An Atheist Explores the Bible Part 180: A Kinder, Gentler Prophet (Sort of). Plus: Cannibal Princes (Micah 1-7)

Micah 1-7
A Kinder, Gentler Prophet (Sort of). Plus: Cannibal Princes.

Welcome to another instalment of An Atheist Explores Sacred Texts (Bible version).

In this series I work my way chapter-by-chapter through the King James Bible, commenting on it from the point of view of the text as literature and mythology.

For more detail, see the introductory post http://bit.ly/2F8f9JT

For the online KJV I use, see here http://bit.ly/2m0zVUP

And now:

Micah 1

“The word of the LORD that came to Micah the Morasthite in the days of Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah, which he saw concerning Samaria and Jerusalem.”

Once again we have more prophesying but, as this section of the bible is known as the “lesser prophets” it’s not really surprising.

Micah is set fairly early in the timeline, falling somewhere in the middle between the time that Israel and Judah split and the time of the Babylonian exile, if I recall my Kings and Chronicles correctly (which I probably don’t, the timeline is quite confusing). He preaches against Samaria, and the theme seems to be against idolatry, “graven images” that will be “beaten to pieces” and have been bought with “the hire of a harlot” (a pimp’s bling, in other words).

For all that the theme is a familiar one, of God punishing the wicked, I like Micah’s style (or rather, the translator’s efforts). So far, at least, he hasn’t let the metaphors and imagery overbear the message and it’s clear what he’s saying without losing the thunder of the poetry. There’s a bit of a return to Reverend Lovejoy territory, though, in that Micah makes reference to names that must be places in Samaria, but mean little to the casual reader. “The inhabitant of Zaanan came not forth in the mourning of Bethezel” for example. Did he not? This would make a great quote with which to confound and derail a bible-based argument. “Aha,” you say,” but remember what it says in Micah: The inhabitant of Zaanan came not forth in mourning of Bethezel!”

Micah 2

“Woe to them that devise iniquity, and work evil upon their beds! when the morning is light, they practise it, because it is in the power of their hand.”

Hm, well, I take back some of what I said; in this chapter Micah and/or the KJV translator get a bit carried away with the poetry and obscure their meaning. But I think, picking through the language, that here Micah is haranguing the sinful (that much is obvious) but also singling out false prophets, who prophesy of “wine and strong drink” for punishment. The sinful will be punished – “broken up” and given no rest, but Micah also tells of time when God will “gather the remnant of Israel” again.

Micah 3

“Who also eat the flesh of my people, and flay their skin from off them; and they break their bones, and chop them in pieces, as for the pot, and as flesh within the caldron.”

I’m hoping Micah is talking metaphorically here, referring to the behaviour of the princes of Israel. I mean, a bad ruler will cause harm to his people by taking them into unnecessary wars, failing to cope with famine, failing to protect them from invaders and so on, so it works well. I think if they’d actually been cannibals we’d have read about it already.

So, the princes are too obsessed with money, as are the priests and prophets – “The heads thereof judge for reward, and the priests thereof teach for hire, and the prophets thereof divine for money”, all of which spells doom for Jerusalem by angering God. Which makes me realise, so far into Micah the role of God in this is more implied than direct. In many of the prophets the text has been written in the voice of God, here it feels more like it is at one remove, the words of Micah interpreting the will of God more than God speaking directly through the prophet, and this gives it a subtly different feel to some of the other prophets.

It also occurred to me, since Micah once again denounces the false prophets and promises that their foresight will become blinded, that there have already been books by prophets in the bible that came after Micah and others. So if Jeremiah, for example, was mocked and not believed by many, could this not in part be due to the earlier prophets shouting about not listening to prophets?

Of course, the difference biblically speaking is that the words of the “true” prophets come true, although not always within a human lifetime. There’s also the distinction that all the prophets that have ended up in the bible so far have preached destruction whereas many of them have fought against prophets who have given good and soothing news, even when it was blatantly untrue (“Don’t worry, the Assyrians aren’t going to invade”).

Micah 4

“But in the last days it shall come to pass, that the mountain of the house of the LORD shall be established in the top of the mountains, and it shall be exalted above the hills; and people shall flow unto it.”

Micah continues to have a gentler feel than many of the OT prophets. Not only, so far, has there been less focus on the punishments and “whoredoms” and sins and so on, but already he is looking forward to a time of peace in the future. I’ll bet anything that Matthew Henry has interpreted the “mountain of the house of the Lord” given above as meaning either Christ or the Christian church, or both, where nations across the world all “walk in the name of God”. Swords are turned back into ploughshares, and “nation shall not lift up a sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more”; it all sounds very idyllic!

To bring about this time of peace, however, the people have to endure troubles (Babylon gets a specific mention), and this is quite nicely given the simile of a woman in labour – just because the end result is good it doesn’t mean that getting there won’t be painful.

Micah 5

“Now gather thyself in troops, O daughter of troops: he hath laid siege against us: they shall smite the judge of Israel with a rod upon the cheek”

Okay, I take back some of what I said, as this chapter ends with a lot of “cutting off” of things – chariots, horses, witchcrafts, cities, trees and graven images. The Israelites fight back, in other words, against the Assyrians. There is a bit of prophecy about one who will come from “Bethlehem Ephretah” to be the ruler of Israel and a “man of peace”. More messianic prophecies, and I wonder if Bethlehem of the NT is meant to be the same place as Bethlehem Ephratah? Alongside this leader, who seems here to be more of a direct military leader who will drive off the Assyrians, are “seven shepherds and eight principle men”, whoever they might be.

Micah 6

“Hear ye, O mountains, the LORD'S controversy, and ye strong foundations of the earth: for the LORD hath a controversy with his people, and he will plead with Israel.”

This chapter jumps back again, to God’s “controversy” (i.e. dispute) with the Israelites. It hearkens back to Moses, Aaron and Miriam (whom I can vaguely remember, but I think her role has been diminished somewhat), also to my old favourites Balak and Balaam with their cantankerous talking donkey and backfiring curses. These are all used as examples of God’s power and respect in the past, now largely lost by the Israelites who, after the fashion of Ahab and Omri, still worship idols. The heart of the chapter centres on the observation that it doesn’t matter how may “ten thousands of rivers of oil” are sacrificed to God if the act isn’t backed up with moral rectitude – “what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God”.

Micah 7

“Woe is me! for I am as when they have gathered the summer fruits, as the grapegleanings of the vintage: there is no cluster to eat: my soul desired the firstripe fruit.”

“Grapegleanings”? “Firstripe”? I feel like I’m reading James Joyce here. This chapter is something of a mix, with a lot of the themes that crop up in the psalms quite often. Micah laments about how everyone is so awful and sinful, decides that he will put his faith in God, but also notes how God is merciful and so will ultimately support his people once the sin has been purged from them. Nothing very new there, but a couple of verses, I think, rather neatly sum up what Micah’s faith does for him – “when I fall, I shall arise; when I sit in darkness, the LORD shall be a light unto me. I will bear the indignation of the LORD, because I have sinned against him, until he plead my cause, and execute judgment for me: he will bring me forth to the light, and I shall behold his righteousness”

And so that’s the book of Micah. There’s nothing in it that seems particularly novel compared to the other prophets or, as mentioned above, many of the psalms, but like the psalms it gives quite a personal view of faith. It feels a lot more low-key that many of the prophets, but that’s in its favour – less fire and trembling and whoredoms and terrible visions and more internalising of strength and hope. 

And don't forget that the inhabitant of Zaanan came not forth in mourning of Bethezel.