Micah 1:13-14

13. Lachish The modern Tel-el-Hesy, in the Shephelah, sixteen miles east of Gaza, in a slightly northerly direction; at one time it was a city of considerable importance (Joshua 15:39; Jeremiah 34:7). The play is between the name of the city and the word translated “swift beast” (R.V., “steed”). Lachish is exhorted to flee as swiftly as possible, for the retribution about to overtake her will be exceptionally severe.

Beginning of the sin The prophet makes Lachish responsible for the corruption and idolatry of Judah.

Daughter of Zion A personification of Jerusalem and its inhabitants, standing here probably in the wider sense of Judah. The last clause seems to imply that in some way the corruption of Israel had been transplanted to Lachish, and from there in turn to Judah; or, perhaps, that corruption similar to that of Israel was found in Lachish. Certainty on this point cannot be had. If the former is the proper interpretation, nothing is known of how all this came about.

It is difficult to determine who is addressed in 14a; following so closely upon the mention of Lachish, one would naturally suppose that the words are intended for it; but did Moresheth-gath ever belong to Lachish? If the text is correct, it seems more satisfactory to interpret the words as addressed to Judah. It will be compelled to give up to the enemy Moresheth-gath (see p. 356). The play is upon Moresheth and the Hebrew word Me’orasah (Deuteronomy 22:23), “betrothed,” though the latter does not occur here. It suggested, however, the word translated “presents” (R.V., “a parting gift”). This word is used in 1 Kings 9:16, to denote the marriage portion given by the father to his daughter when she is married and leaves his home; in general it “denotes anything belonging to a man which he dismisses or gives up for a time, or forever.” In the latter sense the word is used here. Some suppose Moresheth to be addressed, and they change the text so as to read, “Therefore parting gifts shall be given to thee, O Moresheth-gath.”

Achzib Mentioned again in Joshua 15:44, along with Mareshah; it may be the same as Chezib (Genesis 38:5) and Cozeba (1 Chronicles 4:22). It is probably to be identified with the modern Ain-Kezbeh, about eight miles north-northeast of Beit-Jibrin, in the Shephelah. For “the houses of Achzib” we might read “the two Beth-Achzib,” and this is favored by some writers. The second Achzib is thought to be identical with the one mentioned in Joshua 19:29; Judges 1:31, and situated in the territory of Asher; which is identified with the modern Ez-zib, on the coast between Acco and Tyre. The ordinary translation is to be preferred, since in a list of towns in Judah a city in the far north is out of place.

Lie R.V., “deceitful thing.” The Hebrew word, akhzabh, is applied, in Jeremiah 15:18, to a stream that dries up during the hot season, and thus deceives the traveler, who expects to refresh himself with its water (compare also Job 6:15).

Kings of Israel Since the lament is concerning Judah, one would naturally expect “kings” or “king of Judah,” unless, on the basis of Micah 1:9, it is assumed that Micah expected the calamity to fall upon the north and south simultaneously. In that case “Israel” might be used of the whole people and “kings” of the monarchs of both Israel and Judah; they would find no refuge in Achzib, either because it is in ruin or because it is occupied by the enemy. If this is the right interpretation the translation “the two Achzib” becomes more probable; the king of Judah flees to the one in the south, the king of Israel to that in the north. Others take “Israel” to be equivalent to “Judah”; but this use of “Israel” is late and would point to a date subsequent to the eighth century B.C. Besides, Judah having but one ruler, what would “kings of Judah” mean? In reply it has been said, (1) that “kings” is equivalent to “dynasty,” and that the use of this term is perfectly justified, because when one king suffers the entire dynasty, represented in his person, suffers; (2) that after the prediction of the fall of the northern kingdom (Micah 1:6-7) “Israel” might be applied to Judah, for the latter was, after the destruction of Samaria, the sole representative of the nation Israel. To most students this reasoning will appear inconclusive, and it may be best to admit that much uncertainty remains.