MICAH 7

It is human nature for us to look at things in view of our prior expectations. Just listen to a conversation between an ardent Democrat and an equally committed Republican as they give their respective views regarding recent political events. A visitor from another planet would probably think they were talking about completely separate happenings. And the same phenomenon applies to Bible scholars, as a brief investigation into this obscure chapter of an equally obscure book shows.

As I have demonstrated elsewhere on this site (see “Micah: Introduction to the Literary Structure”), the best way to divide up this prophetic book is into discrete chapters. But the question remains as to whether there is any rhyme or reason governing the arrangement within each chapter.

Liberal Scholars

The above question poses no problem for the more critical analysts of biblical texts since they approach these with the prior expectation that there probably is no order. That is because they have the underlying supposition that each book of the Bible was a product of several authors over a protracted period of time, and that each of these writers added, subtracted, and rearranged the material he had inherited. With such a hypothetical, and largely unproven, assumption, critics see no need to even look for order in any book of the Bible. In fact, they are often too preoccupied in searching only for evidence that there is no order in order to confirm their prior conviction.

As just one example of such an approach, consider one of the more pessimistic scholars regarding any rhyme or reason behind the arrangement of this chapter – Herbert Marks. Looking primarily for problems rather than solutions, he poses the following questions for the reader without attempting to answer them himself, since he feels it would be a futile exercise:

    Were verses 8-20 once a separate liturgy?

    Were the liturgical responses the product of the same hand that published them as being Micah's?

    How are they related to the hymn which opens the book?

    Is even the bitter outburst of verses 1-7 a unity?

    What is the relationship between the first-person speaker in the early verses to the feminine 'I' in verses 8-10?

To these uncertainties, Nogalski adds others, but for the sake of brevity I will only mention those in the opening verses:

    What is the relationship of 7:1-7 to chapter 6?

    Why don't verses 1-7 contain some of the common elements found elsewhere in laments?

    Who is the speaker in these early verses?

Nogalski reveals the effect such uncertainties have had on different views regarding the unity or lack of it in this chapter: “Several others argue that a core composition was expanded so that 7:8-20 comes from more than one hand. Wolff, e.g., argues that only 7:11-13 comes from a later hand. By contrast, Wohrie sees 7:8-20 as a result of five redactional layers.” Nogalski's own response to those various competing proposals is a wise one: “These suggestions problematically assume too quickly that the variations in expression require separate compositional hands.”

Conservative Scholars

This group and those influenced by them begin their interpretive journey with quite a different mindset. It is one of faith rather than doubt, and that faith rests on the belief that each of the books in the Bible was composed basically by a single person. And even if more than one person were involved, or the authors relied on several prior traditions to craft their compositions, the whole of the process was overseen by the Holy Spirit so that the product we have is exactly what God intended for our edification.

But even within that general frame of reference, we can discern at least two different variations to which such a belief commitment has lead.

Logical Progression

The most usual way conservative believers, whether of the general public or trained scholars in the field, approach the books of the Bible is to expect that there will be some obvious order to the writing, since God is a God of order. If, for example, it is one of the historical books, they expect a strictly chronological presentation of the facts (First A happened, then B, followed by C, which led to D, etc.) If, on the other hand, it is of a prophetic nature, a list of commands from God, or one of the New Testament letters, then these readers automatically expect there to be a logical progression of ideas so that “A is true, therefore B, which results in C, naturally leading to D, etc.” It is usually only within the poetic books of the Bible that such readers will admit that there might be some other forms of organization at play.

As one example of this sort of analysis, look at what Leslie Allen says concerning Micah 7:1-7: “The lament begins as a meditation, describing with sorrow the moral degeneration of contemporary society (vv. 1-4a). Then it expresses to God the prophet's confidence that this state of affairs cannot go unpunished (v. 4b). Next, turning to his audience, the prophet describes further the degeneration around him (vv. 5,6). The piece concludes with a personal affirmation of faith in God (v. 7).”

But despite this orderly progression of ideas, Allen goes on to allude to the “oscillation of address to God and to the people.” In other words, he recognizes that an alternating literary pattern may also be at work here. That brings us to the final way of viewing the Bible.

Literary Approach

The specific type of literary analysis I am talking about here is that which sees one form or another of symmetrical arrangement present in the text. As just two general examples, there might be a parallel organization by which a passage A-B-C is followed directly by units A'-B'-C', with each occurrence of the same letter representing similar ideas or language. Thus, A and A' would be more properly read together as well as B and B', etc. Alternatively, a mirror-image arrangement such as A-B-C-C'-B'-A' may better represent the case.

Again, take Micah 7 as an example. Of the many ways proposed for viewing its organization, one of the few to possess even a modicum of symmetry is that of Andersen and Freedman. They divide ch. 7 into four sections which alternate in mood from negative to positive:

A. Lament (7:1-6)

B. Song of confidence (7:7-12)

A'. Humiliation (and later triumph) of Zion (7:13-17)

B'. Reaffirmation of the ancient covenant (7:18-20)

But even those scholars elsewhere hint at a possible mirror-image arrangement for Micah 7:1-7. In addition, that symmetrical structure is not the only one which has been proposed. For example, Dorsey locates Micah 7 within the larger chiastic structure of the whole book, as shown below:

    A. Coming Defeat and Destruction (1:1-16)

        B. Corruption of the People (2:1-13)

            C. Corruption of the leaders (3:1-12)

                D. Future Restoration (chs. 4-5)

            C'. Corruption of the leaders (6:1-16)

        B'. Corruption of the People (7:1-7)

A'. Future Reversal of Defeat and Destruction (7:8-20)

As confirmation of this analysis, Dorsey notes the common language between the parallel literary units so that both A and A' contain “sin,” “exile” and “walls,” just as “woe” and “social evils” are found in both B and B'. Note that this analysis provides a good alternative explanation as to why (a) verses 8-20 have a different tone than 1-7 and (b) there does not seem to be a straightforward linear progression of ideas within chapter 7.

However, working against Dorsey's proposal are other verbal indications that all of Micah 7 hangs together as a unity. The first sign of this is the fact that the key word “day” appears exactly seven times in the chapter (vv. 4, 11[2x], 12, 14, 15, and 20). Seven is the symbol for a unity or completeness, and it wouldn't be complete without its first appearance in v. 4, relegated to an entirely separate section by Dorsey.

Next to note are the designations for the Deity in this chapter. In order, they read:

LORD (v. 7a) – God (v. 7) [2x] – LORD (vv. 8-9) [2x] – LORD God (vv. 10,17)[2x] – God (v. 18). Splitting chapter 7 into two unrelated parts (1-7 and 8-20) would disrupt this pattern.

And finally, pitting Dorsey's meager listing above of only five words in common with earlier chapters to confirm his decision to consider Micah 7 as two separate sections, here is a listing of other related words and parallel ideas which both parts of that same chapter share with one another:

        fruit (vv. 1,13)

        no one left (2) / alone (14)

        faithful (2) / faithfulness (20)

        land/earth (2,13,15,17)

        justice (3) / judgment (9)

        father(s) (6,20)

        enemy(ies) (6,8)

        eat (7) / feed (14)

        mouth (5,16)

        hear (7) / deaf (16)

In conclusion, any one human analysis of the Bible that you may read, including mine, you should approach it with caution, especially if it purports to demonstrate that the Bible is a hodgepodge of miscellaneous writings thrown together from multiple sources and edited over the years by other hands who reworked it to convey their own particular slants on the text.