Micah 02

Micah  Chapter 2:1 - 3:4

      Micah gets into some of the specifics of the actions of the people. Like Amos, Micah had a special concern for social justice. Scholar Simundson suggests we look at how Micah tends to match crimes and punishment – the condition inflicted by evildoers will rebound upon themselves.
     Vs 1 “Alas” – commonly used in mourning laments and also in prophetic literature.
     Graphic image of those who plan their greed in bed, then rise to exercise unjust power. What they are doing is expressed in the second verse.
     vs. 2 Israel was originally set up to keep land holdings small and within families. If money was needed, family was to redeem the land and all land was supposed to be returned at the time of Jubilee to original family. But this was a law that was mostly disregarded. The country was turning into a place of large estates owned by a few, with landless and powerless population.
     (parallel concern in Isaiah 5:8 concerning those who “join house to house, who add field to field”
     One way in which land was taken is the story of Ahab, Jezebel and Naboth. I Kings 21.
     Regarding land and ownership: See also Joshua 14-21.
     God was seen as the true owner of the land, but it was apportioned as a sacred trust among tribes and families, who were to hand it down to each generation. The ideal for Israel was a nation of free landholders—not sharecroppers or hired workers on great estates.
     The concept of Stewardship is here very important. The steward cares for the King/Lord/owner’s land and belongings.

                JRR Tolkien (a Christian who expressed experiences relating to faith in his writings) used the concept of stewardship in the Steward of Gondor. Being the Steward of Gondor was a high and honorable position. But the story’s character, Boromir, had asked his father who was then steward how long it took for a steward to become a king, when the king was absent. His father told him that with lesser kingdoms, perhaps a few generations. But with the great kingdom of Gondor, there would never come a time when the steward could take that place.

     The Jubilee law, etc. were all intended to protect this stewardship, to protect individual family “ownership,” thereby also protecting the health and prosperity of all, rather than the few and the ruthless. This form of economic security fostered things such as such as justice, family ties, etc.

     In considering the words of Micah concerning the actions of the powerful in society, especially the way land and security was being taken from people, the class commented on parallels in the modern age.

     Vs 3 – 5 are a pronouncement of judgement.  As the evil-doers devised plans for their greed, God is devising plans for them. The land they grabbed will be parceled out to others. They will lose their place in the assembly, essentially being cut off from economic and religious life.
     Regarding suffering: some people believe that everything that happens is according to God’s will. Micah here makes it plain that the things happening in Israel are not according to God’s will. God will punish these people who are acting in this way. Here in vs 5 may be an awareness by Micah that some of the innocent may suffer along with the guilty. These kinds of issues have always been difficult for people of faith to address. I..e – why do the innocent suffer? (We ask God that, but considering the abilities God has given us, the ones we should be asking might be ourselves).
     Although we do not have the same ideas about land, what kinds of injustice might Micah pinpoint today?
     Micah 2:6 (gives some of the response of the people – remember that Micah and his fellow prophets of the 8th century b.c. were working against the tide of popular opinion.)  Micah reports their reaction to his preaching.
     Vs 7 - House of Jacob refers to the whole Hebrew people. Micah asks these questions. (Are these his doings? – one scholar interprets the “doings” as the injustices, etc., taking place. The implication is then that just because God has in freedom allowed these conditions to continue is not an indication that God approves of them.
     Do not my words do good... An awareness that not all who hear Micah’s words are doing evil. These words will do them no harm, only those who are doing wrong.

                                    John Godfrey Saxe tells a story that is found in many forms in various The wise elephant tried to help the other animals and saw many needs for reform. He humbly called them together and talked about problems such as laziness, cruelty, selfishness, envy and dissension. The gentle dove, the faithful dog, the obedient camel and the hard-working ant and others listened carefully and thought about how they could improve themselves. But others were quite offended. The cruel tiger and the violent wolf grew angry. The poisonous serpent hissed and the lazy grasshopper departed with indignation. In the end the elephant said, “My words come to all, but those who feel angry by what I have said may be feeling the sting of their own guilt.”

      Vs 8 –9  After answering those who may are upset with his discourse, Micah returns to his theme.  The widow and the fatherless were special concerns of the prophets, for they were among the most helpless and powerless of society. Micah may have been referring to them, or to women and children generally.  Children – the great asset of the future. But a whole generation of children was being pushed into misery and deprivation. A lost generation – what effect does it have upon a nation?
     Vs 10 - Scholars see this as another reference to the coming punishment, their removal from the land. (The word for “rest) menhuha) has a specific use in conjunction with the promised land. It takes the form of meaning “inheritance.
     Vs 11 - Some scholars see this as a fragment of Micah’s words that weren’t originally associated with the earlier statements. Yet it does fit with the earlier quotation from his detractors who didn’t want him to preach the kind of things he was saying. There were “false” prophets at the time who only said the things that made people feel happy and self-satisfied with the way things were going.
     Vs 12 –13.  Shifts to a word of hope. As a consequence Some scholars think these might not be Micah’s words.
      Scholarship on Micah has gone through cycles. One way has been to separate out all the parts that are believed to be his original words, another has been to see the book as a whole – partly the work of Micah, partly the work of other prophets, all put together by an inspired editor of a later period who didn’t speak from the time of Micah, but from the overall picture of both judgement and promise.

                             These verses are ambiguous and the class, in discussion, considered that it was possible they could be by Micah and addressing those, for example, who were not offended by Micah’s prophesy. Differing translations sometimes gave alternate impressions. Thus another suggestion was made that especially the 12th verse might be intended as more words of judgement. That is, was it possible that “Micah” was talking about gathering the wicked? Considering the double meanings that ancient writers often enjoyed using, he could have intended both.

                                 Class discussion also mentioned the amazing power of the scriptures. Despite the challenges of preserving manuscripts, wars, invasions, crumbling scrolls, changes in culture, language, and more...the Bible still speaks to the modern age with life-changing power.

A brief revew was made of the first portion of chapter 3, verses 1-4. These verses employ graphic and unpleasant images that are metaphors for what Micah sees the powerful doing to the powerless people around them.

Micah 01

     On Tuesday evenings at the church, we have begun a 6-week study on a lesser known prophet by the name of Micah.  The following material is provided for users of the Internet Study - Also for members of the Tuesday class who would like to catch up on some of the material from a session they missed or to re-review information. 
     This includes information presented and a few comments from some discussion that took place.
     Micah was a prophet of the 8th century b.c. He was a contemporary with Isaiah, Hosea and possibly Amos. One major difference between Isaiah and Micah is the fact that Isaiah was from Jerusalem a “city boy” whereas Micah was from a small community in the country.

Members of the class commented on the fact that city size at that time were not the same as what we might consider cities today.

      Micah and the other Minor Prophets have sometimes been treated as less important than prophets such as Isaiah and Jeremiah. They are called minor, however, primarily because their written works are very short.
     In the past, scholars sometimes admit that Micah was regarded as less important. Some of the reasons include the lack of information about the prophet himself and an underestimation of his literary abilities. Though no more is really known about the man, his literary ability and the importance of his prophetic work has gained more attention.
      Micah’s words were spoken orally and later written down. He spoke his prophecy in poetic form. Hebrew poetry had different forms than much poetry of today. Rhyme and rythm would be difficult to translate in any case. The forms of poetry found in Micah are:

Synonymous parallelism (repitition of a thought, though with variations in vacabulary, grammar and syntax)

Traditional word pairs

metaphors

similes

     Some points of the discussion about the poetry at the Bible Study session on Tuesday, October 19:  Poetry would be a very expressive way to communicate. In an oral form, poetry would also be easier to remember. Comments were made concerning Micah’s obvious intelligence, and his awareness of history and religious traditions of his people. Questions were raised over how educated he might be, but with the lack of biographical material, it is hard to know how formal his education might have been.

1:1 This first “verse” would have been added by a later editor, and it's the only one not in poetic form. It gives what little information we have about the prophet himself. (biographical data was given by/about prophets when it seemed important – one thing a prophet sometimes shared was an account of his call to become a prophet – Isaiah 6; Jeremiah 1; The call was part of the prophet’s “credentials.”


Moresheth – probably Moresheth-Gath near the old Philistine of Gath – It has been identified with Tell el-Menshiyeh. Micah lived, therefore, in a small village of the low foothills of SW Palesine halfway between Jerusalem and Gaza, near the Judean stronghold of Lachish and close to the Philistine cities.


verse 2 – 3: begins in the manner of an accuser in the law court, then quickly shifts to a vision of judgement


God’s ‘dwelling place’ seen as a place high above the earth


verse 3-4:  Fearful picture of God as a gigantic figure walking upon the earth, the mountains dissolving beneath God’s feet.


WHY WAS THIS GOING TO HAPPEN?  Verse 4-5


     The Eighth century (B.C.) prophets looked at the covenant and the history of the people and presumed from this that since Israel/Judah clearly had failed to keep their end of the covenant, then God would destroy them. The contemporaries of the prophets found this surprising. It wasn’t as obvious to them that the covenant wasn’t being fulfilled, partly because they interpreted religious obligations much more loosely. They saw a “divinely appointed king” and the presence of God in the sanctuary (the holy of holies). These things were to them a guarantee of God’s favor. The prosperity early in the century probably helped cement this idea.

Members of the class discussed how difficult it must have been for these prophets to go against the tide of popular opinion.  Prophets didn't do their job joyfully, they didn't enjoy speaking such things to the people.  They did it out of love and because they felt called to do so. 

     In the case of the southern Kingdom, Micah's words were heeded.  Reforms were made and there was a period of better times.  Jeremiah 26:16-19 alludes to this, as does I Kings 18:1-7a. The I Kings passage doesn't refer to Micah, but does describe the reforms that king Hezekiah made. 

      The prophets, such as Amos, Micah and Hosea made predictions about what was coming. Their predictions were fulfilled as to the Northern Kingdom (and in the prophets’ lifetime and/or shortly enough afterwards that their predictions were fresh in the minds of people.) Their words were thus treated with respect and in time were written down.


Vs 5-6 = crime of Jacob (Israel, the northern kingdom) is Samaria


Crime of Judah (the southern kingdom) is Jerusalem – though not specified, the “crime” is likely the kind of worship that goes on in them – for that is the image that Micah moves to next.

vs 6 - begins comments about judgement. 

vs 7 – “carved figures”... refers to idols. In both kingdoms, a considerable amount of worship had been done outside the covenant. (Some scholars have speculated that there was a goddess figure that even stood in the temple during part of its history). The image of harlotry is used here. This was an image used by a number of prophets, picturing Israel in the role of infidelity. Thereby the idols were a result of “harlotry.” When defeated, the idols of one nation normally became spoils to the enemy, offered in their temples. Thus Israel and Judah’s idols came through harlotry and would become a harlot’s fee again.


Vs 8 – The actions of Isaiah as reported in Isaiah 20, indicate that this might not have been speaking only in metaphor. (Isaiah 20:2... at that time the LORD had spoken to Isaiah son of Amoz, saying, “Go and loose the sackcloth from your loins, and take your sandals off your feet,” and he had done so, walking naked and barefoot. Then the LORD said, “Just as my servant Isaiah ahs walked naked and barefoot for three years as a sign and a portent against Egypt and Ethiopia...”


Verses 10-16 - a Lament, with word-plays, puns and other double-meanings, though the specifics are not always clear.  example Beth-le-aph'rah means house of dust.  In essence, Micah was saying, 'in the hosue of dust, roll in the dust.'

Questions to consider in the weeks ahead as we look at Micah:

(These were indentified by Daniel Simundson in his commentary on Micah in the new Interpreter’s Bible)

Ways in which God relates to humanity

The anger of God

What does God expect from us?

Interpretation of disaster and suffering as judgement

Where do prophets and others receive their authority?

The pain of a prophet’s job

How do you articulate a message of hope in times of despair?

Micah – prophecy – Jesus

When is the appropriate time to speak of hope?

Ruth, Naomi, Boaz

Ruth 4:13-17



     The book of Ruth tells a story of events after the Israelites possessed the land of Canaan, but before the monarchy. Governmental “structure” was limited. It was in the days of the judges, who were men and women who led the people, even in some military actions.
      A famine arises in the land. Elimelech and his wife Naomi have been living in the Bethlehem vicinity, but they decide it is better to move to the land of the Moabites. They pack up their belongings and their two sons and leave their home. After a time in Moab, Elimelech dies. Mahlon and Chilion get married. Naomi’s daughters-in-law are Moabite. Ruth and Orpah are good and kind to their husbands and have a good relationship with their mother-in-law.
     About ten years after the move to Moab, Mahlon and Chilion both die. Naomi is left alone in a foreign land, with no family, no means of support. Ruth and Orpah stay by her side and for a short time the three women struggle to survive.
      Naomi decides to return to her home country around Bethlehem.
      Ruth and Orpah set out on the journey with her. But Naomi knows how hard it would be for her daughters-in-law. They are Moabites. It’s bad enough to be a foreigner, but amongst her people in Bethlehem, Moabites have questionable reputations. Besides, as women alone they would be incredibly vulnerable. She doesn’t want to expose them to the dangers. There would be no future in Bethlehem for them and she tells them so. If she’d had other sons, they would have married Ruth and Orpah, but there is no hope, no possibility of hope.

     Leverite Law: This was a law that was intended to keep a man’s name “alive.” If a man died without children, his brother was to marry the widow. Lacking a brother, it was to be the closest male relative. The first child of the union was considered to be the child of the deceased. Another benefit of the law to provide for the widow and fulfill her right to have children. Naomi is alluding to this when she is trying to convince Orpah and Ruth not to come to Bethlehem with her. She asks that even if she was to marry that night and if there was hope for her (to have children), would they want wait for those sons to be grown? There were similar laws/customs for the land, for if land was to be sold, then the closest relative was to be given the first opportunity to purchase it. All of this came into play later in the book of Ruth as well.

     Naomi is lost in despair and says that the hand of the Lord has turned against her.
     In a world in which there was no concept of free will, it was believed that everything that happened was what God had directed. Famine had driven them out of Canaan, her husband died, her sons died and now there was nothing left for Naomi except to return home to exist for a time before dying.
     When she does arrive home and is greeted by old friends she tells them not even to call her by name. For Naomi means “pleasant” and Naomi’s life was bitter, so she tells them to call her Mara, which means bitter. Why? Because, she says, “the Almighty has dealt bitterly with me.”
     She goes on to say, “I went away full, but the LORD has brought me back empty; why call me Naomi when the LORD has dealt harshly with me, and the Almighty has brought calamity upon me?”
     But Naomi’s life has taken a turn for the better, though she doesn’t yet recognize it. Though Orpha was convinced by Naomi’s logic to return to her home and take up her life there, Ruth has stubbornly refused to leave Naomi. She travels to a foreign land with her mother-in-law, despite the uncertainties of the situation. She promises that Naomi’s land and people will be her land and people. Naomi’s God will be her God.
     To sustain them, Ruth goes into the fields to glean. She suggests to Naomi that she may find favor in someone’s sight.
     The owner of the fields is Boaz. Boaz sees Ruth and is impressed by her hard work and concern for her mother-in-law. He makes sure she is protected, receives food to eat and is able to glean a generous amount.
     A non-biblical tradition about Ruth is that she sought to follow the laws of God very carefully. In gleaning, the law assigns to the poor two ears of grain let fall by accident, but does not refer to quantities more than this. The tradition is that Ruth was trying so hard to follow the new religious laws that she refused to pick up anything more than two. If the reapers dropped more than that, she left it alone. The story adds that Boaz was impressed by her piety. What the scriptures tell us is that Boaz was impressed by how hard she works on behalf of her mother-in-law. He, also knowing that a foreign woman alone could be vulnerable, tells her to stay in his fields where he has ordered the young men to leave her alone. She is also to have access to the water drawn for the workers. At meal time he gave her food and also told the reapers to leave extra for her. Whether the tradition has any historical fact is, of course, unknown. But the words of Boaz to Ruth seem to indicate he was aware of her decision to follow the ways of Yahweh.
      Naomi is surprised by how much Ruth has brought home. When Ruth explains what had happened, we see the first tiny break in her bitterness. And Naomi exclaims, “Blessed be he by the LORD, whose kindness has not forsaken the living or the dead.”
     Boaz is a relative of Elimelech, although not the closest. Naomi guides Ruth to approach Boaz, asking for a relative’s protection. Boaz could refuse to help at all. Instead he contacts the nearest relative who has the right/responsibility to redeem some land belonging to Naomi’s family. But he tells the relative that Ruth is part of the deal. The story does not say so, but the impression is clear that Boaz intended all along to marry Ruth, although he wanted the legal part to be dealt with first.
      A child is born to Ruth and Boaz, a child to be cherished by Naomi, who became his nurse. Obed was his name. He became the father of Jesse, who was the father of David, who became King in Israel. Ruth is therefore listed in the genealogy of Jesus.
       The name of Ruth is familiar to many people. Her words have been quoted at wedding ceremonies, although she spoke them first to a mother-in-law.

Ruth is the well-known name in the story. But what qualities do you think Naomi had to inspire Ruth’s loyalty?  How much about God do you think Ruth learned from her mother-in-law?  What about the character virtues that Boaz displays?

Joshua 2:8 14 - Rahab

      This week’s study is on Rahab. Like many people in the Bible, she is not a prominent figure, though better known than some. She is also an example of the fact that just because someone is mentioned in the Bible, that doesn’t mean she is someone whose entire life is an example we would want to emulate. Rahab was a prostitute. The book of Joshua is quite specific on the subject. She may have also been the ancient equivalent of a “madam.”  The Jewish historian, Josephus, however, said she was simply an innkeeper.
     Rahab was not an Israelite. But she is considered a heroine in the Israelite history. She played an important part in the Israelite conquest of Jericho. Though she was not born an Israelite, she married into that nation.
     According to Rabbinic tradition, Rahab married Joshua and was the ancestress of at least eight prophets, including Jeremiah. Also according to Rabbinic tradition, Rahab was one of the four most beautiful women in the world.
     Rahab was the mother of Boaz who was Ruth's (of the book of Ruth) second husband.
     It was in the midst of the Israelite invasion of Canaan. Joshua was heading up the Israelite forces and he sent spies into Jericho. Given Rahab’s reputation for beauty and her profession, it is probably not surprising that the spies went to her house. Her establishment was of the kind that sees many people come and go. It would been a place where they could pick up information, from men who weren't guarding their tongues as carefully as they normally might. Strangers to the community might also blend in more easily there.
      Canaan was at that time, not one nation under one king, but, rather, a collection of small city states. Jericho was one of these. The king of Jericho soon heard about two individuals who seemed suspicious. He sent word to Rahab telling her to keep them occupied until he could do something about it.
      Instead, Rahab hid the two men up on the roof underneath the sheaves of flax that were there drying. She told the king's men the strangers had already left and they’d better hurry if they wanted to catch them.
      Then she went up to talk with the two men. She said that everyone was afraid of them and she was certain that Jericho would be theirs. She’d also heard about their God who seemed to her to be Lord of heaven and earth. She asked whether, if she helped them get away, if they would spare her family when they took Jericho.
      The spies agreed, giving her a scarlet cord to hang outside her house so that the Israelite soldiers would know which house to leave alone. They did point out that they couldn’t be responsible for anyone outside her home.
      Rahab lived in a house that was built on top of the two city walls, so she smuggled the spies out of the city by lowering them out on ropes.
      Every man, woman, and child inside the city was killed, aside from those in the house of Rahab. It is clear then that Rahab saved her family from certain death. Rabbinnic tradition says that she lived a pious life from that time forward.
     

What values did Rahab have regarding family, country, neighbors, life style, faith?


How would her neighbors and fellow citizens of Jericho have described her values?


How would the Israelites have regarded Rahab’s values?