JoAnna M. Hoyt on the Use of Micah 3:12 in Jeremiah 26:17-19 and the Conditional Nature of Prophecy

  

In addition to Micah’s connection with Isaiah, it also has a connection to Jeremiah. In Jer 26:17–19 the elders of the land, in an effort to rebuff Jeremiah, stand up and recount Micah’s prophecy recorded in Mic 3:12 and 4:1.

 

Then some of the elders of the land rose up and spoke to all the assembly of the people, saying, “Micah of Moresheth prophesied in the days of Hezekiah king of Judah; and he spoke to all the people of Judah, saying, ‘Thus the Lord of hosts has said, “Zion will be plowed as a field, And Jerusalem will become ruins, And the mountain of the house as the high places of a forest.” ’ Did Hezekiah king of Judah and all Judah put him to death? Did he not fear the Lord and entreat the favor of the Lord, and the Lord changed His mind about the misfortune which He had pronounced against them? But we are committing a great evil against ourselves.” (Jer 26:17–19 NASB)

 

The elders’ paraphrase of Micah’s prophecy shows that Micah’s prophecies were known and revered by the people. Their description of the outcome of the prophecy places the prophecy during the time of Hezekiah and also gives a glimpse into how they understood prophecy. Prophecy from Yahweh requires a response, which Hezekiah gave. And it also has an element of contingency. Micah prophesied destruction, but Yahweh relented destruction (at that time) because Hezekiah responded in fear and sought mercy from Yahweh (JoAnna M. Hoyt, Amos, Jonah, & Micah [Evangelical Exegetical Commentary; Bellingham, Wash.: Lexham Press, 2018), 551-2)

 

Ibid., 552 n. 36 to the above reads:

 

Too often prophecy is misunderstood as a final ultimatum. Yet, this passage and the people’s response to it show very clearly that “unfulfilled” prophecy was not problematic. When one responds appropriately to Yahweh, Yahweh may choose to relent his judgment (at least for a time).

 

Joseph Blenkinsopp on Jeremiah 26:16-19 Showing that Micah 3:12 Was Later Reinterpreted as a Conditional Prophecy

  

Another absentee is Micah, who issued a categoric prediction of doom on Jerusalem, along the lines of the “back to nature” theme often heard in Isaiah: “Because of you, Zion will be a ploughed field, Jerusalem will be a heap of ruins, and the temple mount will become wooded heights” (Mic 3:12). About a century later, Jeremiah’s life was saved by a timely citing of this prediction, no longer understood as an unconditional announcement of disaster, which it clearly was, but as a call to repentance addressed to Hezekiah, one which he accepted and acted on (Jer 26:16–19). The trial narrative in Jeremiah 26, in which the citing of this prediction played a major role, is the continuation of the temple sermon in 7:1–8:3, the Deuteronomistic character of which is unmistakable. As the trial unfolds, we recognize the same hand at work in such expressions as “emend your ways and your deeds” and “obey the voice of Yahveh your God.” The death penalty for what was considered Jeremiah’s false prophesying is also in keeping with Deuteronomistic guidelines about prophecy (Jer 26:8–9, 11; Deut 18:20). This would therefore be a case of an unconditional prophecy of doom reinterpreted as conditional, not unlike Jonah’s announcement of doom on Nineveh, which underwent a similar transformation. The incident also throws another sliver of light on what is emerging as an alternative account of Hezekiah’s reign. Micah’s prediction of the destruction of Hezekiah’s Jerusalem follows immediately after condemnation of a corrupt ruling class which, while professing confidence in the protection of Yahveh, “build Zion with blood and Jerusalem with wrongdoing” (Mic 3:9–11). This must be the ruling class surrounding Hezekiah, one of the Historian’s great heroes. (Joseph Blenkinsopp, Opening the Sealed Book: Interpretations of the Book of Isaiah in Late Antiquity [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2006], 40, emphasis in bold added)

 

Robert Alter on Micah 5:14 (Heb. v. 13)

  

I will destroy your icons. The Masoretic Text reads “I will destroy your towns [ʿareykha].” This looks rather odd in a catalogue of destruction of pagan cultic objects and may well be an inadvertent scribal replication of the destruction of “towns” in verse 10. This translation assumes the original text reads ʿatsabeykha, “your icons.” (Robert Alter, The Hebrew Bible, 3 vols. [New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2019], 2:1312)

 

Use of Matthew 6:12 in Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5.17.1

  

1. The Creator is the one who in respect to love is the Father, in respect to power the Lord, and in respect to wisdom our Maker and Fashioner. It was his commandment that we transgressed and became his enemies. For this reason, in the last times the Lord restored us to friendship through his incarnation, having been made Mediator between God and man. On our behalf he appeased the Father against whom we had sinned; and he came to the aid of disobedience by his obedience, granting us the gift of living with our Maker and of being subject to him. That is why he taught us to say in prayer, and forgive us our transgressions; certainly, because this is our Father, whose debtors we were because we had transgressed his commandment. But who is this? Is it some unknowable Father who never gives a commandment to anyone? Or is it the God who is preached by the Prophets and whose debtors we were because we transgressed his commandment? The commandment was given to man by the Word. For Adam, Scripture says, heard the Voice of the Lord God. Correctly, then, does his Word say to man, Your sins are forgiven. It is the same one against whom we had sinned in the beginning who grants us remission of sins in the end. Now, if we transgressed the commandment of someone else than the one who said, Your sins are forgiven, such a one is not good or truthful or just. Really, how is he good if he does not give of his own things? Or how is he just if he steals what does not belong to him? And how are the sins truly forgiven unless the very one against whom we have sinned grants remission through the heart of our God’s mercy, by which he visited us through his Son? ^b(Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 5.17.1 in St. Irenaeus of Lyons: Against the Heresies Books 4 & 5 [trans. Dominic Unger and Scott D. Moringiello; Ancient Christian Writers 72; Mahwah, N.J.: The Newman Press, 2024], 163)

 

Radak (David Kimhi) on Isaiah 5:9

  

Radak on Isaiah 5:9:1

באזני. מאמר הקדוש ברוך הוא, אמר מה שאתם מדברים ביניכם ומסכימים לגזול העניים באזני עלה כי אני אדון צבאות מעלה וצבאות מטה ובידי להשפיל ולהרים, ואני אומר בתים רבים לשמה יהיו, אתם הייתם חושבים שאתם תשבו לבדכם ואני אומר שאתם תגלו מהם ובתיכם שהיו רבים וגדולים יהיו שממה מאין יושב: 

 

Radak on Isaiah 5:9:2

אם לא. לשון שבועה, וכן אם לא כאשר דמיתי כן היתה, אם לא שויתי ודוממתי, והוא כאדם שאומר לא יהיה זה אם לא יהיה זה: 

 

Radak on Isaiah 5:9:3

רבים. כמו רבי המלך, כלומר חשובים בבנין יפה, וכן גדולים וטובים, והוא כפל ענין במלות שונות, ויונתן תרגם הפסוק כן אמר נביא באודני הויתי שמע וגו': (source)

 

 

Radak on Isaiah 5:9:1
“In my ears.” The saying of the Holy One, blessed be He: He said, what you are saying among yourselves and agreeing to do—to rob the poor—has come into my ears, for I am the Lord of the hosts above and the hosts below, and in my hand is to bring low and to raise up. And I say that many houses shall become desolate. You thought that you would dwell there alone, but I say that you will be exiled from them, and your houses, which were many and great, shall become desolation, with no one inhabiting them.

 

Radak on Isaiah 5:9:2
“If not” is an expression of oath, as in “If not, as I have planned, so has it happened,” and “If not, I have calmed and made quiet.” It is like a person saying, “This shall not be unless that shall be.”

 

Radak on Isaiah 5:9:3
“Many” is like “many” of a king, that is, important ones in beautiful construction; and similarly “great and good.” This is a repetition of the idea in different words. Jonathan translated the verse thus: “He said in my ears, I heard,” etc.

 

 

Joseph F. Fantin on Pauline Authorship of Ephesians: The Minimal Personal Detail in the Letter

  

Fourth, the accusation that Ephesians is not personal and therefore not Pauline can be answered in a number of ways. First, Paul’s letters exhibit a varying level of personal content, and some do not include specific greetings in the conclusion. For example, although in Galatians Paul discusses himself, he does not make any personal comments to anyone specifically. Second, if Ephesians was not written by Paul, one might wish to include such greetings to make it look more like an authentic letter. Third, the reason that Paul did not include much personal data about himself may be explained in the letter. Near the end of the letter the author mentions that he is sending Tychicus in order to inform the readers of his circumstances (Eph. 6.21-22). There is no need (and/or other reasons) to duplicate this information in the letter. Finally, the most persuasive argument may be that the letter was intended to be circular. The phrase εν ‘Εφεσω is most likely a later addition to the text. It is lacking in the oldest and most important manuscripts of this passage (e.g. p⁴⁶ [c. 200 CE], the original hands of א and B [fourth century] and the later [tenth century] but important minuscule 1739). However, the phrase was added by the seventh-century corrector of א and the sixth-seventh century corrector of B. The earliest extant Greek manuscript with the phrase is A (fifth century), and it has the support of the Western (D, F, G) and Byzantine traditions (included within gothic M). The former has a tendency to include additions, and the latter has a tendency to harmonize. Also, the omission is favoured because it is the shorter and possibly more difficult reading. Finally, it is difficult to explain why it would have been deleted if original. Therefore, given both internal and extant external evidence, the original text of Ephesians does not identify a destination.

 

This in itself does not demand that we consider it a circular letter. In fact, the sending of Tychicus, as noted above (Eph. 6.21-22), seems to imply an intended audience. Also, one must explain how the location phrase became inserted into the text. When one considers all the factors, the following reconstruction seems to account for the details. The letter was intended as a circular letter for the churches throughout Asia Minor. There are a number of reasons why Ephesus would be an ideal initial destination for the letter. First, Ephesus was probably the most important city in the province. Second, it had a port and thus was an ideal first stop on a trip to Asia Minor. Third, the church there was probably one of the more established Pauline churches. Finally, the church was very close personally to Paul. For these reasons Ephesus probably had the resources and could be trusted to circulate a letter containing important teaching that Paul desired all to know. Tychicus thus brought the letter there and explained Paul’s desire and instruction. Additionally, it may even be speculated that Tychicus, after stopping in Ephesus, took the letter with him to Laodicea and then went on to Colossae. Tychicus’s instructions about relating Paul’s circumstances are repeated in Col. 4.7, which supports the notion that the letters were simultaneously dispatched. Thus, the letter coming from Laodicea mentioned in Col. 4.16 was in fact our circular letter. If this is the letter Marcion called the letter to the Laodiceans, this can explain Marcion’s title (certainly based partially on Col. 4.16), although he was incorrect if he assumed that the Laodiceans were primary recipients. Since Colossians was specifically addressed to the church at Colossae, it was to be read there first. Paul then instructs the church to have the letter (Colossians) read in Laodicea. The role of the Ephesian church in this process resulted in its name being attached to the letter. This reconstruction is highly speculative, and I acknowledge that it also raises a number of problems. It is also impossible to prove (or disprove). Additionally, our attempt to trace Tychicus’s travel route is even more tenuous and is not necessary for our more general reconstruction to be accurate. Nevertheless, this suggestion (with or without the Colossian connection) is plausible and does provide explanation for some of the problems raised by those who cannot justify Pauline authorship. The circular nature of the letter may also explain some of the differences with the letter to the Colossians, which was primarily directed to a specific church.

 

Thus, it is reasonable to maintain Pauline authorship of Ephesians. In fact, even in present New Testament scholarship there are strong voices for authenticity. Although the major commentaries by Best in the International Critical Commentary series and Lincoln in the Word Biblical Commentary series favour pseudonymity, two other recent commentaries, those by O’Brien and Hoehner, defend Pauline authorship. Additionally, Hoehner has compiled a list of commentaries and other important works from ancient to modern times with their position on Pauline authorship noted. There has been division over this issue for some time. Nevertheless, even in modern times, although one position may be slightly favoured over the other from decade to decade, there is consistently around a fifty-fifty split over this issue. (Joseph F. Fantin, The Lord of the Entire World: Lord Jesus, a Challenge to Lord Caesar? [New Testament Monographs 31; Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2011], 279-81)

 

Malbim and Malbim Beur Hamilot (19th century) on Malachi 1:11

 Source

 

Malbim Beur Hamilot on Malachi 1:11:1

מקטר מגש לשמי. מי שמוגש לשמי ר"ל הקרוב אלי, הוא מוקטר שמקטירים אליו קטורת, בעבור שהוא מוגש וקרוב אלי לפי דעתם, ומקטירים לו מנחה טהורה, ובזה אזל כל מה שנלחצו המפורשים בזה:

 

Malbim on Malachi 1:11:1

כי ממזרח שמש ועד מבואו, הגם שכל האומות עובדים ע"ז, בכ"ז גדול שמי בגוים, שכולם יודעים שיש סבה ראשונה עלוון על כולם וקרי ליה אלהא דאלהיא רק שאומרים שאין כבודו להשגיח בשפלים ושמסר הנהגת עולם השפל למשרתיו כמלך שמוסר ההנהגה לשריו ועבדיו ורוצה שיחלקו להם כבוד באשר הם הנגשים אל המלך והם האמצעים בינו ובין העם וכבודם הוא כבוד המלך, וכן כל מה שמקטירים לכוכבים ומזלות הוא מצד שאומרים שהם הקרובים אל הסבה הראשונה ומקבלים השפע מאתו, וז"ש ובכל מקום מקטר מגש לשמי, שמי שהוא מוגש לשמי הוא מוקטר, ר"ל שהם מקטירים קרבנות למי שהוא מוגש וקרוב לשם ה', ומי שחושבים בו שהוא מוגש לשם ה' הוא מוקטר, היינו שמקטירים אליו, ומצד זה מקטירים לצבא השמים שחושבים שהם מוגשים וקרובים לשם ה', והם מקטירים אליהם מנחה טהורה ונקיה, לא בעל מום ודברים בלתי טהורים ונכבדים, וזה מצד כי גדול שמי בגוים, עד שיכבדו כל המוגש לשמו והקרוב אליו:

 

 

Malbim Beur Hamilot on Malachi 1:11:1

“‘Offered and presented to My name’ means: whoever is presented to My name, that is, whoever is close to Me, is ‘offered’—for they burn incense to him because, in their view, he is presented and near to Me, and they offer him a pure offering. And with this, everything that the commentators were forced to say on this verse falls away.”

 

Malbim on Malachi 1:11:1

“For from the rising of the sun even unto its setting, although all the nations worship idolatry, nevertheless My name is great among the nations, for they all know that there is a First Cause above all causes, and they call Him ‘the God of gods’; only they say that it is not fitting for His honor to oversee the lower realms, and that He has entrusted the governance of the lower world to His ministers, like a king who hands over administration to his princes and servants and wants honor divided among them, since they are the ones who approach the king and stand between him and the people, and their honor is the king’s honor.

 

Likewise, all that they burn incense to the stars and constellations is because they say that these are the beings nearest to the First Cause and receive abundance from Him. This is what it means: ‘and in every place incense is offered and presented to My name’—that whoever is presented to My name is ‘offered,’ meaning that they burn sacrifices to whoever is presented and close to the name of the Lord. And whoever they think is presented to the name of the Lord is ‘offered,’ that is, incense is burned to him. And on account of this they burn incense to the host of heaven, because they think they are presented and close to the name of the Lord, and they offer them a pure and clean offering, not one that is blemished or impure or unworthy. And this is because ‘My name is great among the nations,’ such that they honor all who are presented to His name and close to Him.”