn king of the Jews was, answered: in Bethlehem (in the [tribe] of Judah, because thus it is written by the prophet: "and you, Bethlehem, land of Judah, are not the least among the princes of Judah, for from you shall come forth one who is to rule my people Israel" (Mic. 5:2; Mt. 2:2 ff.). This prophecy was depicted in a fresco in the cemetery of Domitilla from the end of the 4th century, in a cubiculum designated by Bosio as no. IV. M., bearded, in tunic and pallium, points with his right hand to the city of Bethlehem (two towered buildings); before it is the Madonna with the Child.

Enrico Josi