It only remains to add, that the history of Micaiah offers several points of interest, among which the two following may be specified : 1. Micaiah 's vision presents what may be regarded as transitional ideas of one ori- gin of evil actions. In Exodus, Jehovah himself is rep- resented as directly hardening Pharaoh's heart (vii, 3, 13 ; xiv, 4, 17 ; x,' 20, 27). In the Book of Job, the name of Satan is mentioned ; but he is admitted with- out rebuke, among the sons of God, into the presence of Jehovah (Job i, 0-12). After the captivity, the idea of Satan, as an independent principle of evil, in direct opposition to goodness, becomes fully established (1 Chron. xxi, 1 ; and compare Wisd. ii, 24). See Satan. Now the ideas presented in the vision of Micaiah are different from each of these three, and occupy a place of their own. They do not go so far as the Book of Job — much less so far as the itleas current after the captivity; but they go farther than Exodus. See Ewald, I'oet. Biicher, iii, (io. 2. The history of Micaiah is an exem- plification in practice of contradictory predictions being made by different prophets. Other striking instances occurin the time of Jeremiah (xiv, 13, 14; xxviii, 15,16; xxiii, IG, 25, 2()). The only rule bearing on the judg- ment to be formed under such circumstances seems to have been a negative one, which would be mainly use- ful after the event. It is laid down in Dent, xviii, 21, 22, where the question is asked, how the children of Is- rael iL-ei-e to knoiD the word which Jehovah had not spoken? The solution is, that "if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which Jehovah has not spoken." See PuoriiET.
Mice. See Mousp:.
Mi'cha (for tlie Ileb., etc., see Micaiah), the name of three men.
1. A son of i^Iephibosheth (2 Sam. ix, 12) ; elsewhere (1 Chron. viii, 34, 85) called IMicah (q. v.).
2. The son of Zabdi and father of Mattaniah, a Le- vite of the family of Asai)h (Neh. xi, 17, 22) ; probably the same that joined in the sacred covenant after the captivity (Nch. x, 11). B.C. cir. 410. In 1 Chron. ix, 15 his name is incorrectly Anglicized "Micah." He must not be confounded with the Michaiah of Neh. xii, 85.
3. " A Simeonite, father of Ozias, one of tlie three governors of the city of Bethulia in the time of Judith (Judith vi, 15). His name is remarkaV)le as being con- nected with one of the few specific allusions to the ten tribes after the captivity" (Smith).
Michae'as (Vulg. i<l.'), an erroneous form (2 Esdr. i, 39) of the name of the prophet jMk ah.
Mi'chael (Ileb. MlhieV, bxr^^, who is like God?
Sept. and N.T. Mixn>)X),the name of an archangel and of several men.
1. The title given in the angelologj- of the Jews adopted during the exile, to one of the chief angels, who, in Dan. x, 13-21 ; xii, 1, is described as having special charge of the Israelites as a nation, and in Jude 9 as disputing with Satan about the body of Moses, in which dispute, instead of bringing against the arch- enemy any railing accusation, he only said, " The Lord rebuke thee, O Satan !" Again, in Kev. xii, 7-9, Mi- chael and his angels are represented as warring with Satan and his angels in the upper regions, from which the latter are cast down upon the earth. "This rep- resentation served not only to give that vividness to man's faith in (Jod's supernatural agents, which was so much needed at a time of captivity, during the abey- ance of his local manifestations and regular agencies, but also to mark the finite and ministerial nature of the angels, lest they should be worshipped in themselves. Accordingly, as Gabriel represents the ministration of the angels towards man, so Michael is the type and leader of their strife, in God's name and his strength, against the power of Satan. In the (). T. therefore he is the guardian of the Jewish people in their antagonism to godless power and heathenism. In the N. T. (see Kev. xii, 7) he fights in heaven against the dragon — ' that old serpent called the Devil and Satan, which de- ceiveth the whole world:' and so takes part in that struggle which is the work of the Church on earth. The nature and method of his war against Satan are not explained, because the knowledge would be unnec- essary and perha])S impossible to us : the fact itself is revealed rarely, and with that mysterious vagueness which hangs over all angelic ministration, but yet with plainness and certainty" (Smith). On the authority of the first of these texts the Jews have named Michael not only one of the " seven" archangels, but the chief of them (comp. the Targum on Cant, viii, 9) ; and on the authority of all three the Christian Church has been disposed to concur in this impression (see J. D. Hiiber- lin, Selecta de Mich, ejusque opparitiombiis, gcstis et cultii, Ilelmst. 1758). The Jews regard the archangels as being such, not simply as a class by themselves, but as respectively the chiefs of the several classes into which they suppose the angels to be divided; and of these classes Michael is the head of the first, and there- fore chief of all the archangels {Siphrr 0/hioth, fol. IG). "The rabbinical traditions constantly oppose him to Sammael, the accuser and enemy of Israel, as disputing for the soul of Moses: as bringing the ram the substi- tute for Isaac, which Sammael sought to keep back, etc. : they give him the title of the ' great high-priest in heaven,' as well as that of the ' great prince and con- queror ;' and finally lay it down that ' wherever Michael is said to have appeared, there the glory of the Shechi- nah is intended.' It is clear that the sounder among them, in making such use of the name, intended to per- sonil'v tlie divine ]M)wer. and typify the ISIessiah (see Schi.'ttgen, //or. I/ebr. i, 1070, 1119;" ii. 8, 15, ed. Dresd. 1742)." Hengstenberg maintains at length (both in his Chrislolof/y and his Comvientdry on the Apoctdi/pse^ that Michael is no other than the Lord Jesus Christ himself; but this is hardly in accordance with the men- tion of the other archangel, Gabriel, nor with the other theophanies of the O. T.. in which the Logos appears only as the Angel [of] Jehovah, or the Angel of the Covenant. The passages in Daniel and Kcvelations must be taken .as symbolical, and in that view ofl'or lit- tle difficulty. In the former, one of the guardian angels of tlie .lews (probably (Jabriel, D.an. ix, 21) exhibits himself as a protector, and as struggling with the prince of Persia for the liberation of the Jewish exiles. In the discharge of this duty, IMichael, the chief guardian of the .same people, comes to help him. The first angel promises to return (from his visit to Daniel) to renew the contest, and indicates his success by declaring that " the prince of Greece will come," i. c. to overthrow the