Messiah (continued) – Milcah

Messiah (continued)

2. The conception of the Messiah among the Apostles. — In general the Apostles may be said to have believed Jesus to be the Messiah in the sense that (a) in His earthly period of humiliation He was anointed with God ‘s Spirit; (6) that He had not done the strictly Messianic work during His earthly career; (c) that He had been declared the Christ by His resurrection; and W) that, though now in authority in heaven, He would return to deliver His people, establish a Kingdom, and hold the world-judgment which was to be preceded by the resurrection of believers, if not of all men.

(1) In the primitive Church of Jerusalem expectation centred about the eschatological concept of judgment and deliverance. As appears from the speech of St. Peter at Pentecost (Acts 2:14–42), as well as from other addresses from the early chapters of Acts, the disciples believed that the new age was about to dawn. They were U ving in ‘the last days’ of the pre-Messianic age. The Christ had appeared, but had been killed, had ascended to heaven after His resurrection, thence He had sent the Holy Spirit to those who believed that He was the Christ, thus fulfilling the prophecy of Joel 2:28–32 (which, however, had not been thus interpreted by the Pharisees). The Resurrection had not made Him the Christ, but had decisively shown that He was the One whom God had made Lord and Christ (Acts 2:36). In the primitive Church the Messianic deliverance was limited to the commonwealth of Israel. If the Gentiles were to share in the Messianic deliverance, they had need to be circumcised and join the Jewish community (Acts 15:1).

Just how far disciples like St. Peter and St. John were committed to this stnctly Jewish type of Messianic expectation it is difficult to say. It would, however, be unfair to hold that they represented the so-called ‘party of the circumcision’ which combated St. Paul in his removal of all conditions of salvation beyond faith in Jesus as Christ. It should not be overlooked, moreover, that even in the primitive Jerusalem Church the death of Jeaus was regarded as a part of the Messianic programme of deliverance, though there is no distinct theory of the Atonement formulated.

(2) St. Paul’s conception of the Messiah, (i.) This is in marked advance upon that of the primitive Church. He was at one with the Jerusalem community in holding that the Kingdom had not yet come, and that Jesus would soon return from heaven to establish it. He built into his Messianic conception, however, a number of important elements, some of which were derived from Judaism. These elements were (a) the vicarious nature of the death of Christ; (6) the pre-existence of Jesus as Christ; (c) the doctrine of the second Adam, i.e. that Jesus in His resurrection was the type of the risen humanity, as Adam was the type of physical humanity; (d) the more or less complete identification of Jesus with the Spirit who came to the disciples, as distinct from having been sent by Jesus to the disciples.

(ii.) It is not difficult to see, therefore, why it was that St. Paul’s chief interest did not lie in the career of the historical Jesus as a teacher and miracle-worker, but rather in the Divine, risen Christ who maintained spiritual relations with His followers. To have made the teaching of Jesus the centre of his thought would have been to replace the legalism of the Law by the legaUsm of a new authority. St. Paul was evidently acquainted with the teaching of Jesus, but his message was not that of a completed ethical philosophy, but a gospel of good news of a salvation possible to all mankind, through faith in Jesus as the Messiah. The Pauline gospel to the unconverted(see Acts 13:16–41 14:8–17 17:1–3) started with the expectation of Messianic judgment, presented the crucified Jesus as declared the Christ by His resurrection, proved it by the use of OT prophecy, and closed with the exhortation to his hearers to become reconciled to God, who was ready to forgive and save them. In his thought salvation consisted in the possession, through the indwelling Holy Spirit of God, of the sort of life which the risen Jesus already possessed. Morality was the expression in conduct of this regenerate life.

(ili.) The Pauline Christ is Divine, and His work is twofold. First, it is to be that of the Messiah of Jewish eschatology. The Apostle utilizes many of the elements of the Messianism of the Pharisees, e.g. the two ages, the world-judgment, the trumpet to raise the dead, the sorrows of ‘the last days.’ But he also made a distinct addition to Messianic thought (a) by his emphasis upon the relation of the death of Jesus to the acquittal of the believer in the eschatological judgment, and (6) in bis formulation of a doctrine of the resurrection by the use of the historical resurrection of Jesus. The argument in this latter case rests on two foundations — testimony and the implications of Christian experience. The Christian is to be saved from death, the wages of sin, after the manner of his risen Lord, who had borne death on his behalf. Thus the Pauline Christology is essentially soteriological. Its speculative elements are wholly contributory to the exposition of the certainty and the reasonableness of the coming deliverance. Clothed though it is in Jewish vocabularies and conceptions, the Pauline conception of Christ and His work has for its foci the historical Jesus and Christian experience. The concepts inherited from Judaism do not give rise to his belief in the resurrection, but his confidence in the historicity of that event gives rise to his Christology. — Secondly, conceiving thus of Jesus as the supreme King of those whom He had delivered, the Pauline conceptions of His relations with the Church followed naturally. God was not to condemn those who had voluntarily undertaken to prepare for the Kingdom when it should appear. They were ‘justified’ through their faith in Jesus as Christ. But could the King of that coming Kingdom ‘be indifferent to those who were justified, had already received the Holy Spirit as a first instalment of the future blessing, and were daily awaiting His reappearance? The Christ was the’ Head’ of the Church in ‘the last days,’ just as truly as, in the ‘coming age,’ He would be King. His supremacy over the Church consisted not merely in that its original nucleus was composed of His disciples, but also in that He had instituted its simple rites, established the details of its organization by giving to its members varying gifts of the Spirit, oversees its affairs, and is present within it. In fact, so intimate is His relation with the Church, that Christians may be said to be in Him, and He in them.

From this union of the believer with his Lord (generally mediated in the Pauline thought by the presence of the Holy Spirit) comes the consummation of the salvation of the individual. Since He had triumphed over death, the believer in whom the Holy Spirit lived might also expect the gift of that spiritual body which was one element of the salvation wrought by Jesus in the case of the individual.

(iv.) Yet St. Paul would not say that the Christ was to reign eternally. After He had completed His work of Messianic deliverance, had finally conquered sin and death, and had established His glorious age. He was to give up the Kingdom to the Father that God might be all and in all (1 Corinthians 15:24). Thus, while the Pauline soteriological thought is Christo-centric, his theology is Theo-centric. Jesus is Christ in the sense that through Him God accomplishes the salvation of His people — with St. Paul no longer the Jewish nation, but individuals who, because of their relations with the Deliverer, have been wrought into a unity on earth and await an even nobler unity in heaven.

(3) In post-Pauline Apostolic thought the Messianic concept is still central, butjn its development we notice two tendencies, (a) There is the tendency, already present in primitive and Pauline Christianity, to find confirmation of the Messianic dignity of Jesus in the OT prophecies. "With their recollections of the historical career of Jesus, the Apostles saw in the OT Messianic meanings which had eluded the Pharisees. They did not, it is true, disregard those passages which set forth the royal dignity of the Christ, but they were far more concerned in arguing for the Messianic significance of those passages which foretold the victory of God’s Anointed over death and the vicarious nature of His sufferings. Thus such passages as Psalms 110 and Isaiah 53 were seen to supplement each other-ftT teaching the consonance of the Messianic dignity with suffering.

As Christian thought developed, this tendency to find Messianic references in the OT set practically no limits to itself. In the Epistle to the Hebrews the essential features of the entire Hebrew cult are viewed as foreshadowings of the career and the glories of the Christ. In the prophetic fulfilments noticed by the writer of the First Gospel, the prophecy of the birth of a son to ‘the virgin’ (Isaiah 7:14) and the recall of Israel from Egypt (Hosea 11:1) are also seen to be prophecies of the experience of Jesus (Matthew 1:23 2:15). The same was true of more incidental matters, such as His name and His description as the Nazarene (Matthew 2:23). while the experience of Jonah was regarded as a type of His burial and resurrection (12:40). Particularly was it seen that His vicarious character was foretold. In the Book of Revelation the Messianic future of Jesus and His Kingdom was still further elaborated by the copious utilization of apocalyptic thought. In the Apostolic Fathers the use of the OT as the basis for Ohristological thought involved an arbitrary exegesis which extended far beyond the limits of proper methodology; and events in the life of Jesus were found predicted in sayings and events quite imused by the Apostles.

(6) The second tendency in post-Pauline Christological interpretation is to re-state the Messianic significance of Jesus in terms of current philosophy. The most pronounced illustration of this is to be seen in the Johannine literature. Here the Christ is identified with the Logos, and His entire career is viewed as an illustration of the great conflict between light and darkness, life and death, the powers of Satan and the powers of God. In the Epistle to the Hebrews a tendency is to be seen towards the metaphysical conception of Jesus as the Son of God — a tendency which was to find its outcome in the theological formulations of the 3rd and 4th centuries.

But in both these tendencies the fundamental conception of Messiahship is maintained. God is in Jesus reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing,their trespasses to those who accept Him, and already engaged in the work of their salvation. The elemental conception of the Messiah thus passed over into Christian thought. It carried vrith it, it is true, the figures of that interpretation which was born of the development of the Hebrew and Jewish thought. But these figures are not the essential element of Christianity. That is rather the message which the prophets themselves had applied exclusively to Israel, viz. that God would save His people through some personality in whom His spirit was particularly resident to empower Him for the work of salvation. Thus in the history of Jesus and in Christian experience this Divine salvation is set forth, not as ab extra, but as the result of the in-working of God in human lives, to which He comes through the mediation of faith in Jesus, His supreme revelation. To formulate and vindicate the message of this salvation is to exhibit the content of the gospel.

Shaileb Mathews.

Mete

‘To mete’ is ‘to measure,’ and a ‘meteyard’ (Lev iss*) is a merchant’s measuring-stick.

Metheg-ammah

‘David took Metheg-ammah out of the hand of the Philistines’ (2 Samuel 8:1 AV and RVm). RV tr. ‘the bridle of the mother-city,’ which has been interpreted to mean authority over the metropolis, or the suzerainty exercised by the Philistines, — ^it being assumed that Gath was the leading city. In all probability the text is corrupt beyond restoration. See, further, ExpT, Oct. 1899, p. 48, and Feb. 1906, p. 215.

W. F. Cobb.

Methuselah

A Sethite, the father of Lamech, Genesis 5:21 ff. (P), 1 Chronicles 1:3, Luke 3:37 =Methushael in J’s genealogy, 4:18. The name is interpreted by Holzinger as ‘man of the javelin’ — a fitting name for a time when the earth was tuU of violence.

Methushael

A Cainite, the father of Lamech, Genesis 4:18 (J); Methuselah in P’s genealogy (S^"). The interpretations of the name are various.

Meuneh

See Maani, Maon, Min.«!ans.

Meuzal

Ezekiel 27:19 AVm. See Uzai,.

Me-zahab

(" waters of gold’). Father of Matred and grandfather of Mehetabel the vrife of Hadar (Hadad) , one of the kings of Edom (Genesis 36:39). The name Me-zahab is much more like that of a place than of a person. Holzinger suggests that it is the same name as appears in a corrupted form in Deuteronomy 1:1 as Dizahab (wh. see).

Mezobaite

One of David’s heroes is called in 1 Chronicles 11:47 ‘Jaasiel the Mezobaite.’ The text is doubtful.

Mibhar

In 1 Chronicles 11:38 one of David’s heroes appears as ‘Mibhar the son of Hagri.’ The parallel passage 2 Samuel 23 reads, ‘of Zobah, Ban! the Gadite," which is probably the correct text.

Mibsam

1. A son’ of Ishma«l (Genesis 25 = 1 Chronicles 1:29). 2. A Simeonite (1 Chronicles 4:25).

Mibzar

(‘fortification’). A ‘duke’ of Edom (Genesis 36:42 = 1 Chronicles 1).

Mica

1. Son of Merib-baal (Mephibosheth), 2 Samuel 9:12; called in 1 Chronicles 8:34 f. 9:40 f. Micah. See Micah, No. 3. 2. Son of Zichri (1 Chronicles 9:15, Nehemiah 11:17) =Micaiah of Nehemiah 12:35. 3. One of those who sealed the covenant (Nehemiah 10:11).

Micah, Micaiah

(‘Who is like Jahweh?’). This name, which occurs at least twelve times in the OT, and is a woman’s name as well as a man’s, is spelt in three different ways; the full name is Micajahu, a partially shortened form is Micaiah, while a still shorter form is Micah. The more important of those who bore this name are the following:—!. Micah, a dweller in the hill-country of Ephraim; he stole from his mother eleven hundred pieces of silver, which, however, he returned on hearing the curse which his mother pronounced against the thief. With part of the returned silver his mother causes an image to be made, which Micah sets up in his house; he then consecrates one of his sons a priest. But a Levite, named Jonathan, comes to the house of Micah while journeying; Micah induces him to be his priest instead of the son whom he had first consecrated. During this time the Danites send out five men to search for a suitable locality wherein to settle down; these five men come to the house of Micah, and while staying there they recognize the Levite. On their return they report that they have found a place for their tribe to dwell in. The whole ‘family’ of the Danites then set out, and come to take possession of the district they intend to make their home. On their coming into the neighbourhood of Micah’s dwelling-place, the five men who had already been there come and persuade Micah’s Levite to join them, and to bring with him Micah’s ephod, teraphim, and graven image. Micah follows after them; but protests in vain, for he is warned that if he attempts to regain his priest and lost treasures by force he will lose his goods and his life; he therefore returns home without them (Judges 17. 18). This very interesting narrative has undoubtedly a basis in fact: it records — though later editors have somewhat altered its original form — how the sanctuary in Dan first came to be established (see esp. Judges 18:29–31).

2. Micaiah, the son of Imlah; a prophet of Jahweh who is called by Ahab, at the request of Jehoshaphat, king of Judah, to prophesy concerning the result of a projected expedition against the Syrians. In reply to Abah’s inquiry Micaiah first prophesies smoothly; but Ahab bids him speak nothing but the truth; thereupon he foretells the disaster that is to befall the allied armies of Israel and Judah if they go up to Ramoth-gilead to battle. The parable which the prophet then utters is a terrible indictment against the ‘lying prophets’ of Israel; the blow which one of them thereupon gives him is answered by a further prophecy, this time directed against the false prophet who gave the blow. Micaiah is then commanded to be imprisoned until the king returns in peace; but, undaunted, the prophet replies, ‘If thou return at all in peace, Jahweh hath not spoken by me.’ The sequel showed Micaiah to have prophesied truly (1 Kings 22). 3. Micah, the son of Mephibosheth (1 Chronicles 8:34 f. 9:40 f. [2 S 9:12 Mica]). 4. Micaiah, one of the teachers sent by Jehoshaphat to teach the commandments of Jahweh in the cities of Judah (2 Chronicles 17:7). 5. Micaiah, the son of Gemariah, and a contemporary of Jeremiah, who heard Baruch reading out the prophecies of Jeremiah, and then spoke of them to the princes who were assembled in the scribe’s chamber (Jer 36:9–13). perhaps identical with the Micaiah of 2 Kings 22:12 and the Micah of 2 Chronicles 34:20. 6. One of the priests who took part in the dedication of the wall (Nehemiah 12:41). Other less important bearers of the name are mentioned in 1 Chronicles 5:5 23:20 (cf. 24:24 f.), 2 Chronicles 13:2 (see Maacah, 4), Neh IQii 12. [1 Ch 9:15 Mica] Judith 6:15. For the prophet Micah see the following article. W. O. E. Oesterley.

Micah

The Morashtite, one of the’four prophets of the 8th century b.c. whose writings have survived. Probably his prophecy does not extend beyond the first three chapters of the Book of Micah (see next art.).

According to the general interpretation of 1’, Micah prophesied, at least in part, before the destruction of Samaria, which took place in b.c. 722; though some place his prophetic activity entirely in the years 705-701. In any case, he prophesied a generation or so later than Amos, later also than Hosea; but he was contemporary with Isaiah, and his activity coincides with the midcareer of Isaiah, or its close, according as we accept the one or the other of the two views just mentioned.

He was a native of Moresheth (1’, Jeremiah 26:18). a place which, if we identify it, as we probably should, with Moresheth-gath (Micah 1:14). lay in the Shephelah of Judah, a fertile country with views over the Philistine country to the Mediterranean, and backed by the loftier hills which rise to the plateau on which Jerusalem is placed. The home of Micah thus lay a good day’s journey from the capital, which, if we may judge from the vividness of his descriptions, he must frequently have visited.

How Micah worked we are not told; that he spoke in public, and that perhaps both at home and in Jerusalem, is probable in the light of what is known of Amos and Isaiah; and, guided by the same analogy, we may suppose that he himself summarized his teaching in writing (Mic 1-3 in the main).

Of the call of Micah we have no details, but he understood his duty as prophet to consist in ‘declaring to Jacob his transgression, and to Israel his sin’ (3:8). and the doom which these involved. This transgression is centralized in the capitals — Samaria and Jerusalem (IB ‘What is the sin (so LXX) of Judah? Is it not Jerusalem?’; cf. 3:10–12). The rising buildings and the growing magnificence of Jerusalem in Hezekiah’s day spoke to him of the grinding down of the poor by which the wealth needed for such works had been obtained. It is more especially the leading and ruling classes that Micah upbraids — the wealthy land-proprietors who squeeze out the smaller holders (2:1 ff.; cf. Isaiah 5:8). the judges and officials (3:1–4), the prophets (.3^-), and the priests; they have wholly misunderstood Jahweh; in the very pursuit of injustice and inhumanity they rely on His presence for safety 1 (3:11). With Micah as with Isaiah, Amos, and Hosea, Jahweh is thus essentially a righteous God, offended by man’s moral sins, pleased only with a moral life; the ethical is the essential element in His personality. Brief as is his prophecy, this is clear, and the deep impression made by his work is evident from the narrative in Jeremiah 26. G. B. Gbay.

Micah, Book of

The Book of Micah stands in EV sixth in order of the so-called Minor Prophets. In the LXX it stood third, preceded only by Hosea and Amos. EV in its arrangement follows the Hebrew Bible. In the Hebrew Bible the Book of Micah is the sixth section of a collection of prophecies already known about B.C. 180 as ‘the Twelve Prophets’ (Sirach 49:10). This Book of ‘the Twelve Prophets’ cannot have been compiled earher than the 5th cent, b.c, for it contains the Book of Malachi, and it probably was not compiled till towards the close of the 3rd century b.c. For the history of the Book of Micah prior to its inclusion in this compilation we must rely entirely on internal evidence, except for any conclusions which may be drawn from Jeremiah 26:17 ff.: It appears certain that the section of the Book of the Twelve Prophets entitled Micah consists in part of prophecies of Micah the Morashtite (see preced. art.), a contemporary of Isaiah, and in part of prophecies of later date; but the determination of what are the later prophecies is not in every case equally easy or sure.

The book divides into three clearly marked sections — chs. 1-3, Prophecies of Judgment for sin (exception 2:12 f.) chs. 4. 5, Prophecies of Promise (mainly, if not entirely); chs. 6. 7, more miscellaneous in character, but containing in ch. 7 confessions of national sin.

The first of these sections contains, and for the most part consists of, prophecies of Micah. The allusion to Samaria (which was destroyed in 722) as still standing, and the accordance of the other conditions presupposed with what is otherwise known of the latter half of the 8th cent, b.c, would suffice to prove this; but we also possess early external evidence that Micah was the author of a saying occurring in this section of the book. At the close of the following century (b.c 608) the prophet Jeremiah was denounced by the priests and prophets as worthy of death, because he had predicted the destruction of Jerusalem; but certain elders cited against the priests and proptiets the precedent of Micah the Morashtite, who had made a similar prediction In the days of Hezekiah, and yet, so far from being put to death, had led his people to repentance; In citing this case the speakers quote the words with which Mlc 3 closes {see Jeremiah 26, esp. vv. 17–19) Of course, the citation of this single verse does not prove that even the first three chapters of the Book of Micah were then In circulation in their present form; but the narrative in Jeremiah shows that Micah, a century after he prophesied, ranked as a prophet of judgment, and Micah 1-3 is pre-eminently prophecy of judgment. The two verses (2:12 f.) which interrupt the general tenor of chs. 1-3 with a promise, represent Israel as scattered, and appear to presuppose the Exile; they are certainly not part of the preceding prophecy, and probably are an insertion in the book after the time of Jeremiah. It is held by some that the Book of Micah known to Jeremiah’s contemporaries also lacked the following portions of chs. 1-3: — l’-s»- ‘■ 2:5. Note, for example, that 1:7 stands most awkwardly before 1:8, which may give the reason for 1:6, but certainly not for 1:7. Yet the grounds given for deleting these passages In order to recover the earliest form of the Book of Micah are by no means In all cases equally conclusive. For the teaching of Micah, see preceding article.

Two not quite identical questions now naturally arise: Did the Book of Micah in the time of Jeremiah extend beyond ch. 37 Do chs. 4-7 contain any prophecies of Micah? The answers, so far as they can be given, must rest mainly on Internal evidence. What suggestion the narrative of Jeremiah 26 offers in this connexion may best be put In the form of a question.’ Could the elders have cited (Jeremiah 26:18) the words of Micah 3:12 if those words were then, as now, immediately followed (Mlc 4:1–4) by a glowing description of the future glory of Jerusalem? Would they not thereby have given the priests an opening to say that Micah’s life was spared because he repented of his blasphemy against their city and spoke of its glory?

Chs. 4. S appear to be a cento of brief prophecies, several of them being fragments as follows: 4:1–4, 5 «-8. 9. 10. u-13. 5:1, 2–6. 7-s. 10-H. The flrst of these (4:1–4) stands also In the Book of Isaiah (2:2–4). Neither In Isaiah nor in Micah Is the passage connected either with what precedes or with what follows; owing to mistranslation, EV indeed suggests that 4:1–4 Is the contrast to 3:12; ‘but for’ but’ In 4:1 must be substituted ‘and’ as in RV Itself In Isaiah 2:2. The verses contain a prophetic poem of 20 short lines (two of which were omitted in Isaiah) ; as the same Psalm (14=53) was included in two separate collections of Psalms, so this poem was not unreasonably thought worthy by two editors of prophetic literature to be Included In their collections. It Is impossible to examine here in detail the remaining sections of these chapters; some seem, if naturally interpreted, to presuppose the dispersion of Israel at the Exile; see e.g. 4 5:7, where promises of a bright future are made to Israel, who has already been reduced to a remnant; some passages contain the expectation of a judgment on the nations in general (4 5:15). which is certainly more conspicuous in the later prophets than In those of the age of Micah; in 4 Ziou seems to be regarded as inviolable — a point of view strikingly different from that with which Micah was popularly identified (Micah 3:12, Jeremiah 26:18). In 5:10–14 there is little or nothing inconsistent with an eighth century origin; read by themselves, without v. 15, they are not necessarily a prophecy of promise, but rather of judgment. Here (and perchance in 5:1), if anywhere In chs. 4. 5, we may look for Micah’s work; for though so early an origin of these verses is not certain, neither Is it certain that they are a piece of late reproductive prophecy.

Turning next to chs. 6. 7, we remark first that since Ewald the allusion to sacrificing the firstborn, and certain other features, have been commonly considered to point to the period of Manasseh as that in which chs. 6. 7 were written — a date which would not quite necessarily exclude Micah’s authorship, for Manasseh began to reign about 695 B.C.

In 6:1–8 some points, such as the use of ‘burnt-offering’(not’ sin-offering’) and the nature of the allusion to Balaam, may be more easily explained if the passage be at least pre-exlllc. The classical prophetic definition of religion with which this section closes (6:8), though it embraces and summarizes the fundamental teaching of Amos, Hosea, and Isaiah, does not pass beyond it— a fact which is thoroughly compatible with Ewald’s theory, though not, of course. In Itself a proof of its correctness.

But it is more than doubtful whether chs. 6. 7 should be treated as a single prophecy; 6 and ?’-•, though scarcely a continuation of 6:1–8, are not obviously separated from It at all widely in situation or time. On the other hand, as compared with 7:1–6, 7–20 show a marked difference. Wellhausen (cited by Driver, LOT’ 332 f.) has tersely summed this up.

‘7^"^ consists of a bitter lamentation uttered by Zion over the corruption of her children: and the day of retribution, though ready, is yet future, 7:4,. In V-^"’ Zion, indeed, Is still the speaker; but here she has already been overpowered by her foe, the heathen world, which is persuaded that by its victory over Israel it has at the same time vanquished Jahweh (7:10). The city has fallen, its walls are destroyed, its inhabitants pine away in darkness, i.e. in the darkness of captivity (7:8, 11). Nevertheless, Zion is still confident, and though she may have to wait long, she does not question her final triumph over the foe (7^- 8. loa. n). She endures patiently the punishment merited by her past sins, assured that when she has atoned for them, God will take up her cause and lead her to victory (7:9). What was present in 7:1–6. viz., moral disorder and confusion in the existing Jewish State, is in 7:7–20 past: what is there future, viz., the retribution of 7, has here come to pass, and has been continuing for some time. Between 7:6 and 7:7 yawns a centuiy.’

Briefly, then, the history of the Book of Micah seems to have been this: a summary of the teaching of the prophet Micah, not improbably prepared and written by himself, was well known in Jerusalem at the end of the seventh century — a century after the lifetime of the prophet. This small book was re-edited and provided with its present expanded title, and enlarged by the addition of a collection of prophetic pieces, some of pre-exlllc, and several of post-exilic, origin. It is not necessary to suppose that this added matter was originally attributed to Micah, though subsequently it came to be regarded as his work In the same way as Isaiah 40-66 and Zee 9-14 came to be looked upon as writings of Isaiah and Zechariah respectively. The final stage in, the history of the book was its incorporation, probably towards the close of the 3rd cent. B.C., in the great prophetic work ‘The Book of the Twelve.’ It is impossible to determine through how many stages of editorial treatment the book passed, but some of these stages certainly fell within the post-exilic period.

The most convenient Enghsh commentaries are those by T. K. Cheyne in the Cambridge Bible, and R. F. Horton in the Century Bible, "The discussion and new translation from an emended text in G. A. Smith, Book of the Twelve Prophets, 1. 355 &., will be found most valuable and helpful.

G. B. Gray.

Micaiah

See Micah.

Mice

See House, and Magic, 569>>.

Michael

(‘Who Is like God?’). 1. Father of the Asherite spy (Numbers 13:13). 2. 3. Two Gadites (1 Ch 6:13 f.). 4. The eponym of a Levltical guild of singers (1 Chronicles 6:40). 5. Name of a family in Issachar (1 Chronicles 7 27:18). 6. Eponym of a family of Benjamites (1 Chronicles 8:16). 7. A Manassite chief who joined David at Ziklag (1 Ch 12:20). 8. A son of king Jehoshaphat (2 Chronicles 21:2). 9. The father of Zebadlah (Ezra 8:8, 1 Ea 8). 10. The archangel. See next article.

Michael

(‘the archangel’). Although reference to angels and their visitations is common In the OT, especially during transition periods (e.g. the period of the Judges and that of the Captivity are specially noticeable for angeUe appearances), the name Michael is not found until the later period, when the angelic ofiBce was divided into two parts, which were assigned to individual angels. In the Rabbinical traditions Michael figures considerably. He is connected with many incidents in the history of Moses, especially his burial (cf. Deuteronomy 34:6). when he disputed with Satan, who claimed the body by reason of the murder of the Egyptian (Exodus 2:12). In the OT he is alluded to several times in the Book of Daniel (10:13, 21 12:1) as ‘one of the chief princes,’ ‘the prince,’ and ‘the prince which standeth for the people,’ and he is opposed to the prince-angels of Persia and of Greece. He is here regarded as the guardian of the Israelites in their opposition to polytheism and foreign innovations.

In the NT Michael is found fighting in heaven (Revelation 12:7) against the dragon, ‘him that is called the devil and Satan,’ and is typical of the warfare which is the special wor]£ of the Church on earth. In the passage in Jude (v. 9) a definite reference is made to the tradition already mentioned, ‘Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said. The Lord rebuke thee’ (cf. Zee 3:1 for a similar incident). T. A. Moxon.

Michal

Younger’daughter of Saul, offered to David , as a snare, on condition that he would slay one hundred Philistines. The popularity of David led Saul to seek his life. He had David’s house surrounded, but Michal deceived the messengers, and contrived David’s escape by the window (1 Samuel 19:11–17). Saul then gave Michal to Faltiel, When Abner negotiated with David to deliver Israel to him, the king stipulated for Mlchal’s return. This was accomplished, though the record does not make it clear whether directly from Ishbaal (Ishbosheth) at the instance of David, or through Abner (2 Samuel 3:14 f.). Paltiel followed weeping, but was rudely dismissed by Abner. The closing scene between Michal and David is pathetic. David’s dance before the ark was unseemly in the eyes of Michal, and she rebuked him. His answer was equally curt. The statement that Michal died childless may mean that she was divorced (2 Samuel 6:16 f.). The estrangement was probably due to the numerous wives that now shared David’s prosperity and Michal’s authority. J. H. Stevenson.

Micheas

Micheas (2 Ea 1) =the prophet Micah.

Michmas

See next article.

Michmash

A place (not enumerated as a town) In the territory of Benjamin, and in the mountains of Bethel. It comes into prominence in connexion with the daring raid made by Jonathan and his armour-bearer upon the Philistines there encamped (1 Samuel 13. 14). It was one of the smaller places to which the returning exiles belonged, contributing only 122 men to the enumeration of Ezra (Ezra 2:27) and Nehemiah (7) [in both these last two passages Michmas]. Nehemiah further alludes to it as a border city of Benjamin (11). Indications of its position may be obtained from the Jonathan story and also from Isaiah’s picture of the course of an Assyrian raid (Isaiah 10:28). These indications permit an identification of the site with the modern village of Mukhmaa, situated in a wild and desolate region near the head of the Wady Kelt. In 1 Kings 4:9 for Makaz the LXX erroneously reads Michmash. For a time it was the seat of the government of Jonathan Maccabseus (1 Maccabees 9:73). R. A. S. Macalister.

Michmethah

The word occurs only in Joshua 16:6 17’, in each case with the article, therefore probably not a proper name. Of the meaning of the word we are entirely ignorant. It indicated a place or some natural feature on the boundary of Mauasseh. An echo of the old name may perhaps be heard in el-Mukhneh, the plain which Ues to the east of Nablus. W. EwiNO.

Michri

Eponym of a Benjamite family (1 Chronicles 9:8).

raiCHTAM. — See Psalms, p. 772».

Midrash

See Commentary.

Midwife

See Medicine; p. eOOb.

Migdal-eder

See Eder, No. 1.

Migdal-el

A town of Naphtali"(Jos 19>b) between Iron and Horem. The site is uncertain.

Migdal-gad

A town in the ShephSlah, in the territory of Judah (Joshua 15:37), which cannot be identified with any certainty. Guthe suggests Khirbei eU Mejdeleh, about 6 miles S. of Belt Jibrin, with remains of buildings, cisterns, and rock-hewn tombs; or Khirbet el-Mejdel, about 14 miles S. of Beit Jibrin, with extensive ruins, etc. Warren (Hastings’ DB) suggests el-Mejdel, a thriving village 2i miles N.E. of Ashkelon. The name ‘Tower of Gad’ probably points to its having been a seat of idolatry, vfhere the Canaanites worshipped Gad — ‘Good Luck’ or ‘Fortune.’ W. Ewinq.

Migdol

A Semitic word meaning ‘tower,’ borrowed by the Egyptians of the New Kingdom, and common as a word and in place-names. 1. Exodus 14:2. 33:7. on the border of Egypt, near the spot where the Israelites crossed the Red Sea: probably a mere guardhouse on the road. 2. Ezekiel 29 30:6. where ‘from Migdol to Syene’ is the true reading, instead of ‘from the tower of Seveneh.’ Here Migdol is the N.E. extremity of Egypt, as Seveneh is the S. It may be identical with Magdolo in a Roman itinerary, perhaps at the now deserted site of Tell el-Her, 12 miles south of Pelusium. 3. In Jeremiah 44:1 46:14 Migdol is mentioned with Tahpanhes and Noph (Memphis) as a habitation of the Jews, and is probably the same as No. 2. F. Ll. GRiFriTH.

Migron

One of the places mentioned in Isaiah’s description of the march of the Assyrians on Jerusalem. The direction of the march is from north to south: hence Migron (Isaiah 10:28) lay north of Michmash (wh. see), and north of the Wady es-Suwinit, which is the ‘pass’ of Isaiah 10:29. The name perhaps survives in Makrun, a ruined site situated a mile or two N.W. of Makh-mS-s (Michmash). In 1 Samuel 14:2 Saul, whose army was encamped south of the Wady es-Suwinit, is said to have dwelt in ‘the uttermost part of Geba (so read) under the pomegranate tree which is in Migron.’ Probably ‘in Migron’ should rather be translated ‘in the threshing-floor’; if not, we must infer that there were two places not many miles apart, one north and the other south of the Wady es-Suwentt, bearing the same name. This southern Migron has not been identified.

G. B. Gray.

Muaiv

Muaiv rnr. — l. one of those who had married a foreign wife (Ezra 10:25) called in 1 Esdras 9:26 Maelus. 2. Eponym of the 6th of the priestly courses (1 Chronicles 24:9). This family returned with Zerub. (Nehemiah 12:5), and was represented at the sealing of the covenant (10:7) = Uiniamin of Nehemiah 12:17.

TVTTKT.OTH.— 1. A son of Jeiel (1 Chronicles 8:32). 2. An officer of David (1 Chronicles 27:4).

Mtkweiah

A gate-keeper of the ark (1 Chronicles 15:18).

TWTT.AT.AT — The eponym of a priestly family (Neh 12a).

Milcah

1. Daughter of Haran and wife of Nahor (On ll"). The names of her children are given in 222I"-. Rebekah was her granddaughter (24"- ". "). 2. Daughter of Zelophehad, Numbers 26:33 27:1 36:11, Joshua 17:3 (all P).