Keil and Delitzsch Commentary - Micah 1:11

Keil and Delitzsch Commentary - Micah 1:11 - 1:11

Online Resource Library

Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com

Keil and Delitzsch Commentary - Micah 1:11 - 1:11

(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)

This Chapter Verse Commentaries:

The penetration of the judgment into Judah is now clearly depicted by an individualizing enumeration of a number of cities which will be smitten by it. Mic 1:10. “Go not to Gath to declare it; weeping, weep not. At Beth-Leafra (dust-home) I have strewed dust upon myself. Mic 1:11. Pass thou away, O inhabitress of Shafir (beautiful city), stripped in shame. The inhabitress of Zaanan (departure) has not departed; the lamentation of Beth-Haëzel (near-house) takes from you the standing near it. Mic 1:12. For the inhabitress of Maroth (bitterness) writhes for good; for evil has come down from Jehovah to the gate of Jerusalem.” The description commences with words borrowed from David's elegy on the death of Saul and Jonathan (2Sa 1:20), “Publish it not in Gath,” in which there is a play upon the words in begath and taggı̄dū. The Philistines are not to hear of the distress of Judah, lest they should rejoice over it. There is also a play upon words in בָּכוֹ אַל־תִּבְכּוּ. The sentence belongs to what precedes, and supplies the fuller definition, that they are not to proclaim the calamity in Gath with weeping, i.e., not to weep over it there.

(Note: On the ground of the Septuagint rendering, καὶ οἱ Ἐνακεὶμ μὴ ἀνοικοδομεῖτε, most of the modern expositors follow Reland (Palaest. ill. p. 534ff.) in the opinion that בָּכוֹ is the name of a city, a contraction of בְּעַכּוֹ, “and weep not at Acco.” There is no force in the objection brought against this by Caspari (Mich. p. 110), namely, that in that case the inhabitants of both kingdoms must have stood out before the prophet's mind in hemistich a, which, though not rendered actually impossible by Mic 1:9, and the expression על־זאת in Mic 1:8, is hardly reconcilable with the fact that from Mic 1:11 onwards Judah only stands out before his mind, and that in Mic 1:8-10 the distress of his people, in the stricter sense (i.e., of Judah), is obviously the pre-eminent object of his mourning. For Acco would not be taken into consideration as a city of the kingdom of Israel, but as a city inhabited by heathen, since, according to Jdg 1:31, the Canaanites were not driven out of Acco, and it cannot be shown from any passage of the Old Testament that this city ever came into the actual possession of the Israelites. It is evidently a more important objection to the supposed contraction, that not a single analogous case can be pointed out. The forms נִשְׁקָה for נִשְׁקְעָה (Amo 8:8) and בָּלָה for בַּעֲלָה (Jos 19:3 and Jos 15:29) are of a different kind; and the blending of the preposition ב with the noun עַכּוֹ, by dropping the ע, so as to form one word, is altogether unparalleled. The Septuagint translation furnishes no sufficient authority for such an assumption. All that we can infer from the fact that Eusebius has adopted the reading Ἐναχείμ in his Onom. (ed. Lars. p. 188), observing at the same time that this name occurs in Micah, whilst Aq. and Symm. have ἐν κλαυθμῶ (in fletu) instead, is that these Greek fathers regarded the Ἐναχείμ of the lxx as the name of a place; but this does not in the smallest degree prove the correctness of the lxx rendering. Nor does the position of בָּכוֹ before אַל furnish any tenable ground for maintaining that this word cannot be the inf. abs. of בָּכָה, but must contain the name of a place. The assertion of Hitzig, that “if the word were regarded as an inf. abs., neither the inf. itself nor אַל for לֹא would be admissible in a negative sentence (Jer 22:10),” has no grammatical foundation. It is by no means a necessary consequence, that because אַל cannot be connected with the inf. abs. (Ewald, §350, a), therefore the inf. abs. could not be written before a finite verb with אל for the sake of emphasis.)

After this reminiscence of the mourning of David for Saul, which expresses the greatness of the grief, and is all the more significant, because in the approaching catastrophe Judah is also to lose its king (cf. Mic 4:9), so that David is to experience the fate of Saul (Hengstenberg), Micah mentions places in which Judah will mourn, or, at any rate, experience something very painful. From Mic 1:10 to Mic 1:15 he mentions ten places, whose names, with a very slight alteration, were adapted for jeux de mots, with which to depict what would happen to them or take place within them. The number ten (the stamp of completeness, pointing to the fact that the judgment would be a complete one, spreading over the whole kingdom) is divided into twice five by the statement, which is repeated in Mic 1:12, that the calamity would come to the fate of Jerusalem; five places being mentioned before Jerusalem (Mic 1:10-12), and five after (Mic 1:13-15). This division makes Hengstenberg's conjecture a very natural one, viz., that the five places mentioned before Jerusalem are to be sought for to the north of Jerusalem, and the others to the south or south-west, and that in this way Micah indicates that the judgment will proceed from the north to the south. On the other hand, Caspari's opinion, that the prophet simply enumerates certain places in the neighbourhood of Moresheth, his own home, rests upon no firm foundation.

בֵּית לְעַפְרָה is probably the Ophrah of Benjamin (עָפְרָה, Jos 18:23), which was situated, according to Eusebius, not far from Bethel (see comm. on Josh. l.c.). It is pointed with pathach here for the sake of the paronomasia with עָפָר. The chethib הִתְפַּלַּשְׁתִּי is the correct reading, the keri הִתְפַּלָּשִׁי being merely an emendation springing out of a misunderstanding of the true meaning. הִתְפַּלֵּשׁ does not mean to revolve, but to bestrew one's self. Bestrewing with dust or ashes was a sign of deep mourning (Jer 6:26; 2Sa 13:19). The prophet speaks in the name of the people of what the people will do. The inhabitants of Shafir are to go stripped into captivity. עָבַר, to pass by, here in the sense of moving forwards. The plural לָכֶם is to be accounted for from the fact that yōshebheth is the population. Shâphı̄r, i.e., beautiful city, is not the same as the Shâmı̄r in Jos 15:48, for this was situated in the south-west of the mountains of Judah; nor the same as the Shâmı̄r in the mountains of Ephraim (Jdg 10:1), which did not belong to the kingdom of Judah; but is a place to the north of Jerusalem, of which nothing further is known. The statement in the Onomast. s.v. Σαφείρ ἐν γῆ ὀρεινῆ between Eleutheropolis and Askalon - is probably intended to apply to the Shâmı̄r of Joshua; but this is evidently erroneous, as the country between Eleutheropolis and Askalon did not belong to the mountains of Judah, but to the Shephelah. עֶרְיָה־בֹשֶׁת, a combination like עַנְוָה־צֶדֶק in Psa 45:5, equivalent to stripping which is shame, shame-nakedness = ignominious stripping. עֶרְיָה is an accusative defining the manner in which they would go out. The next two clauses are difficult to explain. צַאֲנָן, a play upon words with יָֽצְאָה, is traceable to this verb, so far as its meaning is concerned. The primary meaning of the name is uncertain; the more modern commentators combine it with צֹאן, in the sense of rich in flocks. The situation of Zaanan is quite unknown. The supposed identity with Zenân see at Jos 15:37) must be given up, as Zenân was in the plain, and Zaanan was most probably to the north of Jerusalem. The meaning of the clause can hardly be any other than this, that the population of Zaanan had not gone out of their city to this war from fear of the enemy, but, on the contrary, had fallen back behind their walls (Ros., Casp., Hitzig). בֵּית הָאֵצֶל is most likely the same as אָצַל in Zec 14:5, a place in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem, to the east of the Mount of Olives, as Beth is frequently omitted in the names of places (see Ges. Thes. p. 193). Etsel signifies side, and as an adverb or preposition, “by the side of.” This meaning comes into consideration there. The thought of the words mispad bēth, etc., might be: “The lamentation of Beth-Haezel will take away its standing (the standing by the side of it, 'etslō) from you (Judaeans), i.e., will not allow you to tarry there as fugitives (cf. Jer 48:45). The distress into which the enemy staying there has plunged Beth-Haezel, will make it impossible for you to stop there” (Hitzig, Caspari). But the next clause, which is connected by כִּי, does not suit this explanation (Mic 1:12). The only way in which this clause can be made to follow suitably as an explanation is by taking the words thus: “The lamentation of Beth-Haezel will take its standing (the stopping of the calamity or judgment) from you, i.e., stop near it, as we should expect from its name; for (Mic 1:12) Maroth, which stands further off, will feel pain,” etc. With this view, which Caspari also suggests, Hengstenberg (on Zec 14:5) agrees in the main, except that he refers the suffix in עֶמְדָּתוֹ to מִסְפָּד, and renders the words thus: “The lamentation of Beth-Haezel will take its stopping away from you, i.e., the calamity will not stop at Beth-Haezel (at the near house), i.e., stop near it, as we should expect from its name; for (Mic 1:12) Maroth, which stands further off, will feel pain,” etc. With this view, which Caspari also suggests, Hengstenberg (on Zec 14:5) agrees in the main, except that he refers the suffix in עֶמְדָתוֹ to מִסְפָּד, and renders the words thus: “The lamentation of Beth-Haezel will take its stopping away from you, i.e., will not allow you the stopping of the lamentation.” Grammatically considered, this connection is the more natural one; but there is this objection, that it cannot be shown that עָמַד is used in the sense of the stopping or ceasing of a lamentation, whereas the supposition that the suffix refers to the calamity simply by constructio ad sensum has all the less difficulty, inasmuch as the calamity has already been hinted at in the verb נָגַע in Mic 1:9, and in Mic 1:10 also it forms the object to be supplied in thought. Maroth (lit., something bitter, bitternesses) is quite unknown; it is simply evident, from the explanatory clause כִּי יָרַד וגו, that it was situated in the immediate neighbourhood of Jerusalem. The inhabitants of Maroth writhe (châlâh, from chūl, to writhe with pain, like a woman in child-birth), because they are also smitten with the calamity, when it comes down to the gate of Jerusalem. לְטוֹב, “on account of the good,” which they have lost, or are about to lose.