The International Theological

Commentary on the Holy Scripture

of the Old and New Testaments
General Editors
Michael Allen
of Reformed Theological Seminary, USA
and
Scott R. Swain
of Reformed Theological Seminary, USA
Consulting Editors
Mark Gignilliat
of Beeson Divinity School, USA
Matthew Levering
of the University of St. Mary of the Lake, USA
C. Kavin Rowe
of Duke Divinity School, USA
Daniel J. Treier
of Wheaton College, USA
ii
 Micah

An International Theological
Commentary

Mark S. Gignilliat
 T&T CLARK
Bloomsbury Publishing Plc
50 Bedford Square, London, WC1B 3DP, UK
1385 Broadway, New York, NY 10018, USA

BLOOMSBURY, T&T CLARK and the T&T Clark logo are trademarks
of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc

First published in Great Britain 2019

Copyright © Mark S. Gignilliat, 2019

Mark S. Gignilliat has asserted his right under the Copyright, Designs
and Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as Author of this work.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted

in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying,
recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without prior
permission in writing from the publishers.

Bloomsbury Publishing Plc does not have any control over, or responsibility for,
any third-party websites referred to or in this book. All internet addresses given
in this book were correct at the time of going to press. The author and publisher
regret any inconvenience caused if addresses have changed or sites have ceased
to exist, but can accept no responsibility for any such changes.

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.

A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress.

ISBN: HB: 978-0-5671-9512-8

ePDF: 978-0-5676-8899-6
ePub: 978-0-5676-8898-9

Typeset by Integra Software Services Pvt. Ltd.

To find out more about our authors and books visit www.bloomsbury.com
and sign up for our newsletters.
 For Frank Limehouse
Pastor, Friend, and Lover of the Gospel
vi
 Contents

General Editors’ Preface viii

Preface x
Micah Commentaries Bibliography xii

A Theological Introduction to a Theological Commentary 1

Micah in Critical Dress: A Cursory Overview 33
Who Is a God Like You? Micah’s Theological Witness in the
Book of the Twelve: An Introductory Excurses 51

1 Micah 1:1—Prophetic Identities 71

2 Micah 2:1-5—Love Your Neighbor 101
3 Micah 3—Prophetic Recapitulation and Justification 127
4 Micah 4—Between Then and Now 149
5 Micah 5 173
6 Micah 6 193
7 Micah 7—Lamenting in Hope 213

Index 233
Scripture Index 247
 General Editors’ Preface

The T&T Clark International Theological Commentary Series aims

to offer interpretation of the Bible that addresses its theological
subject matter, gleaning from the best of the classical and the modern
commentary traditions and showing the doctrinal development of
scriptural truths. In so doing, it seeks to reconnect to the ecclesial
tradition of biblical commentary as an effort in ressourcement, though
not slavish repetition. Alert to tendencies toward atomism, historicism,
and skepticism, the series seeks to offer a corrective to the widespread
pathologies of academic study of the Bible in the modern era.
In contrast to modern study of the Bible as a collection of witnesses
(fragmented and diverse) to ancient religious beliefs and practices, this
series reflects upon Holy Scripture as a common witness from and of
the triune God of the gospel. These interpretations will give priority to
analysis of the scriptural text as such, reading any given passage not
only in its most immediate context but also according to its canonical
location, in light of what has historically been termed the analogia
scripturae. In so doing, however, the series does not mandate any
uniform approach to modern critical methods or to the appropriation
of classical reading practices; the manner in which canonical reading
occurs will follow the textual form and subject matter of the text rather
than dictate them.
Whereas much modern biblical criticism has operated on the
presumption that the doctrinal resources of the church are a hindrance
to the exegetical and historical task, commentaries in this series will
demonstrate a posture of dependence upon the creedal and confessional
heritage of the church. As Zacharius Ursinus noted centuries ago, the
catechetical and doctrinal resources of the church are meant to flow
from and lead back unto a cogent reading of the biblical canon. In so
doing, the reception history of the text will be viewed as a help and
not merely an obstacle to understanding portions of Holy Scripture.
 General Editors’ Preface ix

Without mandating a particular confessional position (whether Eastern

or Western, Roman or Protestant), the volumes will be marked by a
creedal and confessional alertness.
Finally, commentary serves to illumine the text to readers and, thus,
does well to attend not only to the original horizon of the text but also
to its target audience(s). Unfortunately, much biblical interpretation
in the modern academy (from both its more liberal and conservative
wings) operates as if a sharp divide should be drawn between the source
horizon and the receptive horizon. This series, however, gestures toward
contextual concerns regarding how the biblical literature impinges
upon, comes into confrontation with, or aligns with contemporary
questions. While the series does not do the work of homiletics, the
commentator ought to exposit with an eye to that end and an ear to
those concerns.
In seeking to honor these canonical, creedal, and contextual
commitments, then, the T&T Clark International Theological
Commentary Series will include sequential commentary on the totality
of scriptural books, though the format of volumes will be shaped by
the specific demands of the various biblical texts being expounded.
Commentators will provide English translations or make use of widely
known contemporary translations of varying sorts, but their exposition
will be based ultimately upon the original language(s). Commentators
will be selected for their capabilities as both exegetical and dogmatic
theologians, demonstrated in linguistic and literary facility, creedal and
confessional clarity, and an ability to relate the two analytic exercises of
dogmatic reasoning and exegetical reasoning. Through its principles,
format, and selective criteria for commentators, the series intends to
further sketch and, in so doing, show the significance of a theological
reading of Holy Scripture in the modern era.
Michael Allen and Scott Swain
 Preface

This project took longer than I anticipated. I am also aware it could use
more time. Like ships, commentaries need to be abandoned at times,
especially given the richness of Scripture’s material form and the infinite
reach of its subject matter. In part, the challenge of this commentary
was its seemingly limitless possibilities. The plane struggled to get
off the runway, so to speak. I have little doubt this commentary may
frustrate readers who inhabit the social space of a particular theological
discipline. Bible scholars may take issue with lines of inquiry unexplored
or left attenuated, with the expected interpretive hurdle of transgressing
Micah’s historical particularity. Theologians may wonder why a
particular line of thought or figural extension received short shrift. I
feel the force of these potential receptions as I abandon ship.
The form of the commentary follows a pattern established by Karl
Barth’s Church Dogmatics, though in reverse. The larger print follows the
text’s verbal character and literary logic, in light of Micah’s theological
subject matter. The small print explores figural or theological extensions
of the text where such are deemed “organic” or in accord with the text’s
literal sense. The danger of this format is the suggestion that the small
print is where theological reflection occurs, somewhat distanced by
material form from the verbal and literary logic of Micah’s prophetic
text. “Now, let’s do some theology post facto.” Such is not the case. I
understand the small and large print as inhabiting the same space
provided by the text’s verbal character and theological subject matter. I
retain the distinction in font as an aid to the reading process, a tool to
help the reader retain his or her orientation. At the same time, readers
will discover the small and larger print bleeding into each other and not
living up to a strict division or pattern.
I owe a debt of gratitude to Beeson Divinity School and Samford
University for a sabbatical leave during the 2011–2012 academic
year. I was awarded a faculty development grant from Samford that
 Preface xi

significantly aided my sabbatical travels. I remain grateful for this

opportunity as much of the groundwork for this project took place
during that time. I also extend my thanks to Professor Hermann
Spieckermann of the University of Göttingen who hosted me during
a six-month stay in Göttingen. For those who know Professor
Spieckermann, it goes without saying that a kinder and more gracious
host cannot be found. I also thank Nathan MacDonald and his family
who also hosted us during our time in Göttingen. Nathan’s productive
research habits are exemplary, and I benefited much from my time
with him.
My Doktorvater Christopher Seitz stands out as a consistent dialogue
partner both in the real and in my head. His intellectual energies and
capabilities loom large, and I am honored to stand in his shadow. My
thanks go to Don Collett as well. Dr. Collett is a friend and thinker of
the highest order. I owe much to him and his intellectual gifts. Former
student and priest, David Tew read through the manuscript and offered
substantial help along the way. My colleagues at Beeson Divinity School
continue as fruitful and able interlocutors. I thank especially Dr. Carl
Beckwith, though many others should be named. I would be remiss
if I failed to mention my students at Beeson Divinity School and the
parishioners of the Cathedral Church of the Advent. These friends in
both places afforded me contexts for teaching and thinking through
Micah. I’ve grown accustomed and grateful for the fruitful interaction
of academy and church.
And finally, to my family. My parents, Bill and Martha Gignilliat,
continue to support and encourage their middle-aged son. Their moving
near us in Birmingham has brought innumerable blessings. My wife
and I inhabit a domicile marked by the frenetic energy of four children,
ranging in age from early adolescence to preschool. Needless to say, it is
a wild ride, and I’m so glad and grateful to be on it with my wife, Naomi.
Writing books like this one seem far removed from what appears to
constitute my “normal” life. The aberrant pen marks found here or there
in my books remind me of what’s of enduring temporal and eternal
value. Thank you, Mary Grace, for those indelible reminders.
 Micah Commentaries Bibliography

Andersen, Francis I., and Freedman, David Noel, Micah: A New Translation
with Introduction and Commentary (Anchor Bible; New Haven: Yale
University Press, 2000).
Calvin, John, The Commentaries of John Calvin on the Prophet Micah (Calvin’s
Commentaries Volume XIV; trans. J. Owen; Grand Rapids: Baker Books,
2005).
Calvin, John, Sermons on the Book of Micah (trans. B.W. Farley; Phillipsburg:
P&R Publishing, 2003).
Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on the Twelve Prophets, Volume 2 (The
Fathers of the Church; trans. R. C. Hill; Washington: CUA Press, 2008).
Hillers, Delbert R, Micah (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984).
Jeremias, Jörg, Die Propheten Joel, Obadja, Jona, Micha (ATD 24, 3; Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007).
Luther, Martin, Minor Prophets I: Hosea-Malachi (AW 18; Saint Louis:
Concordia Publishing House, 1975).
Mays, James Luther, Micah (Old Testament Library; Philadelphia:
Westminster Press, 1976).
McKane, William, Micah: Introduction and Commentary (Edinburgh: T&T
Clark, 1998).
Nogalski, James D., The Book of the Twelve: Micah-Malachi (Smyth and
Helwys Bible Commentary; Macon: Smyth and Helwys, 2011).
Smith-Christopher, Daniel L., Micah (Old Testament Library; Louisville:
WJK, 2015).
Smith, Ralph L., Micah-Malachi (Word Biblical Commentary; Nashville:
Thomas Nelson, 1984).
Sweeney, Marvin A., The Twelve Prophets, Volume 2 (Berit Olam: Studies in
Hebrew Narrative & Poetry; Collegeville: The Liturgical Press, 2000).
Theodore of Mopsuestia, Commentary on the Twelve Prophets (The Fathers of
the Church; trans. R. C. Hill; Washington: CUA Press, 2004).
Theodoret of Cyrus, Commentaries on the Prophets, Volume 3: Commentary on the
Twelve Prophets (trans. R. C. Hill; Brookline: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2006).
Waltke, Bruce K, A Commentary on Micah (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007).
Wolff, Hans Walter, Micah: A Commentary (Continental Commentaries;
trans. Gary Stansell; Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1990).
 A Theological Introduction to a
Theological Commentary

Character of a theological commentary

The genre of biblical commentary writing has a long and noble

history. Its roots can be traced to the compositional history of the
Old Testament itself where in a process of interpretive and reflective
hearing of the biblical traditions the Bible comments on itself.1 Various
terms express this dynamic of self-referencing and interpretation:
intertextuality, relecture, Fortschreibung, Schriftgelehrte Prophetie.2
One of the more promising and interesting developments in recent
Old Testament studies is the detailed and analytical treatment of the
intertextual character of the biblical witness. The scholarly discussion
on intertextuality ranges from the technical – What is the criterion
used to identify intertextual allusions or quotations? How does one
distinguish a redactor from a Fortschreiber? – to the larger meta-
theological matters such as the social-religious underpinnings and

1
I will refer to the first part of the Christian canon as the Old Testament for the sake
of staking out clearly the interpretive stance from which this commentary is written,
i.e., the Old Testament as the first of a two-part Christian canon. See Christopher Seitz,
“Old Testament or Hebrew Bible? Some Theological Considerations,” in Word without
End: The Old Testament as Abiding Theological Witness (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998),
61–74.
2
See, e.g., Jörg Jeremias, “Das Rätsel der Schriftprophetie,” ZAW 125 (2013): 93–117;
Konrad Schmid, Schriftgelehrte Traditionsliterature: Fallstudien zur innerbiblischen
Schriftauslegung im Alten Testament (FAT 77; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011); Reinhard
Gregor Kratz, Prophetenstudien: Kleine Schriften II (FAT 74; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck,
2011), esp. chs 1–3.
2 Micah: An International Theological Commentary

motives for receiving and recalibrating biblical traditions from another

time in Israel’s religious history.3
In the body of this commentary, intertextual or cross-referencing
associations will play an important role. Suffice it to say at this point,
the force of the biblical traditions yields thoughtful theological
reflection on the enduring character of the biblical witness even within
the compositional history of the Old Testament itself. This internal
textual dynamic has been presented in various ways: Gerhard von
Rad’s concept of Vergegenwärtigung, viz., a process of older traditions
being made present in new moments of the divine economy; or
Michael Fishbane’s distinction between traditio and traditum in the
tradition-building process; or Brevard Childs’s understanding of a
canon consciousness (Kanonsbewusstein) as embedded within the Old
Testament’s compositional history.4
Though the precise dating of the phenomenon is blurry, the Old
Testament’s compositional history elides into reception history. The

3
See especially the work of Bernard Levinson, e.g., The Right Chorale: Studies in Biblical
Law and Interpretation (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2011) and Legal Revision and
Religious Renewal in Ancient Israel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008).
Readers may find the annotated bibliography in the latter volume helpful even if there
are disagreements over the thesis. See also Benjamin Sommer, Revelation and Authority:
Sinai in Jewish Scripture and Tradition (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2015). Sommer
affirms much of Levinson’s reading of the legal revision taking place in the compositional
history of Israel’s Scriptures, though he differs on some crucial matters, viz., Levinson’s
notion of a “scribal sleight of hand” where the scribes gesture toward the legal traditions
but only as a rhetorical trope to support their overturning of that tradition. Sommer
understands the scribes as viewing their “innovations” as within the stream of previous
legal traditions. Sommer makes a distinction between occasional Gesetz and divine
Gebot. The latter is that which undergirds all of the Gesetze in Judaism. Sommer draws
heavily from Franz Rosenzweig on this point and others (Sommer, Revelation, 241–51).
4
There are substantial differences between the various approaches listed above. In
particular, Childs’s approach works with necessary theological/ontological categories for
coming to terms with the way Scripture’s varied voices relate to each other on the level of
a shared subject matter. As will become apparent, my own theological and interpretive
sensibilities align with Childs on this matter. Von Rad and Fishbane, though different in
their own respective approaches as Childs points out in a review of Fishbane (see below),
view the intertextual character of Scripture as primarily a text-to-text phenomenon
within an historicist frame of understanding. See Brevard Childs, “Review of Michael
Fishbane’s Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel,” JBL 106 (1987): 511–13. The
taxonomy, therefore, is not intended to attenuate these significant differences. Rather,
it aims for a simple point: from various interpretive angles and intellectual/theological
sensibilities, scholars see the phenomenon of Scripture listening to itself as a central
component of its coming to be.
 Introduction to a Theological Commentary 3

distinction between scribe and editor is not hard and fast but can be
described by disposition toward the material. Once shaping, ordering,
and editing ceases then the activity becomes one of preservation and
transmission (Freedman, Micah, 29). In brief, composition of the texts
becomes reception of them with an explicit and implicit notion of their
anterior authority. The early efforts of reception are seen in the following:
in many senses the LXX is an exercise in reception and resignification,
the pesharim at Qumran, the New Testament documents, Rabbinic
midrashim, patristic exegesis, and then on through the history of
Jewish and Christian interpretation.
A word should be said here about the formal comparison of
Rabbinic and Christian approaches; these comparisons have been
observed for some time (Ellis et al.). For example, interpreters refer
to Paul's reading of the Old Testament in 2 Cor 6:2 as pesher-like in
quality or Matthew’s hearing of the Old Testament is “midrashic.” From
one angle, the formal comparisons are helpful in situating the New
Testament use of the Old Testament in its Jewish and historical context.
The unfortunate side of these formal comparisons is the attenuation
of the material differences between these approaches. The recognition
of these material differences between New Testament reading of the
Old Testament and pesher or midrash led Hans Hübner to describe
the New Testament reading of the Old Testament as “sui generis.”5
Hübner’s assessment makes a valid point and helps to highlight the
unique character of Christian reception of the Old Testament, even
when formal comparisons with other religious reading practices are
identified.
While taking into account the material differences between Jewish
and Christian reading practices, one shared outlook between these
approaches is a commitment to the sacred character of the Old
Testament/Hebrew Bible and the immediate proximity of the text’s

5
Hans Hübner, “New Testament Interpretation of the Old Testament,” in Hebrew Bible/
Old Testament: The History of Its Interpretation; Vol. I From Beginnings to the Middle Ages
(ed. Magne Saebø; Göttingen: Vandhenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996), 237.
4 Micah: An International Theological Commentary

authorial voice, i.e., God is speaking now.6 For example, in a recent

chapter by Benjamin Sommer entitled “Dating Pentateuchal Texts and
the Perils of Pseudo-Historicism,” Sommer calls a spade a spade when
he says modern biblical scholars are copping out when they reduce texts
to their historical genesis—“texts as reactions to historical, political,
social, and/or economic factors”—without taking into account, in
Sommer’s terms, “religious intuitions that are essentially timeless”.7
From a theological understanding of the canonical character of the
Scriptures as norma normans non normata, these biblical texts are a
divine word whose meaning and significance are not locked in their
compositional genesis. They continue as a unique vehicle for divine
self-disclosure.8
Admittedly, the language of “timeless” runs the danger of
eviscerating the texts of their creaturely and historical character, so
perhaps instead we might claim the following: the biblical texts as

6
Commenting on the significance of the Twelve at Qumran, Francis Watson comments,
“Above all, text and interpretation both articulate what might be called an oppositional
ethos. Hosea, Micah, Zephaniah and Malachi have no inhibitions about denouncing
current religious and political power structures, and empower their commentators to do
likewise. In that sense, the sect’s oppositional ethos is a genuinely scriptural construct;
in its interpretations, the prophetic voice from the past again becomes contemporary.”
Francis Watson, Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith (London: T&T Clark, 2004), 111.
7
Benjamin Sommer, “Dating Pentateuchal Texts and the Danger of Pseudo-Historicisim,”
in The Pentateuch: International Perspectives on Current Research (ed. T. B. Dozeman, K.
Schmid, B. J. Schwarz; FAT 78; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 107.
8
Dutch theologian Herman Bavinck provides the following account of Scripture’s
inspiration: “Scripture, accordingly, does not stand by itself. It may not be construed
deistically. It is rooted in a centuries-long history and is the fruit of God’s revelation
among the people of Israel and in Christ. Still it is not a book of times long past, which
only links us with persons and events of the past. Holy Scripture is not an arid story
or ancient chronicle but the ever-living, eternally youthful Word, which God, now and
always, issues to his people. It is the eternally ongoing speech of God to us. It does not
just serve to give us historical information; it does not even have the intent to furnish us
a historical story by the standard of reliability demanded in other realms of knowledge.
Holy Scripture is tendentious: whatever was written in former days was written for our
instruction, that by steadfastness and by the encouragement of the Scriptures we might
have hope [Rom. 15:4]. Scripture was written by the Holy Spirit that it might serve him
in guiding the church, in the perfecting of the saints, in building up the body of Christ.
In it God daily comes to his people. In it he speaks to his people, not from afar but from
nearby … It is the living voice of God … Divine inspiration, accordingly, is a permanent
attribute of Holy Scripture. It was not only ‘God-breathed’ at the time it was written; it
is ‘God-breathing.’” Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, Vol. I: Prolegomena (trans.
John Vriend; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003), 384–85.
 Introduction to a Theological Commentary 5

products of time-conditioned realities may be illuminated by their time-

conditioned status but their range of meaning and effects are not hemmed
in by it.9 The compositional history of the Old Testament documents
themselves attests to this phenomenon as the sacred traditions of
Israel are transmitted for the sake of the enduring nature of the legal,
prophetic, and wise counsel of God for his people. “Write this down for
a future generation,” says Isaiah the prophet twice over to his disciples in
the prophetic book that bears his name (Isa 8:16; 30:8). Similarly, Paul
says in Rom 15:4 that what was written in the former days was written
for our instruction.10 The Christian Scriptures are “eternally youthful,”
in Herman Bavinck’s felicitous turn of phrase, making themselves
immediately present by means of the teaching and exhortative office of
the Holy Spirit. Such a theological claim resides near the center of the
Old Testament’s own coming-to-be and its history of reception.
Uwe Becker traces the methodological move from form-critical
approaches to the prophets—dominant until the 1970s—to tradition-
historical approaches where the distinction between “authentic” (Echt)
and “inauthentic” (Unecht) becomes brittle. By methodological instinct,
the form-critical approach sought “die prophetische Stimme” and
required a sifting through the layers of tradition built upon the viva vox
of the historical prophet to find this authentic voice. Walther Zimmerli’s
monumental and celebrated commentary on Ezekiel drew attention to
the problems of the form-critical approach because of the expansive or

9
Commenting on the significance of the Cyrus Cylinder for interpreting Isaiah, Childs
comments, “Regardless of this continuing debate, the importance of studying these
parallels lies in providing a check against isolating the Hebrew prophet from his specific
historical context as if his text represented timeless religious literature that floated
above all historical particularity.” Brevard S. Childs, Isaiah (The Old Testament Library;
Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 2001), 350.
10
Commenting on the preserving of Isaiah’s prophetic word, von Rad claims, “If his own
generation had rejected it, then it must be put in writing for a future one. The very
fact that Isaiah did write it down makes clear that in his eyes the prophetic message
was far from being a dead letter even if it had failed.” Gerhard von Rad, Old Testament
Theology, Volume II (trans. D. M. G. Stalker; San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1965), 167.
Von Rad elaborates on the tradition-historical implications of such “handing down” of
the prophetic traditions when he describes them as a “living organism, speaking directly
to later generations as it had done to its own, and able even of itself to give birth to new
prophecy” (Von Rad, OTT II, 168).
6 Micah: An International Theological Commentary

“lively” (Lebendigkeit) character of the prophetic word via the prophetic

schools attached to the prophets. As an aside, Zimmerli does not rule
out the prophet’s own involvement in these acts of prophetic editing
and Fortschreibungen.11 Zimmerli gave these so-called “secondary”
passages a new valuation (Bewertung). “Mit den Kategorien Echt-
Unecht ist diese Sekundärtradition nicht zu fassen. Vielmehr bezeugt
sie die unmittelbare Lebendigkeit des Prophetenwortes in Schülerkreis.
Deiser sucht die Worte in einem etwas späteren Zeitpunkte neu aus dem
Ganzen des durch Ez hörbaren Gotteswortes heraus zu verstehen.”12
Becker identifies the earlier thought of Gerhard von Rad as leaning
in the same direction regarding the prophets. Von Rad claims, “Ohne
Zweifel muss es unsere Prophetenexegese noch mehr lernen, diese
langsame Anriecherung der prophetischen Überlieferung unter einem
anderen Gesichtspunkt zu betrachten als dem der ‘Unechtheit’ und
einer unerfreulichen Entstellung des Ursprünglichen. Ist dieser Prozess
doch vielmehr ein Zeichen für die Lebendigkeit, mit der die alte
Botschaft weitergegeben und neuen Situationen angepasst wurde.”13
The prophetic word as “Gotteswortes” is lively and fertile as it makes
its force felt in new situations. Such a tradition-historical account of
the prophetic books’ coming-to-be teems with Christian theological
vocabulary regarding the inspiration of Scripture and God’s providential
oversight of his own prophetic word.
The biblical documents witness beyond themselves to the God who
has spoken and is speaking through them. This understanding of the
character of the biblical witness shapes the exegesis of the text itself.
More than this, however, is the ordering of our knowing and reading
in light of the identity of the one God with whom we have to do, a
God whose identity and name within Christian discourse is the Father,
Son, and Holy Ghost. A theological commentary operates within this

11
Walther Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1–24 (BKAT XIII/1; Neukirchener Verlag, 1969), 111.
12
Uwe Becker, “Die Wiederentdeckung des Prophetenbuches: Tendenzen und Aufgaben
der gegenwärtigen Prophetenforschung,” BTZ 21 (2004): 32.
13
Ibid., 33.
 Introduction to a Theological Commentary 7

interpretive tradition: the sacred character of the biblical witness is

brought to the center of the exegetical task. In other words, theological
commitments or confessions of faith regarding the character of the
Old Testament in the divine economy are not viewed as exegetical
trimmings on the table. They constitute the meal.
The “scientific” character of Christian theology, as Barth reminds,
requires “criticism and correction” of the Church’s talk about God.
It engages this activity in accord with the “criterion of the Church’s
own principle.”14 The object of theology’s inquiry necessitates a path
of knowledge that is commensurate with theology’s objects and is,
therefore, not beholden to the standards of other scientific disciplines.15
There are significant hermeneutical implications with such an account
of theology’s “scientific” character. With the history of the Christian,
interpretive tradition—a tradition with which this commentary
identifies itself—a commitment to the ontology of the Old Testament as
a vehicle for divine self-disclosure is affirmed. Because these theological
commitments are front-loaded and not “bracketed out,” our exegetical
approach needs to be constrained by this governing ontology of the
text. Moreover, it is confessed on the front end of the exegetical task
that God has disclosed himself as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This self-
identification of God is constitutive of Old Testament reading and the
identification of the subject matter with which we are dealing, or better,
encountering. Colossians reminds us that “he [Christ] is before all
things” (Col 1:17).16 Such a claim relates materially to Christian reading
practices of the Old Testament.
John Webster claims, “In Christian theological usage, Scripture
is an ontological category; to speak of the Bible as Holy Scripture is
to indicate what it is.”17 Webster presses the matter further. “To say

14
Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics I.1 (trans. G. W. Bromiley; ed. G. W. Bromiley and T. F.
Torrance; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1975), 6.
15
Ibid., 10.
16
See the comments ad loc. in Christopher Seitz, Colossians (Brazos Theological
Commentary on the Bible; Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2014).
17
John Webster, “Resurrection and Scripture,” in Christology and Scripture: Interdisciplinary
Perspectives (ed. A. T. Lincoln, A. Paddison; London: T&T Clark, 2007), 144.
8 Micah: An International Theological Commentary

‘Scripture’ is to say ‘revelation’—not just in the sense that these texts

are to be handled as if they were bearers of divine revelation, but in
the sense that revelation is fundamental to the texts’ being.”18 If such a
formal claim is made about Scripture’s ontology, it follows naturally to
speak of the ontological or metaphysical dimension attendant to the
material character of Scripture, namely, language as shaped canonically
in our two-testament canon.19
John Webster’s sagacious contributions to the interface of biblical
exegesis and Christian dogmatics remain an enduring and fruitful
gift to the church and its theological community. One particular
concern of Webster’s later work on the subject matter is a proper
theological/metaphysical account of Scripture’s being (as indicated in
the previous paragraph). Webster stresses that “bibliology is prior to
hermeneutics.”20 As he further explains, “Theology talks of what the
biblical text is and what the text does before talking of who we are
and what we do with the text, and it talks about what the text is and
does by talking of God as Scripture’s author and illuminator.”21 These
instincts relate to Webster’s long and nurtured allergy to the fussiness
of a term like hermeneutics in favor of a more modest category like
reading.22

18
Ibid., 144.
19
The reciprocal relationship between literary semantics and Scripture’s Trinitarian
subject matter is especially evident in Luther’s Old Testament exegesis. In her insightful
examination of Luther’s Trinitarian hermeneutic, Christine Helmer shows how Luther
tethers himself to the Hebrew text and language itself as the “vehicle for Trinitarian
knowledge” (Christine Helmer, “Luther’s Trinitarian Hermeneutic and the Old
Testament,” Modern Theology 18 [2002]: 55). The Holy Spirit as teaching and authorial
agent of Israel’s Scriptures opens up the tangible and fixed character of the Hebrew text
to the divine mystery. In Helmer’s terms, “Hebrew is the language the Spirit uses to refer
to a theological subject matter” (ibid., 55). Of significance here is Luther’s close attention
to the Hebrew text and the peculiarities of its syntactical/lexical idiom as “a first step in
grasping the Trinitarian reality” (ibid., 55). She concludes, “With respect to the Trinity,
the only material is the letter that points beyond itself, to a subject matter in eternity”
(ibid., 65).
20
John Webster, The Domain of the Word: Scripture and Theological Reason (London: T&T
Clark, 2012), 4.
21
Ibid., 4.
22
John Webster, Word and Church (London: Continuum, 2002), 47–86.
 Introduction to a Theological Commentary 9

Theological exegesis and modernity’s challenge

Hermeneutical commitments shaped by the speculative theological

tradition became strained in the period of modernity when the literal
sense was identified with the historical sense simpliciter.23 This is an oft-
rehearsed narrative, and I run the risk of simplification. Nevertheless,
the theological character of the Old Testament’s witness on this
account was either ignored or located in the safe and distant place
of Israel’s ancient and developing religious experience. The gracious
and thunderous voice of Yhwh becomes the object of analytical and
detached study of an ancient people: a tamed Bible and a tamed God.24
The rise of modernity and critical approaches to reading the Bible
brought with it fresh challenges, new avenues of thought, and a
sharpness to the critical questions posed to the biblical documents. The
previous paragraphs run the danger of identifying the usual suspects
of modernity with facile descriptors unable to do justice to the great
achievements of this period. Despite how one interprets the evidence
of the ancient Near East and the literary character of the biblical
documents—and the evidence does demand interpretation and is not
self-authenticating—the fruits of knowledge in comparative religion
and philology, archaeology, paleography, scribal practices, literary
history, and a host of other illuminating phenomenon from the ancient

23
Brevard Childs, “The Sensus Literalis of Scripture: An Ancient and Modern Problem,”
in Beiträge zur Alttestamentlichen Theologie: Festschrift für Walther Zimmerli zum 70
Geburtstag (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977), 80–93.
24
Langdon Gilkey’s 1961 shot over the starboard bow against the post–Second World War
Biblical Theology movement retains its devastating force. Langdon Gilkey, “Cosmology,
Ontology, and the Travail of Biblical Language,” Journal of Religion 41 (1961): 194–205.
Gilkey problematizes the relationship between a modern scientific cosmology and an
orthodox faith: the two facets that the Biblical Theology movement sought to hold
together. Gary Dorrien expresses Gilkey’s thesis as follows: “Thus the Bible, as rendered
by biblical theology, did not really describe the acts of God, but the faith of Hebrew
religion. In the Bible, God was the subject of the verbs, but in biblical theology, Hebrew
faith displaced God as the subject of the verbs.” Gary Dorrien, The Making of American
Liberal Theology: Crisis, Irony, & Postmodernity 1950–2005 (Louisville: WJK, 2006), 277.
Or in Gilkey’s own terms, “For us, then, the Bible is a book of the acts Hebrews believed
God might have done and the words he might have said had he done and said them—but
of course we recognize he did not” (Gilkey, “Cosmology,” 196–97). See also, Seitz, Word
without End, 79.
10 Micah: An International Theological Commentary

world continue to fascinate and draw scholars down interesting avenues

of discovery. These achievements notwithstanding, the conflation of
the literal sense of Scripture with its historical sense creates a different
kind of interpretive and scholarly goal for those in the discipline of Old
Testament studies. The literal sense of Scripture, along lines set out by
Benedict Spinoza, went the way of historical excavation of one kind or
another while the spiritual or theological sense of the Scripture went the
way of homileticians and church-persons.25 The uneasy relationship, at
times more acute than others, between modern, critical approaches and
a commitment to the sacred character of the Bible is felt to this day.
The German historicist tradition entered the philosophical stage with
force after the demise of Hegel’s long reign in the German philosophical
tradition. I lean heavily on Frederick Beiser’s account of philosophy
after Hegel in the second half of the nineteenth century. Beiser recounts
a compelling narrative of philosophy’s fight for existence in university
life because of the dominant interest in the natural sciences. The natural
sciences gave serious pause to the intelligentsia of the day as to the
necessity of philosophy as a stand-alone discipline. Enter the materialist
controversies. Enter Schopenhauer. And more germane to our subject
matter, enter the historicist tradition.26
Historicism, as an intellectual movement, arose in response to
the search for transcendent warrant for moral, political, and societal
values. In other words, though the Enlightenment had rejected the
classic Christian metaphysics where God and God’s providential
ordering of history toward his own ends played center court, it had not
rejected metaphysics outright. Rather, it sought to ground metaphysics
in universal principles of reason located in the rational and ordered
inquiry of humanity. These universal principles are irrespective of

25
Benedict Spinoza, Theological-Political Treatise (Cambridge Texts in the History of
Philosophy; ed. J. Israel; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 3–12. On the
broad-ranging influence of “Spinozism” c. 1650–1750, see Jonathan I. Israel, Radical
Enlightenment: Philosophy and the Making of Modernity 1650–1750 (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2001), esp. ch. 24.
26
Frederick C. Beiser, After Hegel: German Philosophy, 1840–1900 (Princeton: Princeton
University Press, 2014).
 Introduction to a Theological Commentary 11

historically particular places, times, or cultures. Historicism rejects

outright both Christian and Enlightenment metaphysics, resisting any
account of the transcendent apart from the particularities of place,
time, and culture.
Beiser points out in his insightful book, The German Historicist
Tradition, that historicism as a philosophical movement operated with
the intellectual orbit of their nominalist forbearers. Nominalism in
its late medieval guise also rejected universals in favor of particulars.
Or put in other terms, universals were concepts of the mind (thus
“conceptualist”) based on shared relations. But, according to Richard
Cross, substance is numerically one and singular in Ockhamist
nominalism.27 Existence resides in the particular and concrete, not in
the abstract or ideal. Forms are material things. As Beiser summarizes,
“The meaning and purpose of a thought, intention, value or belief did
not exist apart from the determinate context, actions and words that
expressed or embodied it. Since these expressions and embodiments
are so different, indeed incommensurable, there cannot be a single
form of human nature, reason or value. To talk about reason, value
or human nature in general, apart from their specific expressions
or embodiments in a specific time and place, is to indulge in mere
abstractions.”28 So to repeat what has been stated, historicism as an
intellectual movement rejects metaphysics of both the Theistic/
Christian type and the Enlightenment kind. As Beiser concludes,
“The fundamental principle of historicism is that all human actions

27
Richard Cross, The Medieval Christian Philosophers: An Introduction (New York: I. B.
Tauris, 2014), 190. Radner makes a compelling case for the potential of figural reading
from both participationist metaphysics and a metaphysics of omnipotence (Ockham).
Ephraim Radner, Time and the Word: Figural Reading of the Christian Scriptures (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016), 160–61. It should be noted, according to Radner and others,
that Ockham’s understanding of the singularity of substance does not necessitate a strict
literalist reading of Scripture. Ockham’s metaphysics of omnipotence allows for figural
reading (p. 152). In a similar and perhaps more accessible vein, see Matthew Levering,
Participatory Exegesis: A Theology of Biblical Interpretation (South Bend: University of
Notre Dame Press, 2008).
28
Frederick C. Beiser, The German Historicist Tradition (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2015), 5.
12 Micah: An International Theological Commentary

and ideas have to be explained historically according to their specific

historical causes and contexts.”29
Beiser’s book is some five hundred plus pages of densely researched
argument regarding the character, scope, and principal figures of the
German historicist tradition: all the way from Chladenius and Herder
through Humboldt and Dilthey to Max Weber. So it goes without
saying that the surface is barely being picked. Nevertheless, enough of
the picture is before us to begin to see the massive impact historicist
modes of thinking have had on biblical studies in the academy and the
church. I want to avoid reduction or a Whig interpretation of history.
Modern biblical criticism is a rich and varied thing, whose results
provide important avenues of inquiry and appreciation for Scripture’s
linguistic, poetic, and historical depth. But somewhere lurking in the
shadows or perhaps dancing in full view is the historicist resistance to
theological metaphysics as a critical tool for reading historical texts.
The achievements of modern, critical readings of the Old Testament
need not be dispensed with in toto on this “theological” account of
reading. In fact, this commentary in the hands of Calvin or Luther
would strike them as odd simply because of its placement on the far
side of modernity and the challenges needing to be negotiated because
of this providential location. Certain kinds of questions related to the
biblical documents were not as sharply anticipated by the premodern

29
Ibid., 15. There are other approaches to this matter than the metaphysical (though I think
from a Christian theological perspective this is the preferred track). Gadamer in Truth
and Method speaks of the implicit problems of historicism and romantic psychological
approaches in their sealing off texts from their reception and effects (Wirkung). Temporal
distance, in Gadamer’s terms, is not something that must be overcome (308). Gadamer
links this notion with the “naïve assumption of historicism.” Rather, temporal distance
creates the necessary conditions because the “yawning abyss” is filled with the continuity
of custom and tradition. In an important point, Gadamer claims the following: “The
positive conditions of historical understanding include the relative closure of a historical
event, which allows us to view it as a whole, and its distance from contemporary
opinions concerning its import” (309). Gadamer’s “fusion of horizons” is born out of
these reflections. There seems to be compatibility in this view and Childs’s privileging
of the final form of the text. Where Gadamer’s project suffers for theological exegesis
is in its theological anemia. For Childs, the final form of the biblical text is itself an
historical achievement of God’s providence. Without such a theological understanding
of God’s ordering of creaturely affairs, the final form of the biblical text would not claim
superiority in light of early literary layers and strata.
 Introduction to a Theological Commentary 13

tradition—though even here one is surprised to find Calvin wrestling

with issues such as the authorship of Joshua and 2 Peter. Modern
criticism has brought the complexity of the Old Testament’s literary
history into acute focus along with attention to the creaturely character
of the biblical documents. At the same time, modern, critical instincts,
and judgments need to be placed in a proper dogmatic locale in order
to be situated organically within a single act of reading, a reading that is
unsettled when careful textual and exegetical work goes one way while
“homileticians” and “theologians” go another.
The epistemic starting point of faith seeking understanding has
a hermeneutical force to it. It shapes and alters what we mean by
“meaning.” Spinoza’s early insistence on reading the literal sense
of the text within the hermetically sealed world of its storied and
compositional genesis has had a very long shelf life in Old Testament
studies: whether in the vein of baldly historicist approaches (Vatke’s
“only as it really occurred”) or more sensitive religious-historical
ones like de Wette’s or in time Gunkel’s. Still, a theological account of
“meaning” became more problematic with these approaches. Meaning
became located in the reconstructed historical moment or religious
experience as a more manageable or objective entity whose treasures
could be unlocked with careful and rigorous philological analysis
conjoined with religious-historical feeling and imagination. Meaning,
however, was not framed within the epistemic contours of a Trinitarian
faith or within the potential of the Christian Bible as a two-testament
canon to recalibrate our understanding of the Old Testament’s subject
matter. “The Scriptures became a source not a witness,” as recounted by
Brevard Childs.30 A theological commentary such as the one on offer
here seeks to hear the Old Testament as an abiding theological witness
whose authorial voice and governed deployment remain under the
providential care our Triune God.

30
Especially insightful on this point is Christopher R. Seitz, “Scripture Becomes Religion(s):
The Theological Crisis of Serious Biblical Interpretation in the Twentieth Century,” in
Figured Out: Typology and Providence in Christian Scripture (Louisville: WJK, 2001),
13–34.
14 Micah: An International Theological Commentary

Before turning to the Trinitarian character of Scripture reading,

a final word should be offered about the significance of the task of
continued Old Testament exegesis. Early in the twentieth century,
A. J. Gunneweg declared, “Indeed it would be no exaggeration to
understand the hermeneutical problem of the Old Testament as the
problem of Christian theology, and not just one problem among others,
seeing that all the other questions of theology are affected in one way or
another by its resolution.”31 Such a statement seems hyperbolic prima
facie. But as the recent resurgence of interest in patristic exegesis has
made manifest, the early church’s struggle after the triune character of
God was a battle waged on the battlefield of biblical exegesis, and more
particularly, the exegesis of the Old Testament.32
The demise of a certain kind of confidence attached to methods that
promised objective results has had the positive outcome of revealing the
important and inescapable significance of the interpretive apparatus we
bring to the task. Jon Levinson reminds Christian and Jewish readers of
Scripture to avoid hiding behind the gossamer veil of “objectivity” while
being more forthright about their religious location as scholars.33 These
positions influence our reading, and they should. With all the exegetical
help offered from modern, critical readings of the Old Testament in tow,
this commentary operates within a Trinitarian confession along with the
hermeneutical implications of this confession. Such an approach is not
necessarily “heavy-handed,” forcing texts to bear more theological weight

31
A. H. J. Gunneweg, Understanding the Old Testament (trans. J. Bowden; London: SCM
Press, 1978), 2.
32
See, e.g., Lewis Ayres, Nicaea and Its Legacy: An Approach to Fourth-Century Trinitarian
Theology (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006). Ayres warns modern Hegelians about
accepting fourth-century Trinitarian conclusions while denying the exegetical instincts
leading to these conclusions (ibid., 388).
33
Jon D. Levenson, “Teaching the Texts in Context,” Harvard Divinity Bulletin 35:4 (2007):
19–21. Levenson makes a pointed comment about “secular” approaches to biblical
studies in the face of the religious convictions making possible the broad influence of
this field of study. “But quite a challenge awaits those secular students of the Bible when
they find themselves teaching college students whose main motivation for pursuing the
subject is deeply involved with their religious commitments. The more thoughtful of
them may come to suspect that there is something parasitical about a field of scholarship
that travels on the residual momentum of religious traditions that it studiously keeps out
of view, or even disparages” (ibid., 20).
 Introduction to a Theological Commentary 15

than they can or finding Jesus hidden behind textual rocks and trees.
Rather, the Scripture’s subject matters, shaped as it is by the totality of the
biblical witness and theological confession, provide a broader frame of
reference than the hermetically sealed world of the texts in the various
historical contexts of their composition. Allow me to illustrate these
hermeneutical instincts from the subject of this commentary, Micah.
The prophetic ministry of Micah the eighth-century prophet
took place in one of Israel and Judah’s most cataclysmic historical
events. This was a period of great upheaval for both the Northern
and Southern Kingdoms. After a period of decline, the Neo-Assyrian
Empire renewed its expansive energies under the leadership of Tiglath-
pileser III (744–727 bc). This expansion included Israel and Judah as
part of Neo-Assyria’s move into the Levant. Amélie Kuhrt suggests, “It
is possible that the rapid succession of usurpations in Israel between
745 and 722 is to be explained by the internal instability within Israel
created by conflicting attempts to cope with Assyrian demands.”34
Because of Israel’s alliance with Damascus in the so-called Syro-
Ephraimite war, Tiglath-pileser III reconfigured large portions of Israel
in 732 bc, leaving Samaria diminished in comparison to its former
self.35 A decade later, Israel’s alliance with Egypt brought with it the
ire of Tiglath-pileser’s son, Shalmaneser V. As is oft-repeated and well
attested, Samaria fell in 722 bc, but Neo-Assyria’s tyranny continued to
haunt Judah in the South long past these finalizing events in the North.
Sargon II (721–705) and his forces brought with them the dread
of a ruthless, imperial force. His successor, Sennacherib (704–681),
invaded Judah during Hezekiah’s reign (701/702 bc). Sennacherib’s
incursion into Judah wreaked havoc in the Shephelah region of Micah’s
hometown in Moresheth.36 It is possible that the rough syntax of Mic

34
Amélie Kuhrt, The Ancient Near East: c. 3000–330 bc, Volume Two (New York: Routledge,
1995), 496. See also the accessible and helpful description of these events in Marc Van De
Mieroop, A History of the Ancient Near East, ca. 3000–323 bc, Second Edition (Blackwell
History of the Ancient Near East; Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2007).
35
Ibid., 469.
36
James B. Pritchard (ed.), The Ancient Near East: An Anthology of Texts and Pictured
(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2010), 287–88.
16 Micah: An International Theological Commentary

1:10-16 reveals the horrific confusion of the time. The second greatest
city of Judah, Lachish, fell in the onslaught of Sennacherib—as the
famed Lachish reliefs tell in pictured form. For all intents and purposes,
Judah's total demise was immanent, except for the intervening hand
of Yhwh on their behalf. These are the moments in which Micah
ministered; these moments set the prophetic trajectory for the literary
composition of the book as we now have it.
At the same time, the book’s ending tells us something about its
canonical intention. The critical issues will be engaged later, though it is
enough to mention now the possible redactional addition of Mic 7:18-
20 during the period when the Book of the Twelve was being shaped as
a literary whole. As will be discussed more fully later, this does not
attenuate the canonical status of these “additions” within Micah’s
prophetic book. In fact, they may function as interpretive guides for
helping the reader to understand the book’s broad intent. In the case of
Micah, the book ends with an intertextual appeal to Exodus 34 where
the character of God is revealed. The canonical conclusion of Micah
frames for subsequent readers the theological reception of the book.
The historical accident of Micah’s prophetic activity and subsequent
prophetic reflection on his ministry are recorded and preserved to tell
us something about the character of Yhwh, the character of the God
who (a) would allow the Assyrians to do what they did and what the
Babylonians would eventually do (the theonomy question) and (b) not
allow these fatal moments to be God’s final word—‫והיה באחרית הימים‬.
In Neil MacDonald’s helpful phrase, the identity of Yhwh in the Old
Testament is a judging, yet desisting and forbearing self.37 The historical
encounter between Yhwh and the kingdoms of Israel and Judah reveals
the character of the one God of the two testaments. The internal
dynamics at play in the book of Micah—sin, judgment, covenant
infidelity, political and religious machinations devoid of faithfulness,
the threat of other nations—are the redemptive stage of the divine

37
Neil B. MacDonald, Metaphysics and the God of Israel: Systematic Theology of the Old and
New Testaments (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006).
 Introduction to a Theological Commentary 17

economy, now attested to in the canonical prophet and in association

with other prophetic witnesses as Yhwh reveals his identity. Yhwh
is a God who judges sin, does not allow his judgment to be the final
word, and promises redemption on the far side. An attendance to the
internal claims of Micah itself reveals the canonical force of the book
as an enduring word that goes beyond the immediate circumstances
that gave rise to the historical prophet and the book attached to his
name. Indeed, “Who is a God like you?”38 The canonical prophet Micah
anticipates generations of readers who will raise the same inquisitive
and hopeful question.

Trinitarian retinae or exegetical metaphysics

Let us return to the matter of a Trinitarian hermeneutic for reading the

Old Testament. The claims about to be made here are straightforward
from the perspective of the church’s belief in the gospel—namely, belief
in the triune God provides the epistemic grounding for all exegetical
activities.39 Nevertheless, their hermeneutical significance for reading
the Old Testament creates unfortunate difficulties for those involved in
rigorous engagement with the biblical text in an academic sense, who

38
Gerhard von Rad makes much of the canonical afterlife of the prophetic word beyond
the human personae in his Old Testament Theology. While Isaiah’s prophetic words
may have fallen on deaf ears in the eighth century and while, empirically speaking,
the eighth-century hearers may not have observed the fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophetic
utterances, nevertheless, Isaiah’s words remain true and necessary even if for subsequent
generations. “If his [Isaiah’s] own generation had rejected it, then it must be put in writing
for a future one. The very fact that Isaiah did write it down makes clear that in his eyes
the prophetic message was far from being a dead letter even if it had failed” (Gerhard von
Rad, Old Testament Theology, Volume II [trans. D. M. G. Stalker; San Francisco: Harper &
Row, 1965], 167).
39
Bruce Marshall explains, “A more satisfying approach to truth as a theological problem,
rather than taking the church’s central beliefs as to be especially in need of epistemic
support, will take the church’s Trinitarian identification of God itself chiefly to confer
epistemic right. In order plausibly to maintain that the Trinity and other distinctively
Christian doctrines are true, without drastically altering the meaning the Christian
community ascribes to them, these doctrines must be regarded as epistemically primary
across the board, that is, as themselves the primary criterion of truth” (Bruce D. Marshall,
Trinity and Truth [Cambridge Studies in Christian Doctrine; Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2000], 4).
18 Micah: An International Theological Commentary

at the same time regard the text as a sacred and treasured document
properly located in the social context of the church. The situation is
problematized on the far side of the Enlightenment Bible, a situation
so polarized that Michael Legaspi concludes his book on Johann David
Michaelis and the rise of biblical studies at the University of Göttingen
with a less than sanguine outlook on the rapprochement between the
academic bible and the church’s bible.40 Governing assumptions and
interpretive goals are so markedly different between the two interpretive
communities that a happy marriage is unlikely.
This divide is unfortunate, however. Perhaps on the far side of
modernity’s inflated claims and optimism, a resurgence of interest in
the biblical texts, their creaturely character (the critical enterprise),
and their sacred origin and role will come together as an academic,
though churchly discipline whose Wissenschaftliche nature is shaped
by the epistemic resources given by faith. Modern concerns of biblical
exegesis should not be dismissed in order to gain a maximal hearing of
the text’s “sacred character.” In other words, repristinating premodern
interpretation as if modernity never occurred will not do. At the same
time and moreover, even the modern concerns raised by biblical
criticism cannot from a Christian confessional standpoint be engaged
in an attempt at arriving at historical bruta facta—something the Bible
itself is good at keeping at arm’s distance—or the displacement of belief
in order to secure the text as object.41
As mentioned earlier, the ascendancy of historicism in German
universities of the nineteenth century breathes the anti-metaphysical
air of their nominalist forebears of the Middle Ages. In this sense,
historicist instincts seek to provide a rational and scientifically rigorous
account of the past devoid of any operative metaphysic, religious or

40
“I believe that the scriptural Bible and the academic Bible are fundamentally different
creations oriented toward rival interpretive communities.” Michael C. Legaspi,
The Death of Scripture and the Rise of Biblical Studies (Oxford Studies in Historical
Theology; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 169. See also Jonathan Sheehan, The
Enlightenment Bible: Translation, Scholarship, Culture (Princeton: Princeton University
Press, 2005).
41
See John Barton on the “bracketing out” of theological assumptions and modern
criticism, The Nature of Biblical Criticism (Louisville: WJK, 2007).
 Introduction to a Theological Commentary 19

Enlightenment. The search for universals by which historical and social

differences might be adjudicated, either by appeal to God/providence,
natural law, or the constancy of human nature, comes undone by the
historicist instinct to valorize the historically particular and the socially
conditioned aspects of human history. Historicism aims to provide
an intellectually rigorous account of human history by attendance to
intellectual norms that differ from the primary concern of the Western
intellectual tradition, namely, the “transcendent justification for social,
political and moral values.”42 In lieu of the search for “transcendent
justification,” historicism recognizes that human belief and practice are
more socially and historically conditioned according to “their specific
historical causes and context.”43
While the benefits of the historicist tradition for the social and
historical understanding of the biblical texts remain indisputable,
Christian exegesis sits uncomfortably to the reduction of the biblical
material and its critical inquiry to historical and social particularities. A
theological metaphysic of some sort will be operative in the exegetical
and theological hearing and reading of Christianity’s sacred text
because Christian exegesis in all forms is a discipline whose context is
coram Deo. When it is not, one can say with some level of confidence, or
at least with the history of the church’s interpretative tradition behind
him or her, the text being read or interpreted is no longer Christian
Scripture but something else.
This brings us to an important topic, namely, the relationship of
the human character of Scripture to its divine authorship in God’s
redemptive economy and the proper dogmatic ordering of the two. The
recognition of the human authorship of Scripture—which now on the
far side of modernity highlights the authoring roles of tradents, editors,
and scribes—is in accord with the history of Christian interpretation of
the Bible. Even within American and British fundamentalism of the early
twentieth century, the term “organic inspiration” was preserved over

42
Frederick C. Beiser, The German Historicist Tradition (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2011), 10.
43
Ibid., 19.
20 Micah: An International Theological Commentary

against “dictation” models of inspiration. B. B. Warfield, for example,

championed for such an understanding of inspiration in his work on
the subject matter.44 Even as inspired agents, the human instruments
of Scripture are affirmed in all their humanity and particularity of
outlook: Isaiah was not Jeremiah. The model of organic inspiration can
quite easily expand to incorporate the concepts of tradents and editors
of the biblical material as well.
A straw man can at times be created against theological exegesis
when critics portray theological interpretation as disinterested in non-
confessional exegesis.45 The very basic matters of the Old Testament’s
language, Hebrew and Aramaic, its cultural and provincial setting within
the ancient Near Eastern world, and its character as Israel’s scriptures
demand attention simply for gaining an understanding of “the way the
words go.” The relationship between the church’s interpretive tradition
and those outside it is not easily codified—for example, tensions existed
in the Reformation period between those who valued the Rabbinic
exegetical tradition and those who did not. Nevertheless, because of the
creaturely character of the Old Testament, certain exegetical matters,
especially on the philological level, necessitate attention.46
An exchange of letters between Karl Barth and Walther Baumgartner
illustrates the tensions on the ground between biblical scholars and
theologians. These two engaged in an amicable, though heated, exchange
toward the middle of the twentieth century over this precise point.47
Barth had immense respect for Baumgartner’s abilities in Semitic and

44
B. B. Warfield, “Inspiration,” The Presbyterian Review 2 (1881): 228–32.
45
Hugh Williamson raises these concerns in his review of Brevard Childs’s The Struggle to
Understand Isaiah as Christian Scripture.
46
In an attempt to sort out mischaracterizations of the canonic approach, Brevard Childs
makes the following claim: “The materials for theological reflection are not the events or
experiences behind the text, or apart from the construal in scripture by a community of
faith and practice. However, because the biblical text continually bears witness to events
and reactions in the life of Israel, the literature cannot be isolated from its ostensive
reference. In view of these factors alone it is a basic misunderstanding to try to describe
a canonical approach simply as a form of structuralism (contra Barton).” Brevard Childs,
Old Testament Theology in a Canonical Context (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985), 6.
47
“Karl Barth und Walther Baumgartner: Ein Briefwechsel über das Alte Testament,” ed. R.
Smend, ZThK 6 (1986): 240–71.
 Introduction to a Theological Commentary 21

ancient Near Eastern studies, even if he did call Baumgartner’s lectures

“dry bread.”48 Barth’s son eventually took his doctoral degree under
Baumgartner, whose philological legacy can hardly be denied. No
student of the biblical text can afford to dismiss his lexical work because
it is “not confessional.” Barth’s complaint against Baumgartner had
nothing to do with his great achievements in Old Testament exegesis
and philology. In similar fashion, one observes Barth’s dependence on
Martin Noth’s Geschichte Israels in his rehearsal of the history of the
covenant in CD IV.1. Barth borrows Noth’s language of amphictyonic
league—a notion of Israel’s early tribal leagues borrowed from Greek
histories that has come undone in subsequent histories of Israel (see
de Vaux, Lemche, Grabbe)—without any interference or clarifying
comment. The simple point here is that confessional or theological
exegesis does not turn a blind eye toward the guild of Hebrew Bible/
Old Testament scholarship.
At the same time, Barth’s complaint against Baumgartner, and as
his preface to the second edition of the Romans attests, was for the
historical-critic to be more critical, that is, critical of themselves and
their governing assumptions. Moreover, Barth had real reservations
about Old Testament scholars and their preparation of women and
men for pastoral/preaching responsibilities. In fact, Barth was more
sanguine about New Testament scholars on this account than Old
Testament scholars. The real concern was over the subject matter of
the text (die Sache). Barth did not deny the creaturely character of
the Scriptures, a matter that has gotten him into hot water with some
evangelical accounts of Barth’s doctrine of Scripture. But he resisted the
historicist reduction of the text’s theological subject matter to the issues
pertaining to its creaturely genesis and historical setting. As is well
known, for Barth when one enters the world of the Bible, one enters
the new world of God, and God’s word is not locked in the historical
accidents that gave rise to the Bible’s literary witness.

48
Eberhard Busch, Karl Barth: His Life from Letters and Autobiographical Texts (trans. J.
Bowden; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), 268.
22 Micah: An International Theological Commentary

The relationship of the divine author and human author is not

coequal, each having an equally divided portion. Rather, the divine
authorship of Scripture is dogmatically prior to the human authorship
and governs our understanding of the latter—“the grass withers the
flower fades but the word of our God stands forever” (Isa 40:8). The
primacy of the divine word has a shaping influence on our reading
strategies and allows us to look for the multi-perspectival yet unified
voice of the Old Testament witness.
At the beginning of Church Dogmatics IV.1, Karl Barth speaks of
Jesus Christ as the epistemological principle of Christian belief.49 Barth’s
larger concern is to ward off the danger of treating the name Jesus
Christ as materially insignificant to the church’s beliefs and actions. On
this account Jesus Christ is the one responsible for the affairs of the
church, though he hovers somewhere in the distance when it comes to
actual faith and life. Barth senses a great danger here, a danger where
Jesus in effect becomes superfluous to the church’s lived existence.
Barth counters:

But the Christian message does say something individual, new and
substantial because it speaks concretely, not mythically, because it
does not know and proclaim anything side by side with or apart from
Jesus Christ, because it knows and proclaims all things only as His
things. It does not know and proclaim Him, therefore, merely as the
representative and exponent of something other. For it, there is no
something other side by side with or apart from Him. For it, there is
nothing worthy of mention that is not as such His. Everything that it
knows and proclaims as worthy of mention, it does so as His.50

There is a theological force in these reflections of Barth that exerts

itself on the hermeneutical task as well. The authorizing presence
of Jesus Christ constrains our reading of the biblical text, and this
constraining elicits from the reader of Scripture an affirming nod in

49
Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics IV.1 (trans. G. W. Bromiley; Edinburgh: T&T Clark,
1956), 21.
50
Ibid., 21.
 Introduction to a Theological Commentary 23

the direction of Jesus Christ’s governing role in the exegesis of his word.
“Everything that it knows and proclaims as worthy of mention, it does
so as His.” The compartmentalization of our exegetical work from the
Lordship of Jesus Christ in all spheres of knowledge runs the real risk
of disobedience.
The hermeneutical significance of Barth’s Trinitarian vision is
towering. In the naming of God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit biblical
“meaning” begins to take shape. Gerhard Sauter uses a memorable
metaphor chosen in contrast to Calvin’s famed “lenses.” Sauter suggests
faith functions more like retina than lenses.51 Lenses bring matters
into focus, whereas our retina allows us to see in the first place. The
context of Sauter’s metaphor is the Trinitarian center of Christian
belief. “Christians are Trinitarians,” says Sauter. As mentioned in the
beginning of this section, such a claim is straightforward; it is the
content of our gospel hope. But the governing role such content has
in all spheres of Christian existence, including the art and practice of
biblical exegesis, is not always so straightforwardly clear or received.
Barth’s earlier “epistemological” warnings hold true in the realm of
biblical exegesis as well. Biblical exegetes in the church run the risk of
going about their tasks with little to no reference to him.
This kind of epistemological disposition was at the heart of the
fourth-century debates over the identity of God. Khaled Anatolios
situates the Trinitarian debates of the fourth century within a pan-
global epistemological effort. According to Anatolios, Kant considered
Trinitarian doctrine nonsensical, while Schleiermacher dismissed the
ontological relationship of Trinitarian doctrine to the actual divine
being—the doctrine of the Trinity is an accommodation regarding
God’s interaction with the world as Son and Spirit.52 Anatolios suggests
a closer examination of these “nonsensical” propositions, along with
a deeper appreciation of the significance Trinitarian doctrine held for

51
Gerhard Sauter, Protestant Theology at the Crossroads: How to Face the Crucial Tasks for
Theology in the Twenty-First Century (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 38.
52
Khaled Anatolios, Retrieving Nicaea: The Development and Meaning of Trinitarian
Doctrine (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2011), 3.
24 Micah: An International Theological Commentary

those who formulated it. At the same time, he reminds readers that “we
cannot directly perceive with the mind’s eye what we are saying about
God when we say that God is Trinity.”53 Nevertheless, it is important to
retain the meaning and judgments registered by Athanasius, Gregory of
Nyssa, and Augustine even if full comprehension is beyond the human
purview.54
The main point I wish to draw from Anatolios is his understanding
that despite the intellectual hurdles created by the doctrine of the Trinity,
this doctrine was not one among others whose resolution relates to an
aspect of Christian thought and life.55 Anatolios counters, “Rather,
orthodox Trinitarian doctrine emerged as a kind of meta-doctrine that
involved a global interpretation of Christian life and faith and indeed
evoked a global interpretation of reality.”56 Anatolios walks a careful
line when he explicates this theological epistemology. On the one hand,
a Trinitarian doctrine does not allow us “to encompass the being of
God within the confines of human knowing.”57 On the other hand, it
does allow us to order our thinking, praying, and living so as to relate
all of life to the God who has revealed himself as Father, Son, and Holy
Ghost. God’s triune character is not a possession of the human mind
nor is it an achievement of human cognition. God’s triune character is
an eschatological hope revealed by God in the Scriptures that orders
our thinking, believing, and living in this period of eschatological hope.
If our thinking, praying, and living are formed within the Trinitarian
contours of our Christian faith, then it follows quite naturally and
necessarily that our biblical exegesis falls under this global theological
epistemology as well. For the church fathers and the Christian
interpretive tradition of which they are a founding part—whose

53
Ibid., 7.
54
Ibid.
55
In the Evangelical orbit, D. A. Carson’s “Yes, but” reaction to theological exegesis
includes a dismissal of the foundational or central role Trinitarian doctrine plays in all
Christian, theological discourse. D. A. Carson, “Theological Interpretation: Yes, But …,”
in Theological Commentary (ed. M. Allen; London: T&T Clark, 2011), 204–05.
56
Anatolios, Retrieving, 8.
57
Ibid., 9.
 Introduction to a Theological Commentary 25

hermeneutical instincts reside in the New Testament’s own pioneering

achievement of Scripture reading—any other kind of exegesis would be
inconceivable. God’s identity as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit provides
the epistemic possibilities for all arenas of life, how much more so our
reading of Holy Scripture.
Gilles Emery’s impressive account of Thomas’s Trinitarian theology
makes much of the shared goal between Thomas’s biblical commentary
and speculative theology, namely, the elucidation of God’s truth. Similar
comments may be made about many of the best theological voices from
the tradition, Roman Catholic and Protestant: Calvin and Barth come
to mind as more well-known figures but lesser figures do so as well.
Emery makes a significant point about Aquinas and the hermeneutical
role speculative theology made in his engagement with the biblical text.
Aquinas’s commentary on John provides Emery with the tools
necessary to make the following claim. Thomas resists too material a
distinction between Trinitarian theology of the biblical and speculative
types. “It is the same theology,” writes Emery.58 The synthetic character
of speculative theology and the close reading of the biblical text
in commentary form both have the same purpose: “the reflective
explanation of Scripture.”59 Emery’s conclusion is worth repeating in
full: “In every case, speculative theology is not superimposed on or
juxtaposed with the biblical text, but is part and parcel of the biblical
reading.”60
I wish to highlight the terms “part and parcel” here because the
substantive point of this collocation is straightforward. The literal sense
of Scripture is not devoid of theological sensemaking, nor can the literal

58
Gilles Emery, The Trinitarian Theology of Saint Thomas Aquinas (trans. F. A. Murphy;
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), 19.
59
Ibid., 19. Emery comments on the means by which Aquinas brought the speculative work
to bear on textual commentary, to wit, a deployment of Hugh of St. Victor’s three levels
of literal exposition: Littera (textual analysis with reference to grammar and linguistics,
an overview of the words’ meaning in their immediate context), the sensus (the analysis
of the signification of each member), and the sententia (a genuine understanding of
the text, which draws out its theological and philosophical meaning) (ibid., 20). The
sententia allows speculative theology its hermeneutical role in establishing the text’s
letter.
60
Ibid., 20.
26 Micah: An International Theological Commentary

sense of the text in its Christian, canonical form be established when

verbal signs are disjointed from their theological subject matter. This
hermeneutical instinct can be traced in practice to apostolic figures
such as Paul which in time were given a formal character in works such
as Augustine’s De Doctrina. Aquinas’s Augustinian hermeneutic is in
full gear at this point with the necessary dialectic between sign and
thing signified remaining intact.61
For Augustine, the signa of the text mediate divine instruction.
Moreover, Christ, as the res significans of the Scriptural word, makes
himself present via the signa of the Old Testament’s verbal character.62
As such, the words of Scripture are laden with metaphysical import
when the subject matter, properly identified in the various and sundry
voices of Scripture, is God’s own self and expressed will to redeem.
Words mean something given the formal character of language in
its phonetic and syntactical arrangement. But, as George Steiner

61
The use of analogical language, like ousia and hypostasis, by no means diminishes the
mystery of the divine Godhead. This abstract language provides a rational account of
God’s triune identity (Emery refers to this as the “far-reaching goal”) and more modestly,
“the theologian carries out a contemplative exercise in order to grasp a droplet of the
divine knowledge communicated by revelation, without losing sights of the limits of
our knowledge” (Emery, Trinitarian Theology, 35). George Hunsinger distinguishes
Barth’s use of analogical reasoning from Aquinas’s precisely at this point. For Aquinas,
our analogical language breaks down regarding the knowledge of God in se with God’s
identity in himself remaining a mystery. Whereas for Barth, in line with the Reformed
tradition, God’s revelation of himself truly corresponds with God’s actual identity and
provides the epistemic possibility for real knowledge of God, accommodated as this
revelation is. While at the same time, comprehensive knowledge of God’s eternal identity
remains beyond the purview of human knowledge, thus the linguistic appeal to analogy
in opposition to univocal and equivocal: apprehensive knowledge versus comprehensive
knowledge. George Hunsinger, Disruptive Grace: Studies in the Theology of Karl Barth
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), 210–25.
62
See especially Michael Cameron, “The Christological Substructure of Augustine’s
Figural Exegesis,” in Augustine and the Bible (ed. and trans. P. Bright; South Bend:
University of Notre Dame Press, 1999), 74–103. Cameron’s conclusion bears repeating:
“If Christ as the res significans of God had acted within history, and was not merely
witnessed by history, then in principle every historical sign was open to bearing
something of its res, either before or after his advent. This revision made the Old
Testament into a bearer of New Testament grace, and opened prophecy to sacramental
interpretation. Where Augustine had once thought the prophetic sign acted as the
diaphanous and obsolescent pointer to the future reality, Christ was understood to
have been present within the sign both to denote and to communicate his power.
The ancient saints did not merely anticipate but actually partook of him” (Cameron,
“Christological Substructure,” 96).
 Introduction to a Theological Commentary 27

claims, “a sentence always means more.”63 With his own Augustinian

hermeneutical instincts engaged, Steiner warns, “the absolute decisive
failing occurs when such approaches seek to formalize meaning, when
they proceed upward from the phonetic, the lexical and the grammatic
to the semantic and aesthetic.”64 Why, we might ask Steiner, is this a
problem? He answers, “There is always, as Blake taught, ‘excess’ of the
signified beyond the signifier.”65
When Steiner insists that “a sentence always means more,”
he clarifies the conditions for such a claim in the following:
“The informing matrix or context of even a rudimentary, literal
proposition … moves outward from specific utterance or notation
in ever-widening concentric and overlapping circles. These comprise
the individual, subconsciously quickened language habits and
associative field-mappings of the particular speaker or writer.”66 This
expansive character of language reveals, in Steiner’s terms, “the
incommensurability of the semantic.”67
In a similar vein, Rowan Williams’s Gifford Lectures remind us of
the metaphysical realities of language. “We are always saying more

63
George Steiner, Real Presences (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991), 82.
64
Ibid., 81.
65
Ibid., 84. Steiner’s metaphysical understanding of the semantic potential of words relates
to Origen’s understanding of figures in the Old Testament and the twofold potential of
words. Words have their basic referent (the literal) but are also symbolic of some other
referent—literal and allegorical. See Peter Martens’s Origen and Scripture: The Contours
of the Exegetical Life (OECS; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), 66. See Erich
Auerbach, “Figura,” in Selected Essays of Erich Auerbach: Time, History, and Literature
(ed. J. I. Porter; trans. J. O. Newman; Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2014), 88.
“Even if Augustine decisively rejects abstract allegorical spiritualism and develops his
entire interpretation of the Old Testament out of its concrete reality in worldly historical
time, he nevertheless continues to endorse a kind of idealism that removes the concrete
event from time as figura—even though it also remains entirely real—and places it
into the perspective of timeless eternity. Such ideas were implicit in the very fact of the
incarnation.” John David Dawson identifies Origen’s hermeneutic along anthropological
lines as the letter of Scripture and its spirit relate to humanity’s body and soul. The two
are necessarily and organically fit to each other. Thus, the figural sense of Scripture is, in
Dawson’s terms, “not non-literal.” John David Dawson, Christian Figural Reading and the
Formation of Christian Identity (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2001), chs 1–3.
66
Steiner, Real Presences, 82.
67
Ibid., 83.
28 Micah: An International Theological Commentary

than we entirely grasp.”68 Williams’s lectures provide a stunning

and beautiful account of the ability of our language to describe
and represent while remaining fully aware that these activities of
language are never sealed off from the potential for representation
or description via new modes and tropes of discourse. Williams
speaks of the “unfinished character of language” and a “hinterland
of significance” when our language necessarily turns to silence. We
represent with our words and the task of representation is never once-
for-all. Merleau-Ponty makes a similar claim about painting: “For
painters, if any remain, the world will always be yet to be painted;
even if it lasts millions of years … it will all end without having been
complete”.69
It should be noted that Williams is speaking of our normal discourse
in the language games we play in communicating and sensemaking in
our world. If we speak this way about human language and discourse
in “ordinary language,” to borrow from Stanley Cavell, how much more
so do we understand the potential of biblical language to “say more.”
Aquinas appeals to the authority of Scripture’s authorial intentionality,
quickly clarifying who the author of Scripture is: God. Such a
confession releases the philological clutch to allow words in their given
morphological and syntactic form a fuller frame of referentiality when
the associated field-mapping brought to bear in textual analysis is the
God Christians confess as Triune.
Such an account seeks to do justice to the ability of biblical language
to swell into the subject matter of Scripture’s referent, namely, the
Triune God’s procession and mission: the theological field-map for
the terrain of Scripture. It also resists an anemic linguistic approach
to biblical language by minimizing their potential referent to the
hermetic moment of original utterance or writing (the distinction

68
Rowan Williams, The Edge of Words: God and the Habits of Language (London:
Bloomsbury, 2014), 167.
69
Maurice Merleau-Ponty, “Eye and Mind,” in The Merleau-Ponty Aesthetics Reader:
Philosophy and Painting (ed. G.A. Johnson; Evanston: Northwestern University Press,
1993), 148.
 Introduction to a Theological Commentary 29

between the two itself is an interesting thought experiment about the

canonical intentionality of language once embedded in particular
books and quarters of the canon). This linguistic reduction cuts the
chord that holds together sign and reality or Scriptural language with
its divine subject matter. And wittingly or unwittingly it falls prey to
Spinoza’s hermeneutical legacy where biblical texts are relegated to
their historical moment full stop. A Trinitarian hermeneutic resists
a sclerotic tendency to leave language in the past, unencumbered by
the metaphysical underpinnings of language in general and biblical
language in particular.

Conclusion

The reading strategy presented here accords with the church’s “ruled”
approach to Scripture reading, to wit, the regula fidei. This ecclesial
location for reading constrains and unleashes simultaneously. A
Trinitarian hermeneutic is a ruled reading and thus locates the
canon in the redemptive movement of God ad extra. This dogmatic
location of Scripture within its soteric/christological context is the
point of entry into Scripture’s subject matter (die Sache), resisting an
ontologically underdetermined text. The regula is not a fixed formula,
easily identified in codified form. Rather, it orients the church toward
the proper “hypothesis” for reading Scripture.70 In this sense, the regula
constrains.
Likewise, a ruled reading unleashes the text in an organic extension
beyond the confines of its literary and historical fixity toward its
subject matter. Modern, biblical criticism aids readers of Scripture in
appreciating the literary and historical dynamics of the biblical texts in
the particularity of their genesis and compositional history. To turn a
blind eye away from these achievements as if they contribute nothing

70
See especially, Christopher R. Seitz, The Character of Christian Scripture (Studies in
Theological Interpretation; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2011), ch. 7, 195–98.
30 Micah: An International Theological Commentary

to the theological engagement with the biblical texts runs the dualistic
risk of lionizing the text’s soul over against its body. For all Origen’s
supposed fanciful allegorizing of texts, his attention to the letter resists
bifurcating the text’s body and spirit.71
The resistance, however, to a Spinozist hemming in of texts to the
immediacy of their historical particularity—an identification only
problematized by modern criticism’s atomistic instincts—leans against
the necessary conjoining of Word and Spirit. Theologically speaking, the
written Word becomes an inert object of study without the recognition
of the Spirit’s material engagement with Scripture’s continued life in the
church.
Admittedly, a good deal of hermeneutical and theological throat
clearing takes place in this introductory chapter. I did not pursue every
line of thought to its end. Rather, a theological case is being made for
the sake of clearing hermeneutical space for reading the biblical text
closely in light of Scripture’s authorizing subject matter. At the same
time, the central role of Scriptural exegesis itself should not be obscured
as if theology as a Christian, intellectual discipline hovers somewhere
beyond the Scriptural text. Mark Elliott warns theological interpreters,
enamored with the “ruled” reading of a figure like Irenaeus, against
making too much of the regula fidei. Creeds, according to Elliott,
complemented Scripture but were never intended to “work as a grid to
be put over it.”72 Elliott makes use of helpful battle metaphors to clarify

71
The necessary attendance to the body of the text does cause pause, for example, when R. R.
Reno says in the preface of his Genesis commentary that Westermann’s classic work on
Genesis offered him no help given the questions he was asking of the text. Limited help
would be understandable, but “no help” seems to miss the very basic elements of the
interpretive assistance Westermann might offer: e.g., linguistic and structural limitations
of the texts; philological analysis (the words matter); literary insights into the final form
of a composite text, etc. Westermann’s interests in the “body” of the text is surely limited
given the intellectual context of his activity, but to claim “no help” is only to widen
the wedge between biblical scholars (confessional ones at that) and theologians. R. R.
Reno, Genesis (Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible; Grand Rapids: Brazos
Press, 2010), 24. In fairness to Reno, he does acknowledge finding von Rad’s Genesis
commentary “sometimes helpful” (ibid.).
72
Mark Elliott, The Heart of Biblical Theology: Providence Experienced (Surrey: Ashgate,
2012), 6.
 Introduction to a Theological Commentary 31

the relationship of the regula fidei to the exegesis of Scripture itself. The
former functions as a shield, staving off bad interpretive instincts or
“heavy ideological ‘spin.’” The latter is a sword, where the constructive
and material work of Christian theological reflection resides.73 Elliott
identifies Irenaeus’s motto as follows: “Let the scriptures speak for
themselves.”74 A better exegetical or theological strategy is difficult to
conceive.

73
Ibid., 6–7.
74
Ibid., 7. See also, Anatolios, Retrieving, 282–84.
32
 Micah in Critical Dress:
A Cursory Overview

Bernard Stade’s seminal study on Micah’s redaction history left a long

and lasting impact on studies of the book.1 By means of a somewhat
standard tendenz analysis that included the minimal portrait of Micah
in Jer 26:18, Stade suggested Micah’s authentic voice may only be found
in chs 1–3.2 The hopeful tones found throughout chs 4–6 clash with
Jeremiah’s portrayal of Micah, rendering them as most likely from a
later hand. Following the selfsame pattern, Stade assumes the Messianic
prophecy of 2:12-13 is from the exilic period, added to Micah’s authentic
corpus at a later period.3 Based on a complex algorithm of identifying
shared themes from other quarters of the prophetic literature—
literature having been run through the same literary-critical mill, e.g.,
Second Isaiah—nothing after ch. 3 can be traced to the preexilic period.
The real Micah is found only in chs 1–3.
Stade’s study breathes the literary cum form-critical air of his day,
setting out to distinguish the authentic prophetic material from its
Nachgeschichte. The effects of such interpretive instincts are observed
to this day in various attempts to locate Micah the prophet and the
developing prophetic book in his/its most fitting social-historical
context: from Micah the country decrier against the urban gentry to

1
Bernard Stade, “Bemerkungen über das Buch Micha,” ZAW 1 (1881): 161–72.
2
Ibid., 165–66.
3
“2,12-13 setzt voraus, dass Israel sich in der Zerstreeung, im Exile befindet” (Stade,
“Bemerkungen,” 164–65). Ewald, before Stade, blazed a redaction-critical trail in his
literary analysis. Heinrich Ewald’s understanding of Micah’s “integrity” developed over
the course of time. Initially he identified the entirety of the book as from Micah, save the
superscription. In time, he identified chs 1–5 as Mican with 6–7 coming from the hands
of another prophet.
34 Micah: An International Theological Commentary

Micah the antimilitary lowlander. The problem of such approaches, as

Dillers pointed out some time ago, remains the insufficiency of evidence
(Dillers, 4), not to mention the flat-footedness of reducing a prophet’s
voice to a singular register and subject matter, e.g., Stade’s totalizing view
of Micah the prophet based on Jeremiah’s minimal portrayal. Dillers
himself opted for a synchronic approach where the social location
giving rise to Micah as a literary whole—a “revitalization” movement—
resists reduction to any one given social-historical moment. Such
a revitalization movement occurs in the eighth century as well as in
subsequent moments again and again (Diller, 4).
In Jeremias’s notable commentary on Micah, he identifies Micah 1-3
as the Kernkapitel, with earlier and later material shaped into a literary
whole by “die exilischen Redaktoren” (Jeremias, 116). Less interested
in sorting out the authentic from inauthentic Mican material for form-
critical purposes, Jeremias attends to the diachronic structure of the book
for the sake of coming to terms with the net effect of the final form. The
Kernkapiteln give rise to a series of Fortschreibungen in Teile II and III, chs
4–5 and 6:1-7:7, respectively (Jeremias, 118–19). Chapters 4–5 assume
the destruction of Jerusalem (Zerstörung Jerusalems) as a past event while
attesting to the fact that, though deserved, the judgment of God on Samaria
and Jerusalem “nicht das Ziel seiner Wege mit seinem Volk ist” (Jeremias,
119). Teile II, for Jeremias, contains a chiastic structure (Ringkomposition)
framed around 4:9-5:5—A [4:1-5], B [4:6-8], C [4:9-5:3], Bꞌ [5:6ff], Aꞌ [5:9-
13]. The forthcoming redemption of chs 4–5 centers on the promise of a
coming king, as the Ringkomposition itself attests.
Surprisingly, according to Jeremias, Teile III of Micah (6:1-7:7) makes
no significant linguistic or conceptual references to Teile II (4-5). This
literary-compositional fact on the ground leads Jeremias to reject
Kessler’s theory that the compositional history of Micah mirrors that of
Isaiah with its threefold form building upon the anterior chapters/form
of the book—1-39 + 40-55 yielding Third Isaiah’s 56-66.4 Micah 1-3 + 4-5

4
See, e.g., W. Lau, Schriftgelehrte Prophetie in Jes 56–66: Eine Untersuchung zu den
literarischen Bezugen in den letzten elf Kapiteln das Jesajabuches (BZAW 225; Berlin: De
Gruyter, 1994).
 Micah in Critical Dress: A Cursory Overview 35

do not form the basis of Teile III’s prophetic Fortschreibung. Rather,

Micah 1-3 yields “eine doppelte” Fortschreibung with 4-5 and 6:1-7:7 as
the parallel results (Jeremias, 119–20).
The intertextual character of these respective Fortschreibungen of
Micah 1-3 is marked by associative reference to different prophetic
corpi. Micah 4-5, as long observed, is riddled with references (Bezügen)
to Isaiah 1-12 (Mic 4:1-5//Isa 2:2-5; Mic 5:1//Isa 11:1; Mic 5:2//Isa 7:14;
Mic 5:9-13//Isa 2:6-8). While Mic 6:1-7:7 emerges as a literary unit
stamped by Jeremiah and the Deuteronomic tradition, the intertextual
nature of these respective sections, both building upon the prophetic
material of Micah 1-3, indicates their close association with the tradents
of Isaianic and Jeremianic traditions, respectively.
Jeremias’s reading of the diachronic history of Micah’s composition
lends credence to Brevard Childs’s earlier claim regarding Micah’s
compositional history. Childs states, “The redactional process of editing
the book of Micah within a theological framework shared by Isaiah
points to the effect of a growing sense of a unified prophetic corpus
within the canon of scripture.”5 This matter will become a more focused
point of discussion in the next section. Suffice it to say at this point, the
appeal to history and historical particularity when attending to biblical
books begs questions regarding what kind of history is being sought.
If Micah and Isaiah “debated” one another, as is sometimes claimed,

5
Brevard S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (Minneapolis: Fortress
Press, 1979), 438. Childs registers his misgivings about the redaction-critical readings of
Mays, Jeremias, and Renaud, claiming their hypothesis is too refined given the evidence
in Micah. It is not that Childs denies an editing process that takes place over some time.
Rather, he denies the underlying assumption of the various hypothesis on offer, namely,
the biblical traditions are being edited to address specific historical needs. He clarifies
his own position in the following: “Rather, I would argue the case that the major force
lying behind the redaction of Micah appears to have been the influence exerted upon
its editors by the larger corpus of other prophetic material, particularly the oracles of
Isaiah. The point is not to deny that later historical events influenced the redactors, but
to contest a direct and intentional move on their part to adjust the tradition to each
new historical situation” (ibid., 434). Childs continues, “Thus the effect of the changing
historical situation was mediated through an interpretation of scripture and was only an
indirect influence” (ibid.). See Odil Hannes Steck, Der Abschluß der Prophetie im Alten
Testament: Ein Versuch zur Frage der Vorgeschichte des Kanons (Neukirchen-Vluyn:
Neukirchener Verlag, 1991).
36 Micah: An International Theological Commentary

because one represents the concerns of the lowland worker and the
other the concerns of the gentrified elite of Jerusalem, then this “debate”
remains ensconced in the religious history of the eighth century. Such a
claim is fair enough, even if and where such a theory remains contested.
The canonical history, however, tells a different story. Here, the
tradents of Isaiah’s prophetic legacy and Jeremiah’s prophetic oeuvre in
their acts of preservation and prophetic Fortschreibungen understand
these prophetic books as mutually informing and, despite their
differing theological tone or pitch, as in concert with one another.6
Ronald Clements recognizes the theological forces at work at the
editorial level of compositional analysis. He describes this “process of
‘theologizing’” as follows: “These were that all the prophecies so brought
together should be regarded as emanating from the same deity and that
this deity should be regarded as possessing a completely consistent
and unchanging nature.”7 The theological character of the material
emerges from concerted efforts to preserve the divine word emanating
from a single Being. Put simply, Micah and Isaiah may have debated
their theological outlooks regarding Yhwh and his plan for Jerusalem
in the religious history of a particular moment.8 Nevertheless, their
respective prophetic books exist not for the preservation of a religious-
historical debate but for a unified, even if complex, witness for the sake
of future generations regarding the character and will of Yhwh for his
people and the nations.9 While it is true that Israel’s religious history

6
See Rolf Rendtorff, The Canonical Hebrew Bible: The Theology of the Old Testament
(Blandford Forum: Deo Publishing, 2005), 3.
7
Ronald S. Clements, “Prophecy as Literature: A Re-Appraisal,” in The Hermeneutical
Quest: Essays in Honor of James Lutehr Mays on his Sixty-Fifth Birthday (ed. D. G. Miller;
Allison Park: Pickwick Publications, 1986), 61.
8
Clements claims that a necessary “de-politicizing” or “de-historicizing” was involved
in the canonical process as individual sayings were shaped into larger scrolls or books.
Ronald E. Clements, Old Testament Prophecy: From Oracles to Canon (Louisville: WJK,
1996), 5.
9
Gerald T. Sheppard, “Canonization: Hearing the Voice of the Same God through
Historically Dissimilar Traditions,” Int 36 (1982): 21–33. A recognition of the canon’s
authorial and substantial unity does not necessitate a monotone account of unity. As
Sheppard claims, “Canon conscious redactions do not succeed in harmonizing the
diverse and even contradictory traditions within the Bible. However, they do enhance
the presumption of biblical unity by creating interpretive contexts between books or
 Micah in Critical Dress: A Cursory Overview 37

is the accident giving rise to its theological or canonical history, the

distinction between the two remains valid for historical and canonical
reasons. Prophetic traditions were preserved because the tradents of
the material recognized them as the word of God, sought within them
to discern the character and ways of God (Hos 14:9), and listened to the
divergent canonical voices in light of this theological judgment.10
Though Calvin is not working with a tradition-critical analysis of
the compositional history of the prophets, his canonical instincts are
on full display when he identifies Micah and Isaiah as colleagues and
friends. Calvin’s historical imagination is at work when he describes
them as such because this kind of historical information is not available
to us. Calvin can make this claim, however, because these two prophets
share so much in common and seem to borrow from each other freely.

And we shall hereafter find that they adopted the very same words;
but there was no emulation between them, so that one accused the
other of theft, when he repeated what had been said. Nothing was
more gratifying to each of them than to receive a testimony from his
colleague; and what was committed to them by God they declared not
only in the same sense and meaning, but also in the same words, and,
as it were, with one mouth. (Calvin, 152)

Whatever the historical relation between Micah and Isaiah might

have been, readers of the prophets recognize the overlap in material
content even where the tone or register may differ between the two.
Whether or not Micah and Isaiah were friends remains a theory with

group of books” (ibid., 25). In other words, the tradents of the biblical traditions create
space for associative reading practices across the canon. Sheppard provides examples
of these “interpretive contexts” by bringing Proverbs into conversation with Qoheleth,
the worldly politics of David in Kings with his piety in the Psalms, or the differing
perspectives on the day of the Lord in Joel and Amos.
10
See Konrad Schmid, Is There Theology in the Hebrew Bible (CSHB 4; trans. P. Altmann;
Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2015), 63–64. Schmid refers to the work of Steck and his
student Bosshard who recognize the redaction-history of the prophetic corpus as
stemming from theological judgments regarding the “internal coherence” of Isaiah-
Malachi or even the whole of the Nebiim (see the inclusio of Josh 1:7 and Mal. 3:22-24).
ibid., 64.
38 Micah: An International Theological Commentary

no evidence, though there is little doubt as to whether or not Micah and

Isaiah are canonical friends and colleagues.
Returning to Jeremias’s understanding of Micah’s structure, Teile IV
(7:8-20) takes shape as a prophetic liturgy in response to the prophetic
words of Teile II and III.11 Jeremias resists the notion that 7:8-20 is
simply subsumed under 6:1-7:7. Intertextual references to Mic 4-5 and
6:1-7:7 may be found in 7:8-20. The prophetic liturgy that brings Micah’s
corpus to its conclusions grounds itself on that which precedes it as an
elaboration and actualization of the prophetic words of Micah’s book.
In the commentary to follow, Jeremias will prove a signal interlocutor
because his exegetical and redaction-critical concerns shed light on the
theological effects of the text in its final form. For Jeremias, Micah as a
prophetic book conceives of itself as the elaboration and fulfillment of
the eighth-century prophet’s prophetic word in associative relationship
with a growing corpus of prophetic literature (Mehrpropheten).
Admittedly, the redaction-critical specificity of Micah’s compositional
history may be challenged. Securing texts to the particular tendenz
of a given moment in Judah’s history is not a hard science, remaining
provisional at best.12

11
See Herman Gunkel, “The Close of Micah,” in What Remains of the Old Testament and
Other Essays (trans. A. K. Dallas; New York: The Macmillan Company, 1928), 115–50.
McKane dismisses the liturgical unity of 7:8-20. He sees three separate and discontinuous
Psalms that served as “congregational responses” to the book of Micah in public liturgical
settings (McKane, 21).
12
Building on Stade’s earlier redaction-critical conclusions, Hans Walter Wolff ’s learned
Micah commentary works with the kind of redaction-critical confidence where the
redaction-history of the book is sorted out by locating literary seams, assigning them
to particular religious-historical moments of Judah’s existence, and tracing out the steps
of the “school of tradents” responsible for this literary achievement (Wolff, 17–27). The
four-part structure Jeremias identifies in Micah mirrors Wolff ’s. Jeremias’s commentary
does operate with a similar redaction-critical model as his Doktorvater, Wolff, though
Jeremias is not as heavy-handed in assigning the redactional levels to particular
moments in Judah’s religious history. Jeremias also draws marked attention to the nature
of Fortschreibung in Micah’s compositional history. Mention should also be made of Jan
A. Wagenaar’s Judgement and Salvation: The Composition and Redaction of Micah 2-5
(VTSupp 2001; Leiden: Brill, 2001). Wagenaar identifies five stages of compositional
growth building from an early collection of Micah sayings, to the application of those
sayings to the events surrounding the fall of Jerusalem (Jeremiah’s school is suggested
as the possible tradents), to a third stage where elements of hope are added (e.g., 2:12-
13), then a fourth stage in the postexilic period where hope is expanded to include a
 Micah in Critical Dress: A Cursory Overview 39

As mentioned in the previous chapter, Benjamin Sommer registers

his own misgivings about the “pseudo-historicism”—an admittedly
loaded term—biblical scholars often practice in their efforts to fix texts
to particular moments in Israel’s religious history. Though speaking
specifically about Pentateuchal literary criticism, Sommer illustrates his
larger point by appeal to Mic 4:1-5 and Isa 2:2-4, making his comments
especially germane to the present work. Within critical scholarship,
these two texts are postexilic or exilic at best. They illustrate the religious
outlook of Judah after the Zerstörung, making little sense of the religious
sensibility of the preexilic period. But Sommer asks why? Linking ideas
to eras is perilous business. Moreover, what vitiates against the view that
Micah or Isaiah, the eighth-century prophets, might have anticipated a
future era of universal peace, pace Stade et al.? Sommer concludes,

Even if it is surprising to suggest that an eighth-century thinker might

have hoped for peace in Israel and among the nations, this would not
make the suggestion impossible. Micah and especially Isaiah conceived
of notions that were unexpected, even bizarre. Therein lies the genius
of any original thinker. To deny that an idea could have been thought
of in a given age is to deny the possibility of intellectual creativity. Such
a denial is a very odd position for a scholar of the humanities.13

While good arguments can be made for identifying redaction-

critical seams and providing a diachronic history of the text’s literary
development, attaching such literary blocks of tradition to particular
historical moments is tenuous. “For centuries,” Andersen and Freedman
suggest, “biblical scholars have been trying to attach dates to these
kinds of texts, to plug these texts into known history. It cannot be done”
(Andersen and Freedman, 26). Recognizing a literary depth dimension
to the prophetic books/prophetic corpus and the linking of redaction-
critical levels to particular moments in Judah’s history may seem prima

Völkerwahlfahrt to Zion (4:1-5), and finally to a fifth stage where the prophetic collection
of Micah (1:2-5:14) is added to an anonymous prophet from Northern Israel (6-7). The
brittleness of Wagenaar’s conclusions stems from the brittle character of reading religious
history off the back of redaction-critical conclusions of the literary type.
13
Sommer, “Dating Pentateuchal Texts,” 96.
40 Micah: An International Theological Commentary

facie as flip sides of the same coin, but, in fact, a distinction between the
two remains requisite.
While on the subject of redaction-criticism, it is worth noting
a distinction Brevard Childs makes between two related textual
phenomena, namely, redaction-criticism and Fortschreibung. Childs
understands redaction-criticism as an editorial activity attentive to the
changing sociological forces of the present scribal moment. The scribe
as redactor seeks to harmonize current viewpoints with original texts.
Hugh Williamson further clarifies the distinction between redaction
and various glosses (Fortschreibung included). The former is a wholesale
rewriting of the inherited text.14 Given the expense and difficulty of
such scribal rewriting in the ancient world, full-scale redactions are not
to be found at every juncture where glosses—additions, modifications,
or clarifications—are suggested.15 Williamson recognizes that the
identification of various and sundry textual glosses does not necessitate
a “redaction,” and that the endless identification of redactional levels
may in fact be textual glosses not on the level of full-scale redaction.
Fortschreibung, insofar as it differs from redaction, has as its aim
the clarification of the original text by interpretive extension.16 The two
terms are often used interchangeably, though the distinction Childs and
Williamson make remains important. For Fortschreibung as an editorial
activity operates under the assumption of the anterior pressure and
priority of the prophetic word for future reception. The prophetic word
relates in dynamic fashion to future generations of hearers as a “living
organism,” to borrow from von Rad.17

14
H. G. M. Williamson, “Redaction Criticism: The Vindication of Redaction Criticism,” in
Biblical Interpretation and Method: Essays in Honour of John Barton (ed. K. J. Dell and P.
M. Joyce; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), 31–34.
15
Van der Toorn suggests that the scribal rewriting of biblical scrolls took place perhaps
once a generation, and only valued texts would receive such labor-intensive efforts.
Van der Toorn further claims that redactional activity of the rewriting kind most likely
took place at these momentous junctures of scribal rewriting and was not a continuous
scribal activity. Karel Van der Toorn, Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible
(Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2007), ch. 5.
16
Brevard Childs, “Retrospective Reading of the Old Testament Prophets,” ZAW 108
(1996): 365.
17
Von Rad, OTT II, 168.
 Micah in Critical Dress: A Cursory Overview 41

Childs also raises concerns about the governing norms for the
method of redaction-criticism practiced by many on the Continent.
He enters into an appreciative debate with two of Germany’s leading
redaction-critics, Odil Steck and his erstwhile student Reinhard
Kratz. Redaction-critics such as Kratz insist on the empirical
character of their redaction-critical analysis, primarily by means of
the identification of conceptual incoherence at the level of the
prophetic book’s final form.18 Childs illustrates his misgivings about a
bald application of this principle in the work of Hermisson on Isaiah.
Hermisson identifies a qarob redactional layer whose characteristics
are immanent release from exile conditioned upon better conduct
from Israel. The presentation of Isa 40:1ff, on the other hand, reveals
the unconditional forgiveness of Yhwh for his people. The “conceptual
incoherence” between these redactional layers indicates that the latter
layer stems from Isaiah’s disciples and not the prophet per se.
Childs warns, however, against hasty conclusions based on these
supposed conceptual tensions for reasons on analogy to the problems
Sommer identifies in dating sources/literary strands to particular
moments in time. Modern interpreters should take caution when
imposing our notions of conceptual incoherence on texts that are
not operating within the selfsame epistemological space.19 What may
appear to a modern mind as conceptually incoherent may be perfectly
compatible to authors and tradents of the biblical materials. In other
words, care should be taken when identifying redaction-critical seams
on the basis of modern epistemological instincts.
18
In fairness to Kratz, he avoids the “pseudo-history” Sommer warns of because his
diachronic interests do not necessitate the linking of redaction-critical units to particular
moments of time. In fact, Kratz speaks of a “relative Chronologie” as his textual aim.
Reinhard Gregor Kratz, “Die Redaktion der Prophetenbücher,” in Prophetenstudien:
Kleine Schriften II (FAT 74; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 38. Still, Childs’s criticism
stands because Kratz’s “relative Chronologie” builds off the internal incoherence
Childs notes in the above. For critical interaction with Kratz’s notion of Isaiah as
primarily a Heilsprophet in the eighth century and only retrospectively assigned the
role of Gerichtsprophet by the tradents of this material, see Jörg Jeremias, “Das Rätsel
der Schriftprophetie,” ZAW 125 (2013): 93–117, esp. 103–05. See also Kratz’s rejoinder.
Reinhard Gregor Kratz, “Das Rätsel der Schriftprophetie: Eine Replik,” ZAW 125 (2013):
635–39.
19
Childs, “Restrospective Reading,” 368–69.
42 Micah: An International Theological Commentary

With the aforementioned warnings of redaction-criticism’s potential

overreach, a positive effect of redaction-criticism remains, namely, the
priority given to the literary character of the prophetic books.20 The
search for the authentic prophetic material over against later prophetic
accretions has given way to the valuing of the literary final form of
the prophetic books for the sake of shedding light on the diachronic
features or “depth dimension” leading to the text’s final form. An
appreciation for the text’s “depth dimension” does not necessitate
(1) a seemingly endless atomization of the prophetic book based on
tenuous assumptions about either literary incoherence or differing
literary tendenz attached to particular moments in time nor (2) a clearly
reconstructed diachronic history of the prophetic traditions on their
way to the final form.21
While it may be preferable to conceive of a text’s redaction-history
as a forward-moving project where one tradition gives rise to the next,
the facts on the ground make such a tidy framework difficult to sustain,
especially when cross-fertilization is more likely at the compositional
level of the text en route to literary stabilization. The prophetic voices
and traditions spawned by them cross-fertilize with each other in the
canonical process of prophetic reception, ordering, and stabilization.
Where such cross-fertilizing effects may be responsibly demonstrated

20
See Kratz, “Redaktion,” 34ff. The literary form of the prophetic books is the necessary
ingredient for redaction-critical analysis. Or in Kratz’s terms, “Die Diachronie ist nicht
ohne Synchronie, die Syncrhonie aber auch nicht ohne Diachronice zu haben” (Krats,
“Redaktion,” 36).
21
My sympathies lie with Roberts’s measured account of the redaction-critical project.
Speaking of Isaiah’s redaction history, Roberts claims, “I am not convinced that the
ancient Judean and Jewish audiences that hear or, in rarer cases, read the oracles in
the Isaianic collection in whatever edition were as enthralled by elaborate book-length
literary coherence as modern scholars and contemporary readers are, and I am amazed
at the confidence with which biblical scholars can reconstruct the editorial growth of
a biblical book over the centuries with the barest minimum of evidence. It is not that
I consider this process unimportant or uninteresting; it is more that I consider the
details of this process to be largely unrecoverable.” Roberts continues, putting an edge
on the matter, “The confidence with which many modern scholars, who lack any datable
manuscripts earlier than the final form of Isaiah, reconstruct hypothetical redactors
living at particular periods, who make particular editorial changes in the service of some
equally hypothetically reconstructed theological interest, strikes me as extreme hubris.”
J. J. M. Roberts, First Isaiah: A Commentary (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress Press,
2015), 2–3.
 Micah in Critical Dress: A Cursory Overview 43

by means of intertextual association of the linguistic and conceptual

types—even when determining the direction of the intertextual
reference remains elusive—then appreciation for the theological
character of the prophetic witnesses is enhanced.
While this commentary will make judicious use of the insights
gained by diachronic investigation, the focus of the commentary will be
on the literary character of Micah’s final form. From a certain vantage
point, this commentary shares the outlook of Ehud Ben Zvi’s Micah,
a commentary whose hermeneutical outlook has much to commend
it. Ben Zvi’s focus is on the text as a literary product that assumes a
readership competent to read it, and more importantly, to reread it. Ben
Zvi clarifies,

Moreover, the book of Micah was not produced to be read once and
then put aside, but rather to be read and reread and meditated upon
(cf. Josh 1:18; Hos 14:10 [NRSV 9]; see Sir 38:34-39:3). It is a book
that claims to be and was composed to be treated as an authoritative
writing for its readership, that is, as Scripture. (Ben Zvi, 5)

Ben Zvi assumes Micah’s final literary form emerges in the setting
of Yehud in the Achaemenid period with the religious and political
outlook of the time reflected in Micah’s final form.22 So for Ben Zvi, the
readership and rereadership of Micah are the historically conditioned
social group under the purview of the prophetic book’s intentionality
(Ben Zvi, 6). As with most commentators, Ben Zvi does work within the
constraints of the religious and social context of an identified historical
setting—postexilic Yehud. Nevertheless, and perhaps going beyond
the scope of Ben Zvi’s historical constraints, the concept of rereader
has much to commend it along canonical hermeneutical lines. For Ben

22
Ben Zvi identifies five important postexilic themes: “(1) the story of postmonarchic Israel
(i.e., the Jerusalemite-centered communities of the Achaemenid period) about itself, (2)
those communities’ self-understanding, (3) their understanding of the divine economy
and their place in it, (4) their understanding of the attributes and past and future actions
of YHWH, and (5) hope for a great and glorious future, in opposition to their actual
position in worldly terms” (Ben Zvi, 5).
44 Micah: An International Theological Commentary

Zvi’s form-critical concerns arise particularly from the Sitz im Buch,

even as this is informed by the Sitz im Leben of postexilic Yehud.
For instance, Ben Zvi claims, “[R]ereaders, and particularly those
who meditate on the text, are aware of the entire text even as they reread
its first line. They may make connections between different units not
only according to their sequence in the book but in multidirectional
and cross-linked paths” (Ben Zvi, 5–6). In other words, the activity
of rereading, especially in the theological context where the text read
is assumed as divinely authoritative, is a continuous activity where
individual units within the text are cross-associated with other texts
in the selfsame prophetic book. Such literary cross-associations yield
a combustive hermeneutical context for enriched and deep reading.
Worth highlighting here are Ben Zvi’s terms “multidirectional” and
“cross-linked paths.” His interpretive insight remains located at the
level of the prophetic book, and understandably so. Nevertheless, if
Childs, Steck, Bosshard-Nupestil, Jeremias, and others, are right about
Micah’s compositional history as inextricably linked with the growing
prophetic corpus (Mehrprophetenbuchen), then the deep reading of
the cross-associative kind Ben Zvi identifies need not be limited to the
individual prophetic books alone. In fact, the textured reading of the
cross-fertilizing kind called for in this commentary emerges at the level
of the prophetic books own canonical intentionality.
Furthermore, Ben Zvi keeps the hermeneutical aim clear by
identifying the rationale for Micah’s preservation within the prophetic
corpus:

It is worth mentioning that no textually inscribed markers indicate

that the readership of the book was asked to reread the book or any
READING within it in a manner governed by their own awareness of
either any proposed redactional history of the book, or by the place of
the relevant READING in a text other than the present book of Micah,
be it a hypothetical forerunner of Micah or any other text. Indeed,
it is far more likely that communities of rereaders will continually
reread a certain book that they accept as YHWH’s word in a way that
 Micah in Critical Dress: A Cursory Overview 45

is governed by the actual text of the book and its textually inscribed
demands than by the text of an alternative—and hypothetical—book
that they are not reading, rereading, copying, and studying. (Ben Zvi,
7–8)

As mentioned above, insights may be garnered from Micah’s

diachronic history where such may be responsibly reconstructed.
However, this commentary does inhabit the interpretive space of
Micah’s original readers, rereaders, and the broad stream of Jewish and
Christian interpretation spawned by them. Micah was preserved within
the community of faith in its given canonical shape for the sake of a
continued rereading of the book in order to hear the authoritative word
of Yhwh. Such a hermeneutical claim is both theological and historical
at the same time.23

Micah’s canonical shape

Building on the assumptions of its literary-critical predecessor, the

form-critical approach embraces the Romantic view of the individually
inspired genius. Such a view lends itself to Gunkel’s distinction between
Klassiker and Epigonen when attending to the composite character of
the prophetic literature.24 Because the final form of prophetic books
blend the Klassiker with the later and secondary Epigonen voices, the
search for the authentic prophetic genius necessitates the identification
and distinction between these two prophetic components. The classic
form-critical ambition of identifying the original prophetic genius by
means of sophisticated sorting through the complex literary layers has
given way to approaches whose focus is the prophetic book itself. The
ascendant view of the Schriftgehlerte nature of the prophetic books,
along with the insight provided by this view into the character of

23
Cf Sir 38:24-39:11.
24
See Konrad Schmid, Schriftgelehrte Traditionsliteratur: Fallstudien zur innerbiblischen
Schriftauslegung im Alten Testament (FAT 77; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 9.
46 Micah: An International Theological Commentary

the compositional history of single prophetic books and a growing

prophetic corpus, has challenged the “secondary” status of the original
prophet’s afterlife (Nachinterpretationen), whether in oracular or
written form. The Fortschreibungen or extension of the prophetic words
are activities governed by the providential oversight of the Holy Spirit.
They are no less “prophetic” or “inspired” than the original oracular
or written words of the named prophets. Isaiah 40:6-8 and Zech 1:1-6
intimate as much. By way of illustration and analogy, readers of red
letter Bibles do well to remember that the red letters of Jesus in the
fourfold gospels are not more inspired or authoritative than the black
letters surrounding them.
It is increasingly recognized that the original prophetic word, as
given in its form-critical specificity, resists easy identification. In other
words, Micah the eighth-century prophet most certainly resides within
the pages of his prophetic corpus.25 But at the same time, Micah the
eighth-century prophet is now identified with his prophetic book,
a book whose shaping and reworking of Micah’s ipsissima vox, as
well as the Fortschreibungen of his prophetic oeuvre, make oracular
reconstruction a nigh impossible task. In Christopher Seitz’s clever
description, canonical attentiveness to the prophetic literature must
“allow the text to act like a man.”26
Moreover, a Christian theological commitment to divine providence
in the preserving, expanding, and shaping of the latter Nebiim makes
such a quest misguided from the beginning. Micah’s prophetic book is
the canonical location of God’s continued revelatory work in synagogue
and church. This canonical location of Micah’s prophetic word is not

25
According to Jeremias, “Die mündliche Verkündung des Propheten Micha aus Juda
kennen wir nicht bzw. Können wir nur noch in Umrissen aus den Texten, die für später
lebende Leser gedacht waren, rekonstruieren” (Jeremias, 121). Jeremias continues,
however, by providing this outline of Micah’s preaching and prophetic concerns. Micah
speaks for the people, identifying them as “mein Volk.” Moreover, he suffers with his
people in solidarity as he stands against the abuses of the House of Jacob, a house Micah
no longer affirms.
26
Christopher Seitz, “On Letting a Text ‘Act Like a Man’ The Book of the Twelve: New
Horizons for Canonical Reading, with Hermeneutical Reflections,” SBET 22 (2004):
151–72.
 Micah in Critical Dress: A Cursory Overview 47

found in the reconstructed prophet of the lowlands from the eighth

century per se. It is the prophetic book in its canonical form where the
authorizing voice of the prophet is found. Such a claim does not intend
to drive a wedge between the eighth-century prophet and the book that
bears his name. Rather, the claim affirms the priority of the prophetic
book’s final form for our understanding of the eighth-century prophet’s
continued prophetic presence in the communal life of faithful readers.
The prophet’s original words have an afterlife that goes beyond the
purview of his historical existence. And why would they not? The grass
withers, the flower fades, all flesh is grass (including the prophets), but
the word of the Lord stands forever (Isa 40:8).
With attention given to the literary character of the book in its
final form, various suggestions for structural analysis have emerged.
Willis’s 1969 ZAW studies identified an A-B-A pattern, demarcated
by the imperative “hear” (‫ )מעשׁ‬at critical junctures in the book’s
macrostructure (1:2; 3:1; 6:1).27 Within each of these units there is a
discernable pattern of doom leading into hope: Judgment (1:2-2:11)/
Salvation (2:12-13); Judgment (3:1-12)/Salvation (4-5); Judgment (6:1-
7:6)/Salvation (7:7-20). Willis’s account looms large in Mican studies
with many commentators following suit: Allen, Mays, Smith, Waltke,
Nogalski, to name a few of the more notable studies.
Others identify the book’s literary structure as twofold—Micah
1-5 forming the first half and 6-7 the latter. Mignon Jacobs proposes
such a macrostructure for the book with each section beginning with a
summons to hear.28 Both sections are concerned with the fate of Israel
and begin with a dispute.29 Yhwh’s justice and mercy are the theological
rubrics bringing conceptual coherence to the book in its more universal
(1-5) and particularistic (6-7) sections. For Jacobs, this conceptual
coherence is the product of intentional redaction. Those who opt for

27
J. T. Willis, “The Structure of Micah 3-5 and the Function of Micah 5. 9-14 in the Book,”
ZAW 81 (1969): 191–214.
28
Mignon R. Jacobs, “Bridging the Times: Trends in Micah Studies since 1985,” CBR 4
(2006): 300–01. See also, Mignon R. Jacobs, The Conceptual Coherence of the Book of
Micah (JSOTSupp 322; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001).
29
Jacobs, Conceptual Coherence, ch. 3.
48 Micah: An International Theological Commentary

the twofold pattern over against the threefold do so because of the more
balanced symmetry between the Judgment/Salvation pattern on offer
in this literary schema.30
Hagstrom believes the two best options for the literary structure of
Micah are 1-2/3-5/6-7 or 1-5/6-7.31 The strength of the former rests on
the attendance to the literary marker “hear.” Its weakness is the difficult
interpretive challenges posed by Mic 2:12-13. Hagstrom worries that
2:12-13 does not rise to the substantial level of the other two salvation
subsections, not to mention 2:12-13 is a contested text regarding its
sense. Is this text a word of hope or judgment? The threefold pattern
certainly mitigates this interpretive hurdle, necessitating its sense as a
word of hope. Hagstrom opts for the twofold pattern because of these
stated weaknesses of the threefold, including his reservation about
the different character of the summons to “hear” in 3:1 vis-à-vis the
juridical context of 1:2 and 6:1.32
A word of caution is in order here. In their Anchor Bible Commentary,
Freedman and Andersen warn against allowing one structural analysis
or search for conceptual coherence a hegemonic place over against
others (Freedman and Anderson, 23). “Attempts to fit everything,”
suggest Freedman and Anderson, “into such patterns are in danger of
reaching a point where arguments have to be stretched and strained,
and the results lose credibility” (ibid.). Hagstrom registers a similar
proviso, despite his own preference for the twofold schema: 1-5/6-7.
“However, despite the fact that I have signaled my own preference, from
the analysis above no compelling reason emerges to prefer one of these
two options over the other.”33 Both strategies for reading Micah present
a prophetic movement from judgment to salvation or from doom to

30
David Gerald Hagstrom, The Coherence of the Book of Micah: A Literary Analysis
(SBLDiss 89; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988), 21.
31
Hagstrom sketches the various structural options, suggesting that any division driving a
wedge between chs 3 and 4 allows too much privilege for critical conclusions regarding
Micah’s composition in light of the obvious thematic links between chs 3 and 4
(Hagstrom, Coherence, 11–22).
32
Hagstrom, Coherence, 15–24.
33
Ibid., 21. Dillers registers similar reservations against the confidence Mays attaches to his
structural analysis, an analysis riding the back of a redaction-critical schema (Dillers, 8).
 Micah in Critical Dress: A Cursory Overview 49

hope. One advantage of the twofold pattern is that it does not rest on
the contentious character of 2:12-13. Our attention will turn to this
text ad loc. Nevertheless, the twofold and threefold options are both
commendable.
Freedman and Andersen provide a helpful and modest set of
interpretive instincts when they register their doubts about the priority
of one structural pattern over against another. “Our critical method is
not strong enough to decide whether such connections were worked
out consciously by the editor(s) in order to achieve some overall
unification of the material that came to his (their) hands, or whether
they are just things that we are noticing” (Freedman and Andersen, 23).
Despite our uncertainty about editorial intentionality, these features of
the text remain as textual constituents. Whether the twofold pattern
(1-5/6-7) is preferred with the first section divided between 1-3 and
4-5 or whether the threefold pattern (1-2/3-5/6-7) is favored, the book’s
theological coherence does not trade on one or the other pattern. For
the sake of laying claim on some structural pattern, this commentary
operates with the twofold pattern, with the first section divided between
1-3 and 4-5.34 The rationale for this preference, slight as it is, stems
from Jeremias’s understanding of the book’s compositional history (see
above).
This commentary will lean on Jeremias’s understanding of Micah’s
structure where a division is noted between chs 3 and 4. It should be
stated, contra Hagstrom, that the recognition of a literary division does
not necessitate a thematic division or fissure in thought. In point of
fact, the critical juncture beginning at ch. 4 has to do precisely with
this corpus of the material drawing on and expanding the prophetic
material of 1-3 in an act of prophetic Fortschreibung. I do not wish to
place Jeremias’s proposal “over against” the Judgment/Salvation schema
of the threefold and twofold patterns noted above. Nor do I wish to
be beholden to a particular redaction-critical model steering the

34
Freedman and Andersen identify 4-5 as a textual unit because of the repeated and
strategic use of ‫ והיה‬throughout this section (Freedman and Andersen, 24).
50 Micah: An International Theological Commentary

interpretive ship. Rather, I lean on Jeremias because of his attendance to

the intertextual character of Micah’s prophecy and his drawing specific
attention to the interaction of the Mican corpus with itself, the Twelve,
and the larger prophetic corpus.35
Before turning to the commentary proper, we turn our focus to
Micah’s canonical location in the Twelve, with attention given to the
specific theological contribution such a location offers. This excursus
is suggestive in nature and does not attempt to give a complete Stand
der Forschung on current developments in the Twelve research. Rather,
it offers a modest attempt at a theological reading where the pressure
for such a reader emerges from what might be properly called Micah’s
canonical intentionality.

35
Bruce Waltke’s commentary on Micah is magisterial by any account, providing
exegetical, syntactical, and text-critical analysis that will aid interpreters for years to
come. Nevertheless, Micah’s intertextual character and diachronic history make little to
no contribution to his understanding of the canonical intentionality of a book whose
final form is itself the product of a larger prophetic conversation. One can appreciate
Waltke’s resistance to allowing matters of compositional history a significant place at the
interpretive table, given the speculative character of many of these efforts. Nevertheless,
the final form of the prophetic books signals enough in the direction of cross-fertilization
in their compositional history that attention to these matters is more than warranted,
despite our inability to provide a crystal clear reconstruction of the diachronic history of
the prophetic corpus.
 Who Is a God Like You? Micah’s
Theological Witness in the Book of the
Twelve: An Introductory Excurses

Identifying the character of God in the Book of the Twelve requires

the coalescing of several strains of thought on the biblical material:
e.g., recent research on the Twelve; relating diachronic ordering with
synchronic associative readings; clarifying conceptions regarding
“monotheism” in light of Israel’s religious history and normative history
(and where these two differ). As becomes the case, identifying “God” is
not a prima facie activity but requires a patient listening to the biblical
material and the traditions they proffer. It may be suggested that the
shaping of the Twelve by the tradents of the material intended this
kind of effect on the reader, namely, an invitation to read and reread
the voices of these prophetic witnesses in increasing relation to one
another.1 It may also be suggested that embedded within the canonical

A version of this chapter appeared in Monotheism in Late Prophetic and Early Apocalyptic
Literature (FAT II/172; ed. N. MacDonald and K. Brown; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck,
2014).
1
Rolf Rendtorff claims, “Finally, I point out that in studying the Book of the Twelve as
a whole there is no simple alternative between ‘diachronic’ and ‘synchronic’ reading.
The diachronic features are not only obvious but are marked explicitly by the different
datings of a number of writings. On the other hand, those who gave the writings their
shape (whatever we call them) obviously wanted the reader to read the writings as a
connected whole and to reflect on their different messages. I think it is a challenging and
fascinating exegetical task to follow their advice.” Rolf Rendtorff, “How to Read the Book
of the Twelve as a Theological Unity,” in Reading and Hearing the Book of the Twelve (ed.
J. D. Nogalski and M. A. Sweeney; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000), 87. It
is not entirely clear what “diachronic” means for Rendtorff in the above account. Even
texts that are clearly dated have their own complex compositional history and cannot
always be dated with ease in their given form. But the final point is worth heeding well,
52 Micah: An International Theological Commentary

shaping of the Twelve are the remnants of a struggle to identify the

character of Yhwh in light of difficult historical exigencies and the
constraining pressure of Judah’s anterior traditions. I will not engage
all the features mentioned above. Rather, a modest step forward will
be taken by investigating the theologizing instincts present within the
complex of Jonah, Micah, and Nahum.
Though the literature is continuing to expand, some account needs to
be given for reading the corpus of the Masoretic Text (MT) from Hosea
to Malachi as a multi yet unified literary voice. Within this relatively
new field of research, even the preceding sentence needs careful
argumentation as to why the Masoretic ordering may be preferable to
alternate orderings, e.g., LXX or Qumran. Or whether the ordering
we have in the MT on final analysis offers the kind of intentional
associations some scholars have identified in the compositional
history of the individual books and the corpus itself.2 If the Twelve has
been shaped by the tradents of the material to present a multivoiced
choir whose harmonies and melody come together to form a single,
if complex, libretto—an outlook affirmed here despite the complexity
of providing a compelling account for the diachronic history of its
shaping—then the whole is indeed more than the sum of its parts.3 This

those who shaped the materials as a Scriptural/canonical deposit for a future generation
of faithful readers intended a continued and associative reading and re-reading of this
material. Ben Zvi frames the matter with the terms reading and rereading. Ben Zvi’s
attention is on the individual books themselves, though the extension of Ben Zvi’s insight
into the corpus as a whole is plausible: a move Ben Zvi himself might resist. B. Ben Zvi,
Micah (FOTL XXIB) (Grand Rapids, 2000), 7.
2
Schart makes the point well, “The main difficulty for all the different models is
establishing controls about what is considered deliberate redactional shaping
and what is only accidentally connected. Which features should be construed as
important goals of the final text, and which should be viewed as less significant?”
Aaron Schart, “Reconstructing the Redaction History of the Twelve Prophets,” in
Reading and Hearing the Book of the Twelve (ed. J. D. Nogalski and M. A. Sweeney;
Atlanta: SBL Press, 2000), 42–43. From this point, Schart continues by stating that
it is most plausible to begin with the so-called Book of the Four. Even this is not as
plausible as Schart et al., suggests as evidenced by the recent work of Levin. Levin,
“Das ‘Vierprophetenbuch.’”
3
The most recent attempt to provide a diachronic account of the Twelve’s literary
development is provided by Jakob Wöhrle, in both Die frühen Sammlungen des
Zwölfprophtenbuches and Der Abschluss des Zwölfprophetenbuches. Building on the
 Micah’s Theological Witness 53

sketch will move in the direction of Twelve research with attention given
to the characterization of God in Jonah, Micah, and Nahum. Moreover,
the strategic placement of Micah between Jonah and Nahum yields a
portrait of Yhwh, particularly his relationship to the nations, not on
offer in the presentation of the individual books themselves. Put in
other terms, the complex of Jonah, Micah, and Nahum come together
in a combustive dialectic of mutual interpretation and presentation of

previous work of Nogalski and Schart, Wöhrle seeks to provide a more thorough analysis
of the redaction history of the Twelve by examining carefully the individual books
within the corpus and how they were fitted and arranged within a growing corpus.
Wöhrle recognizes a developing Fremdvölker corpus, with the later incorporation of
Habakkuk, a further Heils-für-die-Völker corpus, a Gnaden corpus, followed by the
ending of Malachi and a refitting of the book of Hosea. Wöhrle’s project is concerned
to allow the redaction-historical reconstruction of the Twelve a mirroring role of
the various religious and social-historical debates taking place in the exilic, Persian,
and early Hellenistic periods of Judah. Though impressive in breadth of learning
and closeness of reading, Wöhrle’s redaction-critical scheme has been challenged on
several levels. Most recently, Christoph Levin has challenged the basic starting point
of all redaction-critical studies of the Twelve, namely, the so-called Book of the Four
(Hosea, Amos, Micah, and Zeph). Levin, “Das ‘Vierprophetenbuch.’” Levin suggests
another “book of the four”: Isaiah, Hosea, Amos, and Micah, with special attention
given to the shaping influence of Isaiah on the other three. The “Deuteronomistic” link
between these four as well as the shared form of their superscriptions is thoroughly
challenged by Levin. Also, Klaas Spronk wonders whether or not it is too crystalline
to place the various intertextual appeals to Ex 34:6-7 within the same Gnaden level of
redaction. Instead, Spronk suggests the antiquity of the tradition represented by Ex
34:6-7 certainly allows for different authors to appeal to it at different times. Spronk
concludes, “The repeated use of Exodus 34:6-7 does not have to be ascribed to a
separate layer, but is probably part of this process of one book reacting to the other.”
Klaas Spronk, Nahum, 9.
Moreover, a general danger in redaction-critical studies is the sometimes brittle
assumption that ideas expressed within a text clearly reveal the time of writing or that
certain theological viewpoints only fit within a particular segment of Judah’s religious
history. Returning to Benjamin Sommer’s essay on the subject, he reminds of the
perils facing biblical scholars when they link too narrowly particular texts to particular
historical periods. He warns, “To deny that any idea could have been thought of in a
given age is to deny the possibility of intellectual creativity. Such a denial is a very odd
position for a scholar of the humanities.” Sommer, “Dating Pentateuchal Texts,” 96. In
a related context and in conversation with Hermisson, Steck, and Kratz on II Isaiah,
Brevard Childs warns, “However, is there not the same danger present which once
afflicted source critical analysis? The assumption that conceptual tension always implies
different literary strands results in the endless proliferation of redactions. Is it not possible
that the tensions which Hermisson observes regarding divine salvation constitute the
very uniqueness of II Isaiah’s message and to posit a separate and alternative redactional
layer pulls apart elements which closely cohere, even in tension?” Childs, “Retrospective
Reading,” 368.
54 Micah: An International Theological Commentary

the identity of Yhwh that enhances the single prophetic witness in a

broader frame of reference.4

On canonical arrangement

Though the Twelve may be read in fruitful ways according to the LXX
ordering, the logic of lectio difficilior does render a compelling case
for the priority of the Masoretic ordering.5 The grouping together of
the eighth-century prophets in the LXX—Hosea, Amos, Micah—does
appear to be a chronological smoothing out of the minor chronological

4
Burkardt Zapff ’s earlier work on the redaction-critical history of the Jonah, Micah,
Nahum complex is of particular importance, e.g., B. Zapff, “The Perspective on the
Nations in the Book of Micah as ‘Systematization’ of the Nations’ Role in Joel, Jonah
and Nahum? Reflections on a Context-Oriented Exegesis in the Book of the Twelve,” in
Thematic Threads in the Book of the Twelve (BZAW 325) (ed. P. L Redditt and A. Schart;
Berlin, 2003), 292–312. Zapff did much of the redaction-critical spadework on this corpus
with specific attention given to the position of Micah between Jonah and Nahum. Zapff ’s
redaction-critical study focuses primarily on the social and historical forces pressuring
this redactional history with specific attention given to diachronic reconstruction. Zapff
advances the notion that one must make a distinction between the origin of Jonah and
its particular placement within the Twelve. Whoever was responsible for the latter is,
according to Zapff, most likely the same figure responsible for the redactional insertions
of Nah 1.2b.3a. Zapff, “The Perspective on the Nations,” 301. This article places the
redaction-critical emphasis on the theological effects such shaping has on implied
readers who receive the text as a normative witness to the identity of God, rather than
the religious-historical reconstruction of the various “debates” among differing tradents.
Most recently, Zapff has made a compelling case for the theological centrality of Micah
to the whole of the Twelve. Micah’s sixth position among the Twelve in the Hebrew
ordering is not a redactional happenchance but is indicative of its theologically central
place to the larger thematic concerns of the Twelve’s unified voice. Following Wöhrle,
Zapff identifies the ending of Micah and its appeal to Ex 34.6-7 as ingredient to the grace
layer of redaction (Gnaden Korpus) and thus provides the redaction-critical logic for
Micah’s theological centrality. Burkard M. Zapff, “The Book of Micah—the Theological
Centre of the Book of the Twelve,” in Perspectives on the Formation of the Book of the
Twelve: Methodological Foundations—Redactional Processes—Historical Insights (ed. R.
Albertz, J. D. Nogalksi, and J. Wöhrle, BZAW 433; Berlin: De Gruyter, 2012), 142–44.
5
Despite claims to the contrary, I find Nogalski’s initial claims regarding the priority of the
MT ordering persuasive, James D. Nogalski, Literary Precursors of the Book of the Twelve
(BZAW 217; Berlin: De Gruyter, 1993), 2–3. For the significance of the ordering of the
Twelve in the primary textual witnesses of the LXX, see M. Sweeney, “Sequence and
Interpretation in the Book of the Twelve,” in Reading and Hearing the Book of the Twelve
(ed. J. D. Nogalski and M. A. Sweeney; Atlanta 2000), 49–64. The identification of Jonah
at the end of 4QXIIa has come under critical scrutiny by Guillaume. P. Guillaume, “The
Unlikely Malachi-Jonah Sequence (4QXIIa),” JHS 7 (2007): 2–10.
 Micah’s Theological Witness 55

difficulties present in the MT ordering. In other words, the move to

the LXX makes good sense as to why the traditional ordering would be
rearranged, whereas the reverse is not as conceivable. The placement
of Micah in the middle of the collection and not with the identifiable
eighth-century prophets at least piques interest in the direction of
“why?”6 A rough chronology remains in the MT Twelve because even
though Joel is dated by most scholars as late, along with Jonah, their
titles do not demand such readings. In fact, Jonah’s appearance in 2 Ki
14:25 locates the prophet canonically within the eighth-century reign
of Jeroboam II. Nevertheless, Micah is identified in its superscription
with Hosea and Amos but is not placed next to them as it is in the LXX.
This raises paradigmatic questions as to why it might be placed where
it is in the Twelve. As mentioned above, it is suggested here that Micah
is located between Jonah and Nahum to provide an internal guide for
reading these two books in light of the revealed character of Yhwh and
what it means to identify Yhwh as God.7
In his oft-cited chapter, Raymond van Leeuwan identified the
prominent role of Ex 34:6-7 in the growing corpus of the Twelve. His
arguments need not be repeated here in toto, but it is worth rehearsing
the main line of his thought. The bipartite description of Yhwh in
Ex 34:6-7, a description that can be described in short as his mercy
and severity, provides a sapiential point of entry for the larger theme
addressed in the Twelve, namely, the theodicy question in light of the
cataclysmic events of 722 and 587 bc. Van Leeuwan makes his way

6
See Zapff, “The Book of Micah,” 130–42. The so-called Book of the Four thesis has gained
ascendancy among Book of the Twelve researches (e.g., Albertz, Nogalski, Schart, and
Wöhrle), namely, a Deuteronomistically edited collection of Hosea, Amos, Micah, and
Zephaniah was the first collection (Sammlungen) in the expanding corpus of the Twelve
during the exilic period: the latter two books joined to an earlier Hosea and Amos
corpus. As mentioned above, Levin has brought this thesis under critical scrutiny. For
sake of argument, however, if an original Book of the Four did exist, then both it and the
ordering of the LXX reveal the mobility of Micah in the growing corpus of the Twelve
and further raises the paradigmatic question of its placement in the Twelve. Why here?
7
Raymond C. Van Leeuwen, “Scribal Wisdom and Theodicy in the Book of the Twelve,”
in In Search of Wisdom: Essays in Memory of John G. Gammie, ed. L. G. Perdue, B. S.
Brandon, and W. J. Wiseman (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1993), 31–49. See
also, Christopher Seitz, Prophecy and Hermeneutics: Toward a New Introduction to the
Prophets (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007).
56 Micah: An International Theological Commentary

through the Twelve, identifying the key places where the thirteen
middot of Ex 34:6-7 appear. He then teases out the import this had
for an understanding of the Twelve as a whole. Though not all of van
Leeuwan’s findings may be persuasive in particular, the general effect of
his work is to provide warrant and an identifiable handle on the unity of
the Twelve. Van Leeuwan’s initial work is also an invitation to press the
matter more fully and this has been done with some measure of success
in the work of House, Nogalski, Schart, and Wöhrle, to name a few.
Sorting out the diachronic history of these three books may at first
glance appear straightforward: Micah, Nahum, then Jonah, most scholars
agreeing that Jonah is one of the latter additions to the Twelve. And while
this is true, the nature of intertextual cross-fertilization and the complexity
of the compositional history of the individual books themselves make
surefire reconstructions not so sure. It is quite likely the gradual growth
of the Twelve involved editorial decisions with the individual books at
every level of the Twelve’s development, e.g., Wöhrle’s Gnaden Korpus
cutting across the grain of all these books. Nevertheless, the reality of
the diachronic history of the Twelve and the evidence of shared thematic
and linguistic links between books—despite how difficult it is to sort this
out even in a relative chronology—provide sufficient justification for
the reader of the Twelve to read these texts both as individual prophetic
witnesses and in ever-increasing association with the other prophetic
voices within the corpus. In this sense, the diachronic history of the
Twelve’s composition provides internal evidence for reading the Twelve
as a unified, if complex, prophetic witness.8
The strategic intertextual use of Ex 34:6-7 is noteworthy in Jonah,
Micah, and Nahum, where reference to the middot appears at key
junctures in these respective books. In Jonah, the gracious character of
Yhwh is a source of frustration for Jonah when he provides his rationale
for why he fled to Tarshish in the first place. “[F]or I knew that you are
a gracious God and merciful, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast

8
See Zapff ’s engagement with Ben Zvi on this point, Zapff, “The Perspective on the
Nations,” 296–97.
 Micah’s Theological Witness 57

love, and read to relent from punishing” (Jon 4:2b). The book of Micah
ends with the question that plays off the name of Micah, “Who is a
God like you?” The answer to this liturgical question has its source in
the middot.9 At this juncture is one of the more identifiable catch-word
links (Stichwortverbindungen) between books in the Twelve. Nahum
1:3 refers to the middot as well, creating a chain-link between the end
of Micah and the beginning of Nahum. Whereas Jonah and Micah
emphasize the merciful side of Yhwh in their appeal to Ex 34:6-7, in
Nahum the chord is struck on the severity side of Yhwh’s character: the
Lord will by no means clear the guilty (Nah 1:3).
An aerial view of Jonah, Micah, and Nahum reveal the balance and
direction of the middot in Ex 34.6-7. I am borrowing from Benno Jacob’s
classic commentary on Exodus. He identifies the thirteen middot from
the Talmud (Rosch. hasch. 17b) as follows:

1. God of mercy
2. Grace
3. Long of nose (patient)
4. Full of ḥesed
5. Faithful
6. Visiting ḥesed to the thousandth
7. Forgiving iniquity
8. Forgiving rebellion
9. Forgiving sin
10. Visiting sins of fathers to the sons
11. Sons sons
12. Visiting sins of the fathers to the third
13. Visiting sins of the fathers to the fourth.

If the Talmudic middoth provide a helpful schema, then the exposition

of the divine name in Ex 34:6-7 is a 9 to 4 ratio with the gracious

9
The liturgical character of the ending of Micah was observed a century ago by Gunkel.
See also, John T. Willis, “A Reapplied Prophetic Hope Oracle,” in Studies on Prophecy: A
Collection of Twelve Papers (Suppl VT XXVI; Leiden: Brill, 1974), 64–76.
58 Micah: An International Theological Commentary

character of Yhwh tipping the relational scales in their direction. In

light of God’s singularity and simplicity, his judgment and mercy are
not played over against one another, as if his justice and judgment are
more alien to his being than his mercy. All of Yhwh’s attributes are of
a single piece. Yet in God’s relating to his people, as observed in the
golden calf encounter, forgiveness and mercy are future possibilities
even though Yhwh’s claims of justice and judgment would remain
perfectly within his remit.
The ratio of the middoth is similar in Jonah, Micah, and Nahum with
the deployment of the middot in Jonah and Micah emphasizing Yhwh’s
gracious character with Nahum reminding readers of the Twelve that
his patience is not limitless. God’s mercy cannot be equated with the
indulgence of a coddling parent. This aerial view of Jonah to Nahum
reveals the similar balance and direction of the middot between Exodus
and Jonah, Micah, and Nahum. Though the engagement will be limited,
a brief look at the function of the middot in Exodus will aid our reading
of Jonah, Micah, and Nahum.

Exodus 34:6-7: Yhwh merciful and severe

According to Donald Gowen, “The book of Exodus thus reaches

its theological conclusion with chs 32–34, for they explain how it
can be that the covenant relationship continues in spite of perennial
sinfulness.”10 As is well known, the literary context of the middot is the
golden calf episode of Exodus 32. The interchange between Moses and
Yhwh on Mt. Sinai is brought to an abrupt halt as Yhwh informs Moses
of the people’s idolatry. The fury of Yhwh’s jealousy is on full display in
this text. With a key choice of words, he tells Moses to go down to your
people.11 The cleavage between Yhwh and his people in light of their

10
D. Gowan, Theology in Exodus: Biblical Theology in the Form of a Commentary (Louisville,
1994), 218.
11
A similar distancing of Yhwh is noted in the prophets: “go and tell this people” in Isa 6:9;
lo-ammi in Hosea 1.
 Micah’s Theological Witness 59

idolatry signals their impending doom. “Now let me alone, so that my

wrath may burn hotly against them and I may consume them; and of
you I will make a great nation” (Ex 32:10). Moses intercedes on their
account, and Yhwh relents. The golden calf incident becomes an iconic
representation of Israel’s tendency to stray to other lovers and Yhwh’s
predilection toward gracious patience.
It is important to recognize the backdrop of the golden calf incident
to the revelation of the divine name in Ex 34:6-7. On the far side of the
golden calf encounter, Moses asks to see Yhwh’s glory and understand
his ways (Ex 33:13). What he receives is a divine exposition on the
significance of the divine name, Yhwh. Though the syntax creates some
difficulties, there is little doubt that the one proclaiming the name,
“Yhwh,” in 34:5 and crying out “Yhwh, Yhwh” in 34:6 is Yhwh himself.
Moreover, the link between 34:5-7 and the revelation of the divine name
in Exodus 3 should not be overlooked as well: 34:5-7 is an extension of
ch. 3’s divine unveiling.12 This revelation of the name in Exodus is a
revelation of Yhwh’s divine identity, that is, his character or his “narrative
identity” if I may borrow a helpful term from Paul Ricouer.13 This is how
one recognizes and “plots” Yhwh so as to identify him over against any
other. The revelation of the divine name or identity is an explanation
of his character and actions: the insoluble relationship between being
and action in the divine. It provides a ballast for the people of God to
respond to various divine actions with an understanding that such are
in accord with Yhwh’s own self-understanding and self-determination.
The burning anger of Ex 32:10 elides into the patient character of
Yhwh in 34:6-7. Thomas Dozeman identifies a change in the character
of Yhwh at this point in the unfolding of the divine name. Whereas
in the Decalogue, Yhwh’s response to fidelity or idolatry is presented
in polar extremes, love/hate, obedience or punishment (Ex 20:4-6), Ex
34:6-7 provides a way forward for Yhwh’s people after the sin of the

12
See, Christopher Seitz, “The Call of Moses and the ‘Revelation’ of the Divine Name:
Source-Critical Logic and Its Legacy,” in Theological Exegesis: Essays in Honor of Brevard
S. Childs (ed. C. Seitz and K. Greene-McCreight; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999),
145–61.
13
P. Ricoeur, Oneself as Another (trans. K. Blamey; Chicago, 1992).
60 Micah: An International Theological Commentary

golden calf.14 “Yhwh, the jealous God, now becomes Yhwh, the most
merciful and gracious God.”15 As the middot remind in their latter third,
this is not a complete displacement of divine jealousy, but it provides
the proportionality fit to the character of Yhwh’s own self-disclosure:
merciful and severe, with the latter open to the supervening grace of
the former.16 Yhwh and the Scripture’s bearing witness to him know
nothing of billige Gnade. Yhwh’s relational mode of being with Israel
may alter in light of his propensity toward steadfast love. As in Jonah,
repentance can lead to a divine reversal of fortunes. And like Jonah,
the people of God should not be surprised, “It is just like Yhwh to act
in this way.”
With this brief look at Ex 34:6-7 in mind, we turn to Jonah, Micah,
and Nahum to see how the severity and mercy of Yhwh are worked out
in this canonical complex.

Jonah, Micah, Nahum: Eschatological potentialities

On the surface, Jonah and Nahum present a contradictory view of

Yhwh’s dealings with Nineveh. Rolf Rendtorff identifies the Nineveh
in Jonah as a literary construct and not a real political power who
threatened the existence of Israel and Judah.17 Nineveh represents a
sinful Gentile city deserving of God’s punishment. However, Yhwh
extends a gracious hand to this sinful Gentile city in light of their
repentance. As Jonah laments at the end of the narrative (Jon 4:2), it
is just like Yhwh to act in accordance with his nature: slow to wrath
and quick to mercy. Nahum, on the other hand, presents Nineveh in
the real: the city known and feared by Israel and Judah who on final

14
T. Dozeman, Exodus (Eerdmans Critical Commentary) (Grand Rapids, 2009), 737.
15
Ibid.
16
Benno Jacob emphasizes the enduring significance of the middot in Israel’s religious
life, “[I]mmer wenn Israel sündigt, sollen sie hiernach vor mir verfahren, und ich werde
ihnen vergeben. Das will sagen: Diese Sätze sind ein Gebet, das gleichsam Gott selbst den
Mose gelehrt hat.” Jacob, Das Buch Exodus, 969–70.
17
Rendtorff, “How to Read,” 83.
 Micah’s Theological Witness 61

analysis continue as a city of bloodshed without the enduring effects

of the citywide repentance of Jonah.18 What appears in Jonah as the
ideal, with both the sailors at the beginning of the book and the city of
Nineveh toward the end, is revealed in Nahum as life in real time. What
appears prima facie as contradictory accounts on second glance reveal
the possibilities extended to the nations by Israel’s severe yet merciful
God: potentialities offered but never in full received.
Micah’s position between these two books provides an angle of
repose on the stark contrast between Jonah and Nahum. In other words,
Micah offers interpretive clues for how to negotiate such divergent views
regarding the character of Yhwh and his posture vis-à-vis the nations.
Micah might be seen as the second third of the middot, if the scope and
balance of the middot can function in such a metaphorical fashion. The
tensions felt between Jonah and Nahum are felt in Micah’s corpus as
well, especially in Micah 4-5.19 By way of procedure, I will begin with
an examination of a few key texts in Micah and their relationship to the
surrounding literature.
The picture of Yhwh’s relationship to the nations is acute in Micah
4. Micah 4:1-4 (5) promises a coming day where the nations stream
to Zion to be taught Torah in an age of universal peace.20 As the
memorable images of 4:3 remind the reader, in that day weapons of war

18
Rendtorff, “How to Read,” 83–84. Schart lists three options for the tension between
Jonah and Nahum. First, the historical solution is Nineveh’s repentance did not last long.
Second, Jeremias suggests Jonah represents God’s final will, while Nahum represents
his temporary will. Third, Jonah himself comes under critical scrutiny. Schart, Jonah-
Narrative, 137–38. Rendtorff ’s canonical instincts offer a different view given the
literature as continued testimony, namely, both Ninevehs are literary tropes witnessing
to the different possible routes for the nations vis-à-vis their repentance toward Israel’s
God.
19
My instincts are with Zapff over against Schart to view Micah 4-5 as a canonical text
in its present form and not to sort out the tensions on final analysis by appealing to the
contrastive theological viewpoints from various postexilic circles. The importance of the
book of Isaiah framing Micah 4 and 5 is indicative of the intentional shaping of this
material for an intended theological purpose, multiperspectival as it may be. Zapff, “The
Book of Micah,” 133–34.
20
The eschatology presented in Micah 4.1-4 (5) and Isaiah 2.2-4 need not be understood as
end of the world eschatology but as an event taking place in space and time in the future.
Shemaryahu Talmon, “The Signification of ‫ תירחא‬and ‫ תירחא םימיה‬in the Hebrew Bible,”
in Emanuel: Studies in Hebrew Bible Septuagint and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honor of Emanuel
Tov (ed. S. M. Paul et al.; Leiden: Brill, 2003), 795–810.
62 Micah: An International Theological Commentary

are transformed into tools of the field as everyone sits under their own
vine and fig tree. The phrase is particularly memorable because in Joel
4:10 a very different image of Yhwh’s relationship to the nations is given,
one in which plowshares and pruning hooks are turned into swords
and spears. As one observes the tension between Jonah and Nahum
on the relationship of God to the nations, so too does one observe the
selfsame pattern between Micah 4 and Joel 4.
While resisting the tendency to flatten out the particularity of Joel
and Micah into a tidy theological package, the reader on the level of the
whole is invited to make some sense of the theological character of the
books in relation to one another on the level of a shared subject matter.
From a religious-historical perspective, it could be claimed that Joel as
a postexilic book is expressing the frustrations one might expect from
unfulfilled hopes and continued foreign domination in light of previous
prophetic promises. Another kind of reading seeks after the substance
of the witness as a unified whole and the effects this has on the implied
reader in the community of faith. The distinction between the two texts
in Joel and Micah may be on the same conceptual/theological field as
the distinction between Jonah and Nahum. What Micah 4 presents as
an eschatological promise for the future—a presentation of the nations
making good on the claim that those who take refuge in Yhwh are blessed
(Nah 1:7)—Joel and Nahum present the facts on the ground or in the real.
The invitation to the nations in Mic 4:1-4 (5) is an eschatological hope
promised but not yet actualized. In the idiom of Nahum’s voice, “Why do
you plot against the LORD? He will make an end; no adversary will rise
up twice” (Nah 1:9). When Joel presents Yhwh as a roaring lion making
judgment in the valley of Jehoshaphat, the force of the presentation in
intertextual association with Micah 4 makes clear the nations have not
sought refuge in Yhwh and continue in their plot against God.
What Jonah pictures as an ideal response of the nations may
be considered a narrative account of the eschatological promise of
Micah 4.21 The editorial challenge of Mic 4:5 to walk in the name of

21
In a similar vein, see Zapff, “The Perspective on the Nations,” 304.
 Micah’s Theological Witness 63

Yhwh forever while the nations continue to walk after their gods finds
a possible linguistic link in Jon 1:4: “each one cried out to his God.”
The collective use of ‫ איׁש‬is deployed in each context. The phraseology
in Mic 4:5 is, “each one walks in the name of his God.” The nations of
Mic 4:5 in this particular moment of the divine economy are much like
the sailors at the beginning of Jonah 1; they continue on without taking
refuge in him and in the trust of their own gods. By the end of Jonah
1, however, a major transition occurs. This transition takes place at a
critical juncture as the sailors respond to and obey the prophetic word
from Jonah: throw me into the water. At the end of Jonah 1, the sailors
“call out to Yhwh” no longer Elohim (cf. 1:4). They address Yhwh in a
vocative form: “Ah, Yhwh.” In 1:16 the sailors greatly fear Yhwh and
make sacrifices and vows to him.22 Speculation regarding the narrative
behind the narrative, i.e., did the sailors become Yahwists or did they
go to the temple to fulfill these promises, misses the laconic point of
the narrative. The pagan sailors turn their full attention to Yhwh in
recognition of his identity as maker of heaven and earth. In brief, they
repent.
In this light, the sailors and the Ninevites, as Rendtorff suggests, are
literary tropes functioning as narrative portraits of what the promises
of Micah 4 might look like in a real encounter between the gracious
God of Israel and the surrounding nations. The presence of Nahum
and Joel 4 provides a sharp challenge to understand this picture as
an eschatological hope and not a present reality. The contextual and
particular placement of Jonah within the Twelve provides sharp relief
on the “eschatologizing” of the Jonah narrative.
The portrait of the nations in Micah 4 is caught in a similar dialectic.
“Now many nations are assembled against you … Arise and thresh, O
daughter of Zion … you shall beat in pieces many peoples” (Mic 4:11-
13). The picture here is surely of a different order than the eschatological
vision at the beginning of the chapter. But, again, the nations who
will be “pulverized” are those who have set themselves against Yhwh

22
See ZVI on Jonah and pagan sailors.
64 Micah: An International Theological Commentary

and his people (4:11). The character of Mic 4:11-13 makes historical
identification difficult. Israel had many enemies of the past and more
to come in the future. Who exactly are the “many nations” rising up
against Yhwh? It does not seem necessary to thrust this text into the
eschatological future.23 Rather the text is indeterminate enough to catch
all kinds of historical possibilities for Israel now and in her future. The
nations who set themselves over against Yhwh both now and in the
future will know Yhwh as a roaring lion. While those who take refuge
in him will find an extended hand of mercy from a relenting God whose
mercy can cede his severity.
As mentioned at the beginning of this section, for some time now
scholars have noted the intertextual link between Joel, Jonah, the end
of Micah, and the beginning of Nahum. The strategic placement of Ex
34:6-7 at key junctures in these books reveals the gracious character of
Yhwh for his repentant people in Joel, for the repentant nations in Jonah,
as a concluding promise in Micah, and as a warning in Nahum: Yhwh
is patient but his patience is not limitless.24 Micah’s characterization of
Yhwh in Mic 7:18-20 is preceded by an account of the nations that is
more akin to Joel and Nahum than Micah 4 or Jonah. As in the days
of old when Israel was led out of Egypt, so too will Yhwh act again on
behalf of his people such that the nations can only respond with ritual
shame and genuine fear in the face of Yhwh’s marvelous acts (Mic 7:15).
The juxtaposition of Mic 7:11-17 and Mic 7:18-20 in the final literary
form of the text again creates a field of possibilities for the nations with
respect to Yhwh’s identity. The presence of Ex 34:6-7 both at the end
of Micah and on the lips of the king of Nineveh in Jonah 3 identifies
God as one who responds graciously, who in fact is quick to respond
with grace and slow to respond in anger for those who turn to him and
take refuge in him. The nations who are placing their hands over their

23
Pace Freedman and Anderson, ad loc.
24
Nogalski identifies the redactional insertion of Ex 34.6-7 in Nah 1.3 because it breaks
up the alleged acrostic present in Nah 1.2-8. James Nogalski, Redactional Processes in
the Book of the Twelve (BZAW; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1993), 106–07. See also, Zapff,
“The Perspective on the Nations,” 307.
 Micah’s Theological Witness 65

mouths while exiting their fortresses in fear (Mic 7:11-17) also have
the opportunity to encounter the mercy of God on the far side of his
severity. Like the king of Nineveh in Jonah 3, they too can encounter
Yhwh as one who is quick to mercy and slow to anger.
The intertextual placement of Ex 34:6-7 in Nah 1:3, however, has a
sharper edge to it than its use in Joel 2, Jonah 3, and Micah 7. Indeed,
Yhwh is slow to anger and great in power, but he will by no means clear
the guilty. The chord is struck on the final half of the verse. The tight
juxtaposition of severity and mercy in Nahum arrests the reader. Who
can endure the heat of his anger (Nah 1:6)? The “heat of his anger” is
precisely what the king of Nineveh hoped to avoid in his call for national
repentance: from the greatest to the least (Jon 3:9). The Nineveh of
Nahum, however, will not experience this because on final analysis they
did not take refuge in Israel’s God. Again, the portraits of Nineveh in
Jonah and Nahum identify real future possibilities: the eschatological
looking forward, the creating of literary tropes that exist as enduring
promises and threats that flow from the identity of Yhwh. The canonical
reader is able to see both the mercy and the severity of Yhwh: slow to
anger, quick to forgive, yet by no means clearing the guilty. The nations
may walk down the path of Jonah’s Nineveh or Nahum’s Nineveh. Both
options are present and the eschatological hope of Micah 4 is that at
some point in the future, the former will once again prevail. Yhwh’s
temporal “no” of judgment, though real, need not be final. The promise
of Micah 4 and its effects are always on offer. Again, in Nahum’s Psalm-
like phrase, “He protects those who take refuge in him” (Nah 1:7b).
The dialectic of the severity and mercy of Yhwh with the nations is
equally at play with his own people as well. The theophanic images at
the beginning of Micah 1 and Nahum overlap in force of expression
and shared imagery. In Nahum 1 the quaking mountains and melting
hills are on display before the earth and its inhabitants. The nations
are in view as the superscription indicates. Whereas in Micah, the fire
of Yhwh’s wrath is kindled because of the sins of Israel and Judah, the
created order is called on as juridical witnesses in the divine court.
He by no means clears the guilty irrespective of national identity. An
66 Micah: An International Theological Commentary

assumed Zion theology with no repentance, no recognition of guilt,

is thoroughly challenged by the prophetic word. Though the nations
continue to walk in the name of their own gods, Judah is called on to
walk in the name of Yhwh forever (Mic 4:5).25
Heinz-Joseph Fabry suggests the redactional joining of Nahum to
Habakkuk advances a creation theology (Schöfungstheologie) as
rationale for God’s actions with Nineveh. The hymn of Nah 1:2-8
enjoyed a literary independence before its deployment here in the
context of the superscription’s purview: Nineveh. The placement of the
hymn in this context is not “seamless” (nahtlos) in Fabry’s view but is
made compatible with the oracle against Nineveh by the editor. The
linking of this theological preamble to the forthcoming speeches against
Nineveh provides a window into the identity of Yhwh, his lordship over
creation (Weltenherrscher), and his sole power over history (einzigen
geschichtsmächtigkeit Gottes).26 The linking together of Micah 7 and
Nahum 1 with the loan text (Textanleihe) from Ex 34:6-7 situates
together the revenge of God with his patience. The feelings of those
within Judah who desired God’s vengeance on their behalf are
warranted. Such sentiments flow from the character of Yhwh’s own
revealed self. “[D]ie gütige Seite Gottes auch in Vergeltungshandeln an
den Feinden im Auge zu behalten und keener Verfinsterung des
Gottesbildes zu verfallen.”27 The vengeance of Yhwh against the nations
stems from his revealed identity in Ex 34:6-7 and his role as Creator:
the whole world and all its nations are under his dominion and reign.
The conclusion Fabry draws from the intertextual link between the end
of Micah, the beginning of Nahum, and Ex 34:6-7 is especially insightful:

25
This is a decidedly different reading of Mic 4.5 than offered by Sweeney and a host of
scholars who have followed him, to wit, Mic 4.5 presents a religiously plural eschatology
over against Isaiah’s non-pluralistic view. M. Sweeney, “Micah’s Debate with Isaiah,” JSOT
93 (2001): 111–24. See the comments in the commentary proper.
26
Fabry concurs with Schart and Kessler that the redactor who brought together the Psalm
and the speeches in Nahum did so in connection with Habakkuk. They locate these texts
in Jerusalem during the days of Habakkuk with the residence of Judah as the addressees.
This substantiates, for Fabry, Schart’s understanding of the redaction of the Twelve
bringing together the Assyrian and Babylonian themes within the complex of theophany
(Theophanie-Motivkompmlex). H. Fabry, Nahum (HTKAT) (Freiburg, 2006), 96–104.
27
Fabry, Nahum, 92.
 Micah’s Theological Witness 67

“Nicht die Feinde Israels generell sind der Vergeltung Gottes ausgesetzt,
sondern nur die Fiende JHWHs; das aber können auch—auch wenn es
nicht explizit gesagt wird—Israeliten/Judäer sein! Es sind genau diese
Feinde, die von der Glut seines Zornes weggefegt warden (Nah 1,6a).”28
The enemies of Yhwh can be found in all nations, Israel included—the
oracles against the nations in Amos 1-2 culminating in Judah and Israel
concur. Such an outlook may be observed in the description of Nineveh
as a “city of blood” (‫ ;עיר דמים‬Nah 1:3) with Micah decrying against the
leaders of Israel who build Zion with blood (‫ ;בדמים‬Mic 3:10). Those, on
the other hand, who take refuge in him, including those from nations
other than Israel, rest secured.
The revelation of the divine name on the far side of the golden
calf episode creates possibilities of forgiveness and renewal. It is the
character of Yhwh to be severe; his justice and judgment demand it.
No saccharine view of Israel’s God is available to readers of the Twelve.
Yet Yhwh’s severity and judgment against the rebellion of Israel and
the nations is always open to a real future of mercy, forgiveness, and
covenant restoration. The golden calf episode is an enduring witness to
Yhwh’s severe and merciful relation to his people.
For the generation of ancient Judah who received and shaped this
literature, as well as for future generations, these texts witness to the
necessity of forward-looking hope. Even when the effects of divine
displeasure are experienced, the community of faith is called on to
remember the identity of Yhwh and the significance of his name: merciful
and severe, with the latter always capable of cessation in the light of
Yhwh’s mercy and human repentance. Israel’s God is quick to run off the
front porch to meet the returning prodigal. Moreover, the nations come
into view as those who fall under the lordship of Judah’s creator God. The
gracious character of Yhwh extends to all who take refuge in him. Both the
enemies of Yhwh and the friends of Yhwh are reconceived in such a way
as to make categories such as universalism and particularism increasingly
problematic or at least invite readers to a more nuanced account.

28
Ibid.
68 Micah: An International Theological Commentary

Conclusion: Preliminary thoughts

Building on the work of previous scholarship, my aim in these

reflections is to unlock the theologizing instincts of the various
authorizing voices within Jonah, Micah, and Nahum. Such a
reading is not offered for the sake of minimizing the integrity of
the individual voices in the Twelve. In other words, Jonah, Micah,
and Nahum can and should be read as discrete witnesses with their
own theological integrity. The commentary to follow is an example
of this effort, even when intertextual and canonical associations are
explored. Nevertheless, the associative and intertextual reading on
offer here brings these discrete voices into an internal and canonical
conversation regarding a central concern of the Twelve, viz., Who is
Israel’s God and what are his ways?
“Who is a God like you?” is a rhetorical question whose function
within Micah is similar to the sapiential invitation at the end of Hosea:
“Let the wise discern the ways of the Lord?” There is a call to reflective
discernment with a touchstone provided for such theological reflection
in the revelation of the divine name in Ex 34.6-7. Sociopolitical and
religious-historical crisis within the history of Israel and Judah are
made sense of in light of the revelation of the divine name: gracious
and severe. The anterior self-disclosure of the divine name in Ex 34.6-7
exerts a coercive pressure on the authors/tradents of these three
books as they provide theological handles for identifying Yhwh in
the complexities of a lived experience in God’s presence. Karl Barth’s
“reading with the Bible in one hand and the newspaper in the other,”
though anachronistic, is a helpful metaphor.29 The debates and struggles
to come to terms with God’s actions in Israel’s and subsequently Judah’s
midst—a struggle whose residual tensions may be felt in the Twelve—

29
The tendency to identify the various “tensions” within the prophetic literature as
indicative of religious debates within exilic Judah and postexilic Yehud, though not
denied, is framed rather differently by Brevard Childs in light of an understanding
of the prophetic traditions preserving of the living voice of God. Childs clarifies,
 Micah’s Theological Witness 69

are theological wranglings after the multifaceted character of the

revealed name of Yhwh.
It is a perennial difficulty in the synagogue and the church to remain
faithful to God in the midst of difficult historical circumstances. If I
may draw from the Protestant tradition, the reader may recall Martin
Luther’s later admission that as a monk he did not love God. He hated
God. Luther had no trouble with the severity of God; it was his basic
theological category. In fact, it could be argued the Reformation took
flight because of Luther’s obsessive desire to find a God he could love.
Taking the necessary changes into account, Judah also knew the severity
of God. The effect of Jonah, Micah, and Nahum is not to attenuate the
reality of Yhwh’s severity but to put Yhwh’s severity in the necessary
dialectical relationship to his mercy. This characterization of Yhwh
provides an enduring witness to God’s identity in relationship to his
people and the nations. In brief, Yhwh’s severe “no” need never be his
final word. Because this is the case, Judah is called to faithfulness in
the current moment and to hope for the future reality of the ultimate
triumph of Yhwh’s mercy (Mic 4.1-5).

“Because the prophetic writings were soon treasured as authoritative Scripture,

textual expansion occurred in the process of continual usage not toward the goal
of correcting concepts deemed false—a concept quite unthinkable in Judaism—but
in order to elucidate and confirm for its hearers the truth of a prophetic message
which it was assumed to possess.” Childs, “Retrospective Reading,” 375. Similarly,
Stephen Chapman encourages making the distinction between differing ideals and
ideologies in the Law and the Prophets. S. Chapman, The Law and the Prophets: A
Study in Old Testament Canon Formation (FAT27) (Tübingen, 2000), 283. Because
the effect of the canonical process was to indict the self, Chapman says, “This
means that a viewpoint finding expression within the canon has been recognized
by the community as an insight leading to self-discipline and the good of the other,
and not merely as a propagandistic effort on the part of the politically powerful to
restrict or condemn those with whom they disagree.” Chapman, The Law and the
Prophets, 283.
70
 1

Micah 1:1—Prophetic Identities

The word of the LORD that came to Micah of Moresheth in the days of
Kings Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah of Judah, which he saw concerning
Samaria and Jerusalem.

On framing canonical expectations

Augustine’s encounter with Ambrose, Bishop of Milan, stands as an

enduring testimony to the hermeneutical complexity one encounters
when coming to terms with the prophetic literature. After Ambrose
directed Augustine to read Isaiah in preparation for his baptism, he
concedes, “But I did not understand the first passage of the book, and
thought the whole would be equally obscure. So I put it on one side to
be resumed when I had more practice in the Lord’s style of language.”1
Augustine’s framing of the complex world of the prophetic literature
rings true for most readers of the prophets. Reading and making sense
of the prophets is no mean task, much less coming to terms with their
peculiar mode of discourse, structure, and theological outlook. Our
particular location on the far side of modernity’s critical inquiry into the
biblical material only exacerbates the hermeneutical hurdles. Imagine
if Augustine not only had to grapple with Isaiah but with a supposed
First, Second, and Third Isaiah and the redactional layers embedded
within these “discrete” literary units of the Isaianic corpus?

1
Augustine, Saint Augustine Confessions (Oxford World Classics; trans. Henry Chadwick;
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), IX.13; Chadwick, 163.
72 Micah: An International Theological Commentary

On the far side of modern criticism’s highlighting of the historical

forces at work in Israel’s religious history that gave rise to the biblical
traditions across the canon, locating texts within their proper interpretive
milieu, whether historically or literarily, remains a challenge. The
challenges are not equally insurmountable, thus the proverbial baby
with the bathwater should not be thrown out. Nevertheless, a canonical
sensitivity to these challenges takes the final form of the prophetic
book as its privileged form, even where lower-critical judgments are
requisite for identifying it. Thus, the superscription of Micah’s prophecy
lays claim on the prophetic legacy of the eighth-century prophet as the
material substance of the book to follow.
Micah’s title or superscription tells us something of his social
location as a prophet, his Judahite provenance, and the preexilic
setting of his vocational activities. As the past few centuries of
critical scholarship have made us aware, univocal associations
between prophetic titles and the book’s compositional history beg
certain questions. Moreover, the application of post-Gutenberg
notions of authorship onto the biblical material fails to take into
account the priority of auctor (authority) accounts of authorship
over against a facile linkage between prophetic titles and the sole
authorship of the book by the prophet so named (a highlighting
of prophetic personae). The prophetic word of the eighth-century
prophet and the afterlife or Nachinterpretationen of those words in
larger association with a growing corpus of prophetic literature need
not be played over against each other in a providential account of
canonization. The prophetic word is a “living organism” whose scope
and reach remains under the oversight of the speaking God from
whom the words originated. As observed in the introduction, good
reasons exist for a certain amount of modesty when seeking to give
a diachronic account of this textual history. Thus, overly rationalized
accounts of inspiration where the details and mechanics of the
compositional process are requisite need not be the cart pulling the
horse. God’s prophetic word is God’s giving of his very self in acts
of judging and redeeming communication. Whatever the details of
 Micah 1:1—Prophetic Identities 73

the compositional process were, the claims of 2 Peter remain: “First

of all, you must understand this, that no prophecy of Scripture is a
matter of one’s own interpretation. Because no prophecy ever came
by human will, but holy men and women moved by the Holy Spirit
spoke from God” (2 Pt. 1:20-21).
John Webster makes use of the theological concept of “sanctification” when giving
attention to the creaturely character of Scripture.2 Readers of Christian theology might not
initially see this move as theologically fitting because sanctification resides in the dogmatic
location of salvation and its effects. Webster’s theological move is a helpful one, however,
in giving an ordered account of the human processes involved in the production and
preservation of the Scriptural witness. God takes creaturely activities, activities taking place
in the normal course of human affairs and actions, and sanctifies or sets them apart for his
own unique, redemptive purposes. Far from shying away from the “creaturely” character of
Scripture, Webster’s account provides a helpful means by which the creaturely character of
Scripture is affirmed and embraced.

The word of Yhwh comes to Micah

The expression word of the Lord (‫ ;דבר יהוה‬dbr yhwh) signals the
character of the text. Readers are put on alert as to the expectations
they bring to their hearing/reading along with the proper posture for
reception of the material. Micah as a prophetic book is dbr yhwh.
Jeremias notes the singular dbr rather than plural dbrym indicates
the unity of the prophetic message in the entirety of Micah’s corpus
(Jeremias, 126). Micah’s raison d’etre as a literary entity is described
by this two-word Hebrew construct, highlighted and set apart as
it is by the Masoretic disjunctive accents. This collocation clarifies
the nature of the forthcoming material and the kind of readership it
anticipates.
Building on the assumption that prophetic superscriptions are the result of later editorial
activity, many within the guild of Twelve scholarship have argued for a Book of the Four as
the editorial building block of the Twelve’s diachronic history: Hosea, Amos, Micah, and
Zephaniah. Jeremias identified the intertextual/redactional relationship between Hosea
and Amos, suggesting these two initially formed a single compositional unit. He observes
the cross-fertilization of ideas/language between these two books with Hosea’s intertextual
presence at critical junctures of Amos. The latter observation led Jeremias to the conclusion

2
John Webster, Holy Scripture: A Dogmatic Sketch (Current Issues in Theology; Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2003), 17–30.
74 Micah: An International Theological Commentary

of Hosea’s more formative influence on Amos and thus its signal position in the Twelve.3
Others have built on Jeremias’s work in support of the Book of the Four theory, though he is
less convinced by it. Jeremias understands the Book of the Four as a possibility (möglicher)
but does not believe the overlap in superscriptions is sufficient ground (zureichender
Grund) for the theory.4
James Nogalski pioneered the notion of the Book of the Four. These four books are
“Deuteronomistic” in theological flavor and share a common feature in their superscription,
namely, they all begin with dbr yhwh. Nogalski also drew attention to the parallel relationship
between two Northern prophets (Hosea and Amos) and two Southern prophets (Micah and
Zephaniah), with Micah linking Northern and Southern outlooks in Mic 1:2-9.5
Various challenges to the particularities of Nogalski’s theory have arisen, though its basic
contours are broadly received by scholars who see an intentional diachronic movement to a
unified Book of the Twelve. Aaron Schart, in concert with Lohfink, believes the description
of these exilic redactors as “deuteronomistic” is an inflated application of the term. Schart
prefers to describe this corpus as a DK or D-Redaction which stands near deuteronomistic
thought yet avoids a heavy hand in identifying the redactors as deuteronomistic. Schart is
concerned to protect the specific language and thought of the Four.6 Rainer Albertz refines
the redaction-critical tools brought to the Book of the Four, calling for methodological
clarity and offering his own diachronic reconstruction. He too builds off the “starting point
for the theory” as the shared superscription: dbr yhwh.7 Hosea, Micah, and Zephaniah all
share the singular dbr, a “striking” phenomenon according to Albertz,8 while Amos begins
with the plural dbrym because, on Albertz’s view, the book probably already had this
superscription and the FPR (Four Prophets Redactor) could not alter it.9 FPR demonstrates
familiarity with the Deuteronomistic History and JerD (the deuteronomistic redaction of
Jeremiah) and was most likely drafted after 550.10 FPR also shows an internal knowledge
of the four prophets and is influenced by the theology of Isaiah. Albertz’s diachronic
reconstruction serves the purpose of identifying the religious historical instincts of the exilic
editors responsible for this corpus: a focus on Judah/Jerusalem, the parallel relationship of
prophetic word and Torah, and a hostility toward the monarchy and elite upper classes.
In brief, FPR belongs “to a more radical group of theologians, in solidarity with the lower
classes.”11
As is to be expected, several scholars have serious misgivings about the supposed Book
of the Four. Ehud Ben Zvi makes a case against the dominant trend of Twelve scholarship
that identifies an intentional editorial history where these books are brought together as a

3
Joachim Jeremias, “Die Anfänge des Dodekapropheten: Hosea und Amos,” in Hosea und
Amos: Studien zu den Anfängen des Dodekapropheten (FAT 13; ed. J. Jeremias; Tübingen:
Mohr Siebeck, 1996), 34–54. See Aaron Schart, “Reconstructing the Redaction History
of the Twelve Prophets,” in Reading and Hearing the Book of the Twelve (ed. J. D. Nogalski;
M. A. Sweeney; Atlanta: SBL Press, 2000), 44.
4
Jeremias, 121.
5
James D. Nogalski, Literary Precursors of the Book of the Twelve (BZAW 217; Berlin: De
Gruyter, 1993).
6
Aaron Schart, Die Enstehung des Zwölfprophetenbuchs: Neuarbeitungen von Amos in
Rahmen schriftenübergreifender Redaktionprozesse (BZAW 260; Berlin: De Gruyter,
1998), 46.
7
Rainer Albertz, Israel in Exile: The History and Literature of the Sixth Century B.C.E.
(Studies in Biblical Literature 3; trans. D. Green; Atlanta: SBL, 2003), 204–37 (209). For
the particularities of Albertz’s redaction-critical analysis, see the preceding.
8
Ibid., 210.
9
Ibid.
10
Ibid., 236.
11
Ibid., 237.
 Micah 1:1—Prophetic Identities 75

unified corpus by means of various catchwords and editorial linkages.12 Christoph Levin
expresses his reservations regarding the legitimacy of a Book of the Four in an article
subtitled “An Exegetical Obituary” (Nachruf).13 It is important to note that Levin does not
deny the compositional growth of the Twelve as an editorial activity whereby an earlier
corpus forms the basis for the growth and development of later books.14 He affirms the
linkages between Hosea and Amos that Jeremias identifies, along with other signs of
intentional editorial activity. What he outright denies is the existence of a so-called Book of
the Four: “Es hat zu keiner Zeit bestanden.”15 Levin denies the “deuteronomistic” influence
on this corpus. According to Levin, it is fraglos (unquestionable) that these books are a
running commentary on the theological implications of the preexilic period. But such could
be said of Isaiah and Jeremiah too. In other words, what appears to some as an indication
of “deuteronomistic” redactional activity may in fact be the prophets/editors imbibing a
shared religious tradition and interpretive reception of the prophetic material. The linguistic
and thematic links between these four prophets do not necessitate a collection identified as
the Book of the Four. But others (e.g., Albertz and Schart) do not rest their arguments
for a Book of the Four on deuteronomistic influences. The secured building block for the
Book of the Four theory is the shared form of the prophetic superscriptions. But here too,
Levin, along with Ben Zvi, resists the interpretive confidence afforded these titles as clear
indications of an earlier collection of the four. For Levin, the deuteronomistic influence and
the recognition of a shared superscription are necessarily related. Otherwise, what does
one do with Joel, a prophetic book that also begins with dbr yhwh? Moreover, Zephaniah’s
“deuteronomistic” influence remains questionable. For Levin, the phraseology “the word
of the Lord which came” has more to do with the shaping influence of Jeremiah on these
prophetic books than their initial place in the Book of the Four. Levin also draws attention
to the influence of Isaiah on Hosea, Amos, and Micah, noting that the relative clause “which
he saw” found in Amos and Micah stems from the Isaianic traditions. According to Levin,
if interpreters are to speak of a Book of the Four, it should be Isaiah, Hosea, Amos, and
Micah. The dating of these texts in the frame of the eighth-century kings of Judah reveals
the influence of Isaiah. Zephaniah parts company here.16
The shaping influence of the prophetic literature on the growing
corpus of the prophetic literature is a phenomenon that can only be
denied in the face of overwhelming textual indicators. But as stated
in the introduction, charting this diachronic history and identifying
the editorial origins of the prophetic titles remain a challenge. This
commentary sits loosely to the so-called Book of the Four, remaining
somewhat persuaded by Levin’s challenges. The influence of Jeremiah
and Isaiah on the coming to be of the Book of the Twelve has much
to commend even when one does not attach a particular religious or
12
Ehud Ben Zvi, “Twelve Prophetic Books or ‘The Twelve’: A Few Preliminary
Considerations,” in Forming Prophetic Literature: Essays on Isaiah and the Twelve in
Honor of John D. W. Watts (JSOTSupp 235; ed. J. W. Watts and P. R. House; Sheffield:
University of Sheffield Press, 1996), 125–57.
13
Christoph Levin, “Das ‘Vierpropheten Buch’: Ein exegetischer Nachruf,” ZAW 123
(2011): 221–35.
14
Ibid., 221.
15
Ibid., 222.
16
Ibid., 233–34.
76 Micah: An International Theological Commentary

literary history to this “coming to be.” Christopher Seitz offers a judicious

judgment on this subject in his Joel commentary. “It could well be that
the earliest prophets are those for whom coordination with the events
of the Deuteronomistic History is simply a most obvious desideratum.
That is, the four prophets Hosea, Amos, Micah, and Zephaniah are
genuinely the first four to be active in Israel’s history, however we are
to judge the subsequent growth of their respective books.”17 He clarifies
in a footnote, however, “It does not follow from this that they together
circulated as the earliest precursor of the Twelve. That is speculation of
a different order.”18
The persona of the human prophet is a crucial feature of the prophetic
record itself. The superscription identifies Micah as from the lowland
region of Moresheth, with a prophetic ministry ranging from the reign
of three Judahite kings: Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah (739–699 bc).
Micah’s social location as a prophet in the Shephaleh region provided
him a firsthand experience of the devastating effects of the judging
hand of God against his people by means of a foreign invader. Micah’s
Moresheth experienced the war machine of the Neo-Assyrians near the
end of the eighth century as Sennacherib’s reign of terror moved south
into this region. Something of the devastation of this moment may be
on display in Mic 1:10-16.
While making the human agency of Micah a central feature of the
text to follow, the superscription makes clear Micah’s primary prophetic
role as a servant of the dbr yhwh. The “word of the LORD” is that
which comes (‫ )היה‬to Micah. The language of “coming” or “becoming”
is typical speech within the prophetic literature.19 The “word of the
LORD” stems from the sending agency of Yhwh toward his people
and provides the authoritative warrant for the words spoken by the
prophets. Commenting on John 1:18, Aquinas speaks of the Trinitarian
implications of the Word coming to the prophets. “For in the past, the
17
Christopher R. Seitz, Joel (The International Theological Commentary; London:
Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2016), 112.
18
Ibid., 112, n. 4.
19
TLOT claims that hyh “describes the intrusion of the word in the life of the prophet”
(TLOT 1, 360).
 Micah 1:1—Prophetic Identities 77

only begotten Son revealed knowledge of God through the prophets,

who made him known to the extent that they shared in the eternal
Word. Hence they said things like, the Word of the Lord came to me.”20
The personal agency of the Word as that which comes to the prophets in
created form, namely word(s), adumbrates the unique moment in the
divine economy when the Word “becomes flesh” (Jn 1:14). The giving of
the Word in the creaturely medium of human language anticipates and
witnesses to the singularity of that moment when in the fullness of time
God takes on flesh in the incarnation (Heb 1:1). The prophetic word
of the Old Testament as that which is sent and given, an extension of
Yhwh’s own revealed self, is fitted to the singularity of the divine being
in tripersonal relation.
The dbr yhwh is not portrayed as that which emerges from the
religious instinct of the prophet. It is an external phenomenon coming
to the prophet extra nos. “[F]or he brought nothing of his own,” claims
Calvin, “but what the Lord commanded him to proclaim” (Calvin,
153). Such a “coming to be” of the prophetic word does not demand
a euphoric or disembodied state, though such modes of reception
need not be dismissed. The ordinary mixes with the extraordinary in
God’s providential ordering of his word and affairs. Nevertheless, the
prophetic text makes clear the divine provenance of Micah’s prophetic
word. These words are no ordinary human words. These words are the
very dbr yhwh whose sending extends the agency and presence of Yhwh.
Ben Zvi believes this linguistic feature of the prophetic expression is no accident. Rather
than make use of a potential paranomasia where the verbal form of dbr is deployed—the
word of the Lord which he spoke to—this typical prophetic expression predicates dbr
yhwh with hyh not dbr. A distinction emerges between the Lord speaking (dbr) as direct
communication and the character of the prophetic books described as the word of the Lord
(dbr yhwh). He clarifies, “In other words, prophetic books were supposed to be considered
‘YHWH’s word,’ that is, knowledge (or vision) that originates in the divine …, or perhaps
divine instruction, Torah (see Isa 2:3; Mic 4:2), but not a report of divine speech-acts (cf.
Jer 1:2 with 1:4), though the latter may be (and often are) embedded in a prophetic book”
(Ben Zvi, 15).
The opening words of Micah’s prophecy, sharing much in common
with typical language of other prophetic superscriptions, speak to the

20
Commentary on the Gospel of John Chapters 1–8 (Biblical Commentaries 35; Lander: The
Aquinas Institute for the Study of Sacred Doctrine), C. 1 L. 11, 221.
78 Micah: An International Theological Commentary

kind of readership anticipated by the book. The community of faith

emerges as the fitting and intended social location for the reception
and reading of Micah. For the members of this community recognize
the divine source and authority of this word, receiving at face value the
enormous claim being made by the superscription.
In this light, there is much to commend in Ehud Ben Zvi’s placement
of Micah within a community of faith where the rereading of the prophet
takes place. Because this “rereading” assumes a literary final form,
Ben Zvi identifies the proper religious/social location for Micah’s final
form as Persian Yehud or post-monarchic Israel. In this sense, Ben Zvi
maintains a historical and form-critical focus even when the monarchic
setting of the book itself becomes the Sitz im Buch by which post-
monarchic Judah “rereads” her own Sitz im Leben (Ben Zvi, 6, 9–11).
Furthermore, Ben Zvi notes how disinterested in historical
particularity Micah appears. In other words, Micah’s literary form
resists mimetic linking of oracles to particular moments in Judah’s
religious history (Ben Zvi, 10–11).21 Micah 2:1-5, for example, and its
scrutinizing of communal injustice lack the specificity needed to link
this text to one particular moment in time. In fact, these activities are
descriptive of multiple times, opening them up to future readers who
would come to understand their own moment in terms of the prophetic
account on offer in Micah. In accord with form-critical and historical
judgments, Ben Zvi limits his reader and rereaders to the “original”
audience of post-monarchic Judah, that postexilic community seeking
to make sense of their moment in the divine economy by the anterior

21
Roy Melugin commends Ben Zvi’s moving of the form-critical inquiry to the Sitz im
Buch. Melugin registers his own misgivings about form-critical linking of prophetic
oracles to particular moments, affirming Ben Zvi’s claim that prophetic texts often resist
mimetic correspondence to particular moments. Melugin clarifies Ben Zvi’s approach
as it pertains to Micah in the following: “Even though the world within the text (i.e., the
world that the text presents) is portrayed within the monarchic world, especially because
of the superscription (Mic 1:1), the actual readers of the book lived in the postexilic
situation. Indeed, because they lived in a historical setting different from the world
portrayed within the text, they would not have read the text mimetically, but rather
as a text that they used to speak to their own situation—a situation that was markedly
different from the monarchic world presented within the text.” Roy F. Melugin, “Recent
Form Criticism Revisited in an Age of Reader Response,” in The Changing Face of Form
Criticism for the Twenty-First Century (ed. M. A. Sweeney and E. Ben Zvi; Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2003), 59.
 Micah 1:1—Prophetic Identities 79

witness of a prophet removed in time and social location. There is little

theological rationale, however, for limiting the category of “rereaders”
to postexilic Israel, fruitful as such readings are. The enduring character
of Micah as dbr yhwh exists with equal force for the first generation of
readers down through the centuries to our current moment and such
is the enduring character of the prophetic word as the word of the Lord.
For acts of rereading becomes moments of reencounter with the One
who maintains sole governance of his Word.
Martin Luther’s preface to his Micah lectures intimates the kind of hermeneutical
immediacy such a theological account of the prophetic literature suggests. The prophecy
of Micah provides a figural pattern of God’s goodness in his gracious acts of warning.
“He calls us to repent, but just as they held all things in great contempt, so also do we”
(Luther, 208). Luther understands Micah’s warnings as a figural depiction of his own
temporal moment in the gospel. “After all,” he claims, “our princes rage against the Gospel
and its preachers. They persecute its preachers, arrest them, throw them into prison, and
kill them. Even bishops, whose responsibility it is to promote the Gospel, persecute them
very much and confirm wickedness against the Word of God” (ibid.). Without much
hermeneutical interference, Luther moves Micah’s primary prophetic targets—political
and religious leaders of the covenant community—into the current moment of Christian
Europe. He continues, “So what happened to the Jews when they despised the Word is
undoubtedly going to happen also to us when we despise it” (ibid.). The prophetic word
as dbr yhwh shapes and patterns for faithful readers a proper understanding of their own
moment by the figural pattern of Scripture. John Calvin’s sermons on Micah (1550–1551)
embrace Luther’s hermeneutical instincts as Calvin also speaks of the immediacy of the
prophetic word as a living word to sixteenth-century Geneva. “And since our world is no
better now than it was in his time, our Lord willed that his sentences of condemnation,
proclaimed first against the Jews, should remain in effect until the end of time” (Calvin,
Micah Sermons, 4).22 For Luther and Calvin, the Christian church in its various temporal
moments and social locations acts as rereaders much in the same way Ben Zvi claims the
original post-monarchic Judah reread: removed from the temporal and social world of
Micah but making sense of their own moment by the enduring character of the prophetic
word reaching forward in time to shape their place in it.

Which he saw concerning Samaria and Jerusalem

Both Mic 1:1 and Am 1:1 share a double relative clause in subordinate
relation to dbr yhwh—“which he saw.”23 This peculiar feature of the

22
See G. Sujin Pak, “Calving on the ‘Shared Design’ of the Old and New Testament Authors:
The Case of the Minor Prophets,” WTJ 73 (2011): 255–71.
23
Brevard Childs understands the phrase “words which he saw” in Am 1:1 as an intentional
move to relate visions and words under one prophetic umbrella. Both the “words” and the
“visions” of Amos are included in the one prophetic book to follow. Childs, Introduction
to the Old Testament as Scripture, 400.
80 Micah: An International Theological Commentary

superscriptions in Micah and Amos is an indicator for some interpreters

of their complex history: the addition of the second relative clause, so
they suggest, stems from editorial efforts to bring Micah and Amos
into canonical proximity with Isaiah. Isaiah’s prophecy makes use of
the nominal and verbal forms of “to see” (‫ )חזה‬in its superscription.24
Whatever the particular literary history of these superscriptions might
be, Isaiah’s signal role on the shaping of Micah resists diminution as will
be seen throughout the engagement with the book.
The semantic force of “to see” (‫ )חזה‬relates to the revelatory source of
Micah’s prophetic words. Syntactically, ‫ חזה‬is relative to dbr yhwh thus
extending the divine source of Micah’s prophetic legacy. It is not necessary
to limit the term ‫ חזה‬to a particular mode of reception or visionary
experience. There is little reason to deny such modes of prophetic
receptivity either, though the claim made here is a linguistic one about
the semantic force of ‫חזה‬. As observed in Isa 1:1, the nominal form of ‫חזה‬
modifies the entirety of Isaiah’s corpus, a corpus that includes narratives
which are not typically identified as an act of prophetic “seeing.”25 Thus,
the semantic emphasis of ‫ חזה‬is primarily on the revelatory nature of the
prophetic content to follow. At the same time, Andersen and Freedman do
well to remind readers of the “plain meaning” of the term which suggests
an “appreciation of the highly visual nature of the poetic imagery that
suffuses the messages of the eighth-century prophets, including Micah”

24
Levin, “Das ‘Vierpropheten,’” 229–330. Williamson dates Isaiah’s superscription late,
suggesting that the editor(s) takes his cue from within the book—Isa 2:1 and 13:1—
in conjunction with the forms of other prophetic superscriptions whose similarities
it shares—Hosea, Amos, and Micah (Williamson, 17). Williamson quotes Tucker
approvingly in the following: “While the superscriptions to the prophetic books do not
represent the stage of canonization, they do reveal the decisive turning point when—at
least for certain circles in Israel—the spoken prophetic words had become scripture”
(op cit. Williamson, 17; see G. M. Tucker, “Prophetic Superscriptions and the Growth of
a Canon,” in Canon and Authority: Essays in Old Testament Religion and Theology [ed.
G. W. Coats and B. O. Long; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977], 70). What Williamson
does not address (at least at this point in his commentary) are the peculiarities of
the second relative clauses in Amos and Micah where Isaiah’s particular language is
deployed. If Tucker is correct, then the influence of Isaiah on Amos and Micah is an
observable feature.
25
See Williamson, 18–20, who challenges Goldingay’s notion that the term chzn may
only refer to a single revelatory experience. See also Willem A. M. Beuken, Jesaja 1-12
(HThKAT; Freiburg: Herder, 2003), 57–58.
 Micah 1:1—Prophetic Identities 81

(Andersen and Freedman, 25). Put in other terms, Micah’s prophetic

legacy has the potential of making eyes out of ears or turning an act of
hearing into a moment of seeing.
A peculiar feature of Micah’s superscription is the scope of his
prophetic vocation as including Samaria and Jerusalem. These two
capital cities stand in a synecdochic relationship to their inhabitants,
particularly those in religious and political leadership. The focus of
Micah’s ire in chs 1–3 makes the capital cities and the religious/political
activities taking place therein a primary focus of his prophetic words.
Admittedly, Samaria only makes a cameo appearance in the first
chapter (1:2-7). Some suggest Samaria’s presence in 1:2-7 led the editors
to include Samaria as an object of Micah’s seeing in the superscription.
Various other solutions are offered regarding the inclusion of Samaria
in the superscription and its linkage with Jerusalem. Nogalski understands
Samaria’s role as a limited one, serving the purpose of warning Jerusalem
and Judah. The incursion of Judah by Sennacherib in 701 bc and the
destruction of Samaria in 722 bc link the judgment of Samaria with the
judgment of Judah (Nogalski, 523–24). Something of this logic is at work
in 1:2-9 where Samaria’s destruction (1:6-7) leads to Micah’s lamentation
regarding the same wound making its way into Judah (1:8-9).26
Related to the preceding comments is a further feature of the
“Jerusalem and Samaria” prepositional phrase. Typically, Hebrew
grammar would repeat the preposition when two terms are governed
logically by the same preposition.27 Andersen and Freedman believe
this grammatical peculiarity stems from a theological instinct
whereby the absence of the second governing preposition indicates
the unity of the two nouns, much like one observes in a similar
construction in Isa 1:1—“Judah and Jerusalem” are governed by a

26
Kessler understands the inclusion of Samaria in the superscription (a Singulär
phenomenon) serving a twofold purpose: (1) It brings the scope of Micah’s prophetic
work into view, as observed in 1:2-9, and (2) the naming of Samaria in the superscription
brings this particular theme of the Twelve to an end (Abschluß) (Kessler, 76).
27
According to Joüon-Muraoka (JM), the double repetition of the preposition occurs 90
percent of the time (JM §132.g). JM identify this particular grammatical construction as
more prevalent in Late Biblical Hebrew (ibid.).
82 Micah: An International Theological Commentary

single preposition (‫ )על‬mirroring Mic 1:1. The theological implication

of this collocation is the scope of God’s word as the whole people of
God even in a divided monarchy. Jeremias makes a similar claim:
“[D]as Gotteswort betrifft somit ganz Israel” (Jeremias, 126). Though
Micah’s prophetic provenance is Judah, the scope of his prophetic
word is for all of Israel, Northern and Southern Kingdoms combined.28
Micah’s concern for both cities stems from his understanding of
Yhwh’s lordship over the whole of Israel, even when the redemptive
promises for the whole are stamped by the centrality of Judah and
Jerusalem. The superscription indicates this total view of Micah as
expressed more fully in 1:2-7.

1:2-7: First table of the Law broken

Micah begins with a summons (‫ )ׁשמע‬whose reach extends to the earth

and its people/inhabitants.29 The broad scope of Micah’s first oracle

28
A controversy in the current literature exists between those who believe the united
monarchy was a myth of postexilic construction, with the language of “Jacob” or
“Israel” when applied to Judah as stemming from this postexilic construct (e.g., Kratz),
and those who understand the united monarchy and the liturgy of the First Temple
(i.e., the Zion tradition, cf. Ps. 46) as having a residual theological presence with the
prophets of the eighth century. The strongest critical arguments for the latter view are
found with Williamson who cites Mic 3:9-10 as eighth-century evidence for his claims.
In fact, Williamson believes Micah is often overlooked in this current scholarly debate.
For Williamson, when Micah or Isaiah apply Israel language to southern Judah, they
do so because of an “Israel inheritance” they received from a time before the exile. See
R. G. Kratz, “Israel in the Book of Isaiah,” JSOT 31 (2006): 103–28; H. G. M. Williamson,
“Judah as Israel in Eighth-Century Prophecy,” in A God of Faithfulness: Essays in Honour
of J. Gordon McConville on His 60th Birthday (LHBOT 538; ed. J. A. Grant, A. Lo, and
G. J. Wenham; London: T&T Clark, 2011), 81–95. See also, Ben C. Ollenburger, Zion
the City of the Great King: A Theological Symbol of the Jerusalem Cult (JSOTSupp 41;
Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1987), ch. 4; Nadav Na’aman, “Saul, Benjamin and
the Emergence of ‘Biblical Israel,’” ZAW 121 (2009): 211–24; 335–49. Na’aman argues for
a preexilic setting for the application of the term “Israel” to the united monarchy. Rather
than seeing the Saul and David episodes as indicative of Israel and Judah polemics, she
understands Saul and David as both Judahite because of Benjamin’s Judahite provenance.
29
The first colon of v. 2 has what appears as an odd grammatical construction:
‫שמעו עמים כלם‬. One might anticipate a second-person pronominal suffix after “peoples”
(as one finds in the Syriac): “all of you.” Nevertheless, the Hebrew syntax is somewhat
typical as third-person pronominal suffixes (i.e., “them”) are deployed after a vocative.
W’OC, 4.7d.
 Micah 1:1—Prophetic Identities 83

remains consistent in 1:2-4 and its theophanic moment. The peoples

(‫ )עמים‬and the earth (‫ )ארץ‬stand in parallel relation to each other, along
with “all of them” and “its fullness.” When Yhwh Adonai in 1:3 comes
forth as a witness against “you” (‫)כם‬, the antecedent of the pronoun is
the peoples of 1:2.30 Moreover, the lack of a definite article on “earth”
leans against the proposal to understand “peoples” and “earth” as
having Samaria and Jerusalem more narrowly in view, even though the
focus in 1:5 turns toward these capital cities (Andersen and Freedman,
138).31 Understanding the relation between 1:2-4 and 1:5 is a challenge
because of the initial broad scope of Yhwh’s judgment in 1:2-4 and then
the more narrowly targeted reach in 1:5. With the turn of prophetic
address to Samaria and Jerusalem in 1:5, interpreters have provided a
broad array of literary critical suggestions to explain what appears to be
an incongruity.32
Whatever the particular compositional history of this first oracle,
the final form of the text presents a set of linkages that hold this unit
together despite the immediate difficulty of sorting out the referential
relationship between vv. 2-4 and v. 5. While vv. 2-4 keep the focus on
the nations and the earth more broadly conceived, v. 5a identifies the
rebellion of Jacob as the presenting cause of “all of this” (‫)כל־זאת‬, with
the antecedent of “this” as the theophanic moment of judgment in the
preceding verses.
A major focal point of Micah emerges within this interpretive
complex, linking Micah 1 with Micah 5. As mentioned in the
introduction, the strategic use of judgment oracles beginning with
“hear” marks the two major blocks of Micah’s prophecy: 1:2 and 6:1.

30
The summons of 1:2 differs from the summons at 6:1 where the “mountains,” “hills,” and
“enduring foundations of the earth” are called on as witnesses of the divine indictment.
For in 1:2, the “nations” and the “earth” are the focus of the divine judgment, not
witnesses. See John T. Willis, “Some Suggestions on the Interpretation of Micah 1 2,” VT
18 (1968): 377.
31
Micah 4:13 is the only exception in Micah where the definite article is linked to “earth”
when it is a cosmic referent (Cf. 1:2, 3; 5:3; 6:2; 7:17 for cosmic references and 6:4; 7:15;
5:5; 5:4, 5, 10; 7:2, 13 for particular references to land, i.e., Land of Egypt).
32
E.g., A postexilic redactor brings Micah’s more narrow historical focus into a broader
cosmic linkage (so Mays, 40), cf. Albertz, Israel in Exile, 212–14. See Willis for the scope
of interpretive problems and suggested solutions (“Suggestions,” 372–79).
84 Micah: An International Theological Commentary

The inclusio relation of Mic 5:14 MT (5:15 New Revised Standard

Version, NRSV) with Mic 1:2-5 provides further evidence for these
structuring effects. Micah 5:14 brings chs 1–5 to a thematic conclusion
before another summons to “hear” in 6:1.
Micah 5:14 catches the reader off guard because the second-person
address of Mic 5:9-13 MT is Jacob under judgment, now identified in
5:14 as part of the goyim who did not listen (‫) ֹשמע‬. Again, one observes
the linguistic association between 1:2 and 5:14, with the latter as a
resumptive rehearsal of the claims of 1:2 where the text begins with a
summons to the nations “to listen.” The latter text identifies the cause of
Jacob’s judgment as a failure “to listen.” Perhaps the relation between 1:2
and 5:14, along with the rather surprising identification of Jacob with
the goyim (relating goyim with ‘mim in 1:2), provides an interpretive
handle for relating 1:2-4 with 1:5-7. Distinguishing between Jacob/
Judah and the nations becomes difficult if not impossible when God
descends in an act of judgment. The movements and logic of Amos
1-2 run a similar course, with the nation’s 3+4 offenses and rebellion
against God enfolding Judah and Israel into the mix of nations without
discrimination. As Fabry in the context of Nahum reminds, the
question about who are the enemies and friends of God is not quickly
answered along national lines of demarcation.33 Jonah’s sailors and
Assyrian king provide a figural example of how the prophets make
such neat and tight categories like “universalism” or “particularism”
quite problematic. Samaria and Jerusalem are part and parcel of the
“peoples” or “nations” in a moment of Yhwh’s nondiscriminatory
judgment.
Ephraim Radner’s ecclesiology is shaped by a broad reading of Scripture and its capacity
to figure the church’s existence in time. Radner leans against what might be loosely called
Platonic notions of the church where the Church as Church is demarcated from the Church
as church, that is, the church in its simul iustus et peccator status in time. In other words,
Radner believes Scripture and its range of figures by which the Church comes to understand
herself in time will not allow a distinction to be made between “sins of the Church’s

33
“Nicht die Feinde Israels generell sind der Vergeltung Gottes ausgesetzt, sondern nur
die Fiende JHWHs; das aber können auch—auch wenn es nicht explizit gesagt wird—
Israeliten/Judäer sein! Es sind genau diese Feinde, die von der Glut seines Zornes
weggefegt warden (Nah 1,6a).” H. Fabry, Nahum (HTKAT; Freiburg: Herder, 2006), 92.
 Micah 1:1—Prophetic Identities 85

members” and “sins of the Church.”34 According to Radner, the church’s historical existence
“cannot be sloughed off but represents the very order of her life as she lives in the world.”35
Because the Church cannot transcend her simul status as iustus and peccator, the Church
recognizes in retrospect and prospect that she is “deformable and transformable.”36 Why?
Because Scripture’s figures, particularly that of ancient Israel, pattern a mode of existence
where the community of faith before God is deformable and transformable. As Israel forgot
its Maker (Hos 8:14), so too can the Church forget. Only God can forgive, taking “whoring”
Israel unto himself. Repentance remains a matter of continual necessity in the Church’s
existence, as God’s disciplining, yet loving, judgment for the sake of renewal is an ever
present possibility (cf. Revelation 2-3). The thunderous claims of Mic 1:2-7 are a continued
warning to the Church in time and cannot be left in the historical mist of Israel’s ancient
past.
A further word should be said about the nature of the Church’s repentance. The figural
patterns of Scripture are, in Irenaeus’s terms, recapitulated in the person and work of Jesus
Christ.37 Adam, Israel, David, etc., are taken up and fulfilled in Him.38 The Church’s very
existence stems from Christ taking her to himself—itself a figural pattern of Israel’s prophets
(e.g., Hosea; Ez 16). Therefore, the judgment and mercy of God in the figural landscape of
Israel’s narrative and prophetic history are Christologically shaped. The Church’s relation
to these figural patterns stems organically from our union with Christ. Put in other terms,
the figural pattern of the prophets as a living word to the Church is framed by a covenant
ontology whereby our continued repentance is shaped by a renewal toward what the
Church and its members already are en Christo. The deforming and transforming moments
of the Church’s existence take place in respect to the Church’s affirming or denying her
existence in Christ.
Micah 1:2b portrays Yhwh Adonai coming from his holy temple as
a witness against the peoples or the nations.39 The literary setting does
not necessitate a prophetic lawsuit genre.40 Whether or not such a genre
exists, the nations and earth are not called on as witnesses in any kind
of trilateral judicial setting. Rather, Yhwh is the witness against his
people, standing in judgment against them from that space properly
belonging to him alone: his holy temple. Yhwh’s identity as witness is
found elsewhere in the prophets, all within the same context of divine

34
Ephraim Radner, A Brutal Unity: The Spiritual Politics of the Christian Church (Baylor:
Baylor University Press, 2012), 159. For Radner’s figural hermeneutic, see Time and the
Word: Figural Reading of the Christian Scriptures (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016). Time
and the Word is a theological and creative force for theological hermeneutics.
35
Ibid., 155.
36
Ibid., 160.
37
St. Irenaeus of Lyon, On the Apostolic Preaching (trans. J. Behr; Crestwood: St. Vladimir’s
Press, 1997), I.6.
38
Ibid., 162.
39
The LXX does not have ‫ אדני‬in the first colon of line 2. Some suggest a possible dittography
because of the repeated ‫ אדני‬in colon b. Cf. Am 3:8 for a parallel construction of the
divine name.
40
See Ben Zvi, ad loc.; Dwight R. Daniels, “Is There a ‘Prophetic Lawsuit’ Genre?” ZAW 99
(1987): 339–60.
86 Micah: An International Theological Commentary

judgment. In Jer 29:23, Yhwh’s role as witness against his people stems
from his divine knowledge. Yhwh’s omniscience provides the irrefutable
warrant for his role as witness and judge (cf. Jer 42:5; Zeph 3:8).41 Micah
1:2b anticipates the unfolding theophany of 1:3-4.42
The theophany of vv. 3-4 contains, according to Jeremias, the stock
and trade imagery of the genre: the coming of Yhwh and the effects
upon nature his coming produces (cf. Ps 68:7-8; Judg 4:4-5).43 In v. 3,
Yhwh comes down and treads on the “high places” (‫ )במות‬of the earth.44
His appearing in v. 3 is met with pronounced effects upon the natural
order: mountains melting and valleys splitting open. The metaphoric
imagery of melting wax and poured out water provides a heightened
sense of the moment’s gravity. It is worth noting by comparison the
antipodal picture in Isa 40:4 where Yhwh’s redemption and forgiveness
of sins yield an overturning of the natural effects of his judgment.
Readers should also be aware of a possible double entendre associated
with the location of Yhwh’s treading. Yhwh comes down and treads
upon “the high places of the earth” (‫)במותי ארץ‬. While the appearing of
Yhwh often takes place on a mountain—one recalls the Sinai narratives
of the Pentateuch—the particular use of ‫ במה‬here is suggestive. The
“high places” were open-air sanctuaries typically located outside the
city center on mountains (cf. 2 Sam 21:9).45 With the centralization
of the cult at Jerusalem, the ‫ במה‬became permanently associated with
irregular and idolatrous worshipping practices. Thus, the term also
functions as a trope for the covenant infidelity of Yhwh’s people. The

41
Moses’s song in Deuteronomy 32 functions as a “witness” against the people’s future
infidelity. The linguistic complex of “witness” (‫ )עד‬and “whoring” (‫ )זנה‬of Deuteronomy
31 (31:16, 21, 26) resembles the thematic and linguistic outlook of Mic 1:2-7 with or
without intentional intertextual activity.
42
Cf. Ps 50:1-7 where theophanic imagery and the witnessing of God against his people
function together (see Hans-Joachim Kraus, Psalms 1-59 [Continental Commentary;
trans. H. C. Oswald; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993], 49–51).
43
Jörg Jeremias, Theophanie: Die Geschichte Einer Alttestamentlichen Gattung (WMANT
10; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1965), 11–12.
44
The tower of Babel episode of Genesis 11 characterizes Yhwh “coming down” (11:5, 7) as
the precursor to his act of judgment.
45
See Rainer Albertz, A History of Israelite Religion in the Old Testament Period; Volume
I: From the Beginnings to the End of the Monarchy (trans. J. Bowden; Louisville: WJK,
1994), 84–85.
 Micah 1:1—Prophetic Identities 87

fact that Yhwh places the foot of his judgment on the “high places”
comes as little surprise given the unfolding of Micah’s first prophetic
oracle. The catalyst for Yhwh’s judgment is Samaria and Jerusalem’s
idolatry (cf. 1:7).
Debates over the atonement in Christian theology range across the centuries of Christian
thought. While reference to the Old Testament’s sacrificial system is often rehearsed with
varying degrees of success, the pressure of the prophets on a Christian theology of the
atonement is not as prevalent. The theophanic imagery of Micah is a case in point of where
such a forward-leaning pressure may serve the subject. The appearing of God in an act of
judgment is followed by an attendant rupture in the natural order. The Gospels narrate the
crucifixion with imagery of the selfsame theophanic character of judgment. The cosmic
order is disturbed during and immediately after Christ’s passion on Good Friday. The
setting of the passion inhabits the theophanic space figured by the Old Testament.
Colin Gunton’s noteworthy work on the atonement makes a compelling case for how
multiple metaphors are requisite when coming to terms with the multifaceted reality of
God’s reconciling sinners to himself in the person and work of Jesus Christ.46 Gunton
warns against confining our understanding of the atonement to one metaphor, absent
the contributing presence of others. A certain strand of modern theology has grown
allergic to penal theories of the atonement where the cross is understood as a pouring out
of God’s wrath on Jesus Christ in an act of judgment. While heeding Gunton’s warning
against reductionism, the Old Testament’s imagery of judgment as seen here in Micah 1
resists a dismissal of judgment motifs at the cross. The theophanic imagery of Micah 1
and the passion narratives of the Gospels are inextricably linked with divine judgment
or divine punishment. Conceptualizing and fitting the nature of this judgment within a
proper Trinitarian and relational frame remains of some consequence.47 The substitutional
character of Jesus’s atoning work cannot be reduced to the persona privata Jesus Christ alone
but should be fitted into a Trinitarian frame where the work of the cross, including the divine
judgment taking place therein, is understood as the loving and self-giving action of our
Triune God for us. Still, this loving and self-giving action involves the bearing of judgment
in an act of place taking. Eberhard Jüngel rightly reminds us that judgment and grace are not
alternatives.48 Rather, “We need to learn that in the very act of judging God shows himself to
be gracious. Only an ungracious God would allow injustice to run its course.”49
In Barth’s majestic account of the atonement in Church Dogmatics IV.1 he makes a
similar claim about the pressure of Isaiah 53 on a dogmatic account of the atonement. When
the Judge is judged in our place (Stellvertretung), his place-taking is indeed a bearing of our
punishment. Jesus Christ as Son of God bears the place of Israel as the one Israelite. In doing
so, this one Israelite takes “the place of this disobedient son this faithless people and its

46
Colin Gunton, The Actuality of the Atonement: A Study of Metaphor, Rationality, and the
Christian Tradition (Bloomsbury: T&T Clark, 2003).
47
See Dalferth’s threefold context for a dogmatic account of atonement as relates to the
person and work of Christ: (1) the context of Jesus’s life (Jesus’s embodied relation to the
history of Israel and humanity); (2) the context of the life of God (a proper Trinitarian
account of the salvific character of Jesus’s sacrificial death); and (3) the context of our lives.
Ingolf U. Dalferth, Crucified and Resurrected: Restructuring the Grammar of Christology
(trans. J. Bennet; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2015), 302–03. See also Torrance’s understanding
of wrath as a via rather than a terminus in Thomas F. Torrance, Incarnation: The Person
and Work of Christ (ed. R. T. Walker; Downers Grove: IVP, 2015), 54.
48
Eberhard Jüngel, Justification: The Heart of the Christian Faith (trans. J. Webster;
Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2001), 85.
49
Ibid.
88 Micah: An International Theological Commentary

faithless priests and kings.”50 Barth claims that punishment and judgment are not prevalent
or even present themes in the New Testament. Despite whether Barth’s reading of the New
Testament is judicious at this point, it is his following comment that bears materially on
the matter at hand: “But it cannot be completely rejected or evaded on this account.”51 In
other words, Isaiah 53 and its understanding of place-taking as an act of judgment bears
pressures on a Christian account of the atonement whether the New Testament follows
suit or not. Barth models a Biblical Theological instinct where “reading forward” from the
Old Testament to Christian thought plays its own constitutive role. Rather than prioritizing
either the Old Testament as received in the new (vetus testamentum in novo receptum)
or the Old Testament as “read backward” from the New Testament, Barth allows the Old
Testament’s discrete character to play its own constructive role in the shaping of Christian
thought. The theophanic imagery of Mic 1:2-7 serves as a modest example of a similar kind.
The theophanic moment of judgment remains somewhat abstract
in vv. 2-4 with the presenting cause left unclarified. This abstraction
becomes concrete in vv. 5-7 as the judging focus on the nations and the
earth is more targeted now on Samaria and Jerusalem. As mentioned
above, the antecedent of “all of this” (‫ )כל־זות‬in 1:5a is the theophany of
judgment in 1:2-4. Calvin rightly associates the prophetic concern of
Micah 1 with the breaking of the first table of the Law—“You shall have
no other gods before me.” The particularity of Israel’s and Judah’s sin
relates to the covenant breach of the Law’s first table. As the prophetic
book unfolds, Calvin understands Micah 2 speaking to the breach of
the second table of the Law—You shall love your neighbor as yourself
(Calvin, 184).52 Calvin’s framing of Micah 1 and 2 around the two tables
of the Law is a helpful interpretive handle.
The three lines of 1:5 are broken down as follows: 1:5a—the
transgressions (‫ )פׁשע‬of Jacob and the sins (‫ )חטאות‬of the house of Israel
clarify the immediate cause of God’s judgment; 1:5b—the rebellion of
Jacob is formally tied to Samaria, the capital city of Israel; 1:5c—the
high places of Judah, a metaphoric elaboration on the sins (‫ )חאטות‬of
1:5a, are associated with Jerusalem, the capital of the Southern
Kingdom. These three verses, 1:5-7, reflect an A-B-A pattern with v. 5
identifying Israel/Judah’s sin (A) as the divine rationale for God’s
judgment in v. 6 (B), leading to a fuller elaboration on the character of
Samaria/Jerusalem’s sin in v. 7 (A).

50
Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics IV.1 (trans. G. W. Bromiley; Edinburgh: T&T Clark,
1956), 171.
51
Ibid., 253.
52
See also Jeremias, 136.
 Micah 1:1—Prophetic Identities 89

The terms for sin in 1:5 are in parallel relation to each other.
“Transgressions” or “crimes” (‫ )פׁשע‬and “sins” (‫ )חאטות‬become the focal
point of vv. 5-7. Knierim resists defining ‫ פׁשע‬as “rebellion.” He states,
“Whoever commits peša’ does not merely rebel or protest against
Yahweh but breaks with him, takes away what is his, robs, embezzles,
misappropriates it.”53 Knierim relates the two terms as follows: ‫חאטות‬
misses a goal, passing by the thing, and ‫ פׁשע‬breaks with, disengaging
from a political or social partner.54 Sweeney draws attention to the fact
that ‫ פׁשע‬often refers to political revolt of one nation against another (cf.
Am 1:3) or revolt against God (cf. Isa 58:1; Am 5:12).55 The bringing
together of these two terms in 1:5a highlights the moral-ethical
character of Israel’s transgressions and sins in relation to Yhwh and
neighbor.
The second and third lines of 1:5 play with Hebrew grammar. All
English translations begin both lines with the interrogative “what,”
and rightly so. The Hebrew interrogative particle, however, is not ‫מה‬
(“what”) as we would expect. It is ‫“( מי‬who”), the personal interrogative
pronoun. The turn of phrase is not typical as ‫ מי‬rarely refers to a thing.56
A literal gloss of 1:5b might go as follows: “Who are the transgressions of
Jacob, is it not Samaria?” The use of “who” underscores the metonymic
relation of Samaria and Jerusalem with the political and religious
leaders of these capital cities. Samaria and Jerusalem as places become
personified as the people represented therein. These two cities also
stand in for the totality of Israel and Judah’s sin because their infidelity
stems from these religious and political centers.57

53
TWOT 1, 1036.
54
Ibid.
55
Sweeney, 351.
56
JM §144b; WO’C, 18.2d.
57
There seems little reason to doubt that Mic 1:5-7 has Samaria and the Northern Kingdom
in view (see Sweeney, ad loc.). The influence of Hosea’s imagery is stark and suggestive
on this front. At the same time, there is a fluidity of language in Micah when reference is
made to Israel and Jacob. As Jepsen observed some time ago, Jacob and Israel are almost
exclusively predicated on the Southern Kingdom in the whole of Micah’s book. A. Jepsen,
“Kleine Beiträge zum Zwölfprophetenbuch I,” ZAW 56 (1938): 99. See the discussion
above between Kratz and Williamson on the origins of “Israel” as applied to “Judah.”
90 Micah: An International Theological Commentary

The divine judgment of v. 6 is the “logical succession” of the

conditions expressed in v. 5.58 The transgressions and sins of Samaria
and Jerusalem, fitted as these two entities are around a shared
covenantal heritage, set the stage for the eventual razing of Samaria.
While Samaria is the object of destruction in these verses, interpreters
often point to Mic 3:12 where similar imagery paints the picture of
Jerusalem’s eventual fall. The imagery attendant to the destruction
in v. 6 is straightforward. What was once a thriving city will in time
become a heap of stones, exposed foundations, and flat, open surfaces.
The quietness of a vineyard replaces the bustling of urban life. Put in
modern terms, what will be left of Samaria are external indicators for a
potential archaeological dig.
Another possible understanding of the relation between a heap of
ruins and the positive imagery of a vineyard is to read 1:6 in association
with Isaiah’s song of the vineyard (5:1-7).59 Isaiah 5:1-3 presents Yhwh
as a vintner removing stones for the sake of clearing fertile ground for
his choice vineyard. Isaiah’s vineyard is Jerusalem, not Samaria, and this
vineyard also becomes a wasteland as the song and its interpretation
unfold. The literary association between Micah and Isaiah at this point
would be subtle, if present at all. Nevertheless, the overall destructive
sense of v. 6 should not be attenuated. Moreover, the language of
“stripping bear” or “exposing” in v. 6b (‫אגלה‬, cf. 1:16b) is suggestive of
the prostitution imagery of the following verse (cf. Hos 2:12).
As noted above, the A-B-A pattern of vv. 5-7 enclose the scene of
destruction in v. 6 with causal explanations for the judging action
of God. Borrowing from Kugel’s description of poetic parallelism as
the relation between A and “what is more A” in the second half of
the parallel, a similar feature is found in the second A of vv. 5-7.60
The transgressions and sins of v. 5 are made more concrete and vivid,

58
See WO’C, 32.2, on the logical and temporal relation of the weqatal to a preceding
condition.
59
See Andersen and Freedman, 177.
60
James L. Kugel, The Idea of Biblical Poetry: Parallelism and Its History (Baltimore: John
Hopkins University Press, 1981).
 Micah 1:1—Prophetic Identities 91

providing textual evidence for Calvin’s understanding of Micah 1 as

centered on the breach of the first table of the Law (see Jeremias,
136). Samaria pursued other gods. And Yhwh, the first-person
speaker in vv. 6-7, prepares for their destruction. Yhwh takes into
his own hand the faithful actions Samaria should have taken herself
(cf. Deut 7:5).61
Both terms for “idols” in v. 7 (‫ פסילי‬and ‫ )עצבי‬intimate their physical
nature as carved or shaped things. These two nouns are also in the plural
suggesting that Micah does not have any particular god(s) in mind (cf.
Hosea 1-3). Rather, Micah casts his net widely with a broad range of
carved images in view. The collocation of these two terms are present
in Isa 10:10-11, sharing much in common with Mic 1:7 linguistically
and thematically. The destruction of Samaria in the Isaianic text serves
as a warning and prediction to Jerusalem. A similar logic is at work in
Micah, especially in the first chapter. The destruction of Samaria and
Jerusalem, separated as they are in time and circumstance, shares in the
same theological nexus of cause and effect.
The semantic parallel of the two terms for idol comes with few
surprises. These are stock terms that, according to Ben Zvi, “point
to sinful cultic behavior, as considered from the usual perspective
informing the HB/OT” (Ben Zvi, 32). The parallel relationship between
“idols” (‫ )פסילי‬and “prostitute fees” (‫)אתנן‬, however, does cause the reader
pause. What is the semantic link between “images” and “prostitution
fees”? Jeremias, and others, makes a compelling case for the fitting
together of Micah’s prophetic address against idolatry with the imagery
of Hosea (Jeremias, 136). Much earlier, Jepsen had already identified the
linguistic relation between Mic 1:7 and Hosea. He observed the three
terms “prostitution fees” (‫)אתנן‬, “prostitute” (‫)זנה‬, and “images” (‫)עצבי‬
as stemming from Hosea (Hos 4:14; 8:4; 9:1; 13:2; 14:9).62 Samaria’s
idolatry is portrayed in the familiar terms of prostitution from Hosea’s
oeuvre.

61
See Andersen and Freedman, 180.
62
Jepsen, “Kleine Beiträge,” 97.
92 Micah: An International Theological Commentary

The final line of v. 7 is obscure. A literal gloss goes something like

the following: “for from the fee of a harlot you were gathered and unto
the harlot’s fee you will return.” The obscurity stems from the unclear
referent of “harlot’s fee.” Mays suggests there are political undertones
to the passage. The acceptance of foreign gods aided Samaria in their
political relations with them, only in time to be carried away by one
of those nations (Mays, 48).63 Waltke sees the text as a case of what
goes around comes around. As Samaria had exploited courtesans for
their own advantage, in time Samaria would be exploited by others
(Waltke, 55). Ben Zvi draws attention to the collection of lexical terms
in 6-7 associated with judgment (“strip,” “gather,” and “return”). Hillers
recognizes the vague character of the line and opts to leave it vague.
“Perhaps it is best, then, to leave the sense vague: as the precious things
were gained, so they will be lost, the end will be like the beginning”
(Hillers, 21). Whatever the exact sense of this obscure phrase, a few
matters are worth noting. One, political and religious fidelity are flip
sides of the same coin in the theological landscape of Micah. While the
institutions may be distinct, their religious character is not. Second, the
last phrase, obscure as it is, identifies Samaria’s idolatry and political
avarice as an example of sin doing exactly what sin does. Sin breeds and
rebreeds with the final consequences latent in the first acts of covenant
infidelity.64 If left unchecked with prophetic warnings unheeded, sin
moves toward its natural end: judgment and destruction.
The character of sin as transgression, missing the mark, and more pointedly, revolt
against the divine, lends credence to Barth’s understanding of sin as fundamentally pride.65
Barth does not deny the broader definitions of sin as “disobedience” and “unbelief,”
recognizing that defining sin as pride is not exhaustive.66 Nevertheless, he remains
unsatisfied with the broader definitions because they run the risk of abstraction. (As a brief
aside, Micah’s logic in 1:2-7 resembles Barth’s in its resistance to abstract definitions of
“transgressions” and “sins”: note the conceptual movement in 1:5-7.) Israel’s election aimed
toward the redemptive and gracious claims of Yhwh on his people, and Yhwh’s insistence

63
Smith follows a similar line (Smith, 61).
64
Kierkegaard’s category “state of sin” relates to the substance of sin’s breeding and
rebreeding. Søren Kierkegaard, The Sickness Unto Death: A Christian Psychological
Exposition for Upbuilding and Awakening (trans./ed. H. V. Hong and E. H. Hong;
Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1980), 106–09.
65
Barth, CD IV.1, 413 ff.
66
Ibid., 413.
 Micah 1:1—Prophetic Identities 93

that this relationship be founded on a loyal allegiance to Him and Him alone (cf. Deut
6:4ff). When in the torturous history of Israel and Judah’s covenantal history they turn
away from Yhwh’s gracious election and Yhwh’s claims of exclusive loyal love flowing from
that election, human pride is on full display. Idolatry is pride in the sense that humanity
has taken to its own self-sufficient and self-reliant means for the achieving of religious or
political salvation or any redemptive action absent God’s gracious and electing initiative.
The history of Israel’s idolatry is the history of humanity’s pride. Our attempts to become
like God or to reverse the imago Dei by our creating gods in our image are neutralized by
God’s self-determination to become man. In other words, humanity’s pride and tendency
toward idolatry is obliterated by the humility of God.67

1:8-9: Prophetic suffering and solidarity

The first-person address of vv. 6-7 continues into vv. 8-9. The referent of
the first-person address is unstated in both sections. Given the judging
context of vv. 6-7, it follows that the first-person speaking voice is Yhwh.
Still, the ambiguity of referent continues into vv. 8-9. The lamentation of
these verses has a bridging or Janus character as the text looks backwards
and forwards.68 Verse 8 begins with “concerning this” (‫ )על־זאת‬and links
the prophet’s lamentation to the theophany and announcement of
judgment in the preceding verses. The identification of “my people” (‫)עמי‬
as the cause of the prophet’s sorrow (v. 9) brings the specificity of 1:10-16
in view. It follows, therefore, to identify the first-person voice of the
lamentation as the prophet. With that said, however, the ambiguity
regarding the referent causes some pause as the lamentation expressed in
vv. 8-9 could be placed on the lips of Yhwh, continuing the first-person
address of vv. 6-7. Or put in other terms, the lamentation of the prophet
may in a very real sense be indistinguishable from the lamentation of
Yhwh. From this perspective, Micah’s lamentation is a prophetic symbol
witnessing to the action and perspective of Israel’s God.
67
Ibid., 423. See Anthony C. Thiselton, The Hermeneutics of Doctrine (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2007), ch. 13. Thiselton states, “In linguistic terms pride as a catchword seems
both too broad and too narrow. In theological terms, however, Barth shows in a masterly
way that this term provides a key for unlocking the multiform dimensions of human
sin especially in relation to the grace of God” (ibid., 299). See also Thiselton’s helpful
interaction with Pannenberg’s retrieval of Augustine’s understanding of sin as misplaced
desire. For Pannenberg, pride generates perverted desires (ibid., 307–08). See also,
Dalferth, Crucified and Resurrected, 42–44.
68
Jeremias, 137; Ben Zvi, 33.
94 Micah: An International Theological Commentary

Jeremias distinguishes the kind of lamentation we observe in this

section from the kind of intercessory lamentation we find elsewhere (cf.
Am 7:1-6; Jer 15:11, 17:16, 18:20).69 The prophet does not intercede for
his people in order to assuage the plan of God just announced.70 Rather,
the prophet engages in acts of ritual lamentation as a fellow-sufferer, as
one whose identity is inextricably linked with his people.71 Three verbs
(cohortatives) indicate the action of the prophet: lamenting (‫)אספדה‬,
wailing (‫)אילילה‬, and going barefoot and naked (‫אילכה‬, cf. Ez 24:17-23;
Isa 20:2).72 All these activities indicate embodied rituals of mourning.
Attendant metaphors provide a heightened sense of the mourning:
lamenting like a jackel and mourning like the daughters of an ostrich
or owl (cf. Job 30:29; Lam 4:3; Isa 13:21-22). The exact species of the
last metaphor is debated, though the force of the similes do not require
such specifications.73
John Calvin’s understanding of the threefold office of Christ as prophet, priest, and king
is a testament to the constructive role of the Old Testament in his Christology. Admittedly,
Calvin gives short shrift to the figural function of the prophetic office, remaining content
to focus on the teaching side of the office. “And the prophetic dignity in Christ leads us
to know that in the sum of doctrine as he has given it to us all parts of perfect wisdom
are contained.”74 The figural scope of the prophetic office goes beyond Calvin’s limited
reading, however. The suffering of the prophet in solidarity with and as a representative
of his people is in figural relation to Christ’s prophetic office. Christ’s suffering is bound
to his identification with humanity (Phil 2) and his bearing of the burden of his own
announcement of judgment. Barth’s narrative reading of the gospels as the move from Judge

69
Jeremias, 137.
70
The lack of intercession may lend support for the suggestion that the first-person
speaking voice is intentionally ambiguous at this point.
71
Sweeney references Isa 7:20; 20:1-6 where the imagery of “barefoot and naked” refers to
prisoners of war rather than mere mourning.
72
The grammatical form of the final cohortative is not typical for I-yod verbs (GKC 69.b,
n. 1). The BHS notes that multiple mss have the more typical, non-plene form. The most
likely explanation for the grammatical oddity is the playing with grammatical forms for
the sake of creating an alliterative relation between ‫ אילילה‬and ‫אילכה‬.
73
See Waltke, 66–67.
74
John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion 1 (trans. F. L. Battles; ed. J. T. McNeill;
Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1960), 496. See Jon Balserak, John Calvin as
Sixteenth-Century Prophet (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014). As Balserak narrates,
Calvin does see a figural extension of the Old Testament prophetic call and persona in
his own call and person. The preface to the Psalms commentary, along with his reading
of the prophets, attests to Calvin’s intimate and mimetic reading of the prophetic office as
it pertains to Calvin’s office. As the prophets of old explained and applied the Scriptures
to their particular moment in time, so too did Calvin fight the idolatry of his moment by
the interpretation and application of Holy Scripture (ibid., 179).
 Micah 1:1—Prophetic Identities 95

to Judge judged in our place bears materially on Christ’s prophetic office. Christ is the very
prophetic Word of God, and, at the same time, He bears the suffering of judgment attendant
to that selfsame word as both place-taker and representative.
The lamenting of the prophet in v. 8 leans into v. 9 with the latter
clarifying the cause of the prophet’s grief. There are several interpretive
challenges with v. 9. The antecedent of “her” on “her wounds” is unclear.
The exact nature of the “wound” that has made its way into Judah has no
immediate referent. The verbs change tense in line two from a feminine
“it enters/comes” (‫ )באה‬to a masculine “it strikes” (‫)נגע‬.75 Needless to
say, v. 9 is a challenge. If v. 8 refers back to the preceding material as
the grammar suggests, then it follows that the antecedent of “her” in
the current literary context of Micah 1 is still Samaria.76 The lexeme
“wound” (‫ )מּכה‬often refers to a blow received from God in an act of
judgment.77 And the “wound” of judgment that strikes Samaria is an
incurable wound whose effects are total and finalizing. But questions
remain. Why would a Southern prophet from Judah lament with such
grief over Samaria? The answer to this question appears twofold. First,
Micah’s grief over the destruction of the Northern Kingdom is genuine.
Kessler reminds us that Samaria had a history with Yhwh and because
of this shared religious and theological heritage, the destruction of
the Northern Kingdom was no cause for rejoicing in Judah—and this
despite the often-strained political relation between the two.
Second, the judgment of God on Samaria stands as a material
warning to Judah. Facts are on the ground, so to speak, as an indicator
of a potential path for Judah. Such is the prophetic logic of Isa 10:11.
Similar sentiments are found in v. 9 as Samaria’s “wounds” become
the grounds for the prophet’s continued lamenting and forthcoming
prophetic warnings and promises to Jerusalem. As it looks backwards
and forwards, the literary context of v. 9 clarifies the nature of the
“wound” making its way into Judah. For the “wound” as metaphor entails

75
See Andersen and Freedman, 195. The lack of a waw conjunction before ‫ נגע‬suggests,
according to Anderson and Freedman, a break in theme from Samaria to Judah.
76
Sweeney recognizes the unclear antecedent but associates “her” with the Daughter of
Zion who makes her first appearance in 1:13 (Sweeney, 353).
77
Cf. Dt 28:59; Isa 30:26; Nah 3:19. Jeremiah speaks of his own prophetic burden as a
“wound,” cf. Jer 10:19, 15:18.
96 Micah: An International Theological Commentary

both the judgment of God and the causes leading to that judgment as
explicated in 1:5-7. “Wound” has a broad connotative reach, and Judah
is warned on the basis of Samaria’s history with Yhwh (again, cf. Isa
10:11). At the same time, the “wound” looks forward because the
horrific description in 1:10-16 of the sufferings in Micah’s Shephelite
region are aftereffects of Samaria’s “wound” that have made their real
presence known in Judah. The threat for a “wound” to Judah is real and
for Micah and his people (‫)עמי‬, experienced. Nevertheless, the wound
is not incurable for Judah, reaching to the gates of the city but not yet
overtaking it.78 Yhwh’s dealings with Judah are still active and probing.

1:10-16: Disruptive intimations

It goes without saying that this section of Micah’s prophecy is the

most challenging of the book. The place names of vv. 10-12 remain
a mystery.79 The syntax is a jumble. Textual difficulties loom around
almost every corner as the ancient translations often go their own way.
Modern readers should take some comfort from this textual-critical
phenomenon. We are not the first readers to find this section difficult.
When Jerome came to this section of Micah’s prophecy, he identified
the unit as marked by textual difficulties. Then he cried out for help
from the Holy Spirit. Jerome reminds his readers that interpreters of
Scripture always need the help of the Holy Spirit, but they especially
need the Spirit when working through this section (ut si quando
indiguimus spiritu Dei, semper autem in exponendis scripturis sanctis
illius indigemus aduentu, nunc vel maxime eum adesse cupiamus … ).80
The devil is in the details in this unit of Micah’s prophecy, though
the overall sense is not lost when the details become opaque. The
cities in the region of Micah’s hometown, viz. the Shephaleh, are

78
Kessler, 94. On the “gates of the city” as a metonym for Jerusalem, cf. Ob 13; Ruth 3:11.
79
See especially Andersen and Freedman for the various theoretical accounts of these cities
and their location (207–12).
80
Jerome, 430.
 Micah 1:1—Prophetic Identities 97

experiencing Samaria’s wound. The logic of Micah’s prophetic warning

in the preceding verses becomes an experienced event (cf. the “gate of
Jerusalem” in 1:9 and 1:12). It is a possibility that the rough syntax and
disordered nature of the section may be a literary device indicative of
the chaos of the moment. The unit is marked by wordplays, and perhaps
the literary play extends to the syntactical level as well? A few matters
necessitate our attention. The first is the play on words in this section.
For all the difficulties of this section, the rhetorical play on words
is impressive and not without success. Literary devices such as
paronomasia and alliteration along with semantic plays on words serve
the rhetorical force of the unit. Often linked to the quip nomen est
omen, the wordplays are as follows:

1. 1:10a—Gath and the verb taggîdû are related sounds either by

inversion or by the alliterative relation of the same sounds gath
and tag.81
2. 1:10b—Beth-leaphrah or “dust town” is told to roll around in the
‘phr (dust).
3. 1:11A—Shaphir is contested as some link it to shophar or horn
(Mays; Andersen and Freedman). More recent work relates
Shaphir to “graceful” or “beautiful” based on a comparative
philological judgment with Aramaic, šāpîr (Waltke, 74). The
pun is as follows: O Beauty Town, walk around in nakedness
and shame; or O Graceful Town, walk around in nakedness and
shame (cf. 1:8).
4. 1:11Ba: Zaanan and the verb ytzh (“go out”) share similar sounds.
5. 1:11Bb: Perhaps the most difficult phrases of the unit. Various
emendations of the text are on offer (see Hillers, Waltke). The play
on words appears to be one of lexical semantics. Beth-ezel relates
to a rare verb ’ṣl meaning “to remove or withdraw.” The following
verb, lqḥ “to take away,” relates semantically to the place the name.

81
Nogalski, 531; Sweeney, 355.
98 Micah: An International Theological Commentary

6. 1:12: Maroth or “bitterness” awaits for “good” (tōb) but receives

only “evil” (r’). The reference to the “gate of Jerusalem” turns an
eye back to 1:9.
7. 1:13: Lachish relates phonetically with “to the steeds” (lrcsh). The
importance of Lachish as a fortress town or military stronghold
for Judah should be highlighted. The historical referent for
the claim that Israel’s transgressions first began or had their
first fruits there, resulting in their deleterious influence on the
Daughter of Zion remains opaque. Some read these statements
as an indication of Micah’s antimilitary sentiment (see Smith-
Christopher, 74–75).
8. 1:14a: The “parting gifts” may be a semantic play on the
town Moresheth. The place name relates to the verb ’rš, “to be
betrothed.” The “parting gifts” are gifts a father gives when
sending away his daughter, i.e., a dowry (1 Ki 9:16) or when a
husband sends away a wife (Ex 18:2).
9. 1:14b: Achzib means “deception” as Achzib is given to achzib.
10. 1:15: The participle yrsh (“conqueror”) relates to the phonetic
character of the city, Mareshah.

The wordplays (Wortspiele) mark the rhetorical nature of this difficult

section. Other features of this unit bear discussion. “Tell it not in
Gath” begins the section with a command not to weep following it.
Prima facie, v. 10 appears disjointed from the unit leading some to
suggest it is a later addition (Mays). The LXX differs from the MT
regarding the first verb. Instead of “do not report” (‫ )אל־תגידו‬the LXX
reads “do not exult” (megalunesthe). S follows suit. The Biblia Hebraica
Stuttgartensia (BHS) editors suggest emending the text to ‫“( תגילו‬do
not rejoice”). They also suggest replacing the negative particle (‫ )אל‬of
colon B with “yet, indeed” (‫)אפ‬. There is no textual evidence for the
latter, though the possibility of a scribal error is not beyond the pale
(see Hillers).
The text as it stands, however, provides an important intertextual
link to 2 Sam 1:20. There David published his sentiments regarding the
 Micah 1:1—Prophetic Identities 99

death of Saul and Jonathan and the same phrase is used: “tell it not in
Gath.” The summons not to report the deaths in Gath stems from Gath’s
proximity to Philistia and the avoidance of national derision. The precise
meaning of the allusion in Micah remains somewhat elusive, though
the reference to Adullam in v. 15 may be of aid. There a reference is
made to the glory of Israel coming to Adullam. “Glory” (‫ )כבוד‬may refer
to many things: Israel’s wealth, might, army, or even Yhwh (Ben Zvi,
36). If, however, the subtle allusion in 1:15 is to the narratives where
David fled for safety to the caves of Adullam (1 Sam 22:1; 2 Sam 23:13),
then the “glory of Israel” coming to Adullam may be in metonymic
relation to Judah’s king (cf. Isa 5:13). Thus, Davidic allusions at 1:10
and 1:15 create an inclusio. The effect of the Davidic allusion may relate
specifically to the throne and/or the metonymic relation between the
throne and the people represented therein. As David fled to Adullam,
so too will his people flee from dangerous threats. Foreign incursion,
national derision, fleeing for safety, and exile are the themes of 1:10-
16. The Davidic allusions at 1:10 and 1:15 provide further thematic
evidence.
In v. 13 the term “daughter of Zion” appears for the first time in the
Twelve. Ancient cities were portrayed as the female consorts of the city’s
god, though this background is contested and an unlikely referent in
Micah.82 Williamson believes the metaphor, at least by Isaiah’s day, was
a “conceptual” or “dead” metaphor. In other words, the image was so
much a part of the cultural discourse that its background or metaphoric
origins were of no consequence.83 Dead metaphors, according to
Williamson, can come back to life in new prophetic contexts, thus
requiring attentive examination of the particular use.84

82
Williamson, 69.
83
Ibid.
84
Mark Boda believes the Daughter of Zion metaphor is an apt image for the vulnerability
of Judah, especially in settings of judgment and lamentation. The metaphor entails
the pain of loss as well as the anticipation of salvation. See Mark J. Boda, The Book of
Zechariah (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016), 563. See the essays in Daughter
Zion: Her Portrait, Her Response (ed. M. J. Boda, C. J. Dempsey and L. S. Flesher; Atlanta:
SBL Press, 2012).
100 Micah: An International Theological Commentary

We have already seen Samaria portrayed as a prostitute in 1:7,

drawing from the imagery of Hosea. Gomer is the daughter of Diblaim
(Hos 1:3). The Daughter of Zion in 1:10-16 is marked by sin and
transgressions, engulfed in the wound of her prostitute sister to the
north. The feminine imperatives of v. 16 are directed at the Daughter
of Zion introduced in v. 13: shave the head, make bald, enlarge your
(feminine pronominal suffix) shaved head (cf. the feminine imperatives
in 4:10, 13). For the Daughter of Zion will see her own “children of
delight” or “pampered children” go into exile. The fall of Samaria and
the experiences of the Shephaleh region of Judah, separated as they are
in time, are fitted together in the same drama of election and rejection,
marriage and infidelity, promise and loss. “Thou shalt have no other
gods before me,” ranges over and makes claims upon the entirety of the
Northern and Southern Kingdoms who share in a similar history with
Yhwh.
It seems plausible, if not probable, to identify the invasion of Sennacherib in 701 as the
historical moment giving rise to Micah’s lamentation (1:8-9) and the events described in
1:10-16. The text itself, however, does not identify its historical setting, creating space for
several theories of origin. For Ben Zvi, the lack of clear historical markers is telling and allows
for multiple historical referents to be associated with Micah’s lamentation: 701, 586, or any
another analogous event. The text remains “open” to the future on this account (Ben Zvi, 34-
35). As mentioned above, Ben Zvi tends to limit the text’s openness to postexilic Yehud as
the intended readership. Brevard Childs has a broader understanding of the prophetic texts’
openness to the future. Oracles emerging from various and sundry historical moments
are refitted into an eschatological pattern of judgment and salvation in the future hope of
the coming kingdom of God.85 While much of the focus of modern interpretation centers
on identifying the originating historical setting, the canonical shaping of the prophetic
literature intimates a differing set of interpretive concerns. Historical settings indicate God’s
judging and redemptive actions in time, yet the prophetic texts as texts are not hermetically
sealed in those various and sundry moments. Rather, they pattern a set of hopes and beliefs
about God’s future actions and forthcoming kingdom. This eschatological patterning is part
and parcel of Micah’s canonical shape and final form.

85
Brevard Childs, “The Canonical Shape of the Prophetic Literature,” Int 32 (1978): 46–55
(52).
 2

Micah 2:1-5—Love Your Neighbor

Introduction

John Calvin portrays Micah 1 as a prophetic witness against those in

breach of the first table of the Law. Micah 2 then moves seamlessly to
those breaking the Law’s second table: love your neighbor as yourself.
Martin Luther’s oft-quoted phrase that God does not need our good
works but our neighbors do presses into the dynamic at hand. For sin,
as human pride and inward turning, may also be defined in Eberhard
Jüngel’s terms as “making myself my own neighbor.”1 The self-giving
of God’s own righteousness to others is the very opposite of a “divine
selfishness” where God reserves his own benefits for himself.2 As
mentioned in the previous chapter, the pride of humanity is dealt a
death blow by the humility and self-giving of God. The antipode of
God’s self-giving is sin, defined again by Jüngel as “the urge to pursue
one’s own right at the expense of others and thus to make oneself into
one’s own neighbor.”3
The second table of the Law focuses on the relationships of the
covenant community. When the Pharisees press Jesus to clarify the
greatest commandment, He answers as any faithful Jew would, with the
Shema: Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, and might
(Deut 6:4). What sometimes escapes unnoticed in this theological banter
between Jesus and the Pharisees is the extent of Jesus’s response. They
did not ask about the second commandment, but Jesus felt it incumbent

1
Jüngel, Justification: The Heart of the Christian Faith, 86.
2
Ibid.
3
Ibid.
102 Micah: An International Theological Commentary

upon himself to provide the answer to the second question they should
have asked. “And the second is like unto it, thou shalt love thy neighbor as
thyself ” (Mk 12:28-31). For Jesus, loving God and loving neighbor are in
an ordered relation the one to the other, with love of God as primary yet
the second is like unto it. As Jesus frames the matter, in accord with the
prophetic legacy of Israel’s Scriptures, you cannot have the first table of
the Law without the second. You cannot have love of God without love of
neighbor. The canonical shape of Micah’s first two chapters concurs with
this ordered and related account of love of God and love of neighbor. This
theme is a leitmotif weaving its way through the whole of Micah’s corpus.

2:1-5

The depiction in vv. 1-2 leaves little doubt regarding the presenting cause
of the woe oracle. The powerful landowners are preying on the weaker
landowners for their own advantage.4 They are making themselves their
own neighbor. “Woe” (‫ )הוי‬is leveled against the “devisers” or “schemers”
(‫ )חׁשב‬who are making evil plans on their bed in order to actualize them
when the sun appears on the morrow.5 The effect of v. 1 is a merism
4
Hillers argues against Alt’s limiting the nobles to the Jerusalem elite with the oppressed
as peasants from the countryside (Hillers, 33). The text does not suggest this limited
scope and the force of Micah’s prophetic word reaches to local land magnates as well. See
also Jeremias, 148.
5
“Woe” is most often followed by a participial form functioning as the vocative of the
address, cf. Isa 5:8,11,18,20. Andersen and Freedman believe Micah is intentionally
fiddling with the participles in 2:1a. What does it mean for the wicked “to do” (‫ )פעל‬evil
on their beds? And why does Micah invert the typical phraseology of “devising harm”
(‫ )אונ‬and doing evil (‫)רע‬, cf. Jer 18:11. Andersen and Freedman suggest the unconventional
use of these terms by Micah is a poetic play emphasizing the move from thought to deed
(Andersen and Freedman, 263–64). The effect of the two participles is the bringing
together of thought and deed as flip sides of the same coin. Even though the evil deeds
are not expressly done while in bed, the thought and planning for the evil deed already
entails the doing of it on the morrow. See Hillers on the common switch from third
person to second person after the initial vocative of the woe (Mic 2:1-3 is a case in point).
These grammatical features raise form-critical questions for Hillers, particularly his
reticence to tie the woe oracles to a funeral rite. Rather, these woe oracles fit more
naturally with the “hear ye” (‫ )ׁשמאו‬forms of address (cf. Mic 1:2). Delbert R. Hillers, “Hôy
and Hôy-Oracles: A Neglected Syntactic Aspect,” in The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth:
Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman in Celebration of His Sixtieth Birthday (ed. C. L.
Meyers and M. O’Connor; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1983), 185–88.
 Micah 2:1-5—Love Your Neighbor 103

of sorts where the whole of the perpetrators’ existence is given to the

devising and enacting of their evil deeds. These evil deeds (‫ )אונ‬speak
to the misfortune and calamity inherent in and brought about by the
deed. Unlike ‫( רע‬the second noun for “evil” or “calamity” in 2:1a), God’s
deeds are never identified as ‫אונ‬.6 Acts of “wickedness” (‫ )אונ‬are the
very opposite of righteousness, justice, and Torah, and their effects are
always harmful on the community.
These anti-righteous schemers give their total energies to these
evil plans because they have the power to do it. In an arresting turn
of phrase, the Hebrew text says, “for there is god in their hand” or, if,
with Andersen and Freedman, the phrase does not denote existence
but possession, “because their hand belongs to God” (‫)כי יׁש־לאל ידם‬.7
The exact origin of the phrase and its religious character are lost to
us, though McKane suggests the idiom stems from a time when the
hand was understood to have its own power because a god energized
it (McKane, 60). From a synchronic perspective, the idiomatic force
of the phrase may in fact be “they have the power in their hand” as
observed in all English translations (cf. Gen 31:29; Deut 28:32; Pr 3:27).
On this account “might is right.” At the same time, the lexical character
of the idiom opens other connotative possibilities, especially given
the character of the actions about to take place the next morning: the
power expressed by the force of their hand is their god; they execute
their power as demigods, taking the place properly belonging to God
alone; or the deeds of their hands are the only divine oversight of their
actions.8 Whatever the full range of the idiom, the wickedly wanton of
v. 1 exercise their power under the governance of their own untoward
desires (v. 2).
Calvin’s tethering of Micah 2 to the second table of the Law is
not a freewheeling association of the rhetorical kind. The text itself

6
TLOT 1, 62.
7
Andersen and Freedman, 267–68.
8
Kessler believes the context of 2:1 gives the language of the phrase a “tiefere Bedeutung”
(Kessler, 115). He continues, “Die Gewalttäter stezen sich an die Stelle Gottes” (ibid.); see
Sweeney, 359.
104 Micah: An International Theological Commentary

intimates this linkage in v. 2 where the wicked schemes and actions

of v.1 are concretized.9 “They covet” (‫)חמד‬.10 The allusion to the tenth
commandment comes to the fore with its focus on disordered desire
(Ex 20:17). The term “covet” (‫ )חמד‬has desire as its basic semantic sense.
Absent a literary context the lexeme has no particular moral value
attached to it. The term may be used in positive ways to indicate properly
ordered desires. In Ps 19:10 the ordinances of the Lord are more to
be desired (participial form of ‫ )חמד‬than gold (cf. Gen 2:9). Equally,
the term may reflect disordered or inordinate desires as depicted in
the Achan narrative (Josh 7:21). Therefore, the objects of desire often
clarify the agent’s motive. The tenth commandment speaks against the
desiring of a neighbor’s “house” in 20:17a with 20:17b filling out the
material content of that abstract category: wife, servants, animals, or
anything.11
A lexical argument centers on the question of whether “desire”
(‫ )חמד‬as a term connotes action more than emotion.12 Durham makes a
compelling case for why the term itself does not entail the twin action
of “covet and seize” (contra Hermann). For every use of “desire” (‫)חמד‬
in the Old Testament that leads to the actual possession of something
is followed by an object. If the action were an ingredient aspect of the

9
Waltke describes v. 2 as epexegetical to v. 1 and not chronological (Waltke, 95).
10
Waltke understands the weqataltí forms, ‫ וחמדו‬and ‫וגזלו‬, as protasis and apodosis,
respectively (Waltke, 95; WO’C 32.2.3). When this, then that. Andersen and Freedman
recognize the oddity of these forms, forms normally depicting future conditions. Yet, the
conditions here do not appear as future events but events having already occurred, thus
the prophetic ire. They conclude that the weqataltí forms are “archaic constative
aspectual” references (Andersen and Freedman, 274). In other words, the verbal forms
expose typical or constative actions that entail the past, present, and future unless
stopped (ibid.). The term “steal” or “tearing away” (‫ )גזל‬in v. 2 appears in the haunting
metaphor of 3:2: “who tear the skin off my people.”
11
The numbering of the ten commandments or ten words is a matter of continued dispute
among various ecclesial constituencies. Lutheran and Catholic interpreters view the
tenth commandment as two commandments because of the repeated use of the term
“covet” in 20:17a and 20:17b (a unique feature in the Decalogue). The former denotes the
subjective emotion of the offender and the latter the objective action according to this
reading. See Brevard S. Childs, The Book of Exodus (OTL; Philadelphia: The Westminster
Press, 1974), 425 (393–401).
12
See the classic commentary on Exodus by Benno Jacob, e.g., The lexical arguments may
be traced more fully in the commentaries by Childs, Dozeman, and Durham.
 Micah 2:1-5—Love Your Neighbor 105

verbal sense, then a stated object would be unnecessary in every usage.13

While in general agreement with Durham’s lexical sensibilities, Childs
understands the lexical term “desire” (‫ )חמד‬to highlight an emotion that
tends toward action.14 Such is certainly the case in Mic 2:2. The desire
for fields and houses leads to “stealing” (‫ )גזל‬and “taking” (‫שא‬ׄ ‫)נ‬. The
disordered desire becomes the gateway for the deed such that the desire
and deed are related as cause and effect in a single horizon of action.15
The parallel grammatical structure of the verbs in v. 2 underscores the
point.
A quick glance at the literature on v. 2 brings the story of Naboth
and his vineyard into view. Some even suggest that v. 2 is a commentary
on the Naboth narrative (cf. 1 Ki 21).16 Fields, house, and households
are the inheritance of God’s people given by God alone who is the sole
landowner in Israel (Lev 25:23; cf. Isa 5:8; Deut 5:21). According to
Sweeney, even if Naboth had sold his vineyard to Ahab and received
a better vineyard elsewhere, there was no guarantee that the next
vineyard would be in the territory of Issachar. The power move by
Ahab threatened the whole of the tribal system of ancient Israel, and
Naboth’s response is in accord with this concern.17 “The Lord forbid

13
Durham, 298.
14
Much of the lexical discussion stems from the semantic distinction between the terms
‫ חמד‬and ‫אוה‬. Deuteronomy 5:21 uses both terms in the tenth commandment with ‫אוה‬
coming after the former. Exodus only uses ‫חמד‬. Childs shows how the two terms are used
interchangeably in the Zion traditions (cf. Pss 68:19, 132:13f). Thus, a sharp semantic
distinction between ‫ חמד‬as “action” and ‫ אוה‬as “emotion” is untenable. Still, Childs does
see a semantic distinction between the two terms as the latter does highlight the emotion
itself, while the former term “falls on an emotion which often leads to commensurate
action” (Childs, Exodus, 427).
15
Durham offers a suggestive reading of the tenth commandment in relation to first
commandment. Both are in signal positions as they pertain to the two tables of the
Law. Durham believes the tenth commandment comes last because it is the most
comprehensive of commandments, a gateway commandment of sorts with its focus on
an attitude rather than action as observed in the other commandments. Coveting as an
attitude can lead to the actions of stealing, adultery, dishonesty, and the mistreatment of
parents (Durham, 298–99). For example, coveting led to the breach of the 9th and 6th
commandments in the Naboth narrative (cf. 1 Ki 21), while lust or inordinate desire
led to the breaking of the 7th, 8th, and 6th commandments in the story of David and
Bathsheba (1 Sam 11).
16
See Wolff, ad loc.
17
Marvin A. Sweeney, I & II Kings (OTL; Louisville: WJK, 2007).
106 Micah: An International Theological Commentary

that I should give you my ancestral inheritance” (1 Ki 21:4).18 To take

such inheritances or to give them away remains in the threshold of
Yhwh’s provision for his people. To sell or to seize are both offensive to
Yhwh’s prerogative and oversight: a view Naboth understood and Ahab
dismissed.
There is little to suggest in this verse that the poor per se are preyed
upon. A man (‫ )איׁש‬and a householder or citizen (‫ )גבר‬are oppressed
by those who have the power to do so.19 A hierarchical system of
social order, stemming from a Zion theology where Yhwh as divine
king rests at the apex of this order, undergirds the sentiments of this
and the next chapter.20 Those in positions of strength vis-à-vis those
whose place is not equal to theirs are, within Yhwh’s social ordering,
agents of protection and benefaction. Such an ordering relates
analogously to Yhwh’s own beneficence to Zion. It is a basic
assumption of their position’s privilege that a beneficent posture
toward those “below” them is in order. “Listen you heads of Jacob
and you rulers of the house of Israel, should you not know justice?”
(Mic 3:1). The description of events here in Micah 2 and 3 represents
a gross perversion of Zion theology where Yhwh’s own merciful
character as divine king serves as an exemplar for those in positions
of social privilege.21

18
“The economic and social ideal of ancient Israel was of a nation of free landholders—
not debt-slaves, share-croppers, or hired workers—secure in possession, as a grant from
Yahweh, of enough land to keep their families” (Hillers, 33). Hillers is stressing that
the situation is not mere greed but a very attack on the basic social structures of God’s
people. “Each under his own vine and fig tree” is presented as the eschatological ideal in
Mic 4:4.
19
See the lexical discussion in Andersen and Freedman, 272–73.
20
See H. G. M. Williamson, He Has Shown You What Is Good: Old Testament Justice
Here and Now (Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2012), 72. It is a curiosity that Micah 2 does not
contribute to Williamson’s larger thesis that social justice in the prophets is not based on
received Torah or revelation per se but on what is instinctively perceived as socially right.
While Williamson makes a strong case for the overall picture he paints, the place of the
Torah in Mic 2 as an adjudicatory force is striking: “thou shalt not covet.” The theology
of the land as inheritance also stems from Priestly and Deuteronomistic traditions, and
while such views from the perspective of the Near East might be instinctive, their judicial
character in these contexts has a revelatory force behind them as well.
21
Jeremias, 117.
 Micah 2:1-5—Love Your Neighbor 107

It appears fitting to speak of Augustine’s distinction between enjoyment and use in the
conceptual space created by “desire” and its consequence in Mic 2:1-2. The proper ordering
of desire in the shaping of our love toward God and neighbor is a central concern of Micah
in particular and the prophets in general. In his De Doctrina Christiana, Augustine raises
questions pertaining to “happiness” in terms that are familiar to those versed in Aristotle’s
Nichomachean Ethics and the Stoic distinction between goods and preferables. Goods bring
eudaimonia which can be enjoyed by the habitual practices of moral virtue. Preferables, like
wealth and health, are certainly to be preferred but do not make one “happy.” Aristotle, as I
understand him, is more nuanced than the Stoics on this account. In fact, Aristotle satirizes
a Stoic sentiment in Book VII of the Ethics, “Those who say that the victim on the rack or
the man who falls into great misfortune is happy if he is good, are, whether they mean to or
not, talking nonsense” (Book VII.13). I believe we can agree.
Augustine, while drawing on these categories as borrowed capital, frames the matter
differently. “So, then,” Augustine suggests, “there are some things which are meant to be
enjoyed, others are meant to be used, yet others which do both the enjoying and the using.
Things that are to be enjoyed make us happy; things which are to be used help us on our
way to happiness, providing us, so to say, with crutches and props for reaching the things
that will make us happy, and enabling us to keep them” (De Doctrina, I.3). If things to be
enjoyed, rather than merely used, make for genuine happiness, what exactly is “enjoyment”
and what is thing to be “enjoyed”?
Augustine answers, “Enjoyment, after all, consists in clinging to something lovely for
its own sake, while use consists in referring what has come your way to what your love
aims at obtaining, provided, that is, it deserves to be loved.” It deserves to be loved. What
is deserving of love? What brings true happiness and is the end of all our pursuit, all our
desire, all our longing? Augustine answers, “The things therefore that are to be enjoyed are
the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, in fact the Trinity, one supreme thing, and one
which is shared in common by all who enjoy it.”22
What I find especially compelling about Augustine’s case is the place of enjoyment and
desire in the fundamental make-up of our humanity. What does it mean to be a person, a
human, Saint Augustine? He does not give a purely rationalist account of what it means for
humans to be persons, a version of Descartes’s perceiving-self as the foundation for all that
is. Rather, we are primarily marked by desire. We hunger. Such hungering is not abstracted
from our cognitive faculties, our ability to reason and think; we are not purely animal in
this regard—Augustine is clear on this matter as well. But the pursuit of eudaimonia, or
happiness, for that which is to be enjoyed is woven into the very fabric of our existence.
The desire, the hunger, that lurks underneath our sternums and the pursuit of
enjoyment that marks a sensual culture are Exhibit A of what Augustine believes to be the
case about human nature. See, you can hear Augustine say, see that young person there or
there rushing headlong into the ocean of pleasure, whether that pleasure is a virtue or a vice:
glory, honor, prestige, success, sexual indulgence (Augustine knew something of this one),
reckless ambition; that person is on to something. The pursuit of enjoyment or happiness is

22
O’Donovan believes Augustine in his more mature thought escapes some of the
problems attendant to his relating of God and neighbor by the categories of use and
enjoyment. The criticism speaks to the arbitrariness of putting a neighbor in the category
of a means to an end as an instrument of human will (so Kant). “Means” and “ends” both
relate to human planning and devising. O’Donovan, however, understands Augustine’s
distinctions to emerge from the neighbor’s ontology as a creature of God rather than
from an imposed and extrinsic category from outside. Therefore, instead of seeing “use”
and “end” as instrumental categories of human manipulation, Augustine properly read
understand “love of neighbor” as an object for the sake of enjoyment of God. Love of
neighbor depends on love for God. Oliver O’Donovan, Resurrection and Moral Order: An
Outline for Evangelical Ethics, Second Edition (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 235–36.
108 Micah: An International Theological Commentary

ingredient to their nature. But the ordering of their love, of their enjoyment, is all wrong. It
is misdirected; it is misshaped; it is skewed. In the language of the prophets, it is idolatrous,
replacing creature for Creator. Those momentary pleasures that flee and then leave one in a
state of existential emptiness are pale shadows, or in Augustine’s terms, forgotten memories
of a love ordered rightly for the sake of true eudaimonia—like trying to slake our thirst by
licking a salt block. What is enjoyed, what is loved for its own sake? Where is true water
for the thirsty, hungry soul? Augustine is unequivocal in his answer: God, whose name is
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The love of neighbor exists for the sake of the ultimate good,
loving God. Yet, as Micah warns, when desires become disordered, when uses become ends,
sin and revolt of all kinds abound.
With the cause of the judgment speech stated in vv. 1-2, the
consequences follow in vv. 3-5. The particle “therefore” (‫ )לכן‬introduces
the consequent outcomes, linking them to the verses that precede.
Because those in positions of privilege, wherever such positions are
located along the hierarchical chain, are marked by inordinate desires
and actions, the divine response to the guilty mirrors their own
scheming. Now Yhwh is scheming and devising (‫ )חׁשב‬a calamity (‫)רעה‬
of his own. In Jonah, readers note the lexical importance of “evil/
calamity” (‫ )רעה‬throughout the book. Nineveh’s “evil” arose before
Yhwh (1:2), leading to Jonah’s prophetic commission. After Jonah’s
adventurous and circuitous journey, the Ninevites hear the prophetic
word of judgment and embrace en masse the religious rituals of
repentance. In a crucial verse of Jonah’s rising and falling narrative,
God relents from his “evil/calamity” (‫ )רעה‬because the Ninevites had
repented of their “evil” (3:10( )‫)רעה‬.
The object of his calamitous planning is “this family” or “this
clan” (‫)המׁשפחה הזות‬.23 The family or clan language moves the scope
of judgment to the whole of Israel (cf. Am 3:2; Jer 8:3). Given the
preceding two verses, this move comes as a bit of a surprise. The effect
of the text as it stands is the expansive nature of the guilt of a few and
its deleterious implications for the whole. This particular complex
of guilt and judgment encompasses and effects the whole of Israel.

23
The BHS editors suggest this clause is a later edition because it breaks the person of
its literary surroundings. Wolff affirms the phrase as a later interpolation because it
separates the participle “devising” from its object “calamity” (Wolff, 69). There is no
textual evidence to support the notion, though several follow it (cf. Mays, 65). See also
the discussion in Andersen and Freedman. They suggest the choice of this unusual term
intends to make a play on the term “on their beds” (‫ )מׁשכבותם‬in v. 1 (Andersen and
Freedman, 275–76).
 Micah 2:1-5—Love Your Neighbor 109

Moreover, the use of the demonstrative pronoun “these” only highlights

the relational distancing between Yhwh and “his” people (cf. Isa 6:10;
Hos 1:9). These acts of disordered desire rupture the whole of Israel’s
social order and covenant relationship with their God. The covenant
formula “I will be your God and you will be my people” only highlights
the disruptive force of such a small part of speech: this family.
There are two effects of the calamity Yhwh is devising. First, they
(“you,” 2nd plural) will not be able to remove it from their necks. This
is a curious phrase whose referent is not immediately clear. Ben Zvi
believes the unusual term (plural, “necks” ‫ )צוארת‬forms a relation of
assonance to “these” (‫ )זאת‬with the shared ōt endings (Ben Zvi, 46). If
this is the case, then the pairing of the sounds reinforces the distance
between Yhwh and “this” people. Whether or not Micah is speaking
metaphorically remains an open question as well. Jeremiah put a yoke
on his neck as an act of prophetic symbolism for the political yoke
Babylon would bring (Jeremiah 27). Or the yoke imagery could portend
actual slavery.24 Whatever the case, “this family” will be unable by an act
of national will or might to remove the oncoming judgment of Yhwh in
whatever form it comes.
Second, they will be unable to “rise up” or “walk haughtily” as in the
NRSV. The term “walk haughtily” (‫ )רומה‬is a hapax legomenon, though
its relation to ‫ רום‬terminology is assumed. As observed in Isaiah’s
prophetic movement, only Yhwh is “exalted” (‫ ;רום‬cf. Isa 6:1; 57:15).
Whenever Israel “exalts” herself, these actions are perceived as pride or
haughtiness with the result that Yhwh cuts her down (cf. Isaiah 2; 10).25
Yhwh’s judgment is a debasing of the pride and arrogance of “this
people” that is demonstrated in the concrete conduct of vv. 1-2. The
discerning of the times was a crucial aspect of the prophetic vocation.
One recalls the prophetic debates taking place in Jeremiah regarding
the discernment of the times (cf. Jeremiah 28). Micah makes clear that
this is an “evil time” (2:3c) not only for those committing the crimes of

24
Andersen and Freedman, 278.
25
See the discussion in Mark Gignilliat, “Oaks of Righteousness for His Glory: Horticulture
and Renewal in Isaiah 61, 1-4,” ZAW 123 (2011): 391–405.
110 Micah: An International Theological Commentary

vv. 1-2 but for the whole of the nation (cf. Am 5:13).26 The beneficence
intended from top to bottom in Yhwh’s social ordering of Zion also has
the reverse effect that judgment directed at the actions of the top trickles
down to effect the bottom as well.
The phrase “in that day” (‫ )ביום ההוא‬continues the train of thought
from the previous verse’s announcement: “for it will be an evil time.”
A hopeful word of promise typically follows this phrase (though
cf. Hos 1:5). Here, however, it serves to exacerbate the shame of the
forthcoming humiliation. A “proverbial saying” (‫ )מׁשל‬is put on the lips
of an unidentified and impersonal agent.27 “He or they will raise a taunt
song against you.” The use of the adversative preposition (‫ )על‬identifies
the scene as hostile (cf. Hab 2:6; Deut 28:37), though the lamentation
to follow functions as a true lamentation. The difficult phrase “and
wail with bitter lamentation” makes concrete the character of the more
abstract “proverb” or “taunt song” (‫)מׁשל‬.28
The force of v. 4, therefore, functions on two levels. In the first level,
the mourning or lamentation reflects the genuine grief of the first-
person voices (singular and plural) of the “taunt song.” Jeremias
identifies the change in voice as an important interpretive point. The
“we” voices surround the “I” voice in the middle of the song and indicate
the collective suffering of Judah. According to Jeremias, the plural
voices are the guilty indicted in vv. 1-2, and the “I” voices are those for
whom Micah is particularly concerned, namely, “my people” or those

26
See Nogalski, 537, on the intertextual relation between Amos and Micah at this point.
Nogalski identifies a similar thematic movement in both texts with Amos ending his
focus on Israel and Micah on Judah.
27
Waltke, 99. See DCH 5, 537.
28
The phrase “and wail with bitter lamentations” poses textual problems. 4QXII has the
first verb in the plural, though none of the translations follow. The primary textual
difficulty is the third word of the phrase: ‫היהנ יהנ ההנו‬. None of the translations translate
the word in its current form: the niphal of ‫היה‬. If the niphal verb is intended, then one
would gloss it as “It has happened.” Gelston (BHQ, 98*) suggests the translations may
understand ‫ היהנ‬as a noun in a cognate relationship with ‫יהנ‬. If ‫ היהנ‬is a feminine form of
‫יהנ‬, then a superlative genitive may be the syntactical solution: “a groan of groans” (see
Waltke, 100). Alternatively, the translators may be guessing. Or with the editors of the
BHS dittography may be the genetic explanation. Andersen and Freedman are right to
note that whatever textual or syntactical solutions are offered, the effect of the collocation
is the sharing of sounds (assonance). Such literary plays are expected in a ‫ לׁשמ‬and lean
against the suggestion of the BHS to emend the text.
 Micah 2:1-5—Love Your Neighbor 111

who suffer on account of the actions of others (Jeremias, 149–50).

Collectively, they do experience utter ruination as in v. 3. Their portion
or inheritance (‫ )חלק‬by divine gift is now a forfeiture of covenant
infidelity. As the lines of the taunt song continue, the nature of the loss
becomes more clear. They are losing their fields, their land. A species of
lex talionis takes place here in a moment of divine irony. The presenting
cause of divine displeasure in vv. 1-2 becomes the mirror of their own
forthcoming judgment. Apostates (‫ )ׁשובב‬now have ownership of what
was once theirs. The term “apostates” or “backsliders” may refer to
willful and stubborn Israel but can describe foreign enemies as well (cf.
Jer 49:4).29 The second level of the song, and perhaps the more sinister,
is the use of this genuine dirge or lamentation by Judah’s enemies as a
jeer or a taunt. Judah’s suffering and their songs of lamentation become
the occasion for satire by her enemies. The dirge becomes derision. The
double force of the dirge as genuine and derisive marks the devastation
of the scene.
Verse 5 follows v. 4 with the logical connector “therefore” (‫)לכן‬
linking the verses. The second-person address of v. 5 picks up from the
second person of v. 3 with the oppressors and covetous of vv. 1-2 once
again in view. This prophetic word opens itself to the future where
those who oppress will no longer have a part in the distribution of the
land. They will no longer share in the inheritance given by divine favor
in the “assembly of the Lord” (‫—)בקהל יהוה‬the place where tribal
boundaries are decided (cf. Deuteronomy 33).30 Israel’s memory of
their past measurement of the land and the casting of lots for land
distribution (cf. Josh 18:8-10; Num 26:55, 36:2) function now as an
eschatological promise for Yhwh’s future actions (cf. Ez 48).31 A word
of promise runs alongside the word of judgment for the oppressors. On
the far side of the collective devastation experience by the first-person

29
DCH 8, 298. Sweeney understands the term in relation to its basic lexical sense, “to
return”—thus, “returners” or “one who restores.” The opaque term, in Sweeney’s reading,
may reference conquerors who redistribute the land back to the rightful property owners
(Sweeney, 361).
30
Andersen and Freedman, 289.
31
Jeremias describes the scene as “eine neue Josua-Zeit” (Jeremias, 150).
112 Micah: An International Theological Commentary

voices (“I” and “we”) of v. 4, the inheritance of the land will be

apportioned once again. The oppressors, however, will have no place in
this future scene. Hillers is right to note the tame character of the
language of v. 5 in comparison with the preceding indictments. Yet, he
continues, “[I]n comparison to the preceding lament, this is the
severest of the judgments” (Hillers, 33). The oppressors who cut off
landowners from their divine inheritance will be cut off themselves in
the future moment of restoration.

Micah 2:6-11: A different sermon, please

This section of Micah’s prophecy is riddled with interpretive and textual

challenges. Central to the presenting difficulties is the identification of
the speaking voices, and the text provides little to no interpretive aids.
Who is preaching or prophesying or “driveling” away in 2:6? Is the force
of the utterances in 2:7 positive or negative? How do vv. 8-10 relate
to the inclusio of the prophet against prophecy warnings in 2:6-7 and
2:11? If we have an interlocution between Micah and his opponents,
where do the respective voices begin and end? Such questions reside
at the interpretive center of this section and sorting through them is
no mean task. In light of these challenges, Ben Zvi does well to remind
us of the link between 2:6-11 and 2:1-5 lest rereaders lose the forest
for the trees (Ben Zvi, 56). To continue Calvin’s line of thought, the
second table of the Law remains in view here as the prophet registers
his complaint against a disordered prophetic office.
Our interpretive focus zeros in on the written character of the
text, seeking to make sense of the MT. A quick glance at the critical
apparatus of the BHS reveals the editors’ proclivity to emend the text at
almost every turn (prp; prb l). Ben Zvi rightly cautions readers against
such instincts, suggesting our understanding of or desire for textual
coherence may part company with the biblical texts concern for such
matters. Moreover, if Micah went through a compositional process
 Micah 2:1-5—Love Your Neighbor 113

toward its final form, then the tradents of the material and initial
readers register no obvious discomfort or misunderstanding (Ben Zvi,
58). Making such claims does not neutralize the interpretive challenges
of this section. Rather, it keeps the focus of these difficulties clear: the
text in its received form with the judicious use of text-critical analysis
where requisite.
The threefold use of the term “to preach” (hifil of ‫ )נטפ‬in v. 6 brings
the prophetic interlocutors into view.32 A rough reading of the first two
clauses may be rendered as follows: “Stop preaching, they preach; they
will not preach concerning these things.” The difficulties of identifying
the speaking voices are apparent, not to mention that the opposing
voices are never clearly identified. Van der Woude’s identification of the
opponents as representatives of “the established religious-political
order of the day” brings clarity to the kind of debate taking place.33
Micah is leveling a complaint against those who practice injustice as a
forfeiture of their covenantal inheritance. The “pseudo-prophets”
represent those in positions of leadership or power involved in the
activities described in 2:1-5. The pseudo-prophets turn a blind eye
toward their actions and their calamitous effects, and thus deny Micah’s
prophetic warnings. These pseudo-prophets base their “preaching” on
a lopsided and faulty reliance on a half-baked Zion theology.34 Here
Micah joins company with his prophetic cobelligerents who stand
against those in religious or political authority who rely on the Zion
traditions to the denial of the covenantal claims Yhwh has on his people
and their actions (cf. Jer 5:18-19; Am 7:16—note the use of ‫)נטפ‬.
The voices in 2:6 are proposed in the following table:

32
The term ‫ נטפ‬remains a lexical challenge. Its basic sense is “to drip” (cf. Am 9:13). The
association of “dripping” with prophecy or preaching may have to do with “driveling” or
salivating either in the speaking moment or in an ecstatic experience (see Shalom, Amos,
250). The term does not require a pejorative sense (cf. Ez 21:2,7), though this sense in
Micah cannot be ruled out (cf. Amaziah’s opposition to Amos, Am 7:16). Rendering the
term with the neutral “preaching” is a responsible reading given the lexical challenges.
33
A. S. van der Woude, “Micah in Dispute with the Pseudo-Prophets,” VT 19 (1969): 27.
34
See Ollenburger, Zion The City of the Great King. See van der Woude, “Micah in Dispute,”
for further details of the opponents’ Zion theology at work.
114 Micah: An International Theological Commentary

“Stop preaching”—voice of the pseudo-prophets

“They preach”—Micah’s voice
“They will not preach concerning these things”35—Micah’s voice

There is no clear referent for the demonstrative pronoun “these

things.” It is possible for the pronoun to refer to the prophetic
injunctions of 2:1-5. Or, and this seems a preferable reading, the
demonstrative pronoun may come before the antecedent with “these
things” referring to the next clause. “They will not preach concerning
these things, namely, … ” In other words, the following clause identifies
the content of the message that the pseudo-prophets are unwilling to
preach. This reading leads in turn to another interpretive hurdle. How
do we best understand the last clause of 2:6?
Most if not all English versions identify the term “disgrace” (‫ )כלמות‬as
the subject of the verb “overtake” or “turn away” (‫יסג‬, niphal from ‫)סוג‬:
“Disgrace will not overtake us.” The problem with such a rendering is
the lack of verb-subject agreement. “Disgrace” is a feminine plural noun
and “turn away” is a masculine singular verb. While it is not impossible
for the Hebrew to yield the sense of the English translations, it is neither
preferable nor necessary.36 The phrase is best rendered: “He will not turn
away or withdraw disgraces.” Sweeney makes a compelling argument for
Yhwh as the implied subject of the masculine verb. “Yhwh will not
withdraw disgraces.”37 If such a rendering persuades, then it follows that

35
“Concerning these things” renders ‫לאלה‬. The use of the lamed before the demonstrative
pronoun may suggest a personal agent: “to these persons.” If personal agents are in view,
then this clause could be put on the lips of Micah’s opponents. The similar phrase in 2:11,
however, does not require a personal agent and leans against this reading in 2:6. The LXX
epi autois indicates an early understanding of the phrase as “concerning these things.”
36
For support of this reading, see GKC §145o, though not all the textual evidence persuades.
See John T. Willis, “Micah 2: 6-8 and the ‘People of God’ in Micah,” BZ 14 (1970): 74–75.
Willis suggests emending the text so that “disgraces” is singular, for the sake of singular
subject. Furthermore, he emends the verb to a feminine singular (‫ )תׂשיג‬for the sake of
gender agreement. The reading above avoids such textual straining by understanding
the final clause as Micah’s rehearsal of what the pseudo-prophets are unwilling to say.
Yhwh is the implied subject of the 3ms verb and the text stands in its received form.
Emendations are certainly possible and sometimes necessary. But such does not seem
the case here.
37
Sweeney, 363.
 Micah 2:1-5—Love Your Neighbor 115

the final clause is Micah’s report of what the pseudo-prophets are

unwilling to preach, namely, “Yhwh will not withdraw disgraces.”
Verse 7 continues Micah’s engagement with the pseudo-prophets.
They are unwilling to preach about forthcoming disgraces because of
their confidence in the covenant.38 Such confidences stem from the
Zion traditions and are represented in the catchwords repeated in v. 7:
“Is the Lord’s patience exhausted?” “Are these his deeds?” “Do not my
words do good to those who walk uprightly?” The verse begins with a
lexical riddle because the phrase “should this be said?” is an unattested
form (‫)האמור‬. Various suggestions and emendations for this phrase are
offered in the secondary literature: from changing the verb to “curse”
(‫ארר‬, cf. BHS) to rendering it “he affirmed the House of Jacob” with
covenantal overtones present (van der Woude).39 Like v. 6 where every
phrase begins with a negative particle, so too v. 7 begins every phrase
with an interrogative particle, suggesting that the phrase be read as it is
most often translated, “should it be said” or “is it said.”40 The first phrase,
therefore, asks “the house of Jacob” whether or not certain questions are
being asked. The questions they are asking then appear in the next three
interrogative phrases.
The first two questions of v. 7 reveal the theological confidence of
Micah’s opponents. The questions the opponents raise are rhetorical
in nature. “Is the spirit of the Lord shortened?” “Are these his deeds?”
Answer: No. The experienced difficulties of the people of God are real,
but Yhwh remains patient, so Micah’s opponents claim. Our misfortunes
are not deeds of judgment, but events requiring perseverance because
Yhwh will come to our immediate rescue. After all, Zion cannot be
shaken (cf. Pss. 46, 48). Readers may recall the prophetic squabble
between Hananiah and Jeremiah regarding the length of the Babylonian

38
Van der Woude, “Micah in Dispute,” 27–28.
39
See Waltke, 114, for the range of interpretive suggestions. See van der Woude, “Micah in
Dispute,” 27.
40
There is no textual evidence for the BHS suggestion “to curse.” See Willis, “Micah 2:6-8,”
78–79, for various textual, lexical, and grammatical options. The scribal addition of the
waw matres lectionis suggests the scribe intended to preserve the form as a qal passive
from its previous defective form (see Andersen and Freedman, 309).
116 Micah: An International Theological Commentary

conquest (Jeremiah 28). For Hananiah, the tyranny would last for two
years. For Jeremiah, it will last for seventy. The force and content of
Jeremiah’s debate resembles Micah’s contest with the other prophets.
As van der Woude clarifies, “In their [pseudo-prophets] opinion
giving credence to Micah’s prophecy of doom amounts to having no
confidence in Yahweh and in what He does!”41
The speaking voice in the last question of v. 7 is ambiguous. The phrase
reads, “Will not my words do good with the one walking uprightly?”42
The phrase is syntactically parallel to the preceding phrases with its
opening interrogative marker. Nevertheless, most commentators
understand these words as Micah’s.43 If Micah’s, the rhetorical force
of the phrase relates to the positive character of God’s word for those
who walk uprightly, and this despite their character as words of doom.
Moreover, Micah’s call to arise and flee the comfort of their land (2:10)
is a word of hope for those who have the ears to hear, to wit, those who
walk uprightly. Those committing acts of injustice and the prophetic
office that directly or indirectly lends them support are those without
the ears to hear such an injunction. Their hopes are placed on one facet
of their theological tradition to the exclusion of others.
On final analysis, however, the speaking voice of this phrase remains
ambiguous. For it could also be Micah’s rhetorical take on his opponents’
sentiments. The grammatical parallel between the three questions leans
in the direction of this reading, though this grammatical facet is not
conclusive. On this reading, the pseudo-prophets’ confidence is built
on a faulty understanding of their own uprightness, marked by hope
in Yhwh’s eventual good on their behalf. They attend to religious and
liturgical “righteousness” and the prophetic concerns of Micah cannot
attenuate their overall “right walking.” As Calvin comments, “We

41
van der Woude, “Micah in Dispute,” 28.
42
The LXX renders “my words” with a 3ms pronominal suffix “his words.” The more
difficult MT is preferred.
43
Ben Zvi links the 1cs pronominal suffix on “words” with the same suffix on “glory” in
2:9. This linkage clarifies whose words these are, viz., Yhwh (Ben Zvi, 59). The fluidity of
Yhwh’s voice and the prophet’s voice is a standard and important trait of the prophetic
literature.
 Micah 2:1-5—Love Your Neighbor 117

indeed know that hypocrites ever hide themselves under their religious
rites, and spread them forth as their shield whenever they are reproved.
Hence the Prophet says, that they were not to be deemed the people of
God for spending their labours on sacrifices, for they were at the same
time robbers, and plundered innocent men” (Calvin, 203). The relating
of Israel’s liturgical life to her lived life remains a theme throughout
the book (cf. 2:1-5; 6:1-8). Or in the words of Anglican Prayer Book
tradition, “And, we beseech thee, give us that due sense of all they
mercies, that our hearts may be unfeignedly thankful; and that we show
for thy praise, not only with our lips, but in our lives.”
Micah challenges the pseudo-prophets and their overly optimistic
religious understanding in vv. 8-10. Their prophetic words are a sham
with eyes blinded to the reality of the current and future religious
situation. As the Book of the Twelve reveals, Yhwh is indeed gracious
and patient—the leitmotif of the middot (attributes) of Ex 34:6-7 in
the Twelve. Nevertheless, his patience has a limit and the dominant
character trait of his mercy can and does elide into severity as the
middot of Ex 34:6-7 attest. God’s people are not “walking uprightly.” In
fact, they have become the enemies of God.
As readers might anticipate, interpretive difficulties present
themselves in v. 8. If the verse begins with “Yesterday” or the more
general “Recently” (‫ )אתמול‬then the imperfective verb does not seem to
work (polel ‫)יקומם‬. Moreover, the subject of the verb proves difficult to
identify, especially if this particular verb is transitive elsewhere:
“establish or erect something” (cf. Isa 44:26, 58:12, 61:4).44 This lexical
fact leads Sweeney to identify Yhwh as the subject of the verb with “my
people” (‫ )עמי‬as the object: “Recently, the Lord has established his people
as an enemy” (Sweeney, 364). A reflexive sense of the verb is not beyond
the pale, however, with the implied object as the subject: “My people
have established themselves.”45 Also, the imperfective verbal form when
linked with a temporal marker may, according to Waltke, have an

44
See H. G. M. Williamson, “Marginalia in Micah,” VT 47 (1997): 360.
45
See HALOT and DCH, ad loc.
118 Micah: An International Theological Commentary

“incipient progressive force”: “begin to rise up.”46 McKane’s suggestion

that the “my people” of v. 8 is incompatible with the “my people” of v. 9
is an overstatement. God’s people as “my people” is predicated on those
Micah seeks to protect and the nation as a whole in covenant infidelity
(cf. 1:9; 2:3; 3:5; 6:3, 5).47 Though other options are available, given the
evidence it seems preferable to translate the first clause as follows:
“Recently, my people have begun to establish themselves as an enemy.”
Micah’s rejoinder to the pseudo-prophets’ message and religious
discernment of the times comes as a jolt. The ringing comfort of the
Zion traditions apart from covenant fidelity (“you are my people”) is
now a cracked bell. Micah again launches into a prophetic injunction
against the injustices of “my people” against “my people” in vv. 8-9. The
prophetic concerns of 2:1-5 appear again with a charge leveled against
those in positions of power who exploit “my people.” They take away
the robes from those who in innocence are returning from war. A
reference to garments given as a financial pledge may be present here
(cf. Am 2:6). While the exact actions in v. 8 are difficult to identify,
the sense is clear. Those seeking to live in peace, fleeing from war, are
oppressed by those who have the power to do so. Women and children
are driven from the comfort of their lives, simple as such comforts are:
home, family, clothing, safety. These are not the actions of God’s people
as “my people.” These are the actions of God’s enemies.48
Micah levels his own prophetic word in v. 10 over against the pseudo-
prophets who announce peace when there is none. Disgraces are

46
Waltke, 117; cf. WO’C §31.3b. Waltke’s grammatical window problematizes Andersen
and Freedman’s insistence that the imperfective form necessitates emendations to the
clause as a whole (Andersen and Freedman, 315). Andersen and Freedman translate the
clause as follows: “And yesterday (against) my people he stood up as an enemy.” Though
Waltke’s readings seems the path of least resistance, Andersen and Freedman’s reading
has merit and is in accord with the overall sense of the text. “He stood up against my
people as an enemy” or “My people have begun to establish themselves as an enemy”
shares a similar semantic force.
47
McKane, 84.
48
The referent of “my splendor” is not clear. The possessive pronoun most likely refers to
Yhwh. The term “splendor” (‫ )הדר‬may have cultic connotations. Though human activity
cannot diminish God’s splendor, his glory can depart from a particular place (cf. Ezekiel,
10; see Andersen and Freedman, 322). For Waltke, “glory” is a metonymy for the physical
benefits God gave to his people (Waltke, 120).
 Micah 2:1-5—Love Your Neighbor 119

coming because of transgressions.49 This is not a time or place for rest.

This is a time to arise and flee. This is a time marked by travail or
destruction, and the destruction is painful or grievous (‫)וחבל נמרץ‬.
What lends to the grievous nature of the destruction is the double
entendre of the term “resting place” (‫)מנוחה‬. This lexeme, located in the
lexical field of “rest” (‫)נוח ;שבת‬, is a technical term for the Promised
Land. In most instances, the verb “rest” (‫ )נוח‬emphasizes the cessation
of wandering and the settling down in the Promised Land. Deuteronomy
conceptually links the verbal form of “rest” (‫ )נוח‬with the nominal form
“Promised Land” (‫)מנוחה‬. Promised “rest” is a cessation from wandering
and an alleviation of threat from the surrounding enemies. This theme
is picked up in the Deuteronomistic history as well with David in I Sam
26:19: “rest” (‫ )נוח‬is the possibility of living in the promised land
undisturbed. Yhwh identifies Zion as his habitation with the promised
land (‫ )מנוחה‬in parallel relation to his habitation (Ps 132:13ff.). Here,
God’s ‫ מנוחה‬is understood locally, as a place he inhabits. Micah’s call to
arise and flee is causally based on the reality that the promised land is
no longer theirs. “This is not a promised land.” The inheritance of the
land as a covenantal blessing, as a gift of promise, is now forfeited.
The book of Hebrews makes the threat of lost rest or lost Sabbath central to its
sermonic appeal (Heb 3:17-4:11).50 Rest in Heb 4:1 is an eschatological concept. Here,
the Numbers’ narrative of entering into the land provides a proleptic or figural picture of
the eschatological rest awaiting those in Christ. On this account, faith is understood as a
confident expectation for future security based on the gospel promises of God. Hebrews
frames the whole narrative in this eschatological vein. The warning, the perpetual plight
threatening God’s people, emanates from Heb 3:14: “For we share in Christ, if we hold on to
our initial confidence/faith until the end.”
Psalm 95 functions as an interpretive lens for the author to the Hebrews: “Today, if you
hear his voice, do not harden your hearts” (Ps 95:11). The author displays this eschatological
hermeneutic when he recognizes the Psalm as reorienting our conception of rest along
eschatological lines. The promised rest of God for his people could not be achieved in the
conquest of the land alone or Psalm 95 would become superfluous. Psalm 95’s rereading
of the Numbers’ narrative highlights the symbolic/figural role this episode plays as an
eschatological adumbration of a future day of coming rest. Hebrews follows this reading in

49
The preposition ‫ בעבור‬would typically govern a noun. This leads to several suggestions
to adjust the text accordingly (see BHS). Waltke provides a syntactical option with ‫טמאה‬
as an infinitive construct “with a nominal function” (Waltke, 121). It is “because of
transgressions” that God’s people are being destroyed/in travail.
50
See especially, Jon Laansma, I Will Give You Rest (WUNT II/98; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck,
1997).
120 Micah: An International Theological Commentary

suit. For the author to the Hebrews, Psalm 95’s promised “Today” is in fact the eschatological
“Today” shaped by the person and work of Jesus Christ, God’s final word.
Genesis 2:2 and Ps 95:11 merge horizons so that God’s seventh day of rest is itself an
anticipation for a future reality, a reality made available Today because God’s own space is a
perpetual seventh day of rest or cessation: the location from which God providentially and
redemptively governs his world. It is worth remembering the seventh day of creation is the
crowning achievement of creation, not the sixth day. As von Rad reminds, “God’s desisting
from a continuation of his work of Creation and his resting are obviously to be taken and
pondered as things in themselves.”51 God’s rest or cessation exists now, alongside and in
human history.
God’s own sabbath rest, therefore, is the space prepared for those whose pilgrim
existence awaits a future consummation and this awaiting takes place from the perspective
of Today’s assured promises. Thus, the warning: do not let the disobedience of unbelief keep
you from entering the space of God’s own cessation from his creative labors. The warning
is real, as real for these first-century Christians as it was for those under the auspice of
Psalm 95’s backward look and future warning. The struggle, the pilgrimage, the holding fast
with confidence to the saving promises of God entail the burden of faith and the promise
of eventual cessation or rest. The loss of such rest in Micah’s prophecy attests to the real
dangers that remain for the people of God when the obedience of faith no longer marks
the community of faith. Mere religiosity is no substitute for the obedience of faith in Micah
and in Hebrews.
Micah resumes his invective against the pseudo-prophets in v. 11,
rounding off this section with a lexical inclusio: “preach/ing” (‫)נטף‬. In
vv. 6-7 Micah rehearses what the pseudo-prophets are unwilling to
preach. Now in v. 11, the prophet provides an outline of the kind of
preaching more in tune with the pseudo-prophets’ religious and social
outlook. Their “going” is in a deceptive spirit. They lie.52 The metaphoric
reference to “wine” and “strong drink” gives a clear sense of the effect
of the pseudo-prophets’ preaching. Their preaching has an intoxicating
effect on the hearers, dulling their senses and judgment regarding the
reality of their precarious position and the truth of God’s word. Micah’s
warning bears the marks of Paul’s injunction to Timothy: “For the time
is coming when people will not put up with sound doctrine, but having
itching ears, they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their
own desires, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander

51
von Rad, OTT I, 147 n.23.
52
The sense of the first line of v. 11 is straightforward. The syntax, however, has some
hurdles. The Masoretic accentuation separates “spirit” (‫ )רוח‬and “deception” (‫)ׁשכר‬.
Otherwise, a nominal hendiadys works handsomely as a modifier of “the man” walking:
“a man walking in a deceiving spirit” (see Arnold and Choi, 148). The fact that “he lies”
(‫ )כזב‬is typically intransitive supports the linking together of “spirit” and “deception.”
Wolff understands “spirit” in the sense of “windy” or “unstable” (Wolff, 84). Mays
references Hos 9:7 where “man of the spirit” is a title for the prophet, indicative of a
prophet’s ecstatic state.
 Micah 2:1-5—Love Your Neighbor 121

away to myths. As for you, always be sober, endure suffering, do the

work of an evangelist, carry out your ministry fully” (2 Tim 4:3-5). The
conditional character of v. 11 runs as follows: If a person comes with a
deceptive spirit, preaching intoxicating sermons that are a smoke screen
to the truth, then this is the preaching of the people; this is the preaching
“my people” listen to with open ears but with blind eyes to the truth.

Micah 2:12-13: Lead on, O King Eternal

With the last two verses of Micah 2, readers encounter the book’s first
words of hope. The exile spoken of in 2:6-11 is an antecedent reality
from the viewpoint of 2:12-13. Salvific promises are given to Jacob that
despite incurred and suffered judgment, Yhwh’s saving arm is not too
short that it cannot or will not redeem. Jeremias is right to describe
these two verses as a contextual “surprise” (überraschend).53 They catch
the reader off guard given the preceding and forthcoming contextual
themes. It may not come as a surprise, however, that the understanding
of these verses are contested. Not all are persuaded by the hopeful
character of these words.54
John Calvin and Marvin Sweeney, strange as the combination of those
names might appear, concur on their reading of this text. Both believe the
context of judgment leading to and following from these two verses is not
broken. Rather than painting a picture of Jacob breaking free from their
captivity and following after their Shepherd King, Calvin and Sweeney
see Yhwh leading his people into their exile or judgment. While this
reading is not followed by many in the secondary literature, it does have
merit. The phrase “it will resound with people” (‫ )תהימנה מאדם‬may carry a
negative connotation: “they will be discomfited or confused with the

53
Jeremias, 154.
54
Ibn Ezra read these verses as the pseudo-prophets’ continued words of false promise.
Van der Woude also believes 2:12-13 continue as Disputationswort. He admits the case
is harder to make for these verses, yet he remains convinced (van der Woude, “Micah in
Dispute,” 36–37.
122 Micah: An International Theological Commentary

people.”55 Also, the term “breaking out” (‫ )פרץ‬tends to have a destructive

sense (cf. 2 Ki 14:3; 2 Chr 25:23; Isa 5:5; Hos 4:2). The destructive sense of
the term does not tip the interpretive balance because a positive reading
of this text accounts for this sense: walls of captivity being torn down.
Still, Sweeney believes the overall sense of this clause is the leading away
from protective walls into the dangerous open.56 For Sweeney, vv. 12-13
are the actualization of the “calamitous plan” Yhwh devices in 2:3.
Calvin agrees. After nodding in the direction of those who read this
text as a word of hope, Calvin demurs, following in the interpretive
direction of Sweeney. “[F]or I see not how the Prophet could pass
so suddenly into a different strain.”57 In fairness to Calvin’s logic,
commentators who see this as a word of hope often do so on the basis
of redaction-critical reconstruction.58 They agree with Calvin regarding
the disjointed nature of the text and provide a diachronic rationale for
this disjunction. Such interpretive options are not available to Calvin
nor can we assume Calvin would have taken them if offered.59 Calvin’s
interpretive sensibilities range close to Sweeney’s. It is the lexical
character of the text that leads to his understanding of it.

It follows, Ascend shall a breaker before them; that is, they shall be led
in confusion; and the gate shall also be broken, that they may go forth
together; for the passage would not be large enough, were they, as is
usually done, to go forth in regular order; but the gates of cities shall be
broken, that they may pass through in great numbers and in confusion.60

55
Sweeney, 366.
56
Ibid.
57
Calvin, 211.
58
See Mays, 74.
59
It is worth noting that van der Woude’s understanding of these verses as Micah’s retelling
of the pseudo-prophets’ message trades on the dating of this text. For those who see these
words as words of hope, then the texts are typically dated to the exile. This redaction-
critical instinct can be traced to Stade in the late nineteenth century. Van der Woude
is not convinced 2:12-13 stems from the exile but is still operating with the standard
redaction-critical logic. These are not words of hope. The warning of Benjamin Sommer
addressed in the introduction speaks to this text as well. This text’s dating should not
trade on its positive or negative judgment. Such dating of texts becomes too brittle, or in
Sommer’s expression, a species of “pseudo-historicism.”
60
Calvin, 213.
 Micah 2:1-5—Love Your Neighbor 123

For Calvin, like Sweeney, Yhwh is leading his people into the exile of
his judgment.
While there is much to commend in the reading of Sweeney and
Calvin, the scales do tip in the favor of a more positive or hope-filled
interpretation. The language of “survivors” (‫ )ׁשארית‬suggests a positive
construal with the view of judgment having already taken place.61 It
seems unlikely the survivors or remnant are targeted for further
judgment: one recalls the redemptive movement of Isaiah into ch. 40.
The imagery of a Shepherd also lends itself to the protective and
redemptive character of vv. 12-13. The picture of a Shepherd gathering
his lost flock—the survivors—and breaking them free from their
captors seems more fitting than the Shepherd gathering his flock for
judgment (cf. Ps 23).62
The language of “gathering” (‫)קבץ‬, according to Wolff, “denotes the
bringing together and reuniting of Israelites scattered across the nations
(cf. Isa. 40:11; 43:5; Jer. 23:3; 31:10; Ezek. 34:13; Zeph. 3:19).”63 These
opening words of v. 12 are analogous to the words of comfort in Isa
40:1-2. They, like Isa 40:1-2, are untethered to a particular historical
moment, though form-critical hypothesis are not wanting. Rather,
these verses remain open to the future, witnessing to the character of
God’s covenant with his people. God’s word of judgment remains open
to his eventual word of comfort and redemption. He will surely gather
Jacob, all of you. The awkward syntax “all of you” (‫ )כלך‬speaks to the
far-ranging scope of Yhwh’s eventual salvation. He will gather them all.

61
See Nogalski, 541.
62
Andersen and Freedman believe it is possible that “Bozrah,” the capital of Edom, may
have been a center for sheep shearing (Andersen and Freedman, 339). Ben Zvi suggests
that readers should not ignore the link between Edom and Babylon (cf. Ps 137:7-8; Ben
Zvi, 66). Ben Zvi follows Wolff on this reading. Wolff believes the reference to Bozrah
as a city speaks to the foreign captivity of God’s people (Wolff, 85) and lends itself to
furthering the redemptive character of these verses.
63
Wolff, 85. See the discussion of ‫“ יחד‬together” as it was received by the Qumran
community, i.e., God gathering the exiles into a community, in Richard Bauckham,
Gospel of Glory: Major Themes in Johannine Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic,
2015), 27. At the end of the day, Bauckham sees no connection between John’s use of
“one” and the Qumran community.
124 Micah: An International Theological Commentary

Admittedly, the last phrase of v. 12 is obscure. The following is a literal

gloss: “they will be noisy or in turmoil from a man.”64 Understanding
the phrase is a challenge: (1) a man (singular) may be responsible for
the tumult of the community (causative reading); (2) the community
may be in tumult because there is no man or men (privative reading);
(3) the flock may be noisy because of men; in other words, the flock
is bustling with the noise of people ready to break free; (4) “Man” or
“Adam” might be a defective spelling of “Edom,” especially given the
reference to Bozrah in the preceding clause (Andersen and Freedman,
340). Waltke understands the phrase in its basic and straightforward
sense. There is a tumult among the flock because of a lack of a man or
a lack of a human shepherd.65 This vacuum of leadership created by the
judgment of God will in time be filled by that selfsame God. Waltke’s
reading fits the overall context well, especially given the character of
Yhwh as providing the Shepherding they so desperately need and are
without. Still, the phrase remains clouded in obscurity.
The metaphor of the Shepherd morphs in v. 13 to more militaristic
imagery. The “one breaking through” will go up before them and lead
them out of the gate, presumably the gate of their captivity.66 The last
line of v. 13 is striking. “Their king” travels before them, and Yhwh is
at their head. “Their king” leading them from captivity is the unveiled
identity of “the one breaking through” in the previous line. But how
many figures are in view here? It is possible that two figures emerge
in the last line: “their king” and Yhwh (cf. Hos 3:5). If two figures are
in view, then the renewed Davidic figure as Yhwh’s human agent and
representative works in conjunction with the primary leadership of
Yhwh, as the last clause intimates. Or one figure may be in view, namely,
Yhwh. The poetic relation of the two lines may suggest the overlap of
identities: “their King” is Yhwh. In the latter reading, Yhwh emerges in

64
Andersen and Freedman describe the phrase “from a man” as “utterly baffling” (Andersen
and Freedman, 340).
65
Waltke, 135.
66
Though see Mays, 75–76. The antecedent of ‫ בו‬could be “the gate.” “And they will go out
through it.” Or the antecedent could be implied Yhwh. “And they will go out with him.”
Given the next clause, the latter is preferable.
 Micah 2:1-5—Love Your Neighbor 125

these two verses as Israel’s Shepherd, the One who breaks through, their
King and Leader.67
Calvin’s reading of this text is addressed above in conversation with Sweeney. Calvin
demonstrates his willingness to swim in his own interpretive stream, though certain voices
from the medieval Rabbinic stream of interpretation support his reading (e.g., Ibn Ezra).
Whether Calvin is engaging this stream, we cannot be sure. Martin Luther’s reading of these
verses ranges closer to the reading on offer in this commentary. Micah is presenting his first
words of redemptive hope on the far side of judgment. Or in Luther’s terms, Micah moves
from the “impious pontiffs and priests who were taking over everything” to “the eternal,
spiritual kingdom of Christ” (Luther, 227). Luther’s prophetic hermeneutic is on display in
this text. The prophets, according to Luther, speak firstly about judgment and the external
kingdom of Israel and then move to the spiritual and eternal kingdom of Christ. Luther’s
reading follows an empirical observation about ancient Israel, namely, the promises made
and the encompassing language used therein—“all”—were never fully realized for the
Kingdom of Israel per se. Luther’s reading, in concert with most readings from this period
of time, is supercessionist of the economic kind. The reference to Jacob is a reference to
all humanity (Luther, 228). And while we may rightly challenge Luther’s understanding of
“Jacob” as a placeholder that in time becomes untethered to empirical Israel (cf. Rom 9-11),
his relating of this text to the gospel is a step in the right interpretive direction.
From the vantage point of a two-testament canon, the blessing promised to all, the
deliverance of Yhwh’s people from judgment, and the forward glance of hope all relate
substantially to the person and work of Jesus Christ. Jesus as “Son of God” relates on the
level of shared substance to the history of the covenant between Yhwh and Israel, a history
marked by election, rejection, and future promise. Luther’s instinct to read 2:13 as a verse
untethered to a particular historical phenomenon—viz., the Neo-Assyrian incursions of
the late eighth century—allows him the space to understand the true captivity of Jacob
and humanity: “Satan, sin, the Law, death, and the entire old Adam” (Luther, 229). For
Luther, when Christ says, “Be of good cheer. I have overcome the world” (Jn 16:33), He
speaks in terms of fulfilling the forward-looking hope of Mic 2:12-13. “In this way,” claims
Luther, “the Lord is our Head, that is, our Leader and Conqueror. As He Himself has
broken through, so also we are going to break through through Him” (Luther, 229). Luther
also follows the interpretive space created by the language of the last line of 2:13 when he
claims, “From this text—although it appears to be vague—it is very clear that Christ is both
God and man, that He died and rose again, that He ascended to the Father and now rules
eternally, etc.” (ibid.). As mentioned in the comments above, the relating of “their king” and
Yhwh in 2:13 is open to a couple of syntactical options. Still, the reading Luther offers here
with his Trinitarian metaphysic in full gear is a fair reading of the ontological space created
by the verbal character of this text. In a sense, Luther has his syntactical cake and eats it too.
“Their king” and Yhwh are indeed the same figure in essence but differ from one another
in person. Therefore, “their king” and Yhwh are the same and distinct at the same time in
Luther’s reading, and such a reading is not at odds with the verbal character of the text in
light of Scripture’s theological metaphysic. After all, in a Christian hermeneutic the literal
sense of Scripture resists separation from its Trinitarian subject matter.

67
See Andersen and Freedman, 341. Yhwh as King on the far side of Israel’s judgment is an
important theme in the canonical shaping of the Psalter (cf. Pss 95-100).
126
 3

Micah 3—Prophetic Recapitulation

and Justification

Introduction

Micah 3 revisits the prophetic themes of ch. 2. The invectives against

the disordered desires of the powerful and the self-serving nature of
the prophetic office appear once again. The themes of ch. 3 are not new,
though Micah’s prophetic voice in ch. 3 draws on pointed metaphors
that serve to enhance the malevolent character of the deeds performed
by political and religious leaders. Though Micah has been fighting bare-
knuckled from the beginning of this book, ch. 3 leaves little doubt that
the gloves are on the ground. In a compare-and-contrast movement,
Micah provides evidence for his own integrity and authenticity as Yhwh’s
prophet over against the pseudo-prophets introduced in ch. 2. He does so
first and foremost by drawing attention to the effective power of the Spirit
in his prophetic office. The evidence of the Spirit’s power and presence
is manifest in Micah’s willingness to call a spade a spade regarding the
transgressions of the political and religious halls of power. Eventually,
Zion will come undone because of the failures of Judah’s leadership. What
was once the mountain of the Lord will in time become a wooded height
whose memory boasts of a once thriving political and religious center.

3:1-4: Contra injustice

Chapter 3 begins with a contextual puzzle: “And or But I said” (‫)ואמר‬.

The puzzle relates to the kind of speech-reporting attested in the text’s
128 Micah: An International Theological Commentary

final form and the lack of surrounding narrative with which to link it.
One would expect this kind of grammatical form (wayyiqtol) in a larger
narrative context. Yet the current setting has none, despite whatever
historical or diachronic contexts we might reconstruct. The answers to
this puzzle are varied and sundry—from textual-critical suggestions
that the text should be read as “And he said” (cf. LXX) to redaction-
critical hypothesis that the phrase was added in order to link to the
preceding material, to diachronic suggestions that the editors heisted
this section from an original narrative when shaping Micah’s corpus.1
Whatever the diachronic history of this syntactical conundrum, there is
little to no evidence that the current form of the text should be altered.2
As noted in the previous chapter, van der Woude understands
2:12-13 as a continuation of Micah’s characterization of the pseudo-
prophets’ message. Rather than a word of hope from Micah, 2:12-13
are false words of weal from those in prophetic office.3 While having
some contextual merit, this reading was found wanting. Nevertheless,
van der Woude’s suggestion that 3:1a begins with “And or But I said” as
a contrast to the false words of hope outlined in ch. 2 provides a helpful
handle on this grammatical form in its current literary setting. This
reading does not rest on van der Woude’s understanding of 2:12-13,
reaching back as it does to the deceptive preaching practices on display
in 2:11.4 As 3:8 makes plain, Micah is unflinching when he compares
and contrasts his own prophetic ministry and that of the pseudo-
prophets. In this contextual light, ch. 3 begins a sharp counterpoint to
the message on offer by Micah’s opponents in ch. 2.

1
For an array of explanatory options, see John T. Willis, “A Note on ‫ ואמר‬in Micah 31,”
ZAW 80 (1969): 50–54. See also, Ben Zvi, 75–77; Wagenaar, Judgement and Salvation,
242–43. It is worth noting Wolff ’s redaction-critical suggestion that ‫ ואמר‬is a later
insertion by Micah himself as early tradent of his own material. Wolff finds wanting
Lescow’s hypothesis that this section was originally included in a larger autobiographical
narrative (Ich-Bericht) (Wolff, 95). Cf. Theodor Lescow, “Redaktionsgeschichtliche
Analyse von Micha 1-5,” ZAW 84 (1972): 47–48.
2
The genetic history of the LXX’s reading supports the move from the wayyiqtol form to
the weqatal.
3
Van der Woude, “Micah in Dispute,” 36.
4
Andersen and Freedman note this link, suggesting that it provides further evidence for
2:12-13 as a later interpolation (Andersen and Freedman, 349). See Jeremias, 160.
 Micah 3—Prophetic Recapitulation 129

The connections between 2:12-13 and 3:1 tip and tuck into each
other as, once again, “Jacob” and “Israel” come into view. As observed
earlier, the eponyms “Jacob” and “Israel” emerge from the religious
traditions of the preexilic world as the prophets of the eighth century
applied them to the Southern Kingdom and its capital in Jerusalem.5
Moreover, 2:13 ends with a hopeful and positive portrayal of Yhwh at
the head (‫ )ראׁש‬of the redemptive parade. The kingship of Yhwh as one
who leads his people away from harm and into safety is set over against
the “leaders of Jacob” (‫ )ראׁשי יעקב‬in 3:1 who in point of fact lead in the
opposition direction. These leaders are held to account as this section
begins with summons “to hear” (‫)ׁשמע‬, a summons that resembles the
beginning of Micah’s prophecy (1:2) and indicates the coherence of
chs 1–3.
These political leaders and the political office they hold remain in the
abstract. Jeremias is right to note that the designations, “leaders” and
“rulers,” do not represent particular political offices per se.6 Rather, for
Jeremias, the language includes those in civil and military leadership.
The description of the second group, “rulers of the house of Jacob,” may
have militaristic overtones. Elsewhere, the term “rulers” (‫ )קציני‬indicates
leadership in military matters (cf. Josh 10:24; Judg 11:6,11). In the Judges
reference, the terms “leader” and “ruler” are applied together to Jephthah
because of his role as military commander against the Ammonites.7
While the term may refer to military leaders in this context, readers
cannot be sure.8

5
See Hillers, 43; Williamson, “Judah as Israel.” Williamson does not believe the
terminology “house of Jacob” is simply the application of an appellative for the Northern
Kingdom to the Southern. In fact, such terminology is not found for the Northern
Kingdom per se. Rather, the term indicates its source in the Zion traditions of the First
Temple (Williamson, “Judah as Israel,” 84–87). Williamson accounting of the evidence,
scant as it is, differs from Jeremias who suggests that Israel language was applied to the
Southern Kingdom after the fall of Samaria (Jeremias, 160).
6
Jeremias, 160.
7
See Sweeney, 369. See DCH, ad loc.
8
Andersen and Freedman are hesitant to allow military connotations into this context.
The military context of the term in Joshua and Judges is centuries removed from Isaiah
and Micah. Andersen and Freedman see little reason to believe the term remains
unchanged in referent during this period and most likely refers to political leaders with
no necessary military overtones (Andersen and Freedman, 349).
130 Micah: An International Theological Commentary

Whatever the civil office occupied by these leaders, they were the
gatekeepers of “justice” (‫)מׁשפט‬.9 It was within their civic responsibility
to serve the cause of justice. Micah levels a heavy rhetorical question
in their direction: “Should you not know justice?” Of all people, the
leaders of Judah should know their responsibility and Yhwh’s deep
concern and care for justice. Their own leadership should be marked by
this knowledge and concern.10 Jeremias draws attention to an allusion
to Hos 5:1 in Mic 3:1. In the Hosea text, the terms “house of Israel”
and “justice” are brought together in service of an invective against the
leaders of the Northern Kingdom. Jeremias points out that the sins of
the Northern Kingdom have indeed reached the gates of Jerusalem
as the Hosea text reaches now into a Judahite provenance (cf. 1:9).11
Moreover, the description of these leaders in 3:2a as “haters of good
and lovers of evil” harkens back to Am 5:15. There too the leaders of the
Northern Kingdom are castigated for their lack of justice, the context
of which breathes the same air as Micah 3. In Am 5:15, the leaders are
called to a repentance marked by “loving good and hating evil.” The
opposite is the case for the Northern leaders in Amos’s purview and
the same sins of injustice in the ruling class have made their way to the
Southern Kingdom as well (again, cf. 1:9).12
In Mic 3:1, the term “justice” is introduced for the first time, though
the concerns of justice have been with readers since ch. 2. What is
the “justice” civil leaders are to know? As mentioned before, much of
the sociopolitical culture of Judah is based on the hierarchy of a Zion
theology with Yhwh at the apex moving down to religious and political

9
Readers may recall Jethro’s advice to Moses regarding shared leadership in the judicial
load of ancient Israel (Exodus 18). These leaders, as archetypes of the ideal leaders of
Israel, were to be “able men among all the people, men who fear God, are trustworthy,
and hate dishonest gain” (Ex 18:21).
10
Waltke claims that “to know” (‫ )ידע‬entails both intellectual and emotional knowledge.
Citing Renaud, Waltke understands this “knowledge” to include personal concern and
sympathy for those the law is meant to protect and not mere intellectualism in the
application of the law (Waltke, 155).
11
Jeremias, 160. Jeremias also draws attention to Hosea’s preference for the term “to know”
(kennen) and its presence here in Micah for further support of the intertextual allusion.
See also, Andersen and Freedman, 351.
12
See Nogalski, 546.
 Micah 3—Prophetic Recapitulation 131

leaders and then to the common person. A chain of beneficence from

top downs holds the sociopolitical/ethical culture in order and is based
on the election and redemption of Israel by the loving initiative of
Israel’s God. This redemptive and electing logic and order will come
into view again in Mic 6:1-8. Those in whose hands “justice” is held
have forgotten this order. They lack knowledge. The ruling class, as
explained by Andersen and Freedman, “had executive function, and
his responsibilities were to secure the right for the offended party
by making a just decision and by seeing that it was carried out.”13
These adjudicatory responsibilities should be based on knowledge,
presumably knowledge of Torah and legal traditions. Yet, as Micah 6:1-8
will make plain, more than intellectual knowledge is in view here. This
legal knowledge includes a theological rationale for just judgments, to
wit, the electing and covenantal love of Yhwh for Israel.
The situation is worse, however, than a broken judicial system.
The gatekeepers of justice are its worst offenders. The “haters of good
and lovers of evil” are themselves purporting gross acts of injustice
(cf. Ezek 34:2-3).14 The scene is indeed gross, and Micah details a
shocking metaphor to make his point. As more recent metaphor theory
has made us aware, metaphors provide access to reality. Rather than
mere rhetorical ornaments, metaphors are avenues by which a thing
is discovered and without which the fullness of the thing remains
attenuate.15 It is one thing to say the leaders of Judah no longer
broker justice and, in fact, purport acts of injustice themselves. Such a
proposition claim is true and indicting, even if tame. It is quite another
thing to say the following: “[They] tear the skin off my people, and the
flesh off their bones; who eat the flesh of my people, flay their skin off
them, break their bones in pieces, and chop them up like meat in a
13
Andersen and Freedman, 351.
14
Isaiah portrays the true successor of David as one who would establish the monarchy
with “righteousness and justice” (Isa 16:5). Jeremiah speaks of Josiah in the same vein
because of his concern for the poor and needy (Jer 22:15-16). See Moshe Weinfeld,
Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic School (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1992), 155.
15
Notably, George Lakoff and Mark Johnson, Metaphors We Live By (Chicago: University
of Chicago Press, 2003). See also, Charles Taylor, The Language Animal: The Full Shape of
the Human Linguistic Capacity (Cambridge: Belknap Press, 2016), 156–64.
132 Micah: An International Theological Commentary

kettle, like flesh in a caldron” (Mic 3:2b-3).16 Micah’s metaphor provides

readers with a deeper sense of the reality of injustice. The metaphor
evokes cruelty and indifference, a kind of banality of evil, to borrow
a phrase from Hannah Arendt. Instead of protecting “my people,” the
civil leaders are eating them.
There are consequences to such cruelty and indifference. Verse 4
reveals the conditional character of this unit. Since the actions of vv. 1-3
remain, “then” (‫ )אז‬the following divine response will occur.17 Yhwh will
not answer them when they “cry out” (‫ )זעק‬to him. It was Israel’s “cry”
of oppression that drove Yhwh to redemptive action in Exodus (3:7).
The remembrance of their ancient cry of oppression was the shared and
lived memory meant to fuel the just actions of Judah’s civil leaders.18
Micah seems to play here on the ironic twist of fate for Judah’s leaders,
much like he does in Mic 2:1-3. They pay no heed to the oppressed and
their cries for justice. So too Yhwh will not listen to them when they cry
out to him, when they seek an answer in their moment of need.
Moreover, Yhwh will hide his face from them. Here the prophet draws
from a rich and frightening Old Testament theme: the hidden face of
God.19 God hiding his face is the reversal of the life-giving promise of the
Aaronic blessing (Num 6:24-26). We know from the Aaronic blessing of
Number 6 that the shining face of God is Israel’s only hope of security and
peace. The shining face of God is our only place of safety or in the words
of the Anglican Prayer Book tradition: “Only in Thee can we live in safety.”

16
The term for “tear” in 3:2b is the same for “stealing” in 2:2 (‫)גזל‬. The linguistic layers here
play into Micah’s metaphor and real concern.
17
VVv. 1-3 are a suppressed protasis made clear with the apodosis of v. 4 (see HALOT, ad
loc).
18
Wolterstorff makes the following claim: “The idea is that those with social power in
Israel are to render justice to the vulnerable bottom ones as a public remembrance, as a
memorial, of Yahweh’s deliverance of Israel from Egypt” (Nicholas Wolterstorff, Justice:
Rights and Wrongs [Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2008], 80); see also Gordon
McConville, “Biblical Law and Human Formation,” Political Theology 14 (2013): 633.
He states, “The people’s former condition as impoverished slaves who depended on
deliverance by a compassionate God should govern their attitude both to themselves and
to the poor among them (Deut. 24:18).”
19
Cf. Deut 31:17, 18; 33:20; Isa 8:17; 54:8; 64:5 (64:4 MT); Jer 33:5; Ezek 39:23, 24, 29; Pss
13:1 (13:2 MT); 22:25; 27:9; 30:7 (30:8 MT); 69:17 (69:18 MT); 88:14 (88:15 MT); 102:2
(102:3 MT); 143:7; Job 13:24; 34:29. See Sweeney, 370.
 Micah 3—Prophetic Recapitulation 133

Safety from what? Safety from ourselves. Safety from the Evil One. Safety
from God. Hans Urs von Balthasar put the matter clearly. “When God
hides his face everything created dies away, and when he again turns his
face towards creation everything awakens to new life.20” The restoration
of all things entails the turning of God’s face toward his people (cf. Ps 80).
The future moment Micah prophecies—“that time” (‫—)בעת ההיא‬is a
moment of divine concealment, divine hiding. The day of the Lord in
Mic 3:1-4 shares in the same imagery of the day of the Lord in Mic 2:3.
This day is a day of disaster. As announced in Micah 1, so too the theme
continues here in ch. 3 regarding the location of Judah’s culpability. All
of these harrowing moments will occur because of the evil deeds of
Judah’s leadership class. Judah’s leaders had forgotten, and their
forgetting was no benign oversight. The entirety of Judah’s civil stability
would come undone because of it.
In Nicholas Wolterstorff ’s Justice: Rights and Wrongs, he draws attention to a distinction
made by philosophers between two kinds of justice: distributive/commutative and rectifying/
corrective.21 The latter category speaks to the proper ordering of society by various civil
and legal entities. Rectifying justice becomes necessary when distributive justice has broken
down.22 Wolterstorff ’s interest is to provide a philosophical and theological account for the
primacy of distributive/commutative justice or what he refers to as primary justice. Justice
understood in this way is independent of rectifying justice and speaks to the inherent rights
of human beings as human beings. Those who attenuate this category in favor of rectifying
justice often do so because, in their view, distributive justice is a modern phenomenon
whose origins can be traced to the rise of Enlightenment ideals in the seventeenth century.23
Wolterstorff finds this narrative wanting and makes his case for the primacy of primary
justice, tracing its roots to the Hebrew Scriptures and New Testament. As one would expect,
Wolterstorff gives ample attention to the prophets in his account of primary justice in the
Old Testament. When he does so, Wolterstorff enters into an appreciative debate with
Oliver O’Donovan’s The Desire of Nations.24 For O’Donovan, the Old Testament concept
of justice (mishpat) is first and foremost rectifying justice.25 Justice on this account is the
making right of wrongs. And while this element is certainly present in the Old Testament
concept of justice—Micah 3 is a case in point—Wolterstorff believes O’Donovan’s thesis
is a reduction. While affirming the etymological roots of mishpat as juridical in nature,

20
Hans Urs von Balthasar, The Glory of the Lord: A Theological Aesthetics, Vol. VI, (trans.
B. McNeil and E. Leiva-Merikakis; ed. J. Riches; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1991), 69.
21
Wolterstorff, Justice, ix.
22
Ibid.
23
Ibid., xii.
24
See the critical interaction between O’Donovan and Wolterstorff regarding the language
of “rights” or “right” or justice as inherent justice or right order. Oliver O’Donovan,
“The Language of Rights and Conceptual History,” JRE 37 (2009): 193–207; Nicholas
Wolterstorff, “Justice as Inherent Rights: A Response to My Commentators,” JRE 37
(2009): 261–79.
25
Ibid., 68–75.
134 Micah: An International Theological Commentary

Wolterstorff wonders if O’Donovan’s understanding of the term is right to leave it there.

Wolterstorff concludes his engagement with O’Donovan by engaging texts where mishpat
has a primary sense as well that goes beyond those responsible for juridical judgments (e.g.,
Mic 6:8). Wolterstorff concludes, “My conclusion is that just as we use our word ‘justice’
to speak of both primary and rectifying justice, so Israel used its word “mishpat” to speak
of both. Israel’s writers move seamlessly back and forth between these two applications of
the term, as we do. A second conclusion, more important because it goes beyond linguistic
usage, is that one cannot think in terms of rectifying justice unless one recognizes the
existence of primary justice and injustice.”26 Micah 3:1-3 operates well in the distinctions
Wolterstorff provides. The legal mechanisms of rectifying justice given to those in positions
of civil leadership are, as mentioned above, built on a Zion theology moving down from
Yhwh at the apex to the common person. Yhwh’s beneficence flows to all those under his
protection as his face turns to shine on them. When Micah describes the cannibalistic
patterns of Judah’s leaders, he identifies those fileted as “my people.” Such an appellation
speaks to the necessity of primary justice as the governing concern of rectifying justice.
Wrongs are to be righted because those under the purview of Judah’s leadership are not
their people but Yhwh’s.

3:5-8: Prophetic comparing and contrasting

or against the prophets

The movement of ch. 3 mirrors ch. 2—from civil leaders/the powerful

to the corrupt prophetic office. After Micah addresses the crooked
leaders in vv. 1-4, he then turns his attention once again to the prophets
in vv. 5-8. Micah describes these prophets as “those who lead astray my
people” (‫)המתעים את־עמי‬. Readers observed a species of their preaching
in 2:11, marked as it was by lies and deception with the result of a
swooning audience. Once again, Micah describes their prophecies as
causing “my people” to go into error. The term “leading astray” or
“wandering” can also refer to a drunken stupor (cf. Isa 28:7). They are
being misled and intoxicated by the prophets into error. The prophets’
agency was intended to provide divine guidance, yet they abandon this
vocational priority for baser things. Amos also renders his judgment
against Judah because their lies “lead them astray” (cf. Hos 4:2).
Jeremiah’s jeremiad against the Shepherds and Prophets in Jeremiah 23
speaks repeatedly of their actions “leading astray” God’s people (Jer
23:13-32). To lead God’s people into error is a serious charge. As Calvin

26
Ibid., 75.
 Micah 3—Prophetic Recapitulation 135

remarks on this unit, “For anyone who flatters sinners and allows them
to sleep in their filth, while at the same time encouraging them to
believe that all is well, is a seducer of souls.”27 Micah charges the
professional prophets of Judah as those who lead into error and whose
concerns center on self-interest rather than divine address.
“[M]oney talks louder than God.”28 Mays characterizes the situation
well when he describes the prophets in this way. It should be noted that
payment for prophetic services rendered or a particular professional
class of prophets is not Micah’s explicit concern here.29 Micah’s stated
concern is the malleable state of the prophets’ message. The jejune
translation “when they have something to eat” does get at the quid
pro quo nature of the prophets’ enterprise. When the prophets have
something to eat or are paid properly for their services, then they give
the kind of message the one paying wishes to hear: “Peace!”
The language, however, suggests a more sinister scene. As
Anderson and Freedman observe, “to bite” (‫ )נׁשך‬never refers to mere
“mastication.”30 “Biting” carries with it the necessary image of teeth,
rendering the activity of the prophets as snake-like in nature (cf. Gen
49:17; Num 21:8ff.).31 The malleable nature of their message according
to payment rendered and the desired result of the ones paying is biting
and deadly. Readers would be remiss to forget the cannibalistic
imagery of the leaders in the previous verses. In their efforts to
maximize their profit margins, the prophets lead the people astray and
show their fangs all along the way. Therefore, as long as the prophets
are properly paid, they are happy to render the desired results for those
who pay.
The opposite scenario is the case as well. When they do not have
something in their mouth, they “sanctify war against him.” This phrase
is somewhat obscure, though we find the phraseology elsewhere to

27
Calvin, Sermons, 155.
28
Mays, 83.
29
Cf. I Sam 9:6-10; Am 7:12. See Mays, 83; Sweeney, 371.
30
Andersen and Freedman, 362.
31
See HALOT, ad loc.
136 Micah: An International Theological Commentary

speak of preparations for war (Jer 6:4; Joel 4:9). Micah may have his
tongue in his cheek at this moment. Those responsible for holy or
sanctified actions in fidelity to Yhwh’s word are making personal holy
wars against those unwilling or unable to meet their demands. Wolff
points out that these false prophets are willing to preach a message of
doom as well.32 In other words, they are not prophets of weal alone.
Nevertheless, the content of their message—doom or salvation—rests
on their own desired ends not on the will of Yhwh.
As readers descend their way into the heart of Dante’s Inferno, they arrive at the eighth
and next to last circle of hell: the Malebolge (evil ditches). Dante designates the eighth circle
for the Fraudulent and Malicious. As this circle descends lower and lower, Dante and Virgil
have to navigate a series of ditches (Bolgia), with each ditch assigned to a particular class
of Fraudulent and Malicious persons. Readers in Dante’s day, as in ours, are stunned with
the people they find in this lowest region of hell, especially in the third ditch (Canto XIX).
Therein Dante and Virgil encounter the Simoniacs, or “sellers of ecclesiastical favors and
offices.”33 Prue Shaw describes Simoniacs with the following: “Those guilty of this sin are
men of the church (priests, friars, cardinals, popes) who buy and sell things of the spirit
(church sacraments and ministries), perverting their true meaning and value by treating
them as an opportunity for personal material enrichment.”34 The term “Simoniac” stems
from the narrative of Simon Magus and his offering of money to Peter for spiritual gifts
(Acts 8:9-24). Peter rebukes Simon Magus for his offering and calls him to repentance for
his actions.

O Simon Magus! O you wretched crew

who follow him, pandering silver and gold
the things of God which should be wedded to
love and righteousness! (Canto XIX, 1–4)

When Dante and Virgil descend into the third Bolgia, an arresting and awful scene
opens before them. The ditch is speckled with holes, and from the holes the legs and feet of
sinners are protruding as their bodies are hidden upside down. Shaw describes the scene:
“As flames lick over the sinners’ feet, they kick to alleviate the pain. The scene is as surreal
and disturbing as any Dante has yet encountered.”35 As Dante approaches, he observes one
set of protruding feet as in more agony than others. Dante presses closer to identify the
man. When asked for his identity, the suffering man believes his questioner is Boniface, the
pope. But it is not Boniface; it is Dante. When the man finally identifies himself, he does
so with the following line: “that the Great Mantle was once hung upon me.”36 The suffering
man was the previous pope, Pope Nicholas III. He then describes what is below him in the
hole, namely, the previous popes who came before him, each one displacing the previous as
they descend lower into the rocks.

32
Wolff, 103.
33
Dante Alighieri, The Divine Comedy: The Inferno, The Purgatorio, and the Paradiso (trans.
J. Ciardi; New York: New American Library, 2003), 149.
34
Prue Shaw, Reading Dante: From Here to Eternity (New York: Liveright Publishing
Corporation, 2014), 43.
35
Ibid., 44.
36
Dante, Divine Comedy, 151 (Canto XIX, 66).
 Micah 3—Prophetic Recapitulation 137

Ah Constantine, what evil marked the hour—

not of your conversion, but of the fee
the first rich Father took from you in dower! (Canto XIX, 109–11).

Dante is, of course, a poet and political writer whose portrayals are not absent his
own political and personal vendettas. Nevertheless, the charge of simony from Dante in
the thirteenth century shares in the material concern of Micah’s prophetic worry in ch.
3. Similarly, much of the indulgence controversy in the late fifteenth and early sixteenth
centuries had simony as the primary concern.37 Again, payment for religious services
rendered do not come under the prophet’s critical scrutiny. As Paul reminds us, “muzzle
not the ox” (1 Cor 9:9). Rather, the concern is the character of those in religious office
whose ministry no longer operates under the authority of God and his authoritative word
but under the auspices of personal self-interest and avarice.
As the leaders of vv. 1-4 had consequences commensurate with their
actions, so too do the prophets in vv. 5-8. “Therefore” (‫ )לכו‬connects
v. 5 to vv. 6-7. Because of their simony, their visions and divinations will
grow dark. The daytime will become nighttime as the sun sets on them.
The exact referent of the metaphors here is open to debate. Sweeney
believes Micah is being ironic because dreams and visions often took
place at night or during a dream-like state (cf. 1 Samuel 3; Genesis 15).38
Isaiah makes use of similar imagery to describe God’s judgment against
the soothsayers and diviners operating outside of Yhwh’s word (Isa
8:22). On this reading, which appears as the standard one, the diviners
and seers are thrown into confusion, into darkness and night, because
their visions will cease.39
Andersen and Freedman offer another reading where the metaphors
“darkness” and “setting sun” are apocalyptic in nature (cf. Ezek 32:7-8;
Joel 2:10; Am 5:18-20; Zeph 1:15). In other words, Micah is not claiming
that their visions will dry up, for as Andersen and Freedman remark,
a diviner or seer could concoct a vision at any time with their mantric
instruments. Remember, these figures are for hire. “Their system could
never fail.”40 Rather, the “sun setting in the daytime” speaks of the ensuing

37
See Scott H. Hendrix, Martin Luther: Visionary Reformer (New Haven: Yale University
Press, 2015), chs 5–7; Heiko A. Oberman, Luther: Man Between God and the Devil (New
Haven: Yale University Press, 2006), 187–92. Oberman is especially helpful, given the
discussion of Dante above, for placing Luther’s concerns about papal/clergy abuse in a
medieval context. Luther’s ideas did not emerge in a vacuum.
38
Sweeney, 371–72.
39
See Mays, 84.
40
Andersen and Freedman, 373.
138 Micah: An International Theological Commentary

judgment God will unleash on Judah. Their shame in v. 7 relates to the

failure of their prophetic office (cf. Jer 28:9). Their intoxicating message
of peace was in fact a deception. Andersen and Freedman’s reading
should not be ruled out, though the last line of v. 7 provides support for
the standard reading: “for there is no answer from God.” The cause of
their shame is the lack of divine revelation. God no longer speaks. The
famine Amos warned of, a famine of the Word of God, was upon them
(Am 8:11). The famine of God’s Word leads these prophets to shame and
the covering of their mouths (literally, “moustache”). Mouth covering
was a sign of public grief (Ezek 24:17-22). The visible action was also
associated with unclean lepers (Lev 13:45).41 The force of their shame is
public and a visible scourge to the community. Whatever religious power
they levied before the darkness is now a faint memory for the prophets.
Now they are a public embarrassment who have nothing to say.
Micah sets his own prophetic ministry in sharp distinction from the
pseudo-prophets and their self-serving vocational objectives (v. 8). The
opening word of Micah’s retort indicates this antithesis and the sharp
rhetoric he is using (‫ ;אלום‬cf. Job 2:5). Unlike the pseudo-prophets,
Micah is filled with a strength that manifests itself through his courage
to bring an unpopular and hard message (cf. Isa 58:1). Micah’s message
is not for hire, making Micah here and Peter in Acts 8 cobelligerents
against those who believe God’s Word and power can be bought. Yet,
Micah’s strength is derivative strength. It does not flow first and
foremost from an internal quality of his being. Micah’s strength and
power come from the Holy Spirit.
The grammar of v. 8 is a challenge because it appears as if Micah is
filled with two objects: strength, justice, and might and the Holy Spirit.42
Despite the difficult grammar, readers do well to hold these two

41
Waltke cites Allan who notes the irony that the covering of their mouths may also speak
to the fact that they have nothing to say (Waltke, 165).
42
Andersen and Freedman do well to challenge the editors of the BHS who dismiss the
clause “with the Holy Spirit” because it breaks up the triad “strength, justice, and might”
(Andersen and Freedman, 376). The verb “to fill” (‫ )מלא‬is qal, rendering the phrase more
stative in sense. If a piel, then the Spirit could be viewed as the filling agent, but the qal
form may be predicated on the one filled or the filling substance. According to Andersen
and Freedman, Yhwh should be viewed as the unstated filling agent (ibid., 377).
 Micah 3—Prophetic Recapitulation 139

together. Micah’s strength, justice, and might derive from his being
filled with the Holy Spirit. Like the promise of Isa 40:25-31, Yhwh
provides strength and power to the weary because of the greatness of
His might (Isa 40:26). It is a pointed and direct claim for Micah to place
his prophetic ministry in contradistinction from the civil and religious
leaders he has just castigated in vv. 1-7. Over against the civil leaders,
Micah’s ministry is marked by “justice” (‫)מׁשפט‬, and readers of the
prophets know that Yhwh loves justice (cf. Isa 61:8). Moreover and
contra the pseudo-prophets, Micah is willing and enabled to announce
to the leaders of Judah their sin and their revolt against Yhwh. Micah’s
message is not his own. It is forever stamped as “the word of Yhwh” that
has come to him (Mic 1:1).
In his reading of the debate between Jeremiah and Hananiah
(Jeremiah 27), Childs makes clear that the problem of the false prophets
was not one of “hermeneutics.”43 Or put in other terms, the challenge of
true prophecy was not a psychological one but a theocentric challenge.
“What is God’s purpose?”44 This is the prophetic question. Jeremiah
remains open to God changing his stated purpose, but such a change
will stem from God’s revelation of his purposes and not a hermeneutical
or psychological strategy of the prophet (Jer 28:6-9). Childs concludes,
“This passage has nothing at all to do with Jeremiah’s ability to time
his prophecy correctly, nor does he differ with Hananiah merely in
the practice of hermeneutics. No, the content of Hananiah’s message is
wrong … The test of the truth lies in God who makes known his will
through revelation.”45 So too with Micah. His prophetic office, marked
as it is by strength, justice, and might, bears the marks of the power
and filling of the Holy Spirit. “We can do nothing to advance the praise
of God,” Calvin reminds, “unless God grants us, first of all, the grace
to do it.”46 Micah’s message rings with authenticity because Micah is
empowered and enabled by Yhwh and His Spirit.

43
Brevard Childs, Old Testament Theology in a Canonical Context (Philadelphia: Fortress
Press, 1989), 136–37.
44
Ibid., 139.
45
Ibid.
46
Calvin, Sermons, 165.
140 Micah: An International Theological Commentary

For Micah, his being filled with justice flows from the power of the Spirit. Being filled
with the Spirit and being given to primary and rectifying justice, to use Wolterstorff ’s
terminology, are related to each other as cause and effect. The one flows necessarily into the
other. Todd Billings speaks of the duplex gratia in Calvin’s theology. On Calvin’s account,
justification and sanctification for the Christian both flow from the grace given in Christ.
And this grace is made effective by the agency of the Holy Spirit. Participation in Christ is
a participation in His righteousness as passive gift and the activity of new life in Him. As
Billings summarizes,

The new life received in Christ by the Spirit bears fruit in acts of justice in our
lives, yet the new life is a gift. In ourselves, we are not the source of this good—
our actions of justice are not the good news of the gospel. Rather, our actions that
display love of God and neighbor reflect the gift of new life received in Christ
through the Spirit.47

Reading this theological account onto Mic 3:8 is a figural reading of the tropological
kind. There are certainly discontinuities between the prophetic office and Christian
existence that need to be taken into account.48 Still, the logic with which Micah operates
does properly order the theological relation between human agency and the Spirit’s effectual
work. Faithful acts of justice require the antecedent work of the Spirit’s power and effectual
presence.

3:9-12: Trickle down divine displeasure

The final unit of ch. 3 is Janus-faced, looking back to conclude chs 1–3—
observe the call to “hear” (‫ )ׁשמע‬at 3:9 as a linguistic inclusio with 1:2—
and opening up to the promise of restoration in the following chapter.49
Jerusalem’s destruction will come. Yet in the synchronic form of the
book, destruction is not Yhwh’s final word (4:1-5). A silver lining of
hope outlines the devastating promises of 3:9-12, though the cloud of
forthcoming destruction looms large.
Again, the prophetic word takes into view the civil and religious
leaders spoken of in the early verses of the chapter. Micah castigates
Judah’s “heads” and “rulers.” We learned in vv. 1-3 of the cannibalizing
activities of Judah’s civil leaders. Those in whose hands the
responsibility for justice rests are in fact its chief offenders. Micah

47
J. Todd Billings, Union with Christ: Reframing Theology and Ministry for the Church
(Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2011), 108.
48
See Childs, Old Testament Theology, 137.
49
See Jean M. Vincent, “Michas Gerichtswort gegen Zion (3,12) in seinem Kontext,” ZThK
83 (1986): 169.
 Micah 3—Prophetic Recapitulation 141

leans into these offenders as he describes them as haters of justice and

benders of uprightness (3:9b; cf. Am 5:10). As Jeremias observes, vv.
9b-11 do not advance Micah’s message (Botschaft) per se (Jeremias,
165). Readers already have a clear picture of the injustice policies
and actions of the political and religious leaders of Judah. Rather,
the characterization of the addressees comes more fully into view
along with the concretization of their unjust acts (Jeremias, 165). The
political and religious leaders are unjust in the following concrete
ways: (1) they mistreat people; (2) they accept bribes; and (3) they
affect a pious self-security.50
Micah describes the civic leader’s mistreatment in relation to the
building programs in Judah’s capital: Zion. Zion and Zion-related
themes run through this subunit, providing the location for Micah’s
invective and the misguided conceptual/theological framework of
the addressees affected piety. Zion is built with blood.51 This similar
phraseology is found in Hab 2:12 and in Jeremiah’s diatribe against
Jehoiakim’s oppressive building campaign (Jer 22:13-17). The term
“bloodshed” or “built with blood” does not necessitate a literal flow of
blood, though such cannot be ruled out. Rather, as Jeremias observes,
the term “bloodshed” (Blutschuld) speaks of serious guilt (schwerste
Schuld; Jeremias, 165). The shedding of blood is an offense against
God who alone has the authority to give life (“blood”) and take it
away.52

50
See Wolff, 106.
51
The phrase in the MT contains a singular participle, “the one building” (‫)בנה‬. If this is
the case, then Micah has a particular figure in view, perhaps the unnamed king (see
n. 49). The LXX renders the phrase with a plural participle, as do most translations.
Andersen and Freedman are right to identify this move as an attempt to harmonize with
the more difficult singular participle preferred. Jeremias understands the singular form
of Hab 2:12 to have influenced Micah’s phraseology (Jeremias, 165). Waltke makes a
case for understanding “to build” (‫ )בנה‬as an infinitive absolute in epexegetical relation
to the verbs of v. 9. Waltke has his misgivings about “to build” as a participle because
it would require the definite article if functioning as a substantive in a relative clause
(Waltke, 178). If an infinitive absolute, then the subject is not a singular king per se but
the general “heads” and “rulers” identified in v. 9. Waltke’s suggestion is appealing and
avoids speculating about the text’s corruption.
52
Jeremias, 165.
142 Micah: An International Theological Commentary

The historically particular events Micah has in view are not made
clear.53 Again, with Ben Zvi, the final form of the book leaves these events
nondescript and thus open to future events in mimetic relation to them.
Jeremias suggests the intertextual relation between Mic 2:10 and Hab 2:12
encourages the reciprocal reading of the two texts. “Bloodshed” in Mic
2:10 should be read in light of the various acts of “bloodshed” described
in the near context of Hab 2:12 (2:6ff).54 The civic leaders are not the only
leaders in view, however. The prophets and, in their first appearance in
Micah, the priests are all placed on level plain of leadership and culpability.
The civil leaders offer judgments according to a price. Prophets offer
visions for hire, presumably with the outcome of the visions shaped
according to the level of remuneration. Priests, whom Wolff describes as
the stewards of the Torah (cf. Deut 33:10; Hos 4:6), adjust their sacred
teachings in light of the lining of their pockets.55 While their spheres
of leadership and vocational responsibilities differ from one another in
certain measures, the entirety of the political and religious spheres of
leadership are guilty of bribery (cf. Isa 1:23; 5:23). When Jerusalem falls,
and in time it will (cf. Jer 26:18), the responsibility will rest on the shoulders
of these guilty leaders. Their sacred responsibilities can be bought.
Perhaps the most disconcerting charge Micah levels against the civic
and religious leaders has to do with their feigned piety and religious
confidence (v. 11b). While taking bribes, offending Yhwh’s care for
justice, and compromising their own divine office, they continue in

53
Mays (89), et al. (106–07), see Micah the lowlander in conflict with the building programs
of Hezekiah. The historical and biblical records attest to his aggressive building program.
There is support for this understanding in Jer 26:18-19. See Ben Zvi who claims that not
mentioning the king by name is standard practice in prophetic literature. This text is a
case in point (Ben Zvi, 86–87). Ben Zvi also provides a rationale for why post-monarchic
scribes might hesitate to name the king in the formation of the literature (ibid.). The
quick move to identify Hezekiah as the culprit causes pause, though it is not beyond the
pale. Andersen and Freedman provide compelling evidence for why Ahaz, also named
in the superscription, is a more fitting historical referent (Andersen and Freedman,
382–83). Nevertheless, with Waltke from a grammatical standpoint and Ben Zvi from
a redaction-critical standpoint, identifying a particular king as the historical referent of
the building program appears unnecessary given the text’s final literary form.
54
Jeremias, 165.
55
Wolff, 107. The verb “to teach” (‫ )ירה‬relates to Torah and identifies the teaching of the
priests with the interpretation and application of Torah.
 Micah 3—Prophetic Recapitulation 143

liturgical acts of worship and lean confidently on their half-baked

Zion theology. “Surely the Lord is with us!” Jeremiah chides such
liturgical shortsightedness in his temple sermon. “Do not say, this is
the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord”
(Jer 7:4). Liturgical language associated with temple worship became
disassociated with the claims of the living God on their lives and actions.
The Zion theology of the civil and religious leaders was a feeble
crutch and a blinding veil to the whole of Yhwh’s covenantal claims on
his people.56 As Wolterstorff summarizes,

The prophetic critique of the cult is grounded in the conviction that the
point of the liturgy is to give symbolic expression to the commitment of
our lives to God. The point of liturgy is not the performance of certain
self-contained actions such as confession and praise, no matter how
sincere and appropriate those actions … Liturgy is for giving voice to
life oriented toward God. This we learn from the prophetic insistence
that the words and gestures without the life disgust God.57

Micah joins the prophetic chorus as he speaks against religion or

liturgy divorced from the totality of a worshipping life. For as Micah
understands the situation, overweening religious confidence bred an
ethical callousness among Judah’s leadership class. With a biblical
theological gesture, Wolff ends his comments on 3:9-12 with a reference
to Jesus’s disconcerting saying in Matt 7:21-23:

Not everyone who says to me, “Lord, Lord,” will enter the kingdom
of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven.
On that day many will say to me, “Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in

56
Steck makes the following interpretive claims: “[I]n the thematic unit of Mic 3:9-12,
circulating around Zion/Jerusalem, the formulation that YHWH is in the midst
(beqereb) of the inhabitants of Zion (3:11) points to the concept of the protective
presence of YHWH on Zion (cf. the corresponding formulation and the context Ps 46:6;
Jer 14:9; and Zeph 3:15,17).” Odil Steck, Old Testament Exegesis, 130 n. 159. On Zion in
Isaiah and Micah, see especially Gerhard von Rad, OTT II, 155–69.
57
Nicholas Wolterstorff, Hearing the Call: Liturgy Justice Church and World (ed. M. R.
Gornik and G. Thompson; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011), 52–53. See also, R. W. L.
Moberly, “‘In God We Trust’?: The Challenge of the Prophets,” Ex Auditu 24 (2008):
18–33.
144 Micah: An International Theological Commentary

your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many deeds of
power in your name?” Then I will declare to them, “I never knew you;
go away from me, you evildoers.”58

The interpretive instinct to highlight certain quarters of the canonical witness to the
exclusion of others has a long history in the Church’s interpretive tradition. Such instincts are
analogous to the confident claims of Judah’s rulers regarding Zion’s indestructability. To use
a modern, Christian colloquialism, they had Bible verses on their side (e.g., Pss 46 and 48).
So too did Arius in the fourth century, along with just about every heterodox instinct in
the Church’s long struggle to identify God and His will for the church and humanity. The
Scripture principle resides somewhere near the heart of Reformation thought. For Karl
Barth, the Scripture principle is for Reformed confessional writings the articulus stantis et
cadentis ecclesiae (“the article upon which the church stands or falls”).59 Barth defines the
Scripture principle as follows: “The church recognizes the rule of its proclamation solely in
the Word of God and finds the Word of God solely in Holy Scripture.”60 For the Reformed
Orthodox theologians, Scripture was the principium cognoscendi theologiae or the locus
of theology’s rational exercise of seeking to order faith and life.61 The Scripture principle
therefore includes within its range the slogan Sola Scriptura, a term that does not entail the
dismissing of tradition but its proper dogmatic location in relation to Scripture’s priority
and authority.62 Sola Scriptura as a Reformation slogan is well known and well attested.
Its counterpart, however, is not as well known, to wit, Tota Scriptura. As Fred Klooster
reminds, “The Scriptural principle involves both sola Scriptura and tota Scriptura, and the
complex question of hermeneutics is raised.”63 He further explains, “Thus the question
of sola Scriptura calls for attention to tota Scriptura at the same time; not only ‘Scripture
alone’ but also ‘the whole of Scripture,’ the entire canon, is at stake.”64 On this account,
the Christian canon as Old and New Testaments is formally and materially sufficient. As
Childs claims, “Canon functions to sketch the range of authoritative writings. It establishes
parameters of the apostolic witness within which area there is freedom and flexibility. It
does not restrict the witness to one single propositional formula.”65 The Reformation
instinct to bring the whole of the canon into view is no novum in the church’s life, taking its
cue from a Pastristic instinct to seek the “mind” (dianoia) of Scripture or its “scope” (skopos)
in the canon’s entirety. Frances Young allows Cyril of Alexandria’s interpretive techniques in
his John commentary to model this Pastristic concern to hear the whole of the canon even
when attending to particular texts.66 Several “techniques” emerge from Cyril’s commentary
for Young, but for our purposes the third is worth highlighting. “Cross-references are

58
Wolff, ad loc.
59
Karl Barth, The Theology of the Reformed Confessions (Columbia Series in Reformed
Theology; trans. D. L. Guder and J. J. Guder; Louisville: WJK, 2002), 41.
60
Ibid.
61
See Richard A. Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics: The Rise and Development
of Reformed Orthodoxy, ca. 1520 to ca. 1725; Volume Two, Holy Scripture: The Cognitive
Foundation of Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003), ch. 3.
62
See Webster, Holy Scripture, ch. 2.
63
Fred H. Klooster, “The Uniqueness of Reformed Theology: A Preliminary Attempt at
Description,” CTJ 14 (1979): 39.
64
Ibid.
65
Brevard Childs, Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments: Theological Reflection
on the Christian Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992), 724.
66
Frances Young, “The ‘Mind’ of Scripture: Theological Readings of the Bible in the
Fathers,” IJST 7 (2005): 131–36. See also, Frances M. Young, Biblical Exegesis and the
 Micah 3—Prophetic Recapitulation 145

made to discern the overall ‘mind’ or ‘sense’ intended by the biblical authors.”67 Such an
interpretive instinct is pursuant to a confession of faith regarding Scripture’s unity and
divine author. “So Paul,” says Young, “is used to interpret John without embarrassment,
as is the Old Testament.”68 The canonical witness with all its diversity and breadth of range
must come into view when the church seeks to order its faith and life in accord with God’s
revealed Word. Moreover, the kerygmatic content of Scripture as God’s saving revelation of
Himself in Jesus Christ by the Holy Spirit keeps clear the common goal and subject matter
of Scripture’s diverse voices in the Old and New Testaments.69
God does not remain motionless in the face of the religious platitudes
and unjust actions of Jerusalem’s civil and religious leaders (3:12).
Judgment ensues. And Micah leaves no doubt as to its cause. Zion’s
destruction will occur because of “you (pl.)” (‫)בגללכם‬. The leadership
class is to blame. Micah 3:12 speaks of Zion being plowed as a field.
With a play on words, Zion and Jerusalem will become a heap of stones
(Zion ‫ זיון‬becomes Eyeen ‫)עיין‬. As Samaria became a heap of stones in
1:6, so too will Jerusalem become a pile of stones. The “wound from the
north” is now indeed at Jerusalem’s gates.
The “mountain of the house” (‫ )הר הבית‬refers to the temple and is a
pregnant reference because the leadership class has placed undue
confidence on their Zion and Temple theology. The temple will in time
become a high place of the forest. As Jeremias observes, temples are
not normally found in the forest (Wald).70 Zion will become an
overgrown mountain with little to no indication of civilization. The
imagery is hyperbolic, yet the hyperbole reveals the true extent of
Jerusalem’s forthcoming destruction. Readers observed Yhwh treading
on the “high places” of the earth in 1:3 and now 3:12 reintroduces the
“high places” (‫ )במות‬once again at this critical juncture of the prophetic
book. The reference to the high places in 1:3 served as a double
entendre to reinforce the prophet’s focus on idolatry. The high places
were metonyms for the idolatrous worshipping practices Micah speaks
of in the first chapter. Here, however, the term “high places” function

Formation of Christian Culture (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2002), ch. 2; John J. O’Keefe and
Rusty Reno, Sanctified Vision: An Introduction to Early Christian Interpretation of the
Bible (Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 2005).
67
Ibid., 133.
68
Ibid., 14.
69
Childs, Biblical Theology, 725.
70
Jeremias, 167.
146 Micah: An International Theological Commentary

more as a metaphor than metonym. In other words, idolatry per se is

not the charge Micah brings against Judah’s leadership class. Rather,
the prophetic word speaks against their unjust practices, abuse of their
divine office, and religious confidence and self-satisfaction. Given the
manifest intertextual relation between the end of the Micah 3 and
Micah 1, the referent to “high places” is no accident. In fact, it
reinforces by means of a metaphoric rapier thrust that despite their
temple worship—externally pure as it might have been—their actions
betray that worship, rendering them as idolatrous as those in view in
Micah 1.
A further word about the reception of this text is in order. Few
of the so-called writing prophets refer to other prophets by name. A
well-known exception to this general tendency is Jeremiah’s reference
to Micah in the closing arguments of his trial for treason (Jer 26:17-
19). Jeremiah appeals to “Micah of Moresheth” who prophesied in the
days of Hezekiah and then proceeds to offer a direct quote from Mic
3:12.71 Jeremiah offers a historical commentary on Mic 3:12 in light
of the redemptive effect Micah’s words had on Hezekiah. Jeremiah’s
explanation illuminates the character of the prophetic word in the
context of lived covenantal relations. Not only did Hezekiah not seek
to take Micah’s life—a lesson Jeremiah hopes Jehoiakim will heed—the
prophetic word was effectual. It led Hezekiah to fear and repentance
in the hopes that the disaster might be avoided. And indeed, it was.
The prophetic word as it pertains to the plan of God is, in Jeremias’s
terms, “no iron law” (kein ehernes Gesetz).72 Rather, the prophetic word
is announced in all of its terror with unstated qualifications of reprieve
attendant to it. God may relent and is predisposed to do so in the face
of repentance. Such is his character (Exodus 32-34; Ezek 33:11). Jonah’s
prophetic book sits comfortably with Jeremiah’s view of the prophetic
word in the face of lived human/divine relations. Unfortunately for
Jonah, Yhwh’s relenting character of grace extends to all the nations.

71
Holladay observes that the quotation is almost word for word. William L. Holladay,
Jeremiah 2 (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989), 108.
72
Jeremias, 167.
 Micah 3—Prophetic Recapitulation 147

Though Micah’s threat to King Hezekiah did not eventuate in that

historical moment, Micah’s prophetic word remained open to the
future for kings, like Jehoiakim, who do not take Hezekiah’s path of
repentance. Jeremiah’s closing arguments to King Jehoiakim include
this tacit assumption about the reach of Micah’s threat to the current
moment.
Micah 3:12 marks the halfway point in the Book of the XII. The large note in the
Masorah Parva identifies Mic 3:12 as “the half or mid-point of the book by verses”
(‫)חצי הספר בפסוקום‬.73 This feature of the text seems to go unnoticed in most of the
commentary literature but suggests the effort taken by those shaping the XII to accomplish
this phenomenon. Christopher Seitz describes Mic 3:12 as the Good Friday of the XII,
situated as it is before Micah 4 and its Easter Sunday hope.74 In other words, the critical
juncture at the end of Micah 3 and the beginning of Micah 4 speaks to the heart of the
XII’s literary achievement (both literally and figuratively). The space between death and life
resides at the center of the XII’s canonical shape, witnessing as it does to the character of the
God to whom Micah and the XII witness. A striking portrait of God’s severity and mercy
is strategically located at this crucial juncture in the XII’s final form.75 For Yhwh is the One
who does not allow death a final word, severe as such a word is, but opens the darkest of
human experiences to the future of saving redemption. For Seitz, the location of Mic 3:12
also speaks to the prophetic books’ bending of time according to an eschatological frame of
reference. Events, figures, prophetic warnings, words of hope do not follow one another on a
sequential and logical pattern of unfolding temporal moments, easily plotted and identified
in the course of human history—see the discussion above regarding Jeremiah’s reception of
Mic 3:12. Instead, these words and events figure for us our own engagement with history as
types and patterns by which faithful existence is measured and by which faithful existence
understands God’s judging and saving engagement with his world.

73
See Page H. Kelly, Daniel S. Mynatt, and Timothy G. Crawford, The Masorah of Biblia
Hebraica Stuttgartensia: Introduction and Annotated Glossary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1998), 86. The commentary on the Masorah Parva in the BHQ makes no reference to this
note.
74
Seitz’s comments on Mic 3:12 are found in Christopher Seitz, The Unique Achievement of
the Book of the Twelve: Neither Redactional Unity or Anthology (SBL Baltimore, 2013).
75
Seitz, Prophecy and Hermeneutics, 237.
148
 4

Micah 4—Between Then and Now

Introduction

As mentioned at the conclusion of the previous chapter, the ending

of Micah 3 and the beginning of Micah 4 reside at the center of the
Twelve both literarily and theologically. The severity of Yhwh’s
judgment leaves a stark impression on the reader in view of Zion’s
ruinous state. Yet as the middot of Exodus 34 assert, the acuity of
Yhwh’s severity is in an imbalanced relation to the generosity of His
mercy. The former gives way in time to the latter with the literary
movement from Micah 3 to 4 attesting to this gracious prerogative of
Israel’s God. Zion will not remain plowed as a field, a ruinous heap
of stones echoing of a civilization long lost. In time, Zion will arise as
the highest of mountains with the nations streaming to it in search of
Yhwh’s tutelage. The result of this moment is an era of universal peace
where instruments of warfare become agrarian tools and the beauty of
a simple life is affirmed.
The focus of Micah 4 is the first five verses, and the balance of the
following comments will tip in favor of this unit. The latter two-thirds
of the chapter (4:6-5:1 [4:14 MT]) move between the future moment
witnessed to in the first five verses and the here and now. In sum, the
move from the end of chapter three into chapter four mirrors in reverse
the movement from a future focus in 4:6-7—“in that day”—to the
present moment here and now in 4:8-5:4 (5:3 MT)—“but you” (‫;ואתה‬
4:8; 5:1 MT) and “now” (‫ ;עתה‬4:9, 11; 5:1 [4:14 MT]). The hoped-for
future promised by Yhwh does not resemble the current moment, the
150 Micah: An International Theological Commentary

“now,” Micah’s prophecy addresses. Hence, Mic 4:8 is a central text in

the move from future promise to current moment as the prophetic
word addresses the reader in the here and now to look with hope for the
then and there: “And you, O tower of the flock, hill of daughter Zion, to
you it shall come, the former dominion shall come, the sovereignty of
daughter Jerusalem.”

Micah 4:1-5—Established Zion and streaming nations

The striking overlap between Mic 4:1-5 and Isa 2:1-4 has piqued
interest for some time.1 Even Martin Luther had an opinion on the
diachronic relationship between the two. “We find this prophecy,” says
Luther, “almost to the word, in Is. 2 also. It definitely seems to me that
Isaiah took his from Micah.”2 Luther’s rationale is straightforward,
even if simplistic: Micah was older than Isaiah (or so Luther suggests);
therefore, material common to the two is probably borrowed from the
younger Isaiah. Sorting out the diachronic problems did not bog Luther
down nor did his opinion on the priority of Micah play any material
role in his exegesis.
Matters are more complex now for those seeking to relate these two
texts together and wishing to make sense of where Micah and Isaiah
as prophetic books go their respective ways. The shared and divergent
material between the prophetic corpi bearing these prophets’ names
has led some to identify a bona fide debate between Micah and Isaiah
regarding the character of the era of universal peace promised by
these prophetic words. The following question makes the interpretive
differences plain: Does Mic 4:5 present the nations in the future reign of

1
“There is no question that both texts record the same saying; they are so nearly identical
that the minor differences hardly show in translation.” James Luther Mays, Micah, Old
Testament Library (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1976) 94.
2
Martin Luther, “Micah,” in Luther’s Works: American Edition (ed. H. C. Oswald; Saint
Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1975), 18: 236.
 Micah 4—Between Then and Now 151

Yhwh as continuing in the worship of their gods, while Judah recognizes

the validity of Yhwh alone or not?3

Who’s first; who’s better?

The diachronic relationship between Micah 4 and Isaiah 2 has puzzled

interpreters for some time. Enough has been said on this matter
elsewhere so that I will not bog down the discussion with a detailed
taxonomy.4 Though not exhaustive, a sampling of diachronic viewpoints
are as follows:

1. Micah borrowed from Isaiah, the eighth-century prophet

(Wildberger).
2. Isaiah borrowed from Micah, the eighth-century prophet
(Cannewurf).

3
The “conflicted” reading of Mic 4:5 vis-à-vis Isa 2:1-4 is by no means a consensus
reading. It is, however, gaining an ascendency within the secondary literature. Sweeney
claims, “True inter-religious dialog comes not from the assertions that all religions—or
any religion for that matter—are fundamentally the same; it comes from the recognition
of the differences between them and affirming the right to differ while holding to the
integrity of one’s own viewpoint. Indeed, that principle is articulated in Mic 4:1-5”
(Marvin A. Sweeney, TANAK: A Theological and Critical Introduction to the Jewish Bible
[Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2012]), 489. Sweeney’s more detailed textual argument for
the “debate” between Isaiah and Micah can be found in Marvin A. Sweeney, Form and
Intertextuality in Prophetic and Apocalyptic Literature, FAT 45 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck,
2005), 210–21. Sweeney and Nogalski in their respective commentaries on Micah
conceive of no other option. Yoram Hazony’s recent The Philosophy of the Hebrew Bible
states without reservation, “Nor can one harmonize Isaiah’s claim that in the time of the
king to come all the earth will have one God with the prophet Micha’s vision, in which
each nation will walk with its own god, and Israel will walk with theirs.” Yoram Hazony,
The Philosophy of Hebrew Scripture (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012), 41.
The point is not to deny Hazony’s larger concern, namely, there is a diversity of theological
and political outlook within the Hebrew Bible. Different accounts for understanding this
diversity are available. Nevertheless, the point here is more modest. The “discrepancy”
between Micah and Isaiah may not provide the corroborating evidence Hazony assumes
it does. Benjamin Sommer unreservedly affirms Sweeney’s reading: “Even in the
eschaton, the other nations will relate primarily to their own gods, turning to Yhwh
only when conflicts among them necessitates recourse to a higher authority.” Benjamin
D. Sommer, The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2009), 165.
4
Andersen and Freedman give perhaps the best taxonomy. Andersen and Freedman,
2000, 413–27.
152 Micah: An International Theological Commentary

3. An earlier prophecy or tradition was borrowed by each prophet

or circle of tradents independently of the other (Mays finds this
option most promising).
4. An oracle not original with Isaiah but within the Isaianic
tradition was later adapted into the book of Micah or vice versa: a
redactional version of options 1 and 2 (Stade takes the postexilic
view; likewise Wolff).
5. Related to 4, the shared material between Isaiah and Micah
reveals these two books are products of the same tradents who
were responsible for collecting, expanding, and shaping the
material (Childs).5

A few comments regarding these options are in order. The first two are
self-explanatory on the surface of things. After Wildberger, the eighth-
century view has lost a hold in critical discussions. Isaiah’s borrowing
from Micah is a minority view with few supporters. Hillers describes
the attempt to resolve the problem “fatuous” and settles that options
1–3 are all possible.6 In the process of transmission, so Freedman and
Anderson, Micah’s poetic form remains more stable and less edited
than Isaiah’s and is, therefore, closer to the “original.”7 Andersen and
Freedman’s claim here does not answer the question of priority, as the
compositional history itself may obfuscate the problem. Williamson
likewise believes Micah’s text is perhaps “superior” to Isaiah’s but is
quick to attenuate the statement’s significance for drawing conclusions
about the relative priority of either passage.8
Regarding option 3, it could be suggested Micah and Isaiah are borrowing from the
liturgical tradition of the cult. It has long been noted that Zion theology exerted a pressure
on Isaiah, the eighth-century prophet, and the book that bears his name. The Zion theology
present in Psalms such as 46, 48, and 76 emerge from this cultic milieu, though care should

5
Brevard S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Christian Scripture (Philadelphia:
Fortress Press, 1979), 438–39. Christoph Levin suggests something similar in his “Das
‘Vierprophetenbuch’.”
6
Delbert R. Hiller, Micah; A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Micah (Hermeneia;
Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984), 53.
7
Andersen and Freedman, Micah, 420.
8
H. G. M. Williamson, Isaiah 1–5 (ICC; London: T&T Clark International, 2006), 166.
Williamson argues for a late exilic or postexilic setting for the shared oracle of Isaiah and
Micah (Isaiah 1–5, 176).
 Micah 4—Between Then and Now 153

be taken once comparisons between these Psalms and Isaiah/Micah begin.9 One glaring
distinction between these Psalms and Isaiah 2/Micah 4 is the relationship of the nations to
Zion. In the Psalms the nations are brought in by force, while they enter willingly and safely
in Isaiah and Micah.
Moreover, dating the Psalms is tricky business. Few argue against the antiquity of the
Zion traditions. The dating of the Psalms and the antiquity of the traditions are two related
but distinct matters.10 Day identifies the inviolability of Zion and the Völkerkampf motif
of the Zion psalms as stemming from Canaanite/Jebusite traditions. He resists the notion
of moving these Zion psalms, or at least an early form of them, to the Josianic period or
later.11 The differences between Isaiah 2/Micah 4 and the Zion psalms are not alleviated
on this account, even though the Zion theology present in the Zion psalms was available
to Isaiah and Micah, the prophetic personae.12 Where differences are observed between
Isaiah/Micah and the Zion psalms, however, the creative freedom of the prophets need not
be underestimated. Is it not possible they are adapting certain aspects of the temple’s liturgy
to the concerns of the given moment much in the same way, say, that Reformation liturgies,

9
Williamson challenges Wildberger’s arguments for Isaianic authorship at this juncture.
Williamson, Isaiah 1–5, 175–77. Wildberger’s argument for the eighth-century date rests
on the anteriority of the Zion psalm tradition. Williamson affirms the early dating of
these Psalms but recognizes the difficulty of securing these dates. He also sees points of
divergence between Isa 2:2-5 and the Zion psalm tableau.
10
See Ollenburger, Zion the City of the Great King; Levenson, “Zion Traditions,” ABD
6: 1098–1102; Hans-Joachim Kraus, Theology of the Psalms (Minneapolis: Fortress
Press, 1992), 78–84; Hossfeld and Zenger identify the Zion theology “as an Israelite
interpretation of the pre-Yahwist Jerusalem theology and an assimilation of common
ancient Near Eastern ideas.” Psalm 76, for example, could deploy this Zion theology
within the “mythic complex” of an anti-Assyrian perspective. Frank-Lothar Hossfeld
and Erich Zenger, Psalms 2 (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2005), 263. von
Rad, OTT II, 157. Day, however, understands the Völkerkampf motif of the Zion psalms
as a nonhistorical cultic motif whose source is Canaanite mythology—observed most
notably in the reference to Zion as Zaphon in Ps 48:3. John Day, God’s Conflict with
the Dragon and the Sea: Echoes of a Canaanite Myth in the Old Testament (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1985), 127.
11
Day, God’s Conflict with the Dragon, 125–40. Robert Miller offers a sociological
understanding of the Zion psalms’ Sitz im Leben: what function did these Psalms
have in defining society. He concurs with Mowinckel et al., that the Zion psalms defy
identification with a particular historical event. Robert D. II Miller, “The Origin of the
Zion Hymns,” in The Composition of the Book of Psalms (ed. Erich Zenger; Leuven:
Peeters, 2010), 672.
12
Stansell’s tradition-critical work on Micah and Isaiah finds an “Isaianic” influence on
Micah wanting. Where similarities are present, according to Stansell, it is due to the
shared resources in Judah’s traditions: theophanic and Zion traditions in particular.
Stansell leans against any notion of Micah, the eighth-century prophet, as an epigone
of Isaiah. Micah has his own distinct voice and concerns, despite substantial material
overlap. Following the standard critical divisions, Stansell limits his investigation to
“authentic” Isaiah and Micah material: Isaiah 1-39 and Micah 1-3. On the other hand,
Stansell affirms Childs’s earlier claim that Micah and Isaiah share a common redactional
history. “Although we have attempted her to emphasize those elements which illustrate
the contrasts in the message of Micah and Isaiah, it appears that, fairly early in the
tradition and redaction of their sayings, their prophecy was understood as standing in
the closest possible relationship.” Gary Stansell, Micah and Isaiah: A Form and Tradition
Historical Comparison (SBL Dissertation Series; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988), 133.
154 Micah: An International Theological Commentary

whether Lutheran or Anglican, reworked the Roman Catholic liturgical tradition in light of
reformational doctrinal concerns? Though unprovable, this is surely possible.
Sorting out the diachronic issues is a complex matter because the
editing and shaping of the biblical materials, in this case the prophets,
is not necessarily unpacked in a tidy linear unfolding where discrete
units of the prophetic literature can always be assigned to this or
that particular period with confidence.13 Cross-fertilization and a
dynamic process of “back and forth” rather than “straight ahead”
better characterize the shaping history of the prophets.14 Related to
Isaiah 2 and Micah 4, Williamson “complicates” the literary history of
these two texts by bringing fragment 4QIsae to the table of evidence.
Williamson reveals, as one would expect, the Qumran scroll agrees for
the most part with MT Isaiah but in three crucial places it goes with
Micah’s rendering and “in one significant respect” it goes its own way
irrespective of MT Isaiah and Micah.15 Williamson concludes, “With
such attested variety, it would be foolhardy in matters of detail to claim
priority for one reading or the other: the degree of influence of each
passage on the other throughout their early transmission puts any
putative ‘original’ text beyond reach.”16 Given the textual evidence, it
follows to allow each text, Micah’s and Isaiah’s, to retain their literary
integrity without correction by an “original” or “better” rendering.
Despite their origin or source, both texts have gone through the mill on
the way to their current literary form.
As mentioned in the introduction, Benjamin Sommer challenges disciplinary instincts
for dating Isaiah 2/Micah 4.17 He questions the confidence biblical scholars often attach to
their ability to link textual ideas with particular eras. He calls this overconfidence “pseudo-

13
Again, Sommer, “Dating Pentateuchal Texts.” See also Childs, “Retrospective Reading,”
368–69. For description, analysis, and programmatic suggestions for engaging the
prophetic literature as literature and the complexity of the redaction-critical project, see
especially Kratz, Prophetenstudien: Kleine Schriften II.
14
Childs, Isaiah, 4. See Odil Hannes Steck, The Prophetic Books and Their Theological
Witness (trans. James D. Nogalski; St. Louis: Chalice Press, 2000).
15
Williamson, Isaiah 1–5, 166.
16
Ibid.
17
For example, focusing on Zion as the goal of pilgrimages, the universal scope of the
nations’ journey to Zion, and lasting peace throughout the world are the three convergent
themes in Isaiah 2 and Micah 4 that lead Wolff to push these texts into the postexilic
period (contra Wildberger; Wolff, ad loc.). One must wait for Trito-Isaiah and Zechariah
for comparable themes, both postexilic in character.
 Micah 4—Between Then and Now 155

historicism” and makes a laudable attempt to bring some historical modesty into redaction-
critical studies. As his argument pertains to Isaiah 2 and Micah 4, Sommer makes the
following sagacious claim:

Even if it is surprising to suggest that an eighth-century thinker might have hoped

for peace in Israel and among the nations, this would not make the suggestion
impossible. Micah and especially Isaiah conceived of notions that were unexpected,
even bizarre. Therein lies the genius of any original thinker. To deny that an idea
could have been thought of in a given age is to deny the possibility of intellectual
creativity. Such a denial is a very odd position for a scholar of the humanities.18

Sommer’s exhortation regarding the confident assigning of texts to particular periods

makes a strong point, eliciting a fair amount of modesty when attending to the dating of
texts.
A few examples to illustrate the milling of the two texts will suffice.
The placement of “establish” ‫ נכון‬is difficult in each passage, though
Micah’s periphrastic use after the copulative verb is more attested and
possibly “better.” Micah 4:3b balances the line out with a defectively
written feminine plural ending and an expanded form of the three
masculine plural pronominal suffix (‫)חַ ְרבֹ תֵ יהֶ ם‬, whereas Isaiah 2 has a
plene form of the feminine plural and deploys the shortened pronominal
suffix with no ‫ י‬link (‫)חַ ְרבותָ ם‬. Possibly in the shared logic of lectio
difficilior it could be argued the tradents of Micah cleaned things up a
bit for the sake of balancing out these lines (or possibly Micah is closer
to the original because of the rhyme his line achieves?). Turning back to
Freedman and Andersen’s understanding of the purer shape of the
oracle in Micah, it is worth recalling that this judgment does not sort
out the diachronic matters; it only highlights the complexity of the
compositional history of both texts.19 As already noted, however,
allowing each text to do the particular work it sets out to do in the given
literary contexts of their respective books is a better way forward than
correcting one text in light of the putative “original” or “better” text.20

18
Sommer, “Dating Pentateuchal Texts,” 96.
19
For further details on points of divergence, e.g., Isaiah’s “all nations” (2:2b) and Micah’s
“nations” (4:1) streaming, see the textual comments in Williamson, Isaiah 1–5, ad loc.
These minor variations, while not to be glossed over, do not present a competing vision
of the future. Micah 4:5 is the juggernaut pertaining to the diverging accounts of the
future, universal reign.
20
Freedman and Anderson, however, on the basis of their close examination of the poetics
of Micah 4 and Isaiah 2 consider Micah to be closer to the original shared poem. The
poetic language of Micah 4 puts it in contrast with the prose materials lending credence
156 Micah: An International Theological Commentary

An ancient illustration of the need to do justice to these two texts in light of each other
is the LXX handling of Mic 4:1. As mentioned above, ‫ נכון‬is placed after ‫ הימים‬in Isa 2:2 and
after ‫ בית יהוה‬in Mic 4:1. These differing locations of ‫ נכון‬are both taken into account in the
LXX rendering of v. 1. A gloss is provided for ‫ נכון‬at the positions present in both Isaiah and
Micah—ἐμφανες “revealed” in the Isaianic position and ἕτοιμον “made ready” in the Mican
position. Anthony Gelston comments, “It seems therefore to reflect a conflation of the two
passages, as well as a double interpretation of this word.”21 The LXX translator of Micah was
aware of the differences between the two texts and sought to give an interpretive account
of the matter in his translation. In other words, sorting out the relationship between these
two texts is an old problem.

Canonical context and shared compositional

history: Who’s debating whom?

Given the stark overlap between these chapters in Micah and Isaiah,
it does not seem adequate to pass by the question of their relationship
to each other on the canonical level.22 The evidence indicates that the
prophecy of Isaiah played a formative role on the tradents of Micah. Or
as Childs, Williamson, Steck, and Bosshard-Nepustil in their various
ways have suggested, it is likely the tradents of Isaiah and Micah were
the same.23 This matter is of some import when we turn again to the
supposed “debate” between Isaiah and Micah regarding the character
of the universal era of peace described in these prophetic texts.
Identifying the original form of the text vis-a-vis Micah versus Isaiah, a
kind of comparing and contrasting of literary quality, etc., is a different
enterprise than observing the mutual relativity of these two texts in
their compositional history and the shaping influence of Isaiah on the
final form of Micah (and the Twelve).24

to the “distinctive poetic character of this portion.” It follows then that “Micah has
preserved a version of the oracle closer to the original.” Andersen and Freedman, Micah,
420. It does not follow, however, that Isaiah necessarily borrowed from Micah. Their
claims are more modestly related to the poem’s current form in Isaiah and Micah.
Micah could still borrow from Isaiah or be shaped by the Isaianic traditions though the
compositional history of Isaiah is still in media res.
21
BHQ, 102*.
22
E.g.,Waltke’s very learned commentary on Micah skirts the diachronic/tradition-
historical matters.
23
Steck, Der Abschluß der Prophetie Im Alten Testament.
24
Bosshard-Nepustil does not make a definitive claim regarding the priority of Isaiah 2 or
Micah 4, though he is inclined (neigen) to consider Micah as stemming from Isaiah. He
 Micah 4—Between Then and Now 157

An important and understated matter indicative of the Isaianic

influence on Micah is the phrase “for the mouth of the LORD Sabaoth
has spoken” (‫ )כּי־פי יהוח צבאות דבר‬in 4:4.25 This collocation is only found
in the Isaianic corpus. The language of Sabaoth, either adopted from
Jebusite traditions or brought from Shiloh, has a firm location in the
traditions of the temple cult.26 As has been suggested elsewhere, terms
such as Yhwh Sabaoth and the Holy One of Israel, so replete within
Isaiah, are indicative of the liturgical influence on Isaiah’s thought.27
Therefore, the suggestion that the editors of the Isaian and Mican
materials were the same is not beyond the pale given the linguistic and
semantic overlap, with a nod in the direction of Isaianic influence on
the shaping of Micah: “for the mouth of the Lord has spoken.”
What is one to make of all this data? As mentioned in this
commentary’s introduction, Levin suggests that Hosea, Amos, and
Micah were edited and shaped in light of the Vorbild of Isaiah in the
postexilic period. These books existed without superscriptions before

also considers it a possibility that the redactor of the prophetic literature located within
Isaianic circles could have simultaneously placed these texts in their current contexts.
Furthermore, Bosshard-Nepustil sees a material and semantic overlap between Isaiah 1
and Mic 3:9-12. He locates this redaction (in conjunction with Obadiah, Zech 8:20-22,
First Isaiah with Isaiah 60) within a Völker level of redaction particular to the Persian
period’s adapted Zion theology: a significant matter that needs to be taken into account
if a “debate” is taking place. One need not follow the details of the redaction-critical
reconstruction to appreciate the literary/canonical insights at play in the diachronic
history, namely, the Isaianic influence on the redaction history of the Twelve, in particular
for our purposes, Micah. Erich Bosshard-Nepustil, Rezeptionen von Jesaia 1-39 im
Zwölfprophetenbuch: Untersuchungen zur literarischen Verbindung von Prophetenbüchern
in babylonischer und persischer Zeit (OBO 154; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
1997), 415–20.
25
Williamson, Isaiah 1–5, 178–79. Williamson believes 4:4 original to the earlier form of
this oracle in Isaiah as well. In the postexilic redaction of the book, 4:4 dropped from its
current location. The presence of the Schlussformel in Micah may add additional support
to the notion that Micah’s current literary form is superior to Isaiah’s.
26
Miller believes the pre-Israelite Jebusite influence on Israel’s Zion theology is
overwrought. Miller, “Zion Hymns,” 670.
27
Wiliamson, “Judah as Israel in Eight-Century Prophecy,” 81–95. For a competing
religious-historical understanding of the history of “Israel” language in the Southern
Kingdom, see Kratz, “Israel in the Book of Isaiah,” 103–28; “Israel als Staat und als Volk,”
ZTK 97 (2000): 1–17. The nature of “Israel” language in the preexilic, Southern Kingdom
is a matter of some contest at the current moment: Williamson and Kratz are respective
representatives of differing trends. For Kratz, “Israel” language in the Southern Kingdom
only makes sense on the far side of the Northern Kingdom’s demise. Williamson is less
reticent to locate the source of such language in the cult of the early monarchy.
158 Micah: An International Theological Commentary

this period but were later shaped in associative relation with the Isaianic
materials. The details of Levin’s arguments need further examination.
For example, Williamson and others claim that Isa 2:1 with its second
superscription is the titular head of an exilic edition of the book.28 It
begins with “the word which he saw, Isaiah son of Amon.” Amos begins,
“the words of Amos which he saw.” One may not need to go as late as
the postexilic period to see the beginning of the shaping of this material
in light of the Vorbild of Isaiah. Nevertheless, that the Isaianic traditions
have influenced Micah seems apparent. Despite the complex history
of how we arrived at what we now have in Isaiah 2 and Micah 4, an
intentional relationship between these prophetic books is observed on
the level of the redactional shaping of the materials. If Levin’s larger
thesis is headed in the right direction, then the supposed “debate”
between Micah and Isaiah at the precise point of their most substantive
overlap raises questions about who is debating with whom (i.e., the
same tradents)?29
Our attention turns at this point to the shared and discordant
material between Isaiah 2 and Micah 4. There are detailed differences
between Isaiah 2 and Micah 4 which need not slow us down at this
point. As mentioned above, there are orthographic and syntactical
differences: plene versus defective writing, swapping of word order, e.g.,
‫ גוים‬and ‫ עמים‬in Isa 2:4 and Mic 4:3. The glaring matter, however, is the
plus in Mic 4:4. The utopian future where Mt. Zion is established as the
premier mountain because nations stream to it to be taught by Yhwh
results in the end of learned warfare. Micah ends with a pastoral image.
Everyone is sitting under their own vine and fig tree with fear now a
faint memory from a bygone era. The conclusion to v. 4, as mentioned
above, is the Isaianic Schlussformel, ‫כּי־פי יהוח צבאות דבר‬. Whereas in
Isaiah, v. 4 of Micah is absent and the oracle concludes with a summons

28
Williamson, Isaiah 1–5, 9.
29
Sweeney and Levin concur on the postexilic location of Isaiah 2/Micah 4. Where
Sweeney identifies a debate between a different circle of tradents, Levin and Childs
understand these two texts in their current literary shaping as a product of the same
circle of tradents.
 Micah 4—Between Then and Now 159

to the house of Jacob, “Oh house of Jacob, come, let us walk in the light
of the LORD” (‫)בית יעקב לכוּ ונלכה באור יהוה‬.
The differences between the endings of these two shared oracles are
highly suggestive, according to Sweeney. The supposed debate between
Isaiah and Micah enters in at this point. Isaiah ends with a summons to
follow in the light of Yhwh in view of His universal authority as judge
and ruler. The result is an era of peace where all sit under the tutelage
of Torah. Whereas for Micah, the fabric is quite different. Israel and the
nations each enjoy an era of peace under Yhwh, but they do so by going
their own ways religiously.30 “The key difference,” claims Sweeney,
“between Micah 4:4-5 and Isaiah 2:5, however, appears in Micah 4:5,
which emphasizes the difference between the nations and Israel with
regard to the gods that each will follow.”31 Sweeney makes such a claim
on the basis of his reading of Mic 4:5: “For all the peoples, each one, will
walk in the name of his god, but we will walk in the name of the Lord
our God forever.” The ‫ כּי‬clause of v. 5 is glossed with the same causal
force of the ‫ כּי‬clause in v. 4.32 Sweeney argues that Mic 4:1-5 is a single
literary unit on syntactical grounds: the one verse flows naturally into
the other in a shared perspective of the future day. The resultant picture
in Micah is, therefore, starkly contrasted with Isaiah’s.33

30
Sweeney, Form and Intertextuality, 214.
31
Ibid.
32
Sweeney states, “The functions of kî are not well understood, but it does function as a
syntactical connector so that in the present instance it links verses 6ff to verse 5, i.e., ‘for
you have rejected your people, the house of Jacob.’” Sweeney, Form and Intertextuality,
214. For a very learned analysis of the complex history and polyvalent character of ‫ כּי‬as
this impinged on the Temple’s Scroll rendering of conditional legal codes, see Bernard
M. Levinson and Molly M. Zahn, “Revelation Regained: The Hermeneutics of ‫ כּי‬and ‫אם‬
in the Temple Scroll,” DSD 9 (2002): 296–34
33
Sweeney’s claim regarding the “debate” over the nature of the future reign of Yhwh has
possible support in the LXX translation of v. 5. ‫ כּי‬is translated with ὅτι and the following
phrase is a paraphrastic rendering due to the translators’ theological predisposition.
Instead of “each one will walk in the name of his God,” the LXX says, “each one will
walk in his way” (τὴν ὁδὸν αὐτοῦ). The next phrase is not translated paraphrastically but
literally, “but we walk in the name of the Lord our God for ever and ever.” The uneven
character of the translation, from paraphrastic to literal, indicates the possible discomfort
the translator has with the claim made in the first clause of the Hebrew text. In fact, the
BHQ has “theol” in brackets by this variant to indicate the theological motivation for the
resignified or altered text. But care must be taken here because the exact theological issue
at stake for the ancient translator might not be Sweeney’s, e.g., in the era of Yhwh’s rule of
peace the nations continue to worship their Gods. Rather, it may simply be the growing
discomfort of identifying the existence of other gods and lending credence to this notion.
160 Micah: An International Theological Commentary

A concessive account

A different reading than Sweeney’s is on offer here. Micah 4:1-4 should be

viewed as a literary unit. The concluding formula of 4:4 (Schlussformel),
with its distinctly Isaianic phraseology, is exactly that, a conclusion
formula. The phrase is original to the oracle, though in the editorial
history of Isaiah it has either been dropped or moved elsewhere. The
‫ כּי‬clause of v. 5 is not of necessity causal, though a causal understanding
does not defeat this reading.34 Rather, it is likely concessive and brings the
reader back into the current moment in the divine economy, a moment
it should be added where the promises of vv. 1-4 have not as of yet been
realized.35 Verse 5 is a commentary on vv. 1-4 that challenges the reader
in the current moment to continue to walk in the name of Yhwh despite
the fact that the nations continue with the worship of their gods. Such
a temporal shift in this chapter does not catch the reader off guard.
The fourfold use of ‫( עתה‬4:9, 10, 11, 14) within this chapter moves the
reader back and forth between future promise/reality and the current
moment. The understanding of 4:5 within this particular temporal
nexus balances out the literary movement of the chapter as a whole.36
Instead of reading ‫ כּי‬as “for” we read it as “although” and separate it
from the literary unit 1-4 while still viewing it as materially linked to the

34
See note 19.
35
Stade’s early redactional insights were in the right direction. “4,5 ist eine sehr
ungeschickte Anknüpfung. v. 1-4 is noch nicht eingetroffen. Noch verehrt jedes der
fremden Völker seinem Gott. Da dem so ist (‫)כי‬, so soll Israel erst recht den seinigen
verehren.” Bernard Stade, “Bermerkungen Über das Buch Micha,” ZAW 1 (1881): 166.
Stade’s observation affirms the causal reading of ‫ כי‬while still understanding v. 5 as a
redactional commentary on 4:1-4. McKane’s “skeptical” understanding of the redaction
history of v. 5 is not self-evident (McKane, 126). Mignon Jacobs identifies the ‫ כי‬clause
of v. 5 as a logical connector to 4:1-4 while at the same time maintaining the distinction
in time frame between “then” and “now.” Jacobs, The Conceptual Coherence of Micah,
147. Within English translations, e.g., KJV, RSV, NRSV, the ‫ כי‬is translated causally
(“for”). The NIV leaves the ‫ כי‬untranslated but does render ‫ ילכו‬as a modal verb (“may”)
rather than the typical present indicative. Notably, the JPS TANAKH and NASB are the
minority translations that translate the ‫ כי‬as a concessive (“though”).
36
Nogalski describes Mic 4:1-5:15 as a “complex message of promise for the distant future,
though the current generation will experience threats to its existence that must be
endured.” James D. Nogalski, The Book of the Twelve: Micah-Malachi, Smyth & Helwys
Bible Commentary (Macon: Smyth & Helwys, 2011), 515. The forward-looking character
of faith is a shared motif between Isaiah and Micah. What von Rad said of Isaiah’s
 Micah 4—Between Then and Now 161

preceding unit because of the eschatological tension faced by the reader:

such a structure is suggested by the sedarim liturgical marker as well,
though the petuḥa comes at the end of v. 5. Micah 4:5 brings us back into
the current moment as commentary on the implications of the future for
the here and now.
Though not in dialogue with Sweeney, several commentators on
Micah offer this reading as well, so much so that this reading could be
viewed as the “traditional” reading. The medieval Rabbinic commentator
David Kimchi suggests such by assigning v. 5 to a different period than
1-4. Verses 1-4 anticipate the Messianic era and v. 5 brings the reader
back into the current moment. Jeremias says of v. 5, “Der noch einmal
jüngere V.5 sprichts allerdings Menschen im Gottesvolk an, denen das
Warten auf die Vollendung der Geschichte lang wird und die die Völker
ihrer Zeit sehr anders erleben als in jener Endzeitperspektive” (p. 174).
James Mays makes a similar comment, “The time of pilgrimage to the
‘city set on a hill’ is not yet. In the meantime faith in the fulfillment of
the vision means faithful enactment of it in their life.”37 Kessler says,
“Aber jetzt wird zwischen dem Gehen der Nationen und dem des Wir
unterschieden. Das, was am Ende der Tage Wirklichkeit sein wird, ist es
jetzt noch nicht. Denn noch geht jedes Volk im Namen seines eigenen
Gottes.”38 Freedman and Andersen offer this reading as a possibility but
do not argue strongly for it. Ben Zvi believes on syntactical grounds
both options are equally possible and does not land one way or the other.
In light of the reading of Mic 4:5 on offer here, the differences
between the concluding comments of v. 5 in Micah and the final call
in Isaiah 2 might not be as contentious as some suggest.39 Isaiah 2:5
heralds, “Oh house of Jacob, come, let us walk in the light of the LORD.”

prophecy applies to Micah as well (esp. ch. 4): “The ‘object’ upon which this faith should
be based did not, however, as yet exist for his contemporaries; it lay in the future. The
astonishing thing was therefore this: Isaiah demanded of his contemporaries that they
should now make their existence rest on a future action of God.” Von Rad, OTT II, 161.
37
Mays, Micah, 99.
38
Rainer Kessler, Micha (Herders Theologischer Kommentar Zum Alten Testament;
Freiburg: Herder, 1999), 187.
39
Sweeney, Form and Intertextuality, 213–14. The “very different scenario[s]” between
Isaiah 2 and Micah 4 in their respective appeals to ‫ הלך‬trade on Sweeney’s particular
reading of Mic 4:5.
162 Micah: An International Theological Commentary

The vocative address to the house of Jacob is a call to walk in the light
of Yhwh because the future promises are true. Perhaps Mic 4:5 is an
expansion on this theme. Readers of Micah are also called to continue
on in the name of Yhwh despite the fact that the promise of a raised
Zion and streaming nations has not yet occurred. Such a reading is not
to say Micah and Isaiah always speak the same idiom or that traces
of a debate might not be found. Nor is it to flatten these prophetic
voices into a monotone choir with no sensitivity to their given literary
contexts. Nevertheless, it is not clear that a debate regarding the nature
of Yhwh’s future reign is taking place between the prophetic books of
Micah and Isaiah. The opposite in fact appears to be the case.

Micah 4:5 in the Book of the Twelve: Brief reflections

A few concluding comments are in order about Mic 4:5 in light of the Book of the Twelve.
In a programmatic article on the shaping of the Twelve, Raymond van Leeuwen identifies
a redaction-history of the Twelve in the postexilic period dealing particularly with the
theodicy question raised by the cataclysmic events of Israel and Judah in the Neo-
Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian periods.40 This redaction has a sapiential character as is
observed in the ending of Hosea: ‫( מה חכם ויבן אלה נבון וידעם‬Hos 14:10a). The readers of
the Twelve are forced to reckon with the complex history of God’s dealing with Israel and
Judah, i.e., the theodicy question, and exhorted to live faithfully and see wisely beyond
the surface historical events to the future eschatological hope of Yhwh’s promises:
‫( ִ ֽכּי־יְ שָׁ ִ ֞רים דַּ ְרכֵ ֣י יְ ה ֗ ָוה וְ צַ ִדּקִ ים֙ יֵ ֣לְ כוּ ֔ ָבם וּפֹ ְשׁ ִ ֖עים יִ כָּ ְ֥שׁלוּ ָ ֽבם‬Hos 14:10b). In particular, the middot of
Ex 34:6-7 are located at key junctures in the eighth-century prophets as a redactional
guide for putting the prophecies in their proper theological context, an internal regula
fidei if you will. Micah ends ‫ מי־אל כמוך‬and then elaborates on the rhetorical question
with an intertextual appeal to Ex 34:6-7.
A great deal more needs to be said here about the Twelve, but Mic 4:5 is situated quite
well within this sapiential context in the overall intention of the Twelve: an account of the
character of God is given in hopes for an eschatological coming day of the Lord, along with
an exhortation to continue in faithfulness despite the complexity of the current moment.41
If one accepts an intentional shaping of the Twelve over a longer period of time up until
the postexilic period (whether or not we can sort this out neatly), then Mic 4.5 functions
within this broader redactional history as an internal commentary on Mic 4:1-4 in light of
the larger concerns within the Twelve. The promise of Zion’s prominence and streaming
nations to be taught Torah by Yhwh is not responded to cynically in v. 5 with a distressed,
“Well, look how bad things are despite this promise.”42 Rather, it is an invitation to live in

40
Van Leeuwen, “Scribal Wisdom and Theodicy in the Book of the Twelve,”31–49.
41
The term “eschatology” is used loosely here. These are not necessarily events outside time
and space nor the “end of the world.” See Talmon, “The Signification,” 795–810.
42
Contra McKane.
 Micah 4—Between Then and Now 163

the eschatological tension of God’s promises and their unrealized status: a major theme
scholars have identified in the redaction history of the Twelve.
Finally, and more tenuously, the phrase “each one walks in the name of his God” may
allude to the collective use of ‫ אישׁ‬in Jon 1:5, “each one cried to his God.”43 By the end
of this well-known chapter in Jonah, the pagan sailors are crying out to Yhwh as well as
sacrificing and making vows to him. The tale is cryptic enough to keep us from specifying
whether these sailors actually went to the temple to fulfill these vows. Ben Zvi identifies
the differences between the pagans in Jonah and the Yehudites, namely, temple, Torah,
and exclusive worship of Adonai.44 But such desire for details obscures the narrative’s stark
portrayal. Within Jonah we see in proleptic fashion the promise of Mic 4:1-4 realized on
a small scale, an adumbration of what will be a future reality in full. The book of Nahum,
on the other hand, reminds us of the unfulfilled character of Micah’s promise: the proper
location of Mic 4:5 within the redemptive economy. Perhaps in the final shaping of the
Twelve, Mic 4:1-5 and Jonah’s interaction with the pagans relate to one another in a
reciprocal and illuminating fashion regarding the eschatological hope for the nations and
the call to faithfulness in the time of anticipation: Jonah did not fair very well in the face of
this. This matter could also provide some support for why Micah is located where it is in the
Twelve, a matter of some dispute and a subject in need of further exploration.45
Micah 4:1-5 speaks of the future exaltation of Zion as the pinnacle
of Yhwh’s encounter with the whole of His world. The idyllic picture of
Mic 4:1-4 is made possible and actual by the self-revealing of Israel’s
God and His teaching office. Nations stream to learn from Yhwh. Torah
or divine instruction resulting in the knowledge of God and His ways
leads to a rightly ordered world. By means of comparison and contrast,
Hos 4:1-2 reveals a society marked by unfaithfulness, swearing, lying,
cheating, and adultery. How could Israel be described in such a way?
Because there is “no knowledge of God in the land” (4:1).
It is worth highlighting that this era of peace is marked by lack of
military hostility and agrarian simplicity: “sitting under vines and fig
trees.” The effect of Torah has as its final aim human flourishing in all
spheres of life. As McConville claims, “[B]iblical law aims ultimately to
realize a society in which human beings experience freedom and may
flourish in all parts of their lives.”46 Because the Torah has this kind of
totalizing view as its telos, it is little wonder the prophets place Torah’s

43
Kessler offers a parenthetical comment in this direction: “[M]an vergleiche dazu die
Szene auf dem Schiff, mit dem Jona vor Gott fliehen will; in Seenot schreit ‘ein jeder zu
seinem Gott’, Jona 1, 5.” Kessler, Micha, 187.
44
Ehud Ben Zvi, Signs of Jonah: Reading and Rereading in Ancient Yehud (JSOTSupp 367;
Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2003), 124–25.
45
See Zapff, “The Book of Micah,” 129–46.
46
McConville, “Biblical Law,” 632.
164 Micah: An International Theological Commentary

reach within an eschatological frame: “in the latter days.”47 For what
provides a more moving vision of eschatological hope than the beauty
and simplicity of basic human existence as both free and flourishing.
Perhaps Zechariah says it best:

Thus says the LORD: I will return to Zion, and will dwell in the midst of
Jerusalem; Jerusalem shall be called the faithful city, and the mountain
of the LORD of hosts shall be called the holy mountain. Thus says the
LORD of hosts: Old men and old women shall again sit in the streets
of Jerusalem, each with staff in hand because of their great age. And
the streets of the city shall be full of boys and girls playing in its streets.
(Zech 8:3-5)

For Athanasius, the Torah’s eschatological reach is actualized in the person and work of
Jesus Christ. After quoting Isa 2:4, Athanasius describes the barbarians of his day as marked
by savagery and infighting. “But when they hear the teaching of Christ, forthwith they turn
from fighting to farming, and instead of arming themselves with swords extend their hands
in prayer.”48 For Athanasius, the effects of the gospel on the barbarians are proof positive
for the Godhead of the Savior and the in-breaking of the eschatological moment promised
by Isaiah and Micah taking place in the middle of time. “In the latter days” does not speak
necessarily of the suspension of time but a future moment when God’s kingdom breaks in
on the world. For Athanasius and the apostolic witness, that eschatological promise is now
actualized in the resurrection of our Lord as guarantee of the future resurrection of the dead
and the life of the world to come.
Theodoret of Cyrus characterizes those who read Micah 4 as a promise of Judah’s return
from exile with less than flattering language: such a reading is “stupid” (Theodoret, 159–60).
“I mean, which nations nearby or living at a distance betook themselves to the Jewish
Temple after the return, embracing their Law and attracted to the preaching issuing from
there?” Rather, Theodoret understands Micah 4 as a prophecy of the Great Commission in
Matt 28:19-20 where the spread of the gospel to the nations comes into view. From Zion,
the evangelical witness streams to the nations, aided by the Pax Romana as a providential
vehicle in aid of the gospel’s dissemination (ibid., 160–61). In a similar vein, Cyril of
Alexandria also sees the Great Commission of Matthew’s Gospel as the fulfillment of
Micah’s future promise. Cyril offers his reading not as a counterfactual reading against poor
Jewish ones, a’la Theodoret, but on the basis of the grammar of Mic 4:2. Who are the plural
voices among the nations urging them to “come” and “go up” to Mt. Zion? “Who would
be the ones to introduce them to it?” (Cyril, 222). For Cyril, “[c]learly the disciples of the
Savior” answer the question.

47
Ibid., 631–32.
48
St. Athanasius, On the Incarnation (Popular Patristic Series; Crestwood: St. Vladimir’s
Seminary Press, 1996), 90–91.
 Micah 4—Between Then and Now 165

Micah 4:6-7

The phrase “in that day” introduces a new subunit, though the
introductory formula links the unit to the forward-looking frame of
vv. 1-4. This unit is Yhwh’s speech (“says the Lord”) and speaks to the
character of His judgment. As divine communicative address, the
divine word itself is the agent of healing. The force of its promise is
guaranteed by the nature and source of the address. For Yhwh’s hand of
judgment wounds: it makes lame; it drives away; it afflicts. Yet Yhwh’s
judgment has restoration as its telos. In a similar vein, Hos 6:1 calls
for communal repentance—“Come, let us return unto the LORD”—
because Yhwh’s judgment strikes in order that he might heal. And
while Hosea’s call to repentance and the content of Micah’s divine
speech need not be viewed in tension with each other, Micah’s oracle
lays claim to the repentance of God toward his people. Yhwh’s will is
resolved—note the cohortative verbs of v. 6—to gather the very people
he dispersed because of his wounding judgment. He wounds in order
to heal.
Commenting on this text, Cyril of Alexandria brings to memory the following: “Blessed
Paul said, remember, ‘Godly grief produces a repentance that leads to salvation and brings
no regret.’ It is therefore out of love that he punishes them, and out of his concern that
they should not willingly descend to a point of experiencing anything that distressed them”
(Cyril, 228).
Strong verbal links tie this unit with 2:12-13—another factor in favor
of reading 2:12-13 as a word of promise. The same sets of verbs are
deployed in a shared collocation: “gathering” (‫)אסף‬, “gather” (‫)קבץ‬, and
“placing” (‫)ׂשים‬. As Jeremias states, “Es steht daher außer Frage, dass der
Leser von 4, 6f an 2, 12f erinnert werden soll” (Jeremias, 175). There are
points of divergence, however, between 2:12-13 and 4:6-7. Micah presents
the flock in 2:12-13 as in need of protection with the working assumption
that the “remnant” are the ones remaining at the end of the catastrophe
(Jeremias, 176).49 Whereas Mic 4:6-7 focuses on the strengthening
(Erstarken) and numerical advancement (Zahlreichwerden) of the people

49
On the gathering of the flock as an eschatological image, cf. Isa 54:7; 56:8; Jer 23:3; 29:14;
31:8, 10; Ez 11:17, see esp. Zeph 3:18-20 and the intertextual relation between Mic 4:6-7.
166 Micah: An International Theological Commentary

of Israel in fulfillment of the Abrahamic promise in Gen 12:2 (ibid.). The

key point of differentiation between these two intentionally related texts
is the eschatological focus of ch. 4. The gathering of the stricken and the
lame represents the hope of the latter days or, in Jeremias’s terms, the
emerging of the currently concealed promise of the coming kingdom of
God whose scope ranges beyond a mere hope for survivors on the far
side of Judah’s exile (ibid.). For Jeremias, the shaping of Micah in the
Persian period indicates the “eschatologizing” of the concepts of
“remnant” (Rest) and kingdom of God as an end-time expectation
(endzeitlicher Erwartung, ibid.).50 The future “remnant” or “survivors” are
those gathered by God at the end of days as fulfillment of his promise to
save and establish his kingdom on earth. From Mount Zion, Yhwh will
rule and reign over His people, a people who have grown strong in
numbers and in their identity as partakers in the kingdom of God. For
Luther, Mic 4:7b is as good as saying, “And I look for the resurrection of
the dead, and the life of the world to come” (Luther, 241).
The object of God’s saving action in 4:6-7 is twice identified as “lame” (‫)צלע‬.51 The
lexical allusion to the narrative of Jacob at the Jabbok in Gen 32:32 is not lost on several
commentators. Jeremias makes a passing comment to the allusion (Anspielung), as does
Ben Zvi (Jeremias, 175; Ben Zvi, 109). Sweeney provides more substantial engagement with
the Jacob tradition, suggesting that the narrative of Jacob and his own exile from Judah to
Aram in search of a bride (Gen 25-35) typifies Judah’s own exile and return. For Sweeney,
the subtle reference to Judah as “lame” brings the whole of the Jacob traditions into view,
including the “lame” and “outcast” as Yhwh’s “cast-off bride” in mimetic relation to Jacob
and Rachel in their wilderness sojourn (Sweeney, 382). Whether the whole of the Jacob
narrative is in view here is up for interpretive debate with much depending on the eye of
the beholder. Nevertheless, the allusion to the narrative of Jacob at Penuel (Gen 32:22-32)
appears on surer ground because of the lexical link “lame” (‫צלע‬, cf. Gen 32:32). The allusion

50
See the comments above from Theodoret of Cyrus on such a reading. His logic is in line
with Jeremias’s understanding of the eschatological view of the tradents of the XII in the
Persian period who also recognize the limited reach of these prophecies for Yehud on the
far side of exile.
51
A textual difficulty emerges in 4:7 in the second colon of line 1. The participle translated
in the NRSV as “those who were cast off ” follows the suggestion of the BHS that the
lexeme should be read as a denominative form of the adverb “cast off.” This textual
solution has its genesis with Wellhausen. Williamson provides a convincing alternative
to this reading, providing a helpful way forward with an admittedly difficult textual
matter. He finds Wellhausen’s account “dubious” because this denominalized verb is
found nowhere else in the Hebrew canon. Rather, Williamson suggests, the term ‫חלא‬
from 2 Chr 16:12 may provide the solution. For the scribal error of replacing a hey (‫)ה‬
with a cheyt (‫ )ח‬is “easy to accept” and keeps the second phrase in semantic parallel with
the first (“lame” and “diseased”). Williamson, “Marginalia,” 364–65.
 Micah 4—Between Then and Now 167

to Jacob at the Jabbok River does not make its first appearance here in the Twelve. Hosea
deploys the tradition as a type for Israel’s repentance (Hos 12:2-6). Israel’s progenitor and
eponym provides a figured account of the long-term identity of Yhwh’s people. They strive
with God, marked by the wounds of his judgment, yet persistently and tenaciously holding
on to the redemptive promises of God despite current circumstances of despair.

Micah 4:8-5:1 (4:14 MT)

Micah moves from the forward-looking prospects of 4:1-7 to addressing

his readers in their current moment of distress. This prophetic unit
is structurally organized by the lexical markers “but you” (‫ ;ואתה‬4:8;
5:2 [5:1 MT]) and “now/but now” (‫עתה‬/‫ ;ועתה‬4:9, 11, 14). Comments
on Mic 5:2 (5:1 MT) will appear in the next chapter; however, the
grammatical inclusio of 4:8 and 5:2 (5:1 MT) places the promises of
5:2 (5:1 MT)—“But you Bethlehem Ephrathah”—within the contextual
frame shaped by the current distress of 4:8-5:1 (4:14 MT). Moreover, 4:8
and 5:2 (5:1 MT) address the current distress by placing Judah’s hope on
the enduring character of the Davidic promises. The former dominion
will come, though the way in which the Davidic kingdom will appear
signals something new in the divine economy of redemption as will be
seen in the next chapter (5:2 [5:1 MT]).
Verse 8 begins with a disjunctive clause—“but you” (‫—)ואתה‬bringing
the prophetic word back into the present moment. The overall force of
the prophetic word emerges prima facie: the former Davidic dominion
and kingdom (cf. 2 Samuel 7) is given as a future promise. What was
lost or what will be lost in time will again be restored. Ambiguity exists
regarding the first phrase of v. 8 (a casus pendens whose presence
resumes in the next line, “unto you … ”). What exactly is Migdal Eder
or “tower of the flock”? And what is the referent of opel (‫ )עפל‬or “hill of
the daughter of Zion”? Reading this verse backwards helps to orient
readers as to these terms referent, namely, Jerusalem. However, more
than a mere reference to Jerusalem appears in view here.
The pastoral imagery is not new to Micah (cf. Mic 2:12-13). Yhwh
and His king function as shepherds leading their people from danger to
safety. An allusion to the Jacob narrative of Genesis 35 may take place
168 Micah: An International Theological Commentary

here as well, suggesting to readers that a return to this narrative may aid
in the reading of Micah.52 Such an allusion to the Jacob narratives do
not surprise as indicated by the allusion to Jacob at the Jabbok in
vv. 6-7. In Gen 35:21, Jacob camps at Migdal Eder after the death of his
mother Rachel. The exact location of Migdal Eder is up for debate,
though it lies in relative proximity to Ephrathah (Gen 35:16). The
precise location of this unknown citadel appears beyond the point for
Micah. On the other hand, the forging of a relationship between Mic
4:8 and 5:2 (5:1 MT) on the basis of these place names is more to the
prophetic concern. The “hill” (‫ )עפל‬of Daughter Zion is the location of
the Davidic palace (cf. 2 Chr 27:3; Neh 3:26). Jacob’s narrative and the
Davidic dominion both past and future are being fitted together in Mic
4:8-10. The future Davidic promises are assured because of the mimetic
nature of the Jacob narratives as a plot already written.
Zion appears in feminine form in vv. 8-10—daughter of Zion—and
is in the death throes of delivery in vv. 9-10. The narrative of Genesis
35 presents Jacob’s mother Rachel in the shared suffering of Daughter
Zion. Rachel is to be delivered of Benjamin only to lose her life in the
process. Rachel is buried at Bethlehem; Jacob camps at Midgal Eder.
The promises Micah gives in the “now” moments of vv. 8-10 require
a figural participation in the narrative of Israel’s patronym, Jacob,
and his suffering mother, Rachel. Rachel suffered in labor even unto
death resulting in Benjamin, the progenitor of David’s ancestral tribe.
Likewise, Judah must suffer in labor’s throes, even to death, in the full
hopes of a future Davidic moment. The narratives of Judah’s patriarch
are no mere rehearsal of events long lost and lapsed. Rather, the
narratives are present and inhabitable memories in the figural patterns
set out by Scripture’s traditions and narratives. When Judah enters into
exile, her labor pains are mimetically related to Rachel’s, devastating as
they are. Yet Judah enters into this frown of providence in the assured
hope of a future promise. “There the Lord will redeem them.”

52
See Sweeney especially on the presence of the Jacob narratives (Sweeney, 383–84).
 Micah 4—Between Then and Now 169

The second “but now” section, vv. 11-13, places the religious
perspective of Judah onto the nations. They gather in order to see Zion
defiled (cf Isa 10:6; Jer 3:1, 9; Num 35:33).53 The defiling of the land
thus demonstrated in Micah 1-3 leaves Zion vulnerable to the attack of
her enemies. But on final analysis within the economy of redemption,
the nations are subject to a divine ruse. The nations gather themselves
against Yhwh and his people only to have the tables turned. From
apparent defeat, Zion will emerge in strength and splendor. From death
there emerges life. The very nations looking to exploit Lady Zion will in
turn bring their wealth to Israel’s God. Again, the move from despair to
salvation is on display in these texts.
Calvin’s pastoral insight from this text is fitted to the particularity of its verbal sense.
Yhwh calls on Zion in v. 13 to “arise” (‫)קומי‬. The affliction endured by God’s people made
Zion differ “nothing from a dead man” (Calvin, 288). Calvin requires little to no heavy
hermeneutical lifting as he moves from God’s speech to ancient Israel to God’s current
speech to the Church. These two entities share in the same divine economy and thus share
in an overlap of substantial identities. When the Church suffers, even because of its own
doing, the character of God on display in Mic 4:13 gives heart to the weary. For Israel’s God
“rouse[s] the dead” (ibid.). Calvin continues,

[T]here is no reason for the faithful to wholly despair, when they find themselves
cast down, for their restoration is in the hand and power of God, as it is the peculiar
office of God to raise the dead. And this same truth ought to be applied for our use,
whenever we are so cast down, that no strength, no vigour, remains in us. How then
can we rise again? By the power of God, who by his voice alone can restore us to life,
which seemed to be wholly extinct. (Calvin, 289)

The final “but now” unit (5:1; 4:14 MT) brings with it challenges
regarding contextual place and purpose.54 Given the high notes of 4:13
and 5:2 (5:1 MT), why the word of despair here? This commentary’s
sympathies are with those who understand 4:14 MT within the
larger structural frame of 4:8-5:5 MT.55 The future promises of 4:13
are juxtaposed to the present moment of suffering as Judah incurs
53
Hillers is correct to reject the BHS suggestion to emend this verb to ‫( תחׂשף‬Hillers,
60–61). This commentary follows Hillers in his understanding of the projection of an
Israelite attitude on their attackers.
54
For the range of explanations, see esp. Andersen and Freedman, 458–59. Willis (1968)
argues that v. 14 begins a new unit; Hillers believes the verse is a fragment to be dealt
with on its own (Hillers, 62); Beyerlin argues that 4:14 was originally located after 1:16.
55
See Wolff, 133–36, though Wolff does not include 4:8 within this unit. The inclusio
of “but you” (‫ )ואתה‬at 4:8 and 5:1 MT suggests otherwise, especially given the shared
outlook of 4:8 and 5:1 MT regarding the future Davidic kingdom.
170 Micah: An International Theological Commentary

divine judgment at the hands of her national aggressors. In turn, the

current moment of crisis will open to the future of God’s redemptive
promises: “But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah.” For now, however, siege
and destruction mark the providential moment.
Micah 4:14 is riddled with lexical ambiguities. The initial phrase is
rendered in various ways: “Now you are walled around with a wall”
(NRSV); “Marshal your troops now, city of troops” (New International
Version, NIV); “Now you gash yourself in grief ” (Jewish Publication
Society, JPS). There is little to no lexical evidence in support of the
NRSV’s following of the LXX. (It often comes as a personal relief for
teachers and students alike when we recognize that the Septuagint
translators struggled with the Hebrew text like we do.) The semantic
issue trades on the lexeme gdd (‫)גדד‬. Waltke favors reading bath gedud
(‫ )בת־גדוד‬as the congeneric noun “troops” (daughter of troops),
clarifying the preceding verb (‫ )תתגדדי‬as from its secondary sense of
troop gathering (Waltke, 262–63). The NIV represents this reading of
the lexical conundrum.
The verbal form, however, of the first verb (hithpolel) refers most
often to lacerating oneself (cf. I Ki 18:22; Hos 7;14; Deut 14:1; Jer 16:16;
41:5; 47:5). Though this practice is forbidden (Deut 14:1), the JPS
reading appears to do better justice to the lexical and contextual sense
of 4:14. In other words, it solves more problems. While it is possible
that the text is calling on Judah to gather for battle even though defeat
is inevitable, such a reading strains in light of its lexical sense. Moreover,
as Andersen and Freedman remind, if gedud refers to troop gathering,
the associations of this noun are with “small roving bands of brigands,
which is not the way a city under siege would organize her defenders”
(Andersen and Freedman, 460). “Daughter of gashing” in 4:14 parallels
“daughter of Zion” in 4:8. In 4:9-10 Lady Zion is in the pains of delivery.
Here in 4:14 Lady Zion gashes herself in mourning because she is
under siege. Zion is in great pains because her enemies strike the judge
of Israel on the cheek. Jeremias describes the custom as associated with
“extreme mourning” (extremer Trauerritus; Jeremias 183). The
structural linkage of 4:14 MT and 4:9 suggests the judge of Israel is
 Micah 4—Between Then and Now 171

Israel’s king (Andersen and Freedman, 461). Assyria, in Isa 10:5, 24, is
the rod (‫ )ׁשבט‬of Yhwh’s anger. According to Wolff, striking on the
cheek is an insult (cf. I Ki 22:24). Striking with a staff on the cheek
“intensifies the shame” (Wolff, 143). Micah 4:14 portrays the horror
and shame of Yhwh’s judgment on Israel. But as the whole of 4:8-5:5
attests, weeping endures for the night but joy emerges in the morning.
“But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah.”
172
 5

Micah 5

As observed in the previous chapter, Mic 4:8 and 5:2 (5:1 MT) both
begin with “and you” (‫)ואתה‬. They also deal with the same subject
matter: the Davidic promise as eschatological hope. This grammatical
and thematic inclusio offers a sharp point of focus for readers. From the
ruins of current distress a future moment of promise remains, fixed as
it is to the redemptive figures and patterns of Israel’s history with God.

5:2-4 (1-3 MT): Fresh beginnings and Davidic hope

A stark juxtaposition exists between Mic 5:1 (4:14 MT) and Mic 5:2
(5:1 MT). The enemies of Zion stand against Judah’s king. They submit
him to public humiliation and disgrace by striking him on the face.
The very institution God promised to uphold in perpetuity is now the
object of scorn. The scene is bleak. Yet the move made by the prophet
is now a familiar one (cf. 2:11-2:12-13; 3:12-4:1-5). The location of
despair becomes the catalyst for promise and hope. It is possible that
the labor metaphor of 5:3 (5:2 MT) echoes Isaiah 7 and the promise of
Emmanuel.1 Isaiah’s promise of a future king and his description of this
coming child share much in common with the substance of Micah’s
claims in 5:2-4 (1-3 MT). At the same time, the picture of labor indicates
a time of duress, a season from which to be delivered. Readers of Micah

1
Sweeney, 388. Mowinckel claims, “It is not impossible, as has been maintained, that in
Mic. V, 1-3 the prophet bases his message directly on a ‘Messianic’ interpretation of Isa.
vii.” Sigmund Mowinckel, He That Cometh: The Messiah Concept in the Old Testament &
Later Judaism (trans. G. A. Anderson; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 185.
174 Micah: An International Theological Commentary

have already met this metaphor in 4:9. Judah’s suffering moment will in
time deliver to her a future redeeming king.
Israel’s God promises a new beginning with a new king from David’s
line. This forthcoming king, in contrast to those under Micah’s invective
in chs 1-3, will shepherd in the strength of Yhwh. The future promise of
“secure dwelling” portrayed in Mic 4:1-4 includes within its frame the
promise of the coming king in Mic 5:2-4 (1-3 MT). “And they will live
securely” provides the focal point of hope for these three verses (5:4 [3
MT]). Life lived under kings who shepherd in their own strength, with
god in their hands (2:1), is chaotic, disordered, and lacking security.
The future king who operates in the strength of Yhwh leads his people
to security and peace.
Jeremias, among others, makes much of the location of Bethlehem
Ephrathah as the localized source of Judah’s king of promise.2 Bethlehem
signals something new in the divine economy (cf. Isaiah 11). The
reference to Bethlehem suggests that God is taking up his Messianic
work from the beginning, “in that he again starts at the very same place
as he began in the past, namely in Bethlehem.”3 Jeremias concurs with
von Rad’s account, providing two further implications of Bethlehem’s
significance. First, Bethlehem is removed from the guilt associated with
the current iteration of David’s line in Jerusalem.4 The future Davidic
king is ad fontes, a fresh start absent the aggregate guilt of the current
Davidic line located in Jerusalem (cf. Mic 1:5). Second, Bethlehem as a
place befits the modesty Yhwh desires of His leaders: “though you are
small among the clans of Judah.” Jeremias demonstrates how the future
king’s birth in Bethlehem accords with a figural pattern of God’s call on
various leaders in Scripture: Moses cannot speak (Exodus 3); Jeremiah
is too young (Jeremiah 1); Gideon’s tribe is the smallest in Manasseh
(Judges 6); Saul comes from a miniscule tribe (I Samuel 9); Israel is the
least of all nations (Deuteronomy 7).5 In other words, the future king’s

2
On the complex history of the relation between Ephrathah and Bethlehem, see Sweeney,
387–88.
3
Von Rad, OTT II, 170.
4
Jeremias, 184.
5
Jeremias, 186.
 Micah 5 175

modest origins are of consequence for his ability to shepherd in Yhwh’s

strength.6
Within Christian liturgical and interpretive traditions, Mic 5:2 (5:1
MT) is an Advent text (cf. Matt 2:6). Except for Isa 7:14, few texts share
Mic 5:2’s signal status within Advent liturgical readings. Christians
shaped wittingly or unwittingly by the hermeneutical implications of
their liturgical contexts will have a difficult time reading this text as
something other than a promise of Christ’s incarnation. But is such
a reading warranted by the verbal character of the text itself? A few
interpretive points are worth highlighting in an attempt to answer this
question.
First, the syntactical phrase, from you to me (‫)לי‬, remains a challenge
simply because the first-person referent derives from nowhere. The
form is odd. Nevertheless, despite efforts to correct the text in various
ways, there are no textual variants that allow emendation: except
perhaps the Micah fragment at Qumran which has a ‫ לא‬after the ‫לי‬. The
LXX and Vulgate read the text as “to me,” moi or mihi. In sum, the
figure who will emerge as a ruler in Zion is from you to me, with the
first-person referent implicitly understood as Yhwh.7
It is, however, the next line of the prophetic utterance that receives
the spotlight in the history of this text’s interpretation. “And his going
forth is from of old, even from days of eternity or days long ago.” The
term “going forths” or “origins” ‫ מוצאות‬is in effect a hapax legomenon.
The only other use is 2 Ki 10:27, and there it means “latrine.” Readers
are safe to assume this is not the sense here. Wolff suggests the plural
“going forths” or “origins” gives the expression a heightened sense of
feeling.8 A great deal depends on settling the meaning of “going forth.”
Mays describes this term in the following suggestive way: “Origin
echoes the verb ‘come forth’ and thinks of children originating in the

6
“Alle diese Texte wollen verdeutlichen, dass Heil nicht von menschlichen Qualitäten
abhängt, sondern allein von Gott” (Jeremias, 186).
7
Wolff understands the strange syntax as stemming for the use of a Davidic tradition and
its preference for the verbal phrase ‫יצא‬, cf. Isa 11:1 and 2 Sam 7:13.
8
Wolff, ad loc.
176 Micah: An International Theological Commentary

loins of their father.”9 This phraseology is unique in the Old Testament,

and as such, our philological instincts should be on guard about making
immodest claims about what the rest of the text can or cannot mean.
Can “from of old” (‫ )מקדם‬refer to a distant time in the past, thus
limiting its potential? Yes it can (cf Am 9:11).10 Can a similar claim
regarding “from days of eternity” (‫ )עולם‬be made, especially given the
fact that it is preceded by a temporal absolute noun, days?11 Yes. And
many, if not most, modern commentators go this route. But must it? Are
readers forced to nod in the affirmative with NIDOTTE’s lexical
conclusion regarding Mic 5:2? “While it is tempting to see here a reference
to the eternal preexistence of the Messiah, no such an idea is found in
biblical or postbiblical Jewish literature before the Similitudes of Enoch
(I En 48:2-6).” Does such a philological instinct make good on a historical
referent or potentially even the intention of the author/tradents (however
such is conceived) while at the same time divorcing the linguistic
character of Scripture from its divine referent in a two-testament frame?
It is worth recalling the following: the terms “from of old” and “days
of eternity” are deployed in reference to the eternal character of God
(Deut 33:27—“The eternal God (‫ )אלהי קדם‬is your refuge, and
underneath are the everlasting arms (‫ ;”)עולם‬Ps 90:2—“from everlasting
to everlasting”).12 Hillers suggests that “from of old” has a mythical
quality to it, “primeval, from the beginning, as an order of creation.”13
Jeremias believes the connotative force of “from of old” refers to
“mythische Urzeit,” a time properly referred to as “Gottes Zeit.” Why is
this God’s time? Because in it, claims Jeremias, the primeval saving will
of God (Heilswille) originates.14 As already mentioned, the highlighting
9
Mays, 115–16.
10
See Mowinckel, He That Cometh, 163–63.
11
See Waltke, ad loc.
12
Richard Hays makes note of the LXX rendering of ‫ מקדם‬as ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς, suggesting the
phrase echoes in John’s gospel at Jn 1:1 and more laconically at Jn 7:42 in association with
the reference to Bethlehem. Richard Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Gospels (Waco:
Baylor University Press, 2016), 293–94.
13
Hillers, 66.
14
Jeremias, 185. This reading shares much in common with Calvin who places “going
forth” in the divine will. Again, speculative theology helps here because the divine will is
one with the various personae of the Trinity sharing in it.
 Micah 5 177

of Bethlehem and not Jerusalem is itself significant because God makes

clear his future purposes will begin with something new regarding the
Davidic line rather than the current Davidic line in place in Jerusalem.
Moreover, the use of “days” does not necessarily limit “eternity” as we
see in Dan 7:9—the ancient of Days (or the long of days). In other
words, a strictly governed historical account of this text’s philological
sense may attenuate its canonical intentionality. The fog and smoke of
eternity wafts alongside the verbal dimension of this text.
The question here is a modest one. Given the unique character of this
text, should its referent be limited to its undeniable, Davidic context
in the historical moment of ancient Judah or Yehud? Given its verbal
character and shared subject matter with a two-testament canon, the
answer appears in the negative. Commenting on this text, Anderson
and Freedman claim,

At the least the language suggests that the birth of the Messiah has
been determined, or predicted in the divine council, in primal days …
Even if mosa’ot means no more than an oracle expressing the divine
determination, it does not require a great shift in conceptuality to
move to the Son of Man figure of the later apocalypses—the Urmensch.

They conclude, “So Christians did not abuse the text when they
found Jesus in it.”15 This commentary will press the matter further
and suggest the following: not only have Christians not abused this
text when allowing it a substantive role in the doctrine of the eternal
generation of the Son, but they in fact are reading the text well in light
of the Trinitarian subject of Scripture. The Trinitarian subject matter
of Scripture provides a ruled reading, setting expectations and alerting
interpreting sensibilities regarding the text’s referential nature. As such,
the Trinitarian context of Scripture not only provides a hermeneutic
for all of Scripture but is in fact the retina that allow us to see the text’s
ontological relation to its subject matter. Can Mic 5:1(2) be read in
different ways than the traditional, Christian reading that links this text

15
Andersen and Freedman, 468.
178 Micah: An International Theological Commentary

to the eternal generation of the Son? Certainly. Nevertheless, given the

subject matter of Scripture and its canonical function as a continued
means by which the Father reveals himself in the Son by the Spirit, must
it be read in this overly historicist fashion? Not if the text of Mic 5:1(2)
and the New Testament canon share in the same subject matter. His
processions are from eternity, emerging from the eternal counsel of
God’s own inner-Trinitarian communication and a singular divine will
given to the creation and redemption of the world.

Micah 5:2 in the tradition: John Owen as exemplar

Socinianism made its tyrannical march from Italy in the late sixteenth century into Poland
during the early seventeenth century. There its roots settled deeply. The Racovian Catechism
emerged from Poland’s Socinian movement, and, in time, Socinian doctrine made its way
into England via an Oxford don by the name of Mr. John Biddle—a Dickensian name if
there ever was one. Mr. Biddle translated the Racovian Catechism into English, and the
publication of this non-Trinitarian form of Christianity prompted Owen the polemicist
into action. Mr. Owen produced a counterattack to Biddle’s catechism, line by line, in
his Vindiciae Evangeliae (Defense of the Gospel). Some 589 pages of English prose later,
Mr. Owen completed his rejoinder. The denial of Trinitarian faith was of massive moral
consequence for Owen. Nothing less than humanity’s salvation hung in the balance.
As one might anticipate, Owen’s counter to Mr. Biddle’s Socinian views focuses much
on the relation of the Logos to the Father in an attempt to provide biblical and theological
support for Nicene orthodoxy. Central to the concerns are the full divinity of the Son with
attention given to the notion of the Son’s eternal generation by means of the Father’s eternal
act of generating, language familiar to fourth-century Trinitarian debates.
Mr. Biddle’s catechism denies the eternal generation of the Son because, in his terms,
“if Christ were begotten of the essence of his Father, either he took his whole essence or
but part. Part of his essence he could not take, for the divine essence is impartible; nor the
whole, for it being one in number is incommunicable.”16 Owen’s immediate comment after
quoting Biddle cuts straight, “And this is the fruit of measuring spiritual things by carnal,
infinite by finite, God by ourselves, the object of faith by corrupted rules of corrupted
reason.”17
What fascinates about this section in Owen, and for that matter Mr. Biddle’s catechism
too, relates to the location of the exegetical debate—the Old Testament. Mr. Biddle raises
the question, Where do they argue for the eternal generation of the Son? Answer: “From
these chiefly, Mic v. 2; Ps. ii. 7; cx. 3; Prov. viii. 23.” From the identification of these texts, Mr.
Biddle argues against their validity concerning the eternal generation of the Son by various
and sundry means. Micah 5:2, for example, does not refer to the eternal generation of the
Son. This is a misunderstanding of the lexical data, according to Mr. Biddle. The language
refers quite simply to days of antiquity, and the use of the term “day” removes us from the
sphere of eternity. The reference to days of antiquity conjoined with the identification of

16
John Owen, The Gospel Defended, The Works of John Owen, Vol 12 (Edinburgh: Banner
of Truth, 1966), 237.
17
Ibid., 237.
 Micah 5 179

Bethlehem as the place of nativity refers simply to David and his progeny, the line from
which Christ would come—a reading conspicuously like most current approaches to the
selfsame text. And Mr. Owen counters with his theological/exegetical armor strapped on
for battle. The whole of chapter 9 in Owen’s Defense of the Gospel is an exegetical debate
regarding the eternal generation of the son and the Old Testament. Micah 5:2 registers as
the first text under critical scrutiny.
The exchange between Owen and Biddle remains instructive, especially in the realm
of evangelical hermeneutics, because Owen and Biddle formally agree when it comes to
their doctrine of Scripture. In fact, Owen says little against Biddle’s catechetical statements
concerning Scripture, a point of some interest. Carl Trueman’s work on John Owen
explains,

When Owen tackles Biddle’s text proper, he starts with a surprisingly brief
comment on the Twofold Catechism’s doctrine of scripture, with which he has little
disagreement. The very brevity of the chapter, along with its somewhat petulant
ad hominem nature, indicates the problem: the Socinians appear to hold to a basic
scripture principle in a formally similar manner to the orthodox. The differences,
in fact, are significant, and go straight to the heart of why Owen can see scripture as
teaching the doctrine of the Trinity and the Socinians reject such a conclusion: the
point at issue is not simply whether scripture is the authoritative noetic foundation
for theology, but how that scripture is to be interpreted, a point which draws in
matters of logic, of metaphysics, and of how individual passages of scripture are
mutually related in the act of interpretation.18

Biddle’s claim is a claim that strikes at the heart of an evangelical sensibility, a sensibility
marked by an “I am only interested in what the Bible claims and nothing more” attitude.
And while this kind of appeal has a pedestrian cache, with interpretive instincts heading in
the right direction—we seek to order our thoughts and prayers in accord with Scripture’s
norming voice—the surreptitious character of the statement remains. For Biddle is working
with metaphysic commitments as well, namely, it is logically impossible to hold to a sharing
in the divine essence between a plurality of personae in the Godhead. The divine essence
is indivisible and the eternal generation of the Son from the Father’s divine essence does
not follow this indivisibility. This a priori notion of the divine essence functions as a
hermeneutical cipher for Biddle. Owen identifies this Socinian metaphysic as “rationalistic
reductionism.”19
As an aside, Spinoza’s interpretive outline in his Tractatus makes similar claims. He too
displays an “I am only interested in coming to terms with what Scripture claims and nothing
more.”20 Starting afresh with a Cartesian mode of inquiry, Spinoza sets to the task of allowing
Scripture to speak for itself. But the indubitable foundation of Spinoza’s hermeneutic was
the natural light of reason, a claim he repeats enough to register it as a central leitmotif in
the Tractatus. This “neutral” hermeneutic led to the necessary sequestering of metaphysical
truth claims from Scripture into the specialized world of philosophy. Owen’s response to
Spinoza would mirror his to Biddle: “rationalistic reductionism.”
Why? Because Owen is steeped enough in the church’s exegetical tradition to recognize
the necessary two-way street between the engagement with the biblical texts themselves and

18
Carl R. Trueman, John Owen: Reformed Catholic, Renaissance Man (Great Theologians
Series; Aldershot: Ashgate, 2007), 48.
19
Op cit., Richard Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics: The Rise and Development
of Reformed Orthodoxy, ca. 1520 to ca. 1725, Vol. Four, The Triunity of God (Grand
Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003), 283.
20
Benedict de Spinoza, Theological-Political Treatise (Cambridge Texts in the History of
Philosophy; trans. J. Israel; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 8, et passim.
180 Micah: An International Theological Commentary

the confession regarding the identity of the one God witnessed to therein. In David Yeago’s
formulation, Trinitarian language, while extra-biblical, is deployed as an act of hermeneia
for the sake of coming to terms with Scripture’s total witness regarding its naming of the
persons of the Trinity: naming related to the divine essence at times and to eternal relations
or processions at others. Owen strives to give a rational and ordered account of Christian
orthodoxy, and he does so in an effort to come to terms with Scripture’s total witness. For
Mr. Biddle, the distinction between essence and person is patently false, unallowable by the
assumptions of his metaphysic. For Owen, on the other hand, this distinction maintains
Scripture’s unity while at the same time comes to terms with Scripture’s diverse modes
of expression concerning divine unity and plurality. Again, the Bible’s own self-witness
demands such an account.
As far as Mic 5:2 is concerned, Owen finds Biddle’s philological analysis lacking. For
Owen, the ‫ מוצאת‬refers unquestionably to the Son’s eternal generation. He complains Biddle
takes no account of ‫מקדם‬, which for Owen refers to eternity. And despite the temporal
nomen regens (construct noun), given the subject matter, Owen understands ‫ מימי עולמ‬as a
reference to pre-temporal eternity as well, much in the same way as the Aramaic ancient of
days in Dan 7:9 makes use of days with reference to eternity.
Owen overreaches perhaps in his downplaying of the Davidic context. He finds Hugo
Grotius’s identification of Zerubbabel as the immediate fulfillment of this text problematic.
Owen appeals to the Targum’s paraphrastic rendering of the text as a reference to the coming
Messiah, undercutting Grotius’s reading—not to mention Zerubbabel is born in Babylon,
not Bethlehem. Of interest, Theodore of Mopsuestia understands this text as having an
immediate reference to Zerubbabel, though not at the expense of its ultimate Christological
referent: a double-literal fulfillment one might say or perhaps a figural reading that takes
into account multiple referents?
What are readers to make of all of this? One, Biddle’s (and Grotius’s) reading of this
text shares much in common with current scholarship on Mic 5:2, as observed above. Two,
Owen’s reading of the text is a close philological analysis of the words themselves. Yet, the
words of Scripture do not operate apart from the subject matter of Christian Scripture: a
subject matter whose character remains an article of faith. As his snarky response to Grotius
intimates, “That it [Mic 5:2] properly belongs to Christ we have a better interpreter to be
sure than Grotius or any of his rabbins, Matt. ii. 4-6” (240). For Owen, the exegetical deck
is stacked because Scripture itself speaks clearly about this text’s final referent. And because
this is so, the literal sense of the text can only be made sense of in a close reading of the
verbal/grammatical character of the text in shared relation with its Triune subject matter.
Owen’s reading is standard fare in the tradition.

Glosses from the Christian interpretive tradition

• Cyril of Alexandria: understands the “going forth” of Mic 5:2 as either (1)
eternal generation or (2) the emergence in time of the Logos’s incarnation (logos
incarnatus).
• Theodoret of Cyrus: Micah 5:2 relates substantially to the prologue of John’s gospel
and resists reduction to immediate fulfillment in Zerubbabel.
• Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, Pt 1, Q 42, Art 5 (Whether the Son is in the Father,
and Conversely): Obj. 2 states, “Further, nothing that has come out from another is
within it. But the sone from eternity came out from the Father, according to Micheas
v. 2 … Therefore the Son and the Father are not in each other.” Aquinas replies, “The
Son’s going forth from the Father is by mode of the interior procession whereby the
word emerges from the heart and remains therein. Hence this going forth in God
is only by the distinction of the relations, not by any kind of essential separation.”
Again, Aquinas is drawing on the metaphysical tradition of the church fathers in
 Micah 5 181

distinguishing between essence and persons. As Gilles Emery clarifies, “The sole
distinction in the Godhead is between the persons, but there is no distinction between
the persons and the divine nature.”21
• Luther too sees the correspondence between Mic 5:2 and John’s prologue regarding the
eternal generation of the Son from the Father.
• Melanchthon states, “Although this testimony is brief, yet it asserts that the
Messiah existed before the creation of the world. Therefore He is eternal and God”
(Melanchthon, Loci Communes, p. 26).
• In his sermons on Micah, Calvin’s exegetical instincts are similar to the tradition,
but he follows a pastoral path encouraging hearers in their suffering to recognize the
eternal character of Christ’s kingdom. His commentary on Micah makes the strange
statement that though he is willing to grant this text refers to the eternal generation
of the Son, he prefers reading the text more simply as a reference to the long-before
determination of God to bring Christ into the world. Why the simple reading?
Because the traditional Christian reading “will never be allowed by the Jews.”22
While the chord may be struck with a different cadence and emphasis in the tradition, by
and large, the Trinitarian referent of Mic 5:2 is assumed. The phrase “[W]hose origin is
from of old, from ancient days” refers not simply to the eternal plan of God to perpetuate
David’s throne, though it should be added the text does not say less than this. Rather, the
text, whose theological referent is God’s Triune revelation of himself in the redemption of
humankind, refers to the coming Davidic ruler who does indeed perpetuate David’s throne
but does so as one whose eternal identity is in procession from the Father in a shared divine
essence.

Micah 5:5-9 (5:4-8 MT)

Micah 5:5 (5:4 MT) begins with the temporal marker “and it will be”
(‫)והיה‬. This marker shapes the rest of ch. 5 as it begins v. 7 (v. 6 MT) and
v. 10 (v. 9 MT). The future indicators fill out for readers the forward-
looking hope associated with the promised leader of 5:2-4 (1-3 MT).
Identifying the antecedent of the demonstrative pronoun “this” (‫ )זה‬in
5:5a (5:4a MT) remains a challenge. The NRSV, as with most English
translations, understands the referent as the announced king of 5:2-4
(1-3 MT): “and he shall be the one of peace.”23 Both Nogalski and

21
Gilles Emery, O. P., The Trinity: An Introduction to the Catholic Doctrine on the Triune
God (trans. M. Levering; Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press,
2011), 106. See Lewis Ayres, Nicea and Its Legacy: An Approach to Fourth-Century
Trinitarian Theology (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), 236.
22
Calvin, 299.
23
See Mays, 119. Waltke supports the traditional reading, leaning on the Vulgate for support
(Waltke, 286). He also nods in the comparative philological direction with those who
understand the phrase ‫ זה ׁשלום‬as a divine title based on Arabic and Ugaritic du, “the one
of.” In this light, the phrase reads, “and he will be The One of Peace.” Hillers also makes
182 Micah: An International Theological Commentary

Sweeney lean against the traditional reading because “this” tends to

refer to something new with “that” as the pronoun of choice when
looking backwards.24 On this account, the formula, “and it will be,”
introduces a moment in the future when Judah endures and survives
the onslaught of the Assyrians. The antecedent of “this,” therefore, is the
future scene on display in vv. 5-6 (4-5 MT).
The Masoretic Text collects vv. 1-5 within one paragraph
(parashiyya).25 Such a delimitation does intimate the thematic unity of
this section, despite a clear understanding of the particular referent of
the demonstrative pronoun. Whether “this” looks forward, so Nogalski
and Sweeney, or backwards to the promised king with “this” translated as
“he” or “this one,” the promised peace of 5:5 (5:4 MT) resists detachment
from the promised king of 5:2-4 (1-3 MT). Jeremias cuts the Gordian
knot of this ambiguous phrase by claiming that the coming king is either
the mediator (Vermittler) of this coming salvation or the personification
(Verkörperung) of it: he is peace.26 Both are grammatically possible. As
Jeremias claims, “The salvation of the community (and of the world) is
unthinkable without the new David according to this text.”27
As observed in preceding chapters, van der Woude advances a trenchant argument for
the presence of the pseudo-prophet’s voice in passages of Micah often associated with the
prophet himself or prophetic tradents. While this commentary has not followed van der
Woude at every turn because of the subtle nature of the argument and the problems posed
for future generations of readers, it is of interpretive interest to note Luther’s agreement with
van der Woude at this juncture of Micah’s prophecy. For Luther, the phrase “and this shall
be peace” is Micah’s strident account of the false prophets’ overly confident Zion theology.
In other words, this is the kind of peace they promise, to wit, the terrorizing presence of
the Assyrians trampling through our villages and cities (Luther, 250). Luther continues his
account by identifying a future spiritual peace that will indeed come but not the kind of
false peace promised by the pseudo-prophets.

such a claim about this phrase as a divine title (cf. Isa 9:6; Hillers, 65). Andersen and
Freedman offer support for this reading as well based on the comparative philological
arguments of Cathcart. For Andersen and Freedman, the title “the One of Peace” alludes
to Solomon and his era of peace (Andersen and Freedman, 476). Wolff believes “this”
refers to the Messianic figure of 5:1-3 MT and finds the arguments weak that read ‫זה ׁשלום‬
as a construct or title, i.e., all of the above (Wolff, 147).
24
Nogalski, 563; Sweeney, 389–90.
25
Waltke and O’Connor, §38.1c. See Andersen and Freedman, 473.
26
Jeremias, 186–87.
27
Jeremias, 187. “Das Heil der Gemeinschaft (und der Welt) ist für den Text undenkbar
ohne den neuen David.”
 Micah 5 183

The promised peace associated with the coming king manifests itself
in the endurance and salvation of Judah from the threatening advances
of the Assyrians. The peace promised herein is of the salvific kind as
described in the verses to follow. The sequence of events is
straightforward: Assyrian incursion, the defense of Judah by its leader/
shepherds, and a counteroffensive attack against Assyria. The
presentation of the events, however, do not follow a linear temporal
frame. Nogalski’s suggestion of reading the ki (‫ )כי‬clauses of 5:5-6 (4-5
MT) as concessive (“though”) rather than the standard temporal
rendering (“when”) has much to commend it. He understands the A B
B A pattern of these verses (ki weki [‫ )]כי … וכי‬as conditional clauses (A)
enveloping two consequential elements (B).28 In brief, though Assyria
enters the land in hostility, Judah will take measures of defense resulting
in their endurance. The resultant endurance and redemption from
Assyrian onslaught is the promised peace of v. 5 (v. 4 MT).
The first conditional clause (5:4b MT) describes the Assyrians
entering the land and treading upon the palaces of Judah.29 The
consequence of this action is the appointment by the community (“we
will raise”) of seven shepherds and eight tribal leaders. The phrase is
riddled with ambiguities. The identification of Judah’s leaders as
shepherds is a standard feature of the prophetic literature (cf. Jeremiah
23). The archaic term “tribal leader” recalls the pre-monarchical
Transjordan.30 Andersen and Freedman suggest that if this were the
allusion, then the number twelve would be expected rather than eight.
They make the interesting suggestion that an etymological relation
exists between nsk (“to appoint as a leader”; cf. Ps. 2:6; Prov 8:26) and
msch (“to anoint”). In other words, the term “tribal leaders” (‫ )נסיך‬could

28
Nogalski, 563.
29
The phrase “our palaces” (‫ )בארמנתינו‬is rendered “our soil” in the NRSV. It follows the
suggestion of the BHS to emend “our palaces” with ‫“( באדמתנו‬our land”). There is some
support for this reading in the LXX (“our land” or “our region”). See Williamson who
argues for the MT against the suggested emendation. Williamson understands the
corruption of the next verse “in her doorways” (‫ )בפתחיה‬as making best sense against the
MT rendering of “our palaces” over against the emendation to “our land.” Williamson,
“Marginalia,” 365–67.
30
See Andersen and Freedman, 479.
184 Micah: An International Theological Commentary

be in synonymous relation to “messiah.”31 Yet the plural character of

these appointed leaders problematizes a following of this reading too
far.
What is more perplexing is the use of the numbers “seven” and “eight”
to modify the “shepherds” and “leaders” of the people. Solving this
riddle definitively will remain elusive.32 As with Amos, the sequence of
numbers, 3 + 4 or 7 + 8, may have no specific numeric reference, simply
referring to a multiplicity of entities.33 The Assyrians will, according to
Sweeney, “have their hands full” when dealing with Judah’s revolt.34 On
the other hand, the numerical pattern may draw attention to the second
number as the real number (cf. Prov 30:18-31).35 Nogalski displays a
preference for an “apocalyptic” understanding with the number eight in
view, especially if read from the perspective of the eighth century. From
Hezekiah to the fall of Jerusalem under King Zedekiah, there were eight
kings of Judah. Andersen and Freedman continue their Messianic line
of interpretation suggesting that the number eight relates to David as the
eighth son of Jesse, though they are quick to point out that there is no
tradition where David holds a position of primary leadership in some
shared capacity with his seven brothers.36 Waltke provides a helpful path
to make sense of the relation between the singularity of the promised
coming king and the multiplicity of leaders announced here. For
Waltke, the seven/eight phraseology does draw attention to the number
eight in order to demonstrate the going beyond perfection that the
number seven indicates. Seven, according to Waltke, symbolizes totality
and sacredness. Therefore, the sons of Israel appointed to shepherd and
lead in the midst of Assyria’s incursion will do so in “more than full
cooperation” with the Messianic ruler appointed in vv. 2-4 (1-3 MT).

31
Andersen and Freedman, 479.
32
The reading of these leaders as Assyrian rather than Judean (e.g., Wolff and Ben Zvi)
does not persuade. See Nogalski, 564.
33
See Duane Garret who does see a significance in the numbers 3 + 4 in Amos as collectively
7.
34
Sweeney, 390. Interestingly, Calvin follows the same interpretive line. “By seven and
eight, the Prophet no doubt meant a great number” (Calvin, 310).
35
Waltke, 289–90.
36
Andersen and Freedman, 478.
 Micah 5 185

The text is ironic when it describes these leaders of Judah

“shepherding” Assyria with the sword and the “drawn sword.”37 While
there is no historical evidence that Judah in the eighth century made
offensive incursions into Assyria, such hyperbole is fair game when
describing God’s providential redemption of his people against such
a tyrannical force as Assyria. Moreover, the eschatological shaping of
the prophetic literature makes possible the tropic nature of Assyria in
Micah’s final form. Assyria on this reading is a figure whose referential
potential exceeds the moment of the eighth century per se. Such is the
reading offered by Cyril of Alexandria as he follows the text’s literal
sense to its spiritual or figural sense. For Cyril, Assyria represents the
very inventor of sin himself, namely, Satan.38 Assyria on this reading is
“the implacable and warlike mass of demons which oppose everything
holy and fight against the holy city, the spiritual Zion.”39
Calvin follows Cyril’s figural instincts at this interpretive juncture. Calvin pursues a
more pastoral line of thought as he thinks through the difficult juxtaposition of promised
peace and Assyrian onslaught in the text’s literal sense. This is a commendable interpretive
move made by Calvin. The verbal character of text and the tensions present therein are
allowed to stand as he provides a pastoral and theological point of entry for textual sense
making. In brief, Calvin raises the question “Why?” Why would God allow the Assyrians
violent entrance to the land after the remarkable announcement of Christ’s coming?
For Calvin, this prophetic word is not hemmed in to the moment of its literary genesis
or redactional finality. The prophets speak to the preservation of Christ’s church before
and after his incarnation. Here the figural pattern is observed as the temporal moment of
Assyrian’s incursion plays a transhistorical role in providing a prophetic pattern for God’s
dealings with his Church ante and post Christum natum. The answer to the “Why?” question
for Calvin is straightforward. “The Prophet intimates that the Church of God would not be
free from troubles, even after the coming of Christ.”40 As the prophets indicate, often God
humbles his people even in the form of discipline and chastisement in order to deliver them.
Yhwh’s providential oversight and protection of His people spill over
the borders of Judah (vv. 5-6 [4-5 MT]) to the scattered remnant of
the diaspora throughout the nations (vv. 7-9 [6-8 MT]). Yhwh’s power
and sovereign reach is not limited to the national borders of those who
worship Him. Yhwh is powerful to preserve and protect wherever land
and sea exist.

37
On following the emendation “drawn sword” over “its doorways,” see Williamson,
“Marginalia,” 366; cf. Wolff, ad loc.
38
Cyril of Alexandria, 237.
39
Ibid.
40
Calvin, 307–08.
186 Micah: An International Theological Commentary

The nature of the similes in vv. 7-8 (6-7 MT) is the subject of some
discussion. As is often noted, a grammatical parallelism exists between
vv. 7-8. Both verses begin with the same future formula, “and it will be”
(‫)והיה‬, followed by the phrase “a remnant of Jacob in the midst of many
peoples.” Following this formula, the similes of dew (‫)טל‬/showers
(‫ )רביבים‬appear in v. 7 and lion (‫ )אריה‬in v. 8. The difficulty comes in
relating the two metaphors that prima facie appear incompatible: dew
as blessing and lion as predator.
The image of the remnant (‫ )ׁשארית‬appears in Micah already at 2:12
and 4:7. At both locations, the remnant exist as a testimony to the
saving hand of Yhwh to shepherd and protect his people despite the
egregious circumstances having led to their dispersion. Jeremias
believes 5:7-8 refers the reader back to these two texts in Micah yet
from a different standpoint. Whereas 2:12 and 4:7 speak to the future
(Endzeit), 5:7 addresses the current circumstances of the reader, where
the “now” (jetzt, ‫ )עתה‬of 4:9 and 5:1 (4:14 MT) has turned to a new
moment, namely, the postexilic period.41 Whether or not the initial
audience was postexilic (see Willis for an eighth-century reading), a
new situation is at hand, one that stands in continuity with the promises
for the remnant in 2:12 and 4:7ff.

Heidelberg Catechism Q & A 27

Q. What do you understand by the providence of God?
A. The almighty and ever present power of God by which God upholds, as with his hand,
heaven and earth and all creatures, and so rules them that leaf and blade, rain and drought,
fruitful and lean years, food and drink, health and sickness, prosperity and poverty—all
things, in fact, come to us, not by chance but by his fatherly hand.

The relation of vv. 7-8 is an antithetical one, and this despite attempts
to flatten out the contrast.42 In the future moment of God’s dealings with
his dispersed remnant, they will either bless the nations like dew or curse

41
Jeremias, 189.
42
See Wolff who argues impressively for the simile of “dew” as an indication of something
only God can do, thus the clarifying end of v. 7: “which do not depend upon people or
 Micah 5 187

the nations as predators of God’s judgment. Jeremias points back to the

Abrahamic covenant in Gen 12:3 where such a contrast is already on
offer: Abraham’s offspring as either a blessing or a curse to the nations.43
Moreover, Hosea has already set the tone with these two metaphors:
dew and lion. Yhwh acts like a lion in vengeance against his rebellious
children (Hos 5:14) and will also be like the dew when He redeems and
forgives sins (Hos 14:5). These metaphors stand in specific relation to
the actions of Yhwh; Hosea prepares us for this understanding. Here in
Mic 5:7-8, the remnant act as the human agents through whom Yhwh
executes his blessings of forgiveness and his ferocious judgment for and
against the nations. Micah’s prophecy has already prepared readers for
the juxtaposition of these seemingly incompatible metaphors. In Mic
4:1-4, the nations stream to Mt. Zion in order to receive instruction and
blessing from Yhwh. While in Mic 4:11-13, the nations are portrayed as
those who in time will experience Yhwh’s wrath by means of his agent
Zion. As mentioned in the previous chapter, neat and clean categories
like “universalism” or “particularism” are problematized by the prophetic
literature when seeking to relate Israel and the nations. Yet, Israel’s unique
role as mediators of Yhwh’s salvation to the nations remains an unassailable
affirmation of the prophets in general and Micah here in ch. 5.

Micah 5:10-15 (9-14 MT)

The final “and it will be” (‫ )והיה‬section of ch. 5 turns to Yhwh’s purging of
Jacob.44 The grammatical structure of the text (MT) is striking as a series
of first person, future verbs (waw-consecutives) begin each line of the

wait for any mortal.” The discordance between the two similes is in large measure the
rationale for Wolff ’s resistance to allow “dew” to function in its typical way as a positive
image of the blessing of God. Rather, for Wolff “dew” speaks to the doings of God and
God alone apart from human achievement. The existence of the remnant is like the
existence of dew, inexplicable apart from the powerful activity of God (Wolff, 156–57).
43
Jeremias, 190.
44
The standard defense of the “authenticity” of Mic 5:9-14 remains. John T. Willis, “The
Authenticity and Meaning of Micah 5:9-14,” ZAW 81 (1969): 353–68.
188 Micah: An International Theological Commentary

section. The first-person speaking voice of each verb except one is Yhwh.
The only verb attributed to Judah’s action is a negation, a nonaction.
They will no longer worship the work of their hands (the second line v.
13 [v. 12 MT]). The juxtaposition of divine action and human nonaction
speaks to the nature of the situation at hand. The section displays the
resolution of Yhwh’s singular will: to rid Judah of her military reliance
and idolatry. Yhwh is pruning, cutting off the cancer of Judah’s infidelity.
Both idolatry and a reliance on arms turn on the self-confidence of
Judah to rely on itself for national and religious security. As in Isa 2:6ff,
such actions reveal the pride and arrogance of God’s people. Moreover,
as Isaiah 2 ends with Yhwh shearing and pruning, so too does God cut
away at Judah’s national and religious self-reliance.
The phrase “in that day” (‫ )ביום־ההוא‬following the future indicator
“and it will be” in v. 10 (9 MT) links this final section of Micah 5 to the
beginning of Micah 4. The “in the latter days” of Mic 4:1 and the future
“in that day” of 5:10 reveal the multifaceted character of the Day of the
Lord theme within these two chapters. The future entails nations
streaming to Zion in order to hear Yhwh’s teaching, and the fifth chapter
ends with a view to the future day where a cleansing of God’s people
from their self-reliance occurs. As within the Twelve as a whole, the
Day of the Lord is a varied thing, able to be viewed from multiple
perspective depending on the nature of the audience in view. Here, the
future day is a day of reckoning for God’s people, and Mic 5:10-14 (9-13
MT) makes clear why this day will be darkness (cf Am 5:18).
The first two verses speak to Judah’s reliance on the machinations
of their military strength: horses and chariots, cities, and strongholds
(cf. Isa 2:7, 15; Deut 17:16-17).45 Whereas vv. 12-14 (11-13 MT) reveal
religious self-confidence as a plethora of humanly crafted approaches to
control and steer the divine are identified: sorceries, diviners, idolatrous
images, and the Asherah or female consort of the Canaanite god El.46

45
See Andersen and Freedman, 493, on the intertextual association of these verses with
Zech 9:9-10.
46
See “Asherah” in Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, Second Edition (ed. K. van
der Toorn, B. Becking and P. van der Horst; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 99–105.
 Micah 5 189

These are all listed in concert because they all attest to a single act of
religious infidelity, namely, a rejection of the revealed will of Yhwh as to
his identity, singularity, and sovereignty. In this light, military reliance
absent the leading light of Yhwh and religious ingenuity apart from
revealed religion are flip sides of the same coin of human pride.
The surprising element of 5:10-15 remains the final verse. It follows
the same grammatical structure of the verses preceding it, beginning
with a future verb (waw consecutive). Readers would naturally assume
the subject matter and identity of the addressees would remain the
same. Yet, v. 15 reads as follows: “And in anger and wrath I will execute
vengeance on the nations that did not obey.” The use of the term
“nations” (‫ )גוים‬comes as a surprise given the identity of Judah as the
addressees of this unit. As readers might imagine, several interpretive
options are offered in the secondary literature to make sense of this
conundrum. Wagenaar is representative of a redaction-critical
explanation. On this account, 5:15 (14 MT) is the work of a later editor
who added it to 5:10-14 (9-13 MT) in order to frame the whole of this
unit as an oracle of judgment against the nations. In other words, the
surprise ending functions as a redactional gloss for interpreting the
whole unit as not against Judah per se but against the nations.47
Ben Zvi makes note of the redaction-critical argument, suggesting
there are two approaches to understanding 5:15 (14 MT) in its current
literary setting. The first approach places 5:15 (14 MT) in temporal
relation to the preceding verses according to the following logic: after
the pruning of Judah, God will turn his judging efforts toward the
nations. As noted elsewhere, Ben Zvi understands the Sitz im Buch of
Micah as postexilic Yehud. In this location, Judah has already suffered
vv. 10-14 (9-13 MT), and they now await the execution of v. 15 (14
MT).48 Sweeney offers this temporal reading with the judgment of Zion
leading to the judgment of the nations for the sake of restoring Judah.49

47
Wagenaar, Judgement and Salvation, 310–11. See also Nogalski who follows this reading,
ad loc.
48
Ben Zvi, 138.
49
Sweeney, 393.
190 Micah: An International Theological Commentary

The second approach, according to Ben Zvi, is to follow the logic of

Micah 1 where the summons to the nations and the identification of
Jerusalem and Samaria as the targets of God’s judgment blur into each
other (Mic 1:5). The textual intention of this blurring results in two
interpretive options—one, readers read from the beginning to end
with the conclusion that Judah is listed as part of the nations under
God’s judgment or two, readers read from back to front where, as with
Wagenaar, the whole of this section is targeted at the nations and not
Judah per se.50
Jeremias, along with Mays, Wolff, and others, recognizes the
editorial function of 5:15 (14 MT) as well, though he goes in a different
interpretive direction than Wagenaar. Jeremias accepts the depth
dimension of Micah’s prophecy as an editorial whole but does so in
order to come to terms with the text’s in its final, canonical form.
Jeremias identifies the link of 5:15 (14 MT) to ch. 1 with its summons to
hear (‫ ;ׁשמע‬1:2). The editorial shaping of this unit suggests that 5:15 (14
MT) and 1:2 relate to each other as bookends of chs 1–5. The nations
experience God’s vengeance (‫ )נקם‬because they did not “hear” or “obey”
(‫ )ׁשמעו‬the summons (cf. 1:2). There is a theological integrity and unity
to chs 1–5 in the text’s final form. Jeremias also draws attention to the
arch (Bogen) from 5:10-15 (9-14 MT) to 4:1-4 where a distinction is
made in the final days between those who stream to hear and listen
and those who refuse to hear.51 The faithful community is a community
marked by loyalty and attendance to Yhwh’s teaching, whereas the
community under judgment bears the faithless marks of 5:10-14 (9-14
MT).52 Like the surprising list of nations in Amos 1-2, so too here in the
final form of Micah’s prophetic book, faithless Israel is identified and
linked with the nations who did not hear.53

50
Ibid., 138–39.
51
Jeremias, 195.
52
Wolff (160–61) draws attention to the significance of “wrath and anger” in Deut 29:21-
27.
53
As indicated in Am 5:18, there was an expectation that the Day of the Lord would bring
only light, not darkness. Such is indicative of the overweening Zion theology at play
among political and religious leaders.
 Micah 5 191

As mentioned above, Isaiah 2 provides an interpretive and canonical

aid for the internal logic of Micah 4-5. The vision of “the latter days”
where the nations stream to Mt. Zion follows with a summons to Judah
to walk in the light of the LORD (Isa 2:5). The future promise of Yhwh’s
universal reign and resultant era of peace is intended to elicit self-
scrutiny among Yhwh’s elect as to their own actions in the present. Yet,
as in Micah 5, Jacob follows the paths of the nations, adopting their
political and religious practices and sensibilities (Isa 2:6-8). As ch. 2
continues its unsettling line of thought, the pride of Jacob is wrapped
up with the pride of the nations such that the terrible day of God’s
forthcoming vengeance will be equally meted out to arrogant Judah
and lofty Lebanon, Bashan, and Tarshish. The canonical effect of Isaiah
2 and Micah 4-5 is a summons to repentance for God’s people because
God’s judgment against human arrogance does not discriminate
according to national boundary lines.
Calvin is quick to bring the material force of the prophetic word into
the life of the church in its current existence. His comments on the sins
of self-reliance are poignant and worthy of reproducing in toto:

This truth ought to be carefully contemplated by us. Whenever we see

that the Church of God, though not possessing any great power, is yet
diminished daily, yea, and becomes, so to speak, like a naked land,
without any defenses, it so happens, in order that the protection of
God may be alone sufficient for us, and that he may wholly tear away
from our hearts all haughtiness and pride, and dissipate all those vain
confidences by which we not only obscure the glory of God, but, as far
as we can, entirely cover it over. In short, as there is nothing better for
us than to be preserved by the hand of God, we ought to bear patiently
the removal of all those impediments which close up the way against
God, and, in a manner, keep off his hand from us, when he is ready
to extend it for the purpose of delivering us. For when our minds are
inflated with foolish self-confidence, we neglect God; and thus a wall
intervenes, which prevents him to help us. Who would not wish, seeing
himself in extreme danger and help not far distant, that an intercepting
wall should immediately fall down? Thus God is near at hand, as he
192 Micah: An International Theological Commentary

has promised; but there are many walls and many obstacles, from the
ruin of which, if we would be safe, we must desire and seek, that God
may find an open and free way, in order that he may be able to afford
us aid.54

54
Calvin, 321–22.
 6

Micah 6

Introduction

Up unto this point in its literary movement, the prophecy of Micah

reflects a series of intentionally shaped markers of coherence and
continuity. The move from doom to hope is found at critical junctures,
the razing of Zion at the end of ch. 3 opens to the future exaltation of
Zion at the beginning of ch. 4, the humiliation of Judah’s king at the
break of ch. 4 leads to the promised coming king in 5:1: These all reveal
a unified movement and shape to Micah’s prophetic legacy in the first
five chapters. The final section of Micah’s prophecy—chs 6–7—dips
back into the themes of the first three chapters with little to no internal
references to chs 4–5. Jeremias claims that if readers of Micah read only
chs 4–5 and then move to chs 6–7 they will experience “another world”
(einer anderen Welt).1 Andersen and Freedman identify the interlocking
themes of “condemnation and conciliation” making their way through
chs 6–7, yet they conclude that “it is hard to find any overarching
structure” to these chapters.2 From a synchronic perspective, Sweeney
suggests chs 6–7 function as a call to repentance in order to actualize
the future promises of chs 1–5.3 While such a reading has promise, one
is hard-pressed to locate it in the material of these chapters. The strong
intertextual connections between 6–7 and 1–3 suggest that Micah’s
prophecy ends with an address to the reader’s current moment in a

1
Jeremias, 196.
2
Andersen and Freedman, 500.
3
Sweeney, 394. Sweeney sees no reason to date Micah 6-7 in the postexilic community.
Jeremias and Kessler both understand Micah 6-7 as a prophetic Fortschreibung of chs 1–3
on the basis of the nature and subject matter of the literature.
194 Micah: An International Theological Commentary

move from the future forecast of chs 4–5 back to the current situation
of distress and disorder.

Micah 6:1-8—He has shown you

The beginning of Micah 6 mirrors the beginning of the book at 1:2. The
summons to “hear” (‫ )ׁשמע‬sets the stage for the legal dispute to follow
between Yhwh and his people (‫עמי‬, “my people”; 6:2, 3). Unlike ch. 1,
Micah 6 summons the creation itself as witnesses to the case at hand.
There in ch. 1, the hills and the mountains endure the effects of Yhwh’s
judgment. Here, they are called on as witnesses in a cosmic legal dispute
Yhwh has with his people (cf. Isa 1:2; Deut 4:26; 30:19; 31:28; 32:1).4
Micah 6:2 identifies creation’s witnesses as the “mountains” (‫ )ההרים‬and
the “enduring foundations of the earth” (‫)האתנים מסדי ארץ‬. In Deut 32:22,
the foundations of the earth range in proximity to Sheol, functioning as
the underworld foundation for creation’s highest members: the
mountains. The extremity of mountains and their underworld foundation
suggest a merism of the material creation in its entirety, from its highest
heights to lowest depths (cf. Isa 24:18).5 The enduring character of the
mountains and their foundations stand in stark contrast to the ephemeral
nature of the human agents with whom Yhwh is contending.6
Micah 6:1-2 is the subject of much reflection because it appears to
lack clarity in its forward movement.7 The first verse introduces the

4
Hillers draws attention to Hittite treaties where the gods and created order as part of a
“fundamental cosmic framework” are called as witnesses to covenant lawsuits (Hillers,
77). The gods and cosmic order brought judgment on the vassals if they failed to honor
the covenant. Hillers concludes that it is difficult to decide whether the calling on the
mountains, hills, and streams served more than a rhetorical device in Israel’s religion.
He does suggest that these entities are associated with “permanence and numinous
age” (ibid.). Nevertheless, according to Hillers, there does not appear to be any biblical
validation of the cosmic framework executing judgment.
5
See Wolff, 173; Waltke, 347.
6
Kessler makes note of the “foundations” (‫ )יסד‬of Samaria being exposed attest to her
destruction and end, while the foundations of the earth summoned as witnesses in 6:2
are perennial and always ready to be summoned (Kessler, 262).
7
Jeremias describes Mic 6:1-8 as “in mehrfacher Hinsicht ungewöhnlich” (Jeremias, 198).
 Micah 6 195

section as “that which Yhwh says” only to find Yhwh presented in

the third person thereafter. Moreover, it is possible that the syntax of
the first summons in v. 1 indicates a dispute with the mountains and
hills, while the second summons in v. 2 calls on the same entities as
jurors/witnesses to the case Yhwh has against his people.8 Similarly, the
identity of the speaking agent and the addressees of the imperatives
are not prima facie clear. Mays, for example, understands 6:1b as the
speech of Yhwh to Israel despite the use of the third person for Yhwh.
Israel is summoned to present her case in 1b with Yhwh beginning
His arguments in 6:2.9 Ben Zvi believes these verses are intentionally
polysemous, resisting quick or facile identification of the speaking
voices (Yhwh, the prophet, or Israel).10 This commentary shares Ben
Zvi’s resistance to pit 6:1 over against 6:2 as in redactional conflict,
though his arguments for the polysemous character of these verses
appear unnecessarily complex. There seems little textual reason to
avoid the straightforward reading of 6:1-2 as unified in presentation:
the prophet who announces the forthcoming speech of Yhwh in 1a
calls on Yhwh in vv. 1b-2 to bring his case before the mountains, hills,
and foundations of the world.11 The prophet functions as a master of
ceremonies for the forthcoming disputation, calling the actors to the
legal stage before the looming and enduring presence of the mountains

8
Wolff sets v. 1 off from v. 2 by identifying the speaking voice as a plaintiff, perhaps
the prophet, standing in Yhwh’s stead with the mountains and the hills as the legal
opponents. Wolff ’s suggestion that “mountains and hills” may be ciphers for the nations
has not found many followers (Wolff, 166–67). Jeremias makes an argument for 6:1 as
an insertion by a redactor to serve as a bridge into the new material from the preceding
(Jeremias, 199–200).
9
Mays, 131.
10
Ben Zvi, 143–44.
11
See, e.g., Sweeney, Waltke, and Andersen and Freedman. Kessler’s insistence, among
others, on understanding the ‫ את‬preposition of 6:1b as a contestation “against” or “with”
the mountains is overwrought (Kessler, 257; see note 7 on Wolff). Waltke affirms the
usual syntactical function of this preposition following ‫ ריב‬as “with” or “against” (cf. Gen
31:36; Judg 6:32; and Hos 2:4 [2]; Waltke, 345). But these instances have to do with
human agents and the preposition does mean “before” elsewhere (cf. Gen 20:16; Isa
30:8). Limburg’s essay affirms Waltke’s understanding of the preposition (J. Limburg,
“The Root ‫ ריב‬and Prophetic Lawsuit Speeches,” JBL 88 [1969]: 301). Limburg believes ‫את‬
in this context “clearly” means “before” (ibid.). The LXX translates the preposition as
pros.
196 Micah: An International Theological Commentary

and their foundations. The wizened and aged stability of Treebeard

from Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings serves as an illustration of creation’s
witnesses in 6:1-2.
After the prophet sets the stage in vv. 1-2 for the juridical arguments
to follow, the first-person arguments of Yhwh ensue (vv. 3-5). The
characters in the courtroom have already been introduced: Yhwh,
creation’s witnesses, and “my people” (‫)עמי‬. The nature of Yhwh’s
argument, however, comes as a surprise. The LORD presents himself as
the defendant rather than the prosecutor. Yhwh raises questions that
appear defensive in nature. “How have I wearied you?” This is no voice
of accusation but of self-defense in the face of a wearied people. The
verb “to weary” (‫ )לאה‬is found in Job 16:7 where Job laments God’s
making him weary or exhausted. The connotative force of the causal
verb is weary by excessive toil and exhaustion.12 Readers need not strain
to feel the pathos of this cosmic courtroom as Yhwh pleads his own
case before his beleaguered people. What is the exact cause of your
annoyance and exhaustion with your God? Yhwh demands an answer:
“answer me!.”13
In the face of weariness and relational exhaustion, Yhwh paints with
broad brushstrokes a portrait of his redemptive history with Israel from
the Exodus to entry into the promised land.14 The rhetorical force of
this portrait does not escape the reader. Much like a parent reminding
a complaining child of the many benefits and goods they enjoy in the
home, Yhwh brings needed perspective to the complaint at hand.
Was it when I redeemed you from your slavery in Egypt? Is this the
cause of your complaint? Or was it when I appointed and gifted you
with leaders to navigate the difficulties of your wilderness wandering?
Moses, Aaron, and Miriam.15 Perhaps my redemptive intervention on

12
See “‫ ”לאה‬in DCH.
13
Wolff notes the phrase as a “fixed expression” of the Old Testament law court (cf. I Sam
12:3f.; 2 Sam 1:16; Isa 3:9; Job 9:14; Wolff, 175).
14
Weinfeld identifies “to ransom” ‫ פדה‬and “house of bondage” ‫ בית עבדים‬as typical of
Deuteronomic phraseology (Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School),
326–27.
15
The collocation Moses, Aaron, and Miriam is unique to Micah (cf. Num 26:59).
 Micah 6 197

the plains of Moab is the source of your frustration? Do you recall when
Balak the king of Moab sought to hire the prophet Balaam to curse
you (Numbers 22-24)? Balaam rejected the king’s initial offers, only
to concede in time. Yet, Balaam was unable to provide Balak with his
desired end because Yhwh instructed Balaam that the Israelites were
blessed by him. To Balak’s dismay, Balaam could only provide words
of blessing, not cursing. The drama on the plains of Moab is a central
narrative in Numbers.
Dozemann provides an important insight into the Balaam narrative
when he mentions Israel’s passive role in the whole affair. In fact, Israel
remained unaware of the threat, while Yhwh was working on their
redemptive behalf unbeknownst.16 The rhetorical force of this rehearsal
manifests itself. Was it on the plains of Moab where you grew wearied?
Was it when I protected you from the threat of Moab’s king, though
you remained ignorant of your impending danger? Did this weary you?
Israel camped at Shittim during the Balak crisis (Num 25:1). Gilgal was
the first encampment of the Israelites in the promised land (Josh 2). The
redemptive movement from Egypt to the promised land was riddled
with difficulties and troubles. Yet, the providential oversight of Yhwh for
his people remained intact and gracious, through and through. Again,
the force of this clipped redemptive rehearsal is to shed light on the
nature of Judah’s complaint. You were a no-people before I redeemed
you and gave myself to you. My “righteous acts” or “saving acts” are on
display in your cultic and narrative traditions (cf. Judg 5:11). You “know”
these righteous acts. Your memory of them is an active participation in
them. Your current existence is an existence in the present character
of these redemptive historical moments. You are because of them, and
because of them you know your God. “How again have I wearied you?”
In due course our attention will turn to Micah’s most oft-repeated verse, “He has shown
you, O man, … ” (6:8). While we need not attenuate the instructive force of Micah’s claim
to fame, it does bear highlighting that Yhwh begins with a rehearsal of Israel’s redemptive
history before moving to the paraenetic reminder. There is a theo-logic at play in this move

16
Thomas B. Dozemann, The Pentateuch: Introducing the Torah (Minneapolis: Fortress
Press, 2017), 457. See also Dozemann’s comments in “Numbers,” in The New Interpreter’s
Bible Commentary (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1998), 177–96.
198 Micah: An International Theological Commentary

where Israel’s election and redemption provide warrant for the call to moral agency. Put in
other terms, Israel’s being or essence as elect or recipients of divine grace resists any divorce
from Israel’s activity or moral agency. In terms quite familiar to Christian discourse, the
gospel plays a primary role in its relationship to the law. The gospel precedes. Thus, the
gospel is both temporally and theologically prior to the law. While the distinction between
gospel and law is an important one, a division between the two is fatal. Such a logic flows
from the internal claims of the Christian canon—e.g., Deut 6:20-25 and Romans 12—
where a division between Law and Gospel as two distinct words of God does not stand.17
In Karl Barth’s terms, “The one Word of God is both Gospel and Law.”18 It is the gospel that
envelops, shapes, and provides the motivation for the law’s place in the community of the
redeemed. Continuing with Barth, “It is the Gospel which contains and encloses the Law
as the ark of the covenant the tables of Sinai.”19 When gospel and law either come apart or
lose their proper ordering the one to the other, species of antinomianism or legalism lurk in
earnest around the corner of Christian practice.20 John Webster beautifully summarizes the
relationship between the gospel as promise and command:

Standing beneath the gospel’s promise means hearing the joyful declaration:
“Behold your God.” In such hearing the Church is once again faced with the gospel’s
affirmation that God is one who comes, one who is with us as saviour, renewing and
preserving his people and fulfilling with final authority the divine commitment: I
will be your God … But to stand beneath that promise of the gospel is already to
stand beneath the gospel’s commandment: the end of God’s work of purification is
active zeal for good deeds. Thus the Church is also holy as it stands beneath the
gospel’s commandment. As commandment the gospel is the declaration of law, the
shape or direction for the life of God’s holy people. Hearing the gospel’s summons
to obedience, the Church is holy, submitting to the gospel’s judgment of sin, and
setting itself to govern its life by God’s commands. In this way, the Church is holy
as it stands beneath the final promulgation of the summons to that holiness which

17
Christopher Wright comments, “Certainly, in Deuteronomy 6:20-25, when an Israelite
son asked his father about the meaning of, or reason for, all the law his family was
observing, the answer was not a curt ‘Because God commands it.’ Rather, the father was
to tell the story, the old, old story of the LORD and his love in action, the story of exodus.
The meaning of law was to be found in the ‘gospel’—the historical events of redemption.”
Christopher J. H. Wright, Old Testament Ethics for the People of God (Downers Grove:
IVP, 2004), 28–29. See also J. G. McConville, Deuteronomy (Apollos Old Testament
Commentary; Downers Grove: IVP, 2002), 144–47; Ronald Clements, “Deuteronomy,”
in The New Interpreter’s Bible, Vol. 2 (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1998), 345–46.
18
Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics II.2 (trans. G. W. Bromiley, J. C. Campbell, I. Wilson,
J. S. McNab, H. Knight, and R. A. Stewart; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1957), 511. Barth
responded to some of his “Lutheran” detractors in CD IV.3. Of his responses, two are
particularly germane to the discussion at hand: (1) If Law and Gospel are two distinct
Words of God, Barth queries after what sort of Christology will allow for such a schema;
and (2) If Paul is working with a strict Law/Gospel separation, then Paul remains at odds
with the Old Testament’s plain sense on the matter. Barth is loath to force Paul and the
Old Testament into a repugnant relationship. Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics IV.3 (trans.
G.W. Bromiley; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1961), 370.
19
Ibid. See also the penetrating essay by David S. Yeago, “Gnosticism, Antinomianism, and
Reformation Theology,” Pro Ecclesia II (1993): 37–49.
20
O’Donovan speaks of the dangers of moralism and antinominianism. Moralism
is the detachment of moral convictions from the good news of the gospel, while
antinominianism is a holding of the Christian faith apart from moral questions.
O’Donovan, Resurrection and Moral Order, 11–12.
 Micah 6 199

corresponds to the divine commitment of election: You shall be my people. How,

then, is the Church holy? By attention and submission to the gospel as the indicative
of election and imperative of obedience.21

Micah 6 begins with a stated conflict between God and his people. The nature of the
conflict will turn to the question of moral agency, but it begins here with Yhwh’s rehearsal of
the good news of Israel’s election and redemption from Egypt, a rehearsal of Israel’s covenant
ontology. Such a reading corresponds in figural relation to the Christian understanding of
the covenant relation between Christ and His people. I am who I am on the basis of the
self-determination of God to be in covenant with me because of the active and passive
obedience of Jesus Christ, my Savior and Lord. Such is a Christian’s understanding of their
own covenant ontology. McCormack relates the priority of our covenant ontology to human
agency in our current moment of the divine economy. “We are what we truly are (and what
we will be in the eschaton) in those moments when our humanity is conformed on the
level of lived existence to the humanity inaugurated in time by Christ’s life of obedience.”22
In other words, as Christians we are called into conformity with the essence of who we
already are in Christ. When we live in accord with the humanity established by Christ’s lived
obedience, we do so as an act of correspondence between our existence and current essence
in Christ. Commenting on this text, Luther reminds Christian readers of the external signs
we enjoy on analogy to those of ancient Israel, namely, their deliverance from Egypt. Luther
clarifies, “He has given us, too, those external signs of grace, Baptism and the Eucharist, by
which He encourages us to remember those things which have happened to us through the
Gospel and which never fail to happen to those who believe” (Luther, 258).
The response of vv. 6-7 indicates the exoneration of Yhwh before
his people. Whatever the source of their wearied relation with Yhwh,
the counterarguments of vv. 3-5 reveal the anemic cause of their
frustrations. The people have nothing to say in rebuttal except to
raise questions about how best to restore the fractured relation. “With
what shall I come before the LORD?” This question before the litany
of sacrifices resembles the Temple Entrance Liturgy where questions
about proper entrance to the presence of Yhwh are raised (cf. Ps 15;
24), though the identification of 6:6-7 according to this particular genre
is problematic.23 The sacrifices listed correspond to sacrifices from
Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers, though the hyperbolic character of
the references is not easily missed.24 The building hyperbole bolsters

21
John Webster, Holiness (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 72–73.
22
Bruce McCormack, “What’s at Stake in Current Debates over Justification,” in
Justification: What’s at Stake in the Current Debate (ed. M. Husbands and D. J. Treier;
Downers Grove: IVP, 2004), 115.
23
See Sweeney, 399; Ben Zvi finds the Temple Entrance Liturgy genre wanting here (Ben
Zvi, 151).
24
Whole burnt offerings are daily sacrifices consumed in their entirety (Leviticus 2). The
reference to a year-old calf reflects the requirement of certain sacrifices, e.g., sin offerings
(Lev 9:3).
200 Micah: An International Theological Commentary

the rhetorical force of the litany: from typical “burnt offerings” to

“thousands” to “ten thousands” to “child sacrifice.”25 Child sacrifice
was prohibited in Israel’s worship and viewed as an abhorrent practice
of Canaanite worship (cf. Lev 18:21: Deut 12:32), though there are
instances where the practice occurs in extreme moments (cf. the King
of Moab in 2 Ki 3:27). Climaxing with child sacrifice whether as a
hyperbole by the prophet or a sincere offer of a vexed people reveals the
religious desperation of vv. 6-7.
Yet, the prophet responds in 6:8 with what appears as measured
incredulity. External religious rituals are not the answer to their
vexing question: “How shall I come before the Lord?” Placed in the
larger contextual frame of the preceding seven verses, the prophet in
v. 8 is calling Judah to an existence grounded in her election where her
actions are commensurate with and in extension of her true identity:
loved by God; rescued and liberated by Yhwh. Religious rituals apart
from this communal self-understanding and absent the love of God
are meaningless (cf. Am 5:21-24).26 God’s redemptive actions, actions
of love and self-giving, are intended to yield in return human actions
of gratitude in keeping with God’s own love and self-giving.27 As
Wolterstorff reminds, cultic action apart from justice do not serve the

25
Though see Andersen and Freedman who understand the suggestion of child sacrifice
as sincere (Andersen and Freedman, 534–45). See also Jon D. Levenson, The Death
and Resurrection of the Beloved Son: The Transformation of Child Sacrifice in Judaism
and Christianity (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1993), 10–12. Levenson cites
George Heider who understands Mic 6:6-7 in a “contrary-to-fact mood” where none
of the sacrifices are accepted absent the virtues of 6:8 (ibid., 11). Levenson counters,
however, by stating his own misgivings about an “abominated” sacrifice listed along with
acceptable ones. Why would Micah mix and match in this way? Levenson concludes that
Micah is reflecting an accepted part of the cultus at Micah’s moment. Levenson appears
to overstate his case with Mic 6:6-7. For it makes good sense for Micah to mix and match
the accepted with the abominable when all are viewed from the same standpoint of the
ethical injunction of v. 8. The rhetorical logic is in effect as follows: whether you offer
prescribed or proscribed offerings, absent the reflective justice and piety of v. 8, they are
all the same.
26
Spieckermann clarifies the relationship between righteousness and worship, “Instead,
he will not allow himself to be served in worship and will not serve people when
commandment and life become detached from one another” (Reinhard Feldmeier and
Hermann Spieckermann, God of the Living: A Biblical Theology [trans. M. Biddle; Waco:
Baylor University Press, 2011], 290).
27
See Kessler (272) on the potential reduction of the relationship with God to ethics or
cultic observance. Both are requisite and related to each other.
 Micah 6 201

shalom or human flourishing God intends for his redeemed people.28

Religious lip service apart from the infusion of God’s goodness and
lordship in all spheres of the faithful’s existence is a clashing gong.
“He has shown you, O man.” The direct address “man” (‫ )אדם‬raises
the curiosity of almost every interpreter. Some understand “man” as a
term of universal applicability, unlike vv. 1-7 where Judah is in view.
Other interpreters, e.g., Hillers, Wolff, and Waltke, rightly deny this
reading. “Justice” and “loyalty/loving mercy” are attributes of covenant
keeping, not general universal maxims. Hillers suggests that “man”
highlights the distinction between God and human creatures.29 This
connotation may be at play. Wolff ’s references to Deuteronomy (5:24;
8:3) where “man” denotes the person who hears the proclamation of
Yhwh provide clarity regarding the term.30 The prophet is addressing
the covenant people of God as recipients of divine instruction.
Moreover, the prophet is reminding the covenant people of that which
has already been revealed to them (hifil ‫)נגד‬.
Addressing “The Content of the Divine Claim,” Barth makes the following comment
on Mic 6:8:

The man who, according to Mic. 6:8, has been told what is good, is not man as
such and in general, but Israelite man, the people of Israel.31 That which is required
of him—to do justly, and love mercy, and walk humbly before his God—is not,
therefore, the compendium of a natural duty incumbent on men generally, but,
as in the case of the Ten Commandments, a condensation of the demand which
is proclaimed and established and enforced by the fact that God has chosen this
people of Israel to be His people, and Himself to be the God of this people.32

28
Wolterstorff, Hearing the Call, 50–52. Wolterstorff continues, “The prophetic critique
of the cult is grounded in the conviction that the point of the liturgy is to give symbolic
expression to the commitment of our lives to God. The point of liturgy is not the
performance of certain self-contained actions such as confession and praise, no matter
how sincere and appropriate those actions. Liturgy is for giving voice to life, to lives of
faith. In our lives we seek to obey God; in the liturgy we praise the one whom we seek to
obey and confess our failings” (ibid., 52). In the words of the BCP, we seek to praise Him
with our lips and our lives.
29
Hillers, 79.
30
See the lexical discussion in Waltke, 362–63.
31
Barth begins section 2 of The Command of God, “The Content of the Divine Claim,” by
quoting Mic 6:8. Micah 6:8 is a compendium of the content of the divine claim. If one
is “claimed by God” then such a person is not left to himself or herself to decipher the
material content of that claim. The Scriptures, e.g., Mic 6:8, provide for claimed persons
such content. Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics II.2, 566.
32
Ibid., 572.
202 Micah: An International Theological Commentary

For Barth, Jesus Christ is the telos of Israel’s history and the fulfillment of the Law’s
promises and threats. The history of Israel’s disobedience and judgment becomes Jesus’s
own history, experiencing as he does the curses of the covenant in his place-taking work on
the cross. The continuing validity of Mic 6:8 or the Decalogue for the Christian community
takes as its basic premise and presupposition that the Law of God has been kept and fulfilled
by Jesus Christ.33 “It is as such,” Barth clarifies, “that it is now valid and authoritative.”34 The
thanksgiving of men and women in the church is a genuine thanksgiving because Christians
know they are marked by disobedience and unfaithfulness. Within the Book of Common
Prayer, the announcement of the Law in the Eucharist liturgy—Love God and Love Your
Neighbor—is always followed with Kyrie Eleison. It is this self-recognition in view of the
completed work of Jesus Christ where sincere keeping of the Law resides. Regarding the
material content of the Law, however, the Old Testament Law retains its validity, especially
in the compendium forms of it found in Mic 6:8 and the Decalogue. Yet the relationship of
the Christian to the Law is one formed by Jesus Christ, his death and resurrection. As Barth
concludes, “The new thing is Jesus Himself. But Jesus Himself is also the Old. For He is the
promised One for whose sake the Law was given to Israel.”35
It is not without significance that the term “reported” or
“communicated” (hifil ‫ )נגד‬appears in Mic 3:8. There Micah places his
own prophetic ministry over against the false prophets who hesitate to
“report” or “communicate” to Judah their sin. Within the confines of the
book, the source of the reporting or communicating of the good over
against the evil stems from Micah’s own prophetic legacy.36 Therefore,
when the question is raised, “Where did Yhwh tell us what he seeks
from us?” an immediate answer is, “Micah the prophet.” Yet the answer
to the source-question ranges beyond Micah per se. One finds the call to
“justice” (‫ )מׁשפט‬and “loyal love” (‫ )חסד‬in Hos 12:6. There the move
toward “justice” and “loyal love” is indicative of the repentance of God’s
people. Moving beyond the Prophets, the Psalms share a similar concern
for “loving with our lips and lives” (cf. Psalm 24). Deuteronomy (4:13
and 5:5) introduces the Decalogue with the verb “to report” (hifil ‫)נגד‬.
Commentators often note the similarities in language between Mic 6:8
and Deut 10:12-22.37 From a canonical perspective, the reporting of

33
Ibid., 574.
34
Ibid.
35
Ibid., 575. See also, John B. Webster, “The Imitation of Christ,” TynBull (1985): 95–120.
36
Reflecting on the opening of 6:8, Kessler comments, “Es erhebt sich die Frage: Wer hat
‘gesagt’ oder: Wo ist es ‘gesagt’?” (Kessler, 269).
37
McConville, Deuteronomy, 199. Comparing Deut 10:12-22 to Mic 6:8, McConville
concludes, “This requirement of a heartfelt love of what is right, based on loyalty to
Yahweh, is the stuff of Deuteronomy too.” See Jon Levenson, The Love of God: Divine Gift,
Human Gratitude, and Mutual Faithfulness in Judaism (Princeton: Princeton University
Press, 2016), 30.
 Micah 6 203

what God seeks and identifies as good is found in the broad sweep of
the Old Testament’s tripartite witness.38 It is not hidden under rocks
and trees but emerges from the cross-associative range of the entire
witness.
Micah 6:8 is not the first call to justice in Micah’s oeuvre. It is the
principle concern of chs 2–3 where, in Calvin’s terms, Micah focuses
his attention on the breach of the Law’s second table. The litany of “the
good” in 6:8 take the form of three infinitives: to do, to love, and to
walk. All three infinitives are related to each other in necessary and
mutual reciprocity. The parts of the triad are taken whole or not taken
at all. For the call to do justice apart from “loving loyalty” and “walking
circumspectly” becomes moral self-actualization of the kind that is not
sustainable. Though a familiar triad, Micah’s phraseology and concrete
thought are in beautiful proportion and relation.

1. “To do justice (‫( ”)מׁשפט‬equity, care, concern). Here is the love of

neighbor where the direction of our good works flow from faith:
not for ourselves but for the good of our neighbor. Herein lies the
gracious control of power so that it is directed toward care and
concern for the other and not self-aggrandizing promotion and
advancement. It is the preceding grace of Christ, our union with
him in salvation by faith, that moves us outside of ourselves for
the sake of the other. Or in Hoang and Johnson’s terms, justice is
the love of God gone public.39 To do justice is to act in accord with
who we already are in Christ by faith.
2. “To love loving loyalty (‫ ”)חסד‬or “the loving of loyal faithfulness”
(genitive construction).40 This phrase is unique in the Old
Testament. By the nature of this fact, the phrase arouses interest.
It calls attention to itself. Within the XII, Hos 6:6 already

38
See Andersen and Freedman, 528, where they contrast the practical and concrete
explication of “the good” in Mic 6:8 over against the more hypothetical and philosophical
question within classical literature, viz, “What is the summum bonum?”
39
Bethany Hanke Hoang and Kristen Deede Johnson, The Justice Calling: Where Passion
Meets Perseverance (Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2016).
40
See Wolff, 181, and Andersen and Freedman, 528–29, on the presence of this phrase in
the Qumran documents.
204 Micah: An International Theological Commentary

witnesses to the principle concern of Mic 6:1-8: “For I desire

steadfast love (‫ )חסד‬and not sacrifice.” Within the Psalter,
steadfast love (‫ )חסד‬is predicated on God, indicating the
assurance and confidence the community has in Yhwh’s loyalty
and commitment to them. The term, often translated anemically
as “kindness,” has a broad semantic range: loyalty, faithfulness,
kindness, love, mercy, devotion.41 The summons here to the
“loving of loyal faithfulness” speaks to the disposition of the will
and affections toward communal concerns, toward a mode of
being marked by love. Understanding the second phrase of the
triad as an extension of the first—“to do justice”—is a step in the
right interpretive direction.42 Micah’s call to justice is not an
appeal to our stripped-down wills apart from the government of
our affections.
The potential for actualization in the call to “justice” and
“loyal faithfulness” resides in the disposition of the heart or
the affections. Put in Christian theological terms, to “love loyal
faithfulness” is to walk in the existence of the preceding love
shown to us. Commenting on Deuteronomy 6, McConville claims
that “loyalty” (‫“ )דסח‬is expressed in heartfelt adherence to Yahweh
… For this reason it can be said that the love of God has a cash
value in love of neighbor …, since the commands of God aim at a
society in which each promotes the good of the other.”43 The love
of God (objective and subjective genitive) yields the affections and
dispositions of our own hearts and minds toward a concomitant
kind of existence: an existence in the love and favor of the
resurrected Christ. Faithfulness, love, mercy, grace, and kindness,
all of these words are connoted in “loyal faithfulness.” Micah’s call
is not directed merely to the human will but is directed at a will

41
See “‫ ”חסד‬in DCH.
42
Andersen and Freedman believe there is an intentional change of the typical idioms with
the first two phrases for the sake of reading them in relation: the typical phraseology is
“to love justice” (Andersen and Freedman, 529).
43
McConville, Deuteronomy, 147.
 Micah 6 205

shaped by the affections and dispositions of the heart: loving loyal

faithfulness as an indication of the gratitude of humility shown to
us in God’s own love.44
3. “To walk circumspectly, reflectively, wisely, humbly with your
God.” A verse as familiar as Mic 6:8 becomes part of the liturgical
culture of the believing community. Many who learned the King
James Version of John 3:16 as a child find other translations
jarring. The triad of Mic 6:8 is standard fare as well: “to do justice,
to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.” Yet, the last
phrase, oft-repeated as it is, does run the danger of limiting the
connotative force of the text’s lexical dimension to one facet.
Put in other terms, when readers read “to walk humbly with
your God” the English terms are familiar enough to portend
straightforward connotative associations. “Micah 6:8 ends with
a call to a humble walk with God.” The phrase is more obscure
than the traditional rendering, however. The infinitive “to walk”
indicates communion. If the modifier “humbly” were removed,
the phrase “to walk with your God” by itself would indicate a life
lived in communion with God (cf. Deut 10:12).45
The challenge of the phrase arises with its adverbial
modifier—“humbly” according to the standard translations (‫)ענצ‬.
After referencing the ancient translations—LXX (“to be ready to
walk”); Pesh (“to be ready”); Theodotion (“to be careful”); Quinta
(“to be prudent”); Vulg (“to go around anxiously”), HALOT
makes the following statement: “[T]hus the exact translation
equivalent of ‫ ענצה‬is difficult.”46 As is often pointed out, the only
other place where one finds this term in the Old Testament is Prov
11:2. There the word stands in opposition to “pride” and, thus,
recommends itself as “humility.” Yet, this appears as a prima facie
conclusion.47 Giving a definitive answer to the lexical question

44
See Levenson, The Love of God, 48ff.
45
See Hillers, 79.
46
KBL, 1039.
47
Wolff, 182.
206 Micah: An International Theological Commentary

will remain difficult.48 Yet a contextual reading of the phrase in

its current literary setting, along with its wisdom associations
elsewhere, may point readers in a good semantic direction.
Von Rad, leaning on a seminal study by H.J. Stoebe, suggests
the term’s wisdom context leads toward the following semantic
associations: “measured,” “discerning,” or “circumspect.”49 The call
to a reflective or measured or circumspect walk with God in the
literary setting of 6:8 leads readers back to the rehearsal of Yhwh’s
redemptive history with His people in 6:3-5.50 Such a discerning
and circumspect “going with God” takes into account the basis of
the believing community’s very existence in the redemptive grace
of God.51
The triad of 6:8 fits together, seemingly working backwards to
indicate how “justice” is possible. It is possible when the community
walks reflectively with God, understanding her history of undeserving
election and grace. Such a walk yields the affections and devotion called
for in the second phrase: “to love loyal lovingkindness.” This affection
grounded on a discerning and reflective walk with God in turn leads
to concrete actions of equity: “to do justice.” “Humility” certainly
shares in the connotative space of the adverb but does so in a derivate
way. As Jon Levenson says elsewhere, “The virtue of gratitude … is
closely associated with that of humility.”52 And gratitude is the natural
consequence of covenant love when one walks with God in reflective
consideration of God’s redemptive grace. The opposite of humility
from a biblical perspective is ingratitude. And a state of ingratitude is
a perilous state for the believing community; it is an idolatrous state.

48
See esp. the lexical discussion and rehearsal of scholarship in Waltke, 364–66.
49
Von Rad, OTT II, 186, n. 18. So too Waltke, see above.
50
Kessler makes this suggestion as well, 271.
51
In discussing biblical law in the context of the divine/human relationship, McConville
claims the following: “Biblically speaking, right human understanding of anything is
inseparable from the knowledge of God (Hos. 4:1-2). The kind of wisdom, therefore,
that makes for good decision-making in the realm of law and ethics, is cultivated within
the divine-human relationship” (McConville,“Biblical Law and Human Formation,”
637–38).
52
Levenson, The Love of God, 48.
 Micah 6 207

Little wonder the Apostle Paul often commends the churches to be

thankful. As Levenson concludes, “If, moreover, the benefactor wishes
the best for his beneficiary, he will discourage him from persisting in
the ungrateful behavior that has disrupted the relationship.”53 Micah
6:1-8 is Yhwh’s best wish for His people as a benefactor who desires the
good for those whom He loves.
The sober warnings of Hannah Arendts’s moral and journalistic account of the Adolf
Eichmann trials retain its instructive power. Though stirring significant backlash when first
published in 1963, Arendt’s New Yorker articles turned book, Eichmann in Jerusalem: A
Report on the Banality of Evil, provide a chilling account of Eichmann not as a mad and
murderous monster but as a banal bureaucrat.54 Eichmann insisted in the trial that he was
not innerer Schweinehund (an inner dirty bastard), harboring no deep hatred of Jews.55
He simply would have failed his conscience if he did not follow through on his superior’s
directives: the calculated deportation of millions of women, children, and men to their
orchestrated deaths. As Arendt reported, psychologists diagnosed Eichmann as “normal”
with enviable familial affections. This was the horror. Eichmann was an ambitious man,
prone to braggadocio, who desired the advancement of his career.56 This “normal” man
could be transformed into the abhorrent perpetrator of humanity’s grossest crimes because
his banality kept him, in Micah’s terms, from a reflective or circumspect mode of being. The
enduring contribution of Arendt’s reporting coordinates with Micah’s backward movement
with his famed triad. Absent reflection, a recognition of God and humanity’s creation in
His image, “normal” citizens are capable of the grossest actions of injustice. Such a potential
state is not cause for self-righteous finger pointing but for the grace of repentance to walk
circumspectly and reflectively in the face of our natural proclivities to banality.
Perhaps standing opposite the banality of evil, yet sharing in its culpability and skewed
view of God and the self, is the smugness and self-congratulation of self-righteousness.
Luther understands Micah’s triad as in proper proportion and balance to ward off this
danger:

In fact, there is a danger that after we have been justified we become lukewarm, that
we become proud, that our gifts of the Spirit tickle us because in them we surpass
others, that we please ourselves. It is as if he were saying: “When you have done what
I say, when you have developed a concern for your neighbor, see to it that you do
not become smug, that you do not have an eye for mischief, that you do not please
yourself and go around looking for praise and glory that is owed to God alone.”
(Luther, 262)

A circumspect walk with God, marked as it is by the humility that stems from
knowledge of God and the self, keeps what Luther calls “self-love” at bay or as an impossible
possibility. Both the banality of evil and the pride of self-congratulation in the doing of
good are outside the house of a circumspect walk with God.

53
Ibid., 52.
54
Hanna Arendt, Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil (London:
Penguin, 2006). See Daniel Maier-Katkin and Nathan Stoltzfuss, “Hannah Arendt on
Trial,” The American Scholar (2013): 98–103.
55
Arendt, Eichmann, 30.
56
Ibid., 46–48.
208 Micah: An International Theological Commentary

Micah 6:9-16—Hear the rod

Within the canonical shape of Micah’s final form, this unit stands in
relation to the one preceding it.57 The Masoretic paragraph marking
ends at 6:8 with 6:9 opening a new unit ending at the chapter’s end. The
relational logic between the two units appears on the text’s surface level.
The good Yhwh has shown to his people—justice, loving faithfulness,
and a circumspect walk with God—stands in antipodal relation to the
actual state of affairs in Judah. Though Yhwh revealed the good, Judah
exists in a state of being contrary to it. The themes of chs 2–3 make their
appearance again as the prophet calls Judah to account for the rampant
injustice marking the community of faith.58 In these verses, God describes
Israel’s unjust actions and renders her guilty in the face of them.
Yhwh’s voice (‫ )קול‬cries out to the city, with city standing in metonymic
relation to its leaders and inhabitants.59 Micah 6:8 ends with wisdom
terminology—to walk “prudently” or “circumspectly” with God—and
6:9 borrows from the same linguistic pool. Though the etymology of the
term “sound wisdom” (‫ )תוׁשיה‬is uncertain—HALOT suggests the
lexeme’s etymology relates to “being” (‫ )יׁש‬with a basic notion of
“promotion of being” or “elevation of skill”—the term’s wisdom
connotation is secure.60 The fear of Yhwh’s name marks the path of the
successful, prudent, and shrewd. Love and circumspection walk hand in
hand in Mic 6:8. Here too, the path of wisdom entails a reverential and
circumspect view of Israel’s God, to wit, the fear of Yhwh’s name.
As Levenson states in his comments on Deut 10:12-13 (there too
“love” and “fear” comingle),

57
See Jeremias, 206ff., for a redaction-critical argument for the diachronic relation of the
two units.
58
As observed in the commentary’s introduction, Jeremias understands the second and
third sections of Micah as Fortschreibungen of chs 1–3.
59
Ben Zvi (157) suggests the use of ‫ קול‬and ‫“( קרא‬cry out”) rather than the typical verb of
direct speech “to say” (‫ )אמר‬indicates a distance needing to be overcome.
60
Wolff notes the term as in synonymous relation to “counsel” (‫ )עצה‬in Prov 8:14 and Isa
28:29.
 Micah 6 209

There surely is a tinge of fear in the negative sense, even in the

reverence, the awe, or the sense of being overwhelmed that one has in
the presence of a superior. And if the description of God in the Bible is
at all accurate, there would be something gravely wrong with someone
in whom the thought of God and the sense of his immediate presence
did not evoke those very feelings.61

The wise and successful person walks in the fear of Yhwh,

in a recognition of his character as merciful and severe. Yes, his
predisposition is to mercy, with mercy tipping the balances in its
direction: as observed in the proportion of the middoth in Ex 34:6-7.
Yet his severity is serious and threatening when his people persist
in a direction opposite His revealed will. As the Book of the Twelve
reminds readers, Yhwh’s patience is longsuffering but has a limit. It is
unwise to make a trifle of Yhwh’s severity. “Listen to the rod.”62 Or in
paraphrastic form, “take heed to the instrument of God’s judgment.”63
More importantly, reminds Micah, take heed to the One wielding the
rod. Yhwh’s character remains merciful and severe. Micah 6:9 is Yhwh’s
rousing call to attention in light of His name or his character. The wise
take note and walk in accordance with Yhwh’s revealed person and will.
After the arousing call to attention, vv. 10-12 follow with Yhwh’s
accusation. There are various suggestions for emending v. 10 because of
its textual difficulties, notably the lack of prepositions. Most translations
follow Wellhausen’s suggestion to read the verse’s second word (‫ )האׁש‬as
an interrogative preceding the verb “to forget” (‫ אׁשא‬from ‫ ;נׁשא‬this
reading follows the BHS). This commentary follows the BHQ where the

61
Levenson, The Love of God, 30.
62
Cf., Deut 4:36; 5:25 where the “hearing” (‫ )ׁשמע‬of God’s voice is the instrument of Yhwh’s
judgment.
63
The end of v. 9 and beginning of v. 10 are notoriously difficult. Those who follow the LXX
and amend the first word of v. 10 ‫ עוד‬to ‫ עיר‬are apt to read “rod” ‫ מטה‬as “tribe” (e.g., NRSV
(see Hillers and Waltke, ad loc.)). This reading is as follows: “hear, oh tribe and assembly
of the city.” Andersen and Freedman observe the textual problem, glossing the verses as
follows: “Hear oh Tribe, and who appointed her still!” (Andersen and Freedman, 539,
547). The trouble is with the term “yet” ‫ עוד‬at the beginning of v. 10 and the lexical
hurdles of ‫ מטה‬as “rod” or “tribe.” Final solutions to the textual conundrums will remain
elusive, though this commentary edges in the direction of those who see the summons
in relation to forthcoming judgment: the rod.
210 Micah: An International Theological Commentary

particle (‫ )אׁש‬is equivalent to the particle for being (‫ ;יׁש‬cf. 2 Sam 14:19;
Prov 18:24; see KJV). When read in this light, the first word of the verse
“yet, still” (‫ )עוד‬does not require emendation. The reading of v. 10 is as
follows: “Is there yet in the house of wickedness, treasures of wickedness
and scant measures that are accursed.”
Nogalski does well to show the intertextual links Mic 6:10-11 has
with Amos and Hosea (Am 3:14; 4:4; 5:5-6; Hos 10:15; 12:4).64 In these
texts, the prophets link Bethel (“house of God”) with wickedness.
Where just interactions within the community are Yhwh’s assumed
standard, his house has become a house of wickedness. Both Am 8:5
and Hos 12:7 condemn the use of false scales where those who handle
the purse strings exploit patrons by the use of deceptive balances and
false weights. As Shalom Paul comments on Am 8:5, “Even the very
scales themselves were tampered and rigged … The buyer was always
deceived—he received too little and paid too much.”65 As in Micah 3,
rather than love of neighbor following love of God, the powerful are
eating their neighbors in acts of exploitation, violence, and deception
(6:10-12). The very fabric of the community whose ideal and shared
goal was the rest and human flourishing of the promised land has
broken down. They have been shown the good but exist (‫ )אׁש‬in its very
opposite: the house of wickedness.
After the accusation follows Yhwh’s verdict, a verdict correlative to
Judah’s acts of wickedness (‫)גם‬. Yhwh will strike with a heavy blow.66
The city will be made desolate (‫ )ׁשמם‬on account of her sin (cf. Isa 1:7;
6:11; Mic 1:7). Hillers describes the curses to follow as “futility curses”
(cf. Deut 28:30-31).67 The more they put their hand to a task with a

64
Nogalski, 574–75.
65
Paul, Amos, 258. Cf. Lev 19:35-36; Deut 25:13-15; Ezek 45:10-11; Prov 16:11 where
honest balances and weights are demanded in Scripture.
66
Again, the text and syntax are difficult. The LXX reads “and I will begin to strike” and
the BHS suggests revocalizing ‫( חלה‬to make sick) to ‫( חלל‬to begin). Wolff overstates the
matter when he says the infinitive (to strike, ‫ )נכה‬cannot follow ‫( חלה‬Wolff, 187). BHQ
affirms the attractiveness of revocalizing the text, though the more difficult reading
might find a parallel in Isa 53:10. Waltke provides a literal reading of the MT: “I will
strike you sorely” (Waltke, 401).
67
Hillers, 82.
 Micah 6 211

desired end, the less return they have on their labors. They will eat and
not be satisfied. They will plant a hedge but not make it secure.68 Or
perhaps, you will reap but your labors will not come to fruition.69 In
fact, your agricultural labors will miscarry as they are delivered to the
sword. You will sow but not reap. Treading on olives will yield no oil for
anointing. Grapes will produce no wine. This dystopic account of
Judah’s future reverses the positive images of Judah’s future in Mic 4:1-
4. There, the future is marked by an absence of violence and the
enjoyment of one’s agricultural labors—figs and wine. Here, however,
Judah’s future of judgment entails the sword and the frustrations of
their agricultural efforts coming to no fruitful end. A diachronic
account of Judah’s future might understand the relation of this text to
Mic 4:1-4 as judgment preceding restoration. A synchronic account
would place Mic 4:1-4 and 6:13-15 within the same vein of the
eschatological tensions faced by the nations when looking toward their
future with Yhwh. Two options emerge, a faithful move of repentance
to Israel’s God (4:1-4) or the experience of his judgment (4:11-13; 5:8-
15). Both options are on the eschatological horizon of possibilities.
Cyril of Alexandria reads these futility curses as spiritual in nature. When the prophet
says they will eat but not be satisfied, he speaks of their “dabbling” in the Scriptures only
to gain no satisfaction from the teaching. “[T]hough seeming to eat, they die of hunger”
(Cyril, 256). Cyril concludes, “[T]hough crushing the spiritual olive, the sacred Scripture,
they are in no way enriched with the grace of the Spirit; and though expecting to harvest
wine, they will be deprived of spiritual good cheer” (ibid.).
Micah’s sixth chapter ends with an abbreviated form of the preceding
six verses: an accusation is followed by a verdict. Yhwh castigates Judah

68
Such is the reading Williamson suggests in Williamson, “Marginalia,” 369. The difficulty
rests with the verb ‫ סוג‬where the primary definition is “to remove.” Williamson finds
this wanting because it does not stand in relation to the negative counterpart to follow.
Instead, Williamson suggests a secondary meaning of ‫ סוג‬that means “to hedge” or “build
a fence” (ibid.). Williamson’s reading is compelling, though attention should be drawn to
Hos 5:9-10 where the terms “destruction” (‫ )ׁשמם‬and “removing” (‫ )סוג‬are in proximity to
each other with the removal of the boundary markers indicating neighborly dishonesty:
a practice condemned in, e.g., Deut 19:14; 27:17; Prov 22:28.
69
Another possible reading, following the DCH, is to read ‫ סוג‬in its primary sense—
“remove” or “set aside”—with ‫ פלט‬as “bring forth” or “deliver.” Following this lexical
path, the two phrases would read: “You will set aside but you will not deliver” or your
agricultural efforts will miscarry. Given the context, there is much to commend this
reading as well.
212 Micah: An International Theological Commentary

for keeping the statutes of Omri and the deeds of the house of Ahab.
While the Omride dynasty was the political powerhouse of the ninth
century bc, its religious practices were excoriated in the Old Testament’s
prophetic books (the former and latter prophets).70 For example, King
Manasseh is condemned as a godless king because he followed the
policies of Ahab, Omri’s son, and the paragon of infidelity to Israel’s God
within the Deuteronomistic history (cf. 1 Ki 16:33).71 The keeping of
the Northern Kingdom’s statutes reminds readers of Mic 1:9 where the
incurable wound of the Northern Kingdom makes its way to the gates
of Jerusalem—Ahab worshipped Baal and Asherah (cf. 1 Ki 16:31-33).
Within Micah 6, the phrase “walking in the counsel”—the counsel of
Ahab and his father Omri (6:16)—stands in direct opposition to the
good of Mic 6:8 and its call to walk circumspectly with God. The result of
walking in Ahab’s path is destruction, scorn, and humiliation.72 Kessler
describes Mic 6:9-16 as a dramatic highpoint (dramatischer Höhepunkt)
in the synchronic shape of Micah’s prophecy.73 As in ch. 1, Jerusalem
and Samaria parallel one another on the same religious plane. They are
idolaters. As idolaters, they share in the same fate of divine judgment.74

70
For an account of how a negative view of the political implications of the Omride dynasty
in the traditions of Monarchic Judah in time became viewed as negative religious
implications in the Deuteronomistic History, see Omer Sergi, “The Omride Dynasty and
the Reshaping of the Judahite Historical Memory,” Biblica 97 (2016): 503–26; see also
Kuhrt, The Ancient Near East: c. 3000–330 bc, Volume Two, 464–66; Jeremias understands
the reference to Omri and Ahab relating primarily to their religious activities as idolaters.
The religious concerns are in intertextual relation to Micah 1 (Jeremias, 211).

71
On the tendency of the Omride kings to unjust regulations and exploitation of their
subjects, see J. Maxwell Miller and John H. Hayes, A History of Ancient Israel and Judah,
Second Edition (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006), 315.
72
On “hissing” cf. Deut 28:25, 27.
73
Kessler, 283.
74
Ibid. From a structural perspective, Kessler believes Micah shares much in common with
Isaiah where the end of Micah brings a social/religious critique following a vision of
salvation much like Third Isaiah as it follows Second Isaiah (ibid.).
 7

Micah 7—Lamenting in Hope

Introduction

The final chapter of Micah’s prophecy brings the book to its fitting
conclusion. The judgment announced and promised in the first three
chapters will have its day. Zion will suffer the blow of Yhwh’s wrath
and will suffer it for her covenantal infidelity. The scope and concrete
character of her infidelity is outlined in the first three chapters
and expounded and expanded again in 6:1-7:7. Yet, the character
of God as One whose mercy outweighs his severity will not allow
his judgment to be the final word. From the embers of judgment,
Zion will arise in the face of the nations who scorn her and her
God. Micah’s prophecy ends with a reminder of Yhwh’s name and
faithfulness.

Micah 7:1-7—A faithful lamentation amid

Judah’s sorry state of affairs

The first seven verses of Micah’s final chapter begin with a lamentation
in v. 1 and end with a reaffirmation of trust in Yhwh and his salvation.
Within the bookends of lamentation and trust readers find the cause for
lamentation, namely, a complete breakdown in the social and familial
order. Justice and faithfulness are nowhere to be found; they are like
absent fruit after the gleaning of trees. This unit is riddled with literary
214 Micah: An International Theological Commentary

plays and metaphors as the prophetic word makes its forceful presence
known.1
“Woe to me” cries the first-person voice of 7:1. Identifying the
speaking agent is a matter of some contest. Chapter 6 ends with the
first-person voice of Yhwh, moving as it does into ch. 7 without any
clarification regarding the change of subject. The affirmation of faith in
v. 7 makes clear Yhwh is no longer the “I” in view.2 Moreover, the term
for “woe” is suggestive (‫)אללי‬. It is not the typical expression for
lamentation as one finds in Isa 6:5 (‫)אוי‬. The only other location for the
term is Jb 10:15 where the term is part of a conditional clause. “If I am
guilty, then woe to me.”3 If the lexeme’s use in Job sheds light on Micah,
then the woe suggests the guilt of the one lamenting in his state of
helplessness. From a lexical standpoint, therefore, reading Yhwh as the
continued first-person voice of 7:1-7 becomes strained. Who is speaking
then?
From a literary/contextual vantage point, the identification of the
voice has two options. The first and well-worn path is the identification
of the “I” as the prophet (e.g., Hillers, Jeremias, Wolff, Waltke, Sweeney).
What prophet is a matter of dispute. Standard redaction-critical
readings locate ch. 7 in the postexilic period. Mays, for example, sees
the “tone and attitude” of the unit as incongruent with Micah during
the reign of Hezekiah.4 Sweeney, on the other hand, believes the “tone
and attitude” fits well the period of Sennacherib’s incursion in 701 bc.
The breakdown of societal and familial order often mark periods of
extreme duress.5 The scene in Mic 7:1-7 is ambiguous and broad enough
to “fit” several moments in time. Reading with canonical lenses, it
seems unnecessary to pinpoint a singular moment in time as the key to

1
See especially Ben Zvi, 166–67, on the literary features of this pericope.
2
Ben Zvi understands the contextual ambiguity of the “I” as opening several possible
reading strategies, including Yhwh as the speaking voice (Ben Zvi, 168). This commentary
agrees that the ambiguity makes the referent of the “I” open, though reading Yhwh as the
“I” is not compelling.
3
The form ‫ אללי‬is followed by ‫ לי‬in both Job and Micah (WO’C, 40.2.4b).
4
Mays, 150.
5
Sweeney, 406.
 Micah 7—Lamenting in Hope 215

unlocking this unit. Rather, the text, emerging as it does from some
moment in time, remains present for future times as well when
lamentations and affirmations of faith are requisite in dire moments of
distress. Reading the “I” of Mic 7:1-7 as the prophet gains support from
the affirmation of faith in v. 7 (‫)ואני‬. The prophet’s faithfulness stands
over against his faithless surroundings. This contrastive move mirrors a
similar affirmation in Mic 3:8 where the prophet places his own actions
over against his opponents.
The second option is a road less traveled, though compelling. On
this reading, the “I” of 7:1-7 is kept in contextual continuity with the
“I” of 7:8-10.6 The feminine pronouns of the latter unit make clear
that the first-person voice is Lady Zion or personified Jerusalem. It is
possible that v. 8 introduces a new first-person voice much like 7:1 did,
though the contextual clues are not as strong as they are at the juncture
between 6:16 and 7:1. Much trades on the literary relation between 7:7
and 7:8ff. At the literary level, therefore, there appears little compelling
rationale—beyond form-critical arguments about the liturgical
character of 7:8-20 (more of this anon)—for a hard division between
these two units. Ben Zvi’s suggestion that 7:7 might serve double duty
as both the concluding verse of 7:1-7 and the introductory verse of 7:7-
20 is compelling and followed in this commentary.7 If 7:7, like Mic 5:1
(MT), is a bridge verse linking the two units of Micah’s final chapter,
then the identification of the “I” as Lady Zion commends itself. The
city itself laments the lack of faithfulness among its inhabitants. As the
personification of the ideal Judah, the city also confesses its faith in the
future salvation of her God. Any hard and fast conclusion regarding the
identification of the “I” remains “tentative.”8 On final analysis, the two
options need not be played over against each other. Both the prophet
and the idealized and faithful city witness to the presence of faith and
repentance amid faithlessness and social/familial insecurity.

6
See Hagstrom, Coherence, 98–99.
7
Ben Zvi, 166.
8
Hagstrom, Coherence, 98–99.
216 Micah: An International Theological Commentary

The lament of v. 1 makes use of a simile drawn from harvest

metaphors. The one lamenting here experiences the deprivation of one
searching for something to eat after the gleaning of the fruit trees. A
similar metaphor is used to describe apocalyptic deprivation in Isa
24:12-13 (cf. Jer 9:13). The trees are bare. No fruit is found; no summer
delicacies like figs or grapes are for the taking. Instead, there are only
cravings with no possibility of satisfaction. The metaphors remind
readers of Am 8:1ff and the paranomastic play on the words “summer
fruit” (‫ )קיץ‬and “end” (‫)קץ‬. The “end” has come upon my people,
declares Yhwh in Am 8:2. Hosea makes use of the metaphor of “figs”
and “grapes” to describe Yhwh’s election of Israel when he first saw
them (Hos 9:10). Now, however, the grapes and figs are gone (cf. Isa
5:1-7). Only deprivation and lamentation remain.
Micah 7:2 makes clear the referent of the metaphors in v. 1. The
“clusters” and “figs” now gleaned and gone are “piety/faithfulness”
(‫ )חסיד‬and “uprightness” (‫)יׁשר‬. What was at one time an indictment
focused first and foremost on the political and religious leaders—
“Should you not know justice?” (Mic 3:1)—now lands on all within the
land: from princes and judges to simple folk in their domestic setting
(7:3-6).9 The use of the term “faithful” (‫ )חסיד‬draws attention to “loving
faithfulness” in Mic 6:8. The literary proximity reveals the radical
distinction between what Yhwh has revealed as the good and communal
life in the real. Instead of a faithful and a conscientious community,
there is bloodshed and violence accomplished by acts of cunning and
deception—the use of “net” (‫ )חרם‬recalls a huntsman or fisherman. It is
of note that “piety” or “faithfulness” within the frame of Mic 6:1-7:7
speaks to communal relations and the exercise of justice and equity
within these relations. Again, readers of the prophets note the necessary
correlation between the expression of faith in worship and devotion
and the expression of faithfulness in deed.
A general tendency within Micah’s rhetorical strategy is to begin an
indictment with a broad brush and then move to the particular or

9
See Jeremias, 214.
 Micah 7—Lamenting in Hope 217

concrete actions involved (cf. Mic 2; Mic 3). Micah 7:1-7 follows the
same course with v. 3 revealing the actions lacking faithfulness and
honesty. Micah 7:3 is a recapitulation of themes already present in Mic
3:10-11. Those in positions of authority and power are for hire. The
execution of justice flows from the whim or desires (‫ )הות‬of the “great
man” (most likely referring to court officials with access to the king).10
The “great man,” the “judge,” and the “prince” all weave together or
distort the justice they are authorized to execute. The term “weaving”
(piel ‫ )עבת‬also makes playful reference to the “nets” these figures use in
hunting their prey (7:2). In today’s terminology, the magistrates are
involved in a racket. As observed in ch. 3, the top-down beneficence
intended within Zion’s covenantal relation with Yhwh has broken down.
Rather than bearers of justice and guardians of covenantal order,
government officials seek their own personal advancement with little to
no regard for the good (6:8).
The beginning of 7:4 makes use of another set of metaphors: the
briar and the thorn bush. The best of them, with “them” referring to the
stated officials of 7:3, are like briars and thorn bushes. Wolff cites Prov
15:19 where the thorn bush functions “to obstruct.”11 Like a thorn bush,
so too do the government officials obstruct the justice they are meant to
serve. Waltke understands pain as the suggestive referent of the
metaphors. Like thorn bushes and briars, the magistrates are best left
untouched.12 Justice and its proper execution are left a tangled and
painful mess by those whose hold the keys of power. As is often noted,
there exists a wordplay between “thorn bush” (‫ )מסוכה‬and “confusion”
(‫)מבוכה‬, the last word of 7:4. The paranomasia suggests an interplay
between the actions of the officials and the result of Yhwh’s forthcoming
judgment, viz., confusion and disorder.
Micah 7:4b appears as a surprise given its contextual setting.
Jeremias draws attention to the change of style at this juncture where

10
See Wolff, 206.
11
Ibid., 207.
12
Waltke, 420.
218 Micah: An International Theological Commentary

for a short time the reader is addressed in the singular: “you.”13 The
move from the injustice of “them” to the direct address of “you”
heightens the tension for those addressed. Given this shift in style as
it opens to the domestic disturbance of vv. 5-6, v. 7b may be viewed
as the rhetorical center of this unit. It links together the guilt of the
magistrates and commoner and places the whole of the community
under the selfsame threat of impending judgment (cf. Jer 6:13). Them
is you.
Moreover, the prophet makes use of the theological vocabulary
of Hosea at this point. The collocation of “watchmen” (‫ )צפה‬and day
of “visitation” (‫ פקודה‬from ‫ )פקד‬mirrors Hos 9:7-8. There the prophet
identifies himself as the “watchman of Ephraim.” This description of the
prophet as a “watchman,” as one who looks out for impending doom and
announces immediate dangers (cf. 1 Sam 13:34; 2 Sam 13:34; 18:24-27;
2 Kgs 9:17-20), has an afterlife in later prophetic descriptions as well (cf.
Jer 6:17; Ez 3:17). Hosea 9:8 portrays the prophet as a watchman “with
my God” (‫)עם אלהי‬.14 Such language resembles descriptions of Moses
as he received the Torah; he was “with Yhwh” (Ex 34:28). Samuel grew
up “with Yhwh” in 1 Sam 2:21, a portrayal standing in counterpoint to
the sons of Eli.15 Here in Mic 7:1-7, the prophet places his own actions
and outlook over against the corruption surrounding him (7:7). Like
Hos 9:8, the watchman of Micah 7, the prophet, is with God. “But as
for me … ”
Continuing with Hosea, Mic 7:4b makes use of the term “day of
visitation” (nominal form of ‫ ;פקד‬cf. Jer 6:6). The phrase “day of
visitation” has its place within the larger tableau of the Day of the Lord
theme in the Twelve.16 Yet, the language of “visitation” is particularly

13
Jeremias, 216.
14
This reading follows Wolff ’s understanding of the syntax of Hos 9:8 (see Wolff, Hosea,
ad loc.). For other interpretative options of an admittedly difficult text, see J. Andrew
Dearman, The Book of Hosea (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 244–48.
15
See Stephen B. Chapman, 1 Samuel as Christian Scripture: A Theological Commentary
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016), 82–83.
16
See Rendtorff, “How to Read,” 75–87. On the Day of the Lord in Joel, with Joel’s
theological account of the Day of the Lord as present and coming, see Seitz, Joel, 65–83,
esp. 72.
 Micah 7—Lamenting in Hope 219

Hoseanic.17 Like Hosea and Amos, the day of visitation is a day of

darkness, not light (Am 5:18). The product of Yhwh’s visitation will be
confusion: disorder and disarray (cf. Isa 22:5). It will be their confusion
with the referent as both the magistrates of the preceding verses and the
domicile disturbers of the following. Confusion and disorder mark the
community from top to bottom. When Yhwh visits his people in
judgment, their cosmos will turn to chaos. Jeremias draws attention to
the fact that the actual timing of the “day of visitation” remains
somewhat ambiguous in its relation to the disordered events described
in 7:1-6. The question remains open as to whether the events described
are in fact indications that the “day of visitation” is a realized event or an
indication of what is yet to be.18 Read within the frame of the Twelve,
this ambiguity speaks to the now and yet to be character of the Day of
the Lord (cf. esp. Joel). For example, Romans 1 describes the wrath of
God as an event unwittingly experienced in the now by those who
exchange Creator for creature. Yet, God’s wrath is still open to the
future. According to Jeremias, Micah read within the Twelve speaks to
the wide range of the “day of visitation” beyond the event of the exile.
The end of the exile in no way (keineswegs) brings an end to the strife
between Yhwh and his people.
Verses 5-6 are particularly disturbing because of their gross depiction
of neighborly and familial distrust. If love of God and love of neighbor
are flip sides of the same coin, then the whole of the religious and social
fabric is bankrupt. It is one thing to experience the injustice of the
powerful magistrates. It is quite another to experience such betrayal
and cruelty from those who share our blood.

17
Jeremias cites Am 3:2, 14 and its use of pqd (only places in Amos where the term is
used for “punishment”) as further evidence of the influence of Hosea on the canonical
shaping of Amos. For the term pqd is deployed with some frequency in Hosea as a term
for punishment (1:4; 2:15; 4:9,14; 8:13, 9:9; 12:3). Jörg Jeremias, “The Interrelationship
between Amos and Hosea,” in Forming Prophetic Literature: Essays on Isaiah and the
Twelve in Honor of John D.W. Watts (JSOTSupp 235; ed. J. W. Watts; P. R. House;
Sheffield: University of Sheffield Press, 1996), 182. See Gunnel André, Determining the
Destiny: PQD in the Old Testament (Lund: CWK Gleerup, 1980). André’s full-length
lexical and form-critical investigation of the term pqd places the nominal form in Hos
9:8 and Mic 7:4 under the category of “conditional act of the disfavor of Yhwh” (André,
Determining, 184, esp. 234).
18
Jeremias, 216.
220 Micah: An International Theological Commentary

In an essay entitled “Family,” Marilynne Robinson offers a beautiful account of the

matrimony of love and loyalty in family life:

Imagine this: some morning we awake to the cultural consensus that a family,
however else defined, is a sort of compact of mutual loyalty, organized around
the hope of giving rich, human meaning to the lives of its members. Toward this
end they do what people do—play with their babies, comfort their sick, keep their
holidays, commemorate their occasions, sing songs, tell jokes, fight and reconcile,
teach and learn what they know about what is right and wrong, about what is
beautiful and what is to be valued. They enjoy each other and make themselves
enjoyable. They are kind and receive kindness, they are generous and are sustained
and enriched by others’ generosity. The antidote to fear, distrust, self-interest is
always loyalty. The balm for failure or weakness, or even for disloyalty, is always
loyalty.

Robinson continues, “‘Love is not love/Which alters when it alteration finds,’ in the
words of the sonnet, which I can only interpret to mean, love is loyalty.”19 Micah 7:5-6
provides a startling portrayal of the admixture of familial life, disloyalty, and confusion.
Much like the Sophoclean tragedies, familial strife and discord are distinctive marks of a
setting turned tragic.20
The prophetic voice of confidence in 7:7 need not leave behind
the voice of despair in 7:1. Both confessions proceed from the same
faithful mouth. In the face of confusion and breakdown—legitimate
causes for prophetic lamentation—the prophet offers a confession of
faith set over against the prevailing tendencies of covenantal disloyalty.
The prophet also sets his hope on the future deliverance of Yhwh, and
this despite the fait accompli of present/forthcoming judgment. At
this critical juncture, the prophet enters the glorious company of the
apostles and the goodly fellowship of the prophets (cf. Isa 8:16-18).
Like the Psalmists who express their lamentations before God only to
turn in time to confession of faith and renewal of hope, so too does the
prophet here enter the selfsame pattern.21 The prophet’s residing in the
tension of lamentation and future hope bears the marks of Habakkuk’s
prophetic existence—Hab 1:2-4 yields in time the confession of faith

19
Marilynne Robinson, “Family,” in The Death of Adam: Essays on Modern Thought (New
York: Picador, 2005), 88–89.
20
See the introduction to Sophocles, Antigone, Oedipus the King, and Electra (Oxford
World Classics; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998), xi.
21
The waw disjunctive marks the turning point in the Psalms of Lament when the Psalmist
moves to renewed hope in the face of current circumstance (e.g., Ps. 13:5). A similar
syntactical pattern is found here in 7:7—“But as for me.”
 Micah 7—Lamenting in Hope 221

in Hab 3:17-19.22 The prophet’s existence as lamenting and hopeful

figures and anticipates Jesus Christ who suffers in the hope of future
vindication/salvation (Heb 12:1-3). The “but as for me” mode of being
is a call to prophetic existence, an existence that witnesses to a faithful
hope in the future promises of God amid and despite the most difficult
of current circumstances.

Micah 7:7-20—Zion’s hope

The final unit of Micah’s prophecy is divided into four subunits: 7:7-
10; 7:11-13; 7:14-17; 7:18-20. The first subunit functions as a bridge,
linking together 7:1-7 to 7:7-20. The final subunit brings ch. 7 to end;
it also serves as a conclusion to the whole of Micah’s prophetic book.
It is fitting for the final chapter of Micah to bear the same marks of
the book’s overall structure, namely, the oscillation between judgment
and future hope. Micah 7:1-7 affirms the cause and necessity for
forthcoming judgment, while 7:7-20 offers hope for the future, a
confident hope based on the identity and character of Israel’s God
(7:18-20).
As mentioned in the previous section, the identity of the first-
person subject introduced in 7:1 is not immediately self-evident. From
a synchronic viewpoint, there appears no compelling reasons to make
a distinction between the first-person voice of 7:1-7 and 7:8-10. As
mentioned in the previous section, the contrastive “but I” of v. 7 does
bear a resemblance to 3:8, lending support to the identification of the
“I” as the prophet. Nevertheless, the move from 7:7 to 7:8-10 is a natural
response to the confession of faith in v. 7, providing support for the
identification of the “I” as Lady Zion or Daughter Jerusalem (note the
feminine pronouns in 7:8-10). This textual tension is in large measure
the rationale for identifying v. 7 as a bridge verses linking that which
precedes with the forthcoming. There may be redaction or form-critical

22
On the relation of Habakkuk to the unit, see Nogalski, 579.
222 Micah: An International Theological Commentary

reasons for separating 7:8-20 from 7:1-7—more of this below—but

these fade at the level of the book’s final form. In other words, the text’s
prehistory may shed light on the final form of the text, but it does not
transcend the text’s final form and logic.
A theological point emerges amid this textual tension where the identification of
the prophet and Lady Zion overlaps with one another. Much is made of Calvin’s biblical
Christology where the threefold office of the mediator derives its substance from the
Old Testament witness: prophet, priest, and king.23 And rightly so, for these charisms
of Old Testament political and religious leadership converge in the singular figure Jesus
Christ. Moreover, Jesus Christ’s person and work elevates these offices in continuity and
discontinuity with those figures in the Old Testament who held such offices. For example,
Jesus is a prophet in the sense that he brings the Word of God, but unlike the prophets
of old, Jesus not only brings the Word but is the Word (Jn 1:1). A figural pattern of the
prophetic office in relation to the covenant people emerges here in Micah 7 as well. We
observe the prophet in solidarity with his people, representative of them in their guilt and
punishment: lamenting in anguish; admitting of guilt (v. 9); bearing Zion’s punishment.
At the same time, the prophetic voice represents the faithful hopes and actions of a people
unable and unwilling to enter into the same mode of being (vv. 7-10).24 The prophet may be
understood as a vicarious figure who offers faithful hope, obedience, and patience (vv. 7-10)
amid a scene marked by the decay and disorder of 7:1-7. The textual tensions and overlap of
the identity of the “I” in 7:1-10 provide the grounds for a figural extension of these two units
in relation to a Christological pattern rooted in the Scripture’s total witness. The prophet is
himself and representative other at the same time: in the suffering of Zion’s guilt and in the
presentation of Zion’s faith.
The tendency to separate 7:8-20 from 7:1-7 has its roots in the
form-critical identification of 7:8-20 as a “prophetical liturgy.” Gunkel
provides the full-length treatment of the form-critical approach.25 He
makes a case for the prophet applying motifs of the Individual Dirge to
Lady Zion (vv. 8-10; 14-17) along with an oracle (vv. 11-13) and a hymn
(vv. 18-20). Reference to Gunkel’s “prophetic liturgy” is standard fare in
the secondary literature on Micah as commentators rehearse Gunkel’s
line of thought: (1) A: vv. 8-1—the voice of the suffering people; (2)
vv. 11-13—the announcement of a glorious future; (3) B: vv. 14-17—a

23
The Institutes of Religion, II. xv.
24
Gunkel made a similar observation along form-critical lines. “The prophets were so
accustomed to personify Jerusalem and Zion that they occasionally went so far as to put
words in their mouths.” He continues, “The Hebrew poets and prophets thus carried over
into the national religion forms of expression which had been originally used to express
personal religious experience.” Herman Gunkel, “The Close of Micah: A Prophetical
Liturgy; A Study in Literary History,” in What Remains of the Old Testament (trans.
A. K. Dallas; New York: Macmillan Company, 1928), 126. The figural extension of this
prophetic instinct is not a line Gunkel would follow. For Gunkel texts move back to
religious moments rather than forward in figural anticipation.
25
Ibid.
 Micah 7—Lamenting in Hope 223

communal prayer for the return of the Divine Shepherd; (4) vv. 18-
20—a hymnic confession of faith.26 The combining of the Dirge and the
Oracle are formal markers of “such liturgies,” and Micah resembles this
kind of “artistic composition” (cf. Ps 94 where national and individual
dirges are found).27 Gunkel aims to prove that, despite the differences
in “mood and thoughts,” the whole of 7:8-20 forms an artistic whole.28
Gunkel argues in the affirmative because the Dirge of B, though similar
in content to the first Dirge of A, is more passionate and comprehensive,
building as it does on its relation to the preceding Dirge.29 Gunkel goes
so far as to imagine the liturgical setting where two choristers sing
Dirge A, while the whole choir responds in antiphon with Dirge B.30
With standard form-critical instincts in gear, Gunkel allows the form
of the text to provide an imaginative and reconstructive avenue to the
actual cultic events themselves.
The initial form-critical suggestions from Stade (a Psalm) and
Gunkel (a prophetic liturgy) entailed the notion that 7:8-20 existed
independently from its setting in the book as a performed liturgy—
recall Gunkel’s choristers. For Gunkel, only later in the postexilic
period was the prophetic liturgy inserted as a conclusion to the whole
of Micah without much contextual linkage to its new literary setting.
This particular facet of the form-critical project is no longer found
persuasive, though the Psalm-like quality of Micah’s final unit retains
its force.31 Ben Zvi prioritizes the Psalm’s Sitz im Buch over against its
form-critical prehistory, whether or not the Psalm’s genesis was in fact a
cultic setting.32 The recognition of the liturgical or Psalm-like character

26
E.g., Hiller, Wolff, Ben Zvi. See Hillers, 89–90, on the theory of the Northern provenance
of 7:8-20 (Ewald’s early suggestion). Gunkel located the “prophetic liturgy” in the time of
Trito-Isaiah. See the discussion in Andersen and Freedman, 576. See the range of social
settings for this unit in Willis, “A Reapplied Prophetic Hope Oracle,” 64–76.
27
Gunkel, “Close of Micah,” 143, 144.
28
Ibid., 146.
29
Ibid., 147.
30
Ibid., 148. See also J. T. Willis, “A Reapplied Prophetic Hope Oracle,” VT 26 (1974):
64–76.
31
See the critical response of Zapff, “The Book of Micah,” 135.
32
Ben Zvi, 180.
224 Micah: An International Theological Commentary

of Micah’s ending aids in understanding this final section as a fitting

response to the hard passage leading to the book’s end.
Jeremias believes the Psalm was created for the sake of concluding
Micah’s prophetic book, bringing together its various parts (Teilen).33
He first provides an excursus on the diachronic history of 7:8-20—
Jeremias understands vv. 14-17 as a later extension and interpretation
of vv. 8-10; the view of the nations is milder in 14-17 (ashamed) than
8-10 (enemies) with the door of hope opened to them in vv. 14-17 when
they embrace the fear of the LORD; 14-17 expands on the nations
motif (Völkerthemas) of chs 4–5. After the excurses, Jeremias allows his
understanding of Micah’s depth dimension to provide an interpretive
point of entry to Micah’s final unit. Lady Zion’s affirmation of her guilt
in v. 9 takes the view that with the exile’s coming to an end, so too
does her guilt.34 However, the view of the hymn in vv. 18-20 takes the
continuing guilt of the people beyond the exile into account (e.g., Mic
6:1-7:7). Why does Judah continue to exist in its continued state of
guilt, irrespective of the exile’s coming to a beginning or an end? For
the prophetic book of Micah, there is but one answer to this question.
Because Yhwh is quick to forgive and make good on his promises to the
patriarchs despite the continuing guilt of his people.35 Micah’s prophecy
ends with a clarion call to future hope because of Yhwh’s past dealings
with the fathers and the enduring character of his being: Yhwh is quick
to forgive. Borrowing New Testament capital from the Apostle Paul, the
canonical shape of Micah’s prophecy lends credence to Paul’s claim that
it is the goodness of God that leads to repentance (Rom 2:4).
In vv. 8-10, Lady Zion via the voice of the prophet acknowledges
her guilt, submits to Yhwh’s judgment, and opens herself to Yhwh’s
eventual vindication. Drawing on creation imagery from Genesis
1, the light of Yhwh’s redemption will engulf the darkness of Judah’s
momentary judgment. The legal dispute Yhwh has against his people
in 6:1-8 (‫ )ריב‬is now Yhwh’s legal defense of his people (‫ ;ריב‬7:9). The

33
Jeremias, 219.
34
Jeremias, 223–24. See Zapff, “Book of Micah,” 136, for a counter reading to Jeremias’s.
35
Ibid., 224.
 Micah 7—Lamenting in Hope 225

prosecutor is now Zion’s defense. The patriarchal themes of Jacob and

Abraham will appear at the chapter’s end (7:20). Here too, the Jacob/
Esau drama makes its presence known when the nations are challenged
not to rejoice over Zion (7:8). Such a question mirrors the charge
against the Edomites, Esau’s progeny, in Obadiah 12ff.36 The long-term
tension between Judah and her enemies will end in Judah’s vindication.
The scoffing nations will be trampled down.37
The promises of restoration in vv. 11-13 are set against the backdrop
of the day of visitation in 7:4. In final view, the promised day of judgment
is not Judah’s destined end but a necessary destination point along the
way. Walls once destroyed are now being rebuilt (cf. Isa 5:5). Boundary
lines once restricted will extend exponentially (cf. Isa 54:1-3). The day
of visitation yields to the day of restoration. The challenge of this
subunit is the depiction of the nations in vv. 12-13 and the identification
of the “he/they” returning in v. 12. In brief, are the Israelites of the
diaspora returning back to Judah from the nations and the farthest
reaches of the earth? Or do we have a parallel text with Mic 4:1-4 where
the nations are streaming to Yhwh to be taught? The answer to this
question of identification is not mitigated by the description of the
“earth” (‫ )ארץ‬as desolated in v. 13. The use of the term “desolate” (‫)ׁשמם‬
predicated now on the whole earth might be viewed in counter
distinction to Zion’s desolation in 6:16. What was once Zion’s lot has
now come to an end. Now the earth surrounding Zion is in desolation
and only Zion’s inhabitants enjoy the safety of its walls (v. 11). But the
desolation of the “earth” does not mean the earth’s inhabitants in toto
are destroyed. This tension of the nations in Mic 4-5 makes its
appearance here in the final chapter as well.

36
Hillers (90) makes mention of another intertextual referent to Ob: “my eye will see” (Ob
10/Mic 7:10).
37
Kaminsky’s categories of Elect, Non-Elect, and Anti-Elect provide helpful distinctions
when navigating the different accounts of the nations in the prophets in general and
Micah in particular. The identity of the nations who scoff at Israel’s God, placing
themselves in hostile relation to Yhwh and his people, is properly deemed anti-elect. The
Day of the Lord will be night to them. Yet, those who are not Israelite (non-elect) yet turn
to Israel’s God will enjoy the benefits of Yhwh’s universal reign (cf. Mic 4:1-4).
226 Micah: An International Theological Commentary

Returning to the textual difficulty mentioned in the preceding

paragraph, an ambiguity exists regarding the identity of the “he/they”
of v. 12. Who is “coming” or “entering”? If the referent is Israel in its
diaspora, then the text accords with the outlook of Isa 27:13.38 If, with
Dillers and others, the referent is the nations, then the portrait of 7:12
parallels Mic 4:1-4 (cf. Isa 66:18-21; Zech 14:16-19).39 Ben Zvi believes
the literary setting lends itself to seeing the nations as in view (cf. 7:13,
17), though on final analysis the ambiguity cannot be finally resolved.40
Perhaps polyvalency is the order of the day where the textual ambiguity
allows for both readings: the turning nations and the Israelites in
diaspora are coming back to restored Zion.41 The collective “he”
includes the streaming nations of Mic 4:1-4 and the scattered diaspora
of Mic 2:12-13.
The third subunit of 7:7-20 takes the form of a prayer addressed to
Yhwh (7:14-17). The prayer mirrors the Psalm-like quality of looking to
Yhwh’s marvelous deeds in the past for the sake of current comfort and
future hope (cf. Pss 77-78). Again, the speaking voice is Zion in direct
address to Yhwh. The call for Yhwh to “shepherd” his flock entails the
royal image of the shepherd-king (cf. Jeremiah 23). Within the frame of
Micah’s final form, Zion’s petition calls for the actualization of Micah’s
first word of redemptive promise (2:12-13). In earnest, Zion cries out
for Yhwh to make good on his promises to lead them from danger to
pastures of safety. Yhwh’s rod (‫ ;ׁשבט‬cf. Ps 23:4) performs double duty as
an instrument of protection and guidance. Zion reminds Yhwh of his
own electing promises and their identity has “his” (“your inheritance”).
The use of the second-person possessive pronoun (your) recalls Moses’s
not so subtle reminder to Yhwh in his moment of intercession. In the

38
See Zapff, “The Book of Micah,” 137. Andersen and Freedman raise it as a possibility that
the singular “he will enter” may refer to the coming Messianic hero, tucking back to Mic
5:1 (Andersen and Freedman, 587).
39
See Hiller, 91. Luther reads the text as the nations streaming (Luther, 273–74). So too
does Calvin with a more sophisticated set of exegetical arguments (Calvin, 385–86).
40
Williamson’s suggested emendation does not convince because the singular verb is
apposite to a collective subject. Williamson, “Marginalia,” 370–72. Waltke understands
the subject of “to enter” as “your people” of v. 14 (Waltke, 439).
41
So too Sweeney (411) and Ben Zvi (177).
 Micah 7—Lamenting in Hope 227

midst of the gold calf debacle, Moses prays, “O LORD, why does your
wrath burn hot against your people, whom you brought out of the land
of Egypt with great power and with a mighty hand?” (Ex 34:11). As
Yhwh’s inheritance, Judah is Yhwh’s privileged and prized possession
(cf. Deut 4:20; 9:26, 29; Ex 19:6). The logic of election is at work in the
prayer of Zion. Zion’s only status and leverage for intercession is their
identity as Yhwh’s very own, his inheritance.
Jesus’s description of himself as shepherd and gatekeeper inhabits the contours of
Micah’s shepherd imagery (Jn 10:1-18). Raymond Brown takes umbrage with Bultmann’s
dismissal of the Old Testament background for the shepherd metaphor in John 10.42 For
Bultmann, the Old Testament links the shepherd motif with the ideal king. Such a link
appears absent in the Johannine context. Yet Brown believes Bultmann has overshot in his
assessment. The presence of the Old Testament background and the originality of Jesus’s
use of it need not be played over against each other. Brown believes Ezekiel’s portrayal of
God (or the Messiah) as the true shepherd over against wicked shepherds who plunder the
sheep is present in John 10. The linking of gatekeeping and shepherding in Jn 10:3 squares
with Micah’s portrayal in 2:12-13. Moreover, the redemptive context of the divine shepherd
here in Mic 7:14 serves the redemptive portrayal of Jesus the Good Shepherd in Jn 10:14-
18 (along with Isa 40:11; Jer 23:3-4; Ezek 34:11-16; Zech 10:3).43 The Davidic portrayal
as a shepherd of the sheep who belong to God elicits Messianic and future hope in the
prophetic witness. Jesus’s self-description as the Good Shepherd embraces the figuration of
the Shepherd, whose kingly identity is unmistakable within John’s overall narratival scheme
(Jn 19:19).
The imagery in the second and third line of 7:14 leads interpreters
down two opposing interpretive tracks. Wolff, e.g., understands the
image of forest (‫ )יער‬in opposition to garden land (‫)כרמל‬.44 Therefore,
when Zion describes herself as alone (‫ )לבדד‬in a forest (cf. 3:12), this
reveals the difficult existence of Judah in their exilic and postexilic
setting. In other words, Judah resides in a forest without recourse to the
garden lands of her ancestral heritage.45 The other interpretive option,
and the one preferred here, is to view the whole of 7:14 as a hopeful look
at Judah’s future restoration. The forest and garden land are in relation to
one another as fertile fields of pasture. And the term alone marks Judah
as distinct among the nations: Yhwh’s inheritance. The scales tip in this

42
Raymond Brown, The Gospel according to John i–xii (AB; Garden City: Doubleday &
Company, 1966), 397.
43
See the helpful discussion in Marianne Meye Thompson, John (NTL; Louisville: WJK,
2015), 224–27.
44
While reference to Carmel as a place name is a possibility (see Ben Zvi, 177), its parallel
relationship to forest suggests otherwise.
45
See Mays, ad loc.
228 Micah: An International Theological Commentary

interpretive direction because the same verb for dwelling (‫ )ׁשכן‬appears

in Num 23:9 where it is in association with the term alone (‫)לבדד‬: the
same syntactical feature of Mic 7:14. The Numbers text appears in the
first of Balaam’s oracles to King Balak. According to Balaam, Israel’s
status as alone speaks to her uniqueness among the nations as favored
by Yhwh.46 The allusion to Numbers here is not Micah’s first reference
to the Balaam traditions (6:5).
Zion appeals to Yhwh on the basis of his own gracious favor and
election of her. The references to Bashan and Gilead perform a double
function. Both places were known for their fertile pastures (cf. Ps 22:12;
Num 32:1): Bashan in the Southwest region of Syria overlooking the
Sea of Galilee (the Golan Heights) and Gilead in the Transjordan region
just south of Bashan and north of the Dead Sea.47 While known for
their pastureland, these two regions also refer to territories lost to the
Assyrians (2 Kgs 15:29).48 Zion’s prayer here entails the fulfillment of the
prophetic promise in 7:11 regarding the expansion of Judah’s territories.
With the restoration of these territories comes the restoration of Israel’s
boundaries from the days of old.49
The petition continues with the days of old theme in v. 15. Reference
is now made to the Exodus, that paradigmatic redemptive moment
of Israel’s covenantal history. While it may be tempting to read the
referent of your in your coming out as the people, a second glance
prefers the identification of Yhwh as the referent (cf. Ex 33:14). Yhwh
goes out before his people to lead them and deliver them. The Exodus
of Israel’s past is in mimetic relation to his future deliverance of his
people. In those future moments, tethered as they are to the wondrous
deeds of the past, Yhwh will go before them (2 Sam 5:24; Mic 2:12-13).
The NRSV renders the final phrase of 7:15 as an imperative: “show us
marvelous thing.” While such a reading gets at the text’s sense, it does,

46
See Jeremias, 227–28.
47
See Miller and Hayes, History, 20.
48
See Oded Lipschits, The Fall and Rise of Jerusalem (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2005), 2.
49
The clan of Machir as a branch of the tribe of Manasseh may have dwelt in Bashan and
Gilead (cf. Josh 12:1-6; 13: 29-31; 17:1); see Miller and Hayes, History, 89.
 Micah 7—Lamenting in Hope 229

nevertheless, attenuate its rhetorical force. The phrase is best read as

the first-person speech of Yhwh, the One who is going out of Egypt
in triumphal procession of his people. “I will show them marvelous
things.” Yhwh is flexing his redemptive arms before his people—in
demonstration of their redemption—and the nations—for the sake of
their own humiliation before him (cf. Ex 3:20; Isa 29:14; Ps 78:4). The
final verses of this subunit witness to the devastating effects of Yhwh’s
redemptive power on the arrogance of the nations (cf. Isa 2:9-22).
Nations who once mocked with “where is your God?” (7:10) now stand
mouths covered and in shame before Yhwh’s awe-inspiring redemption.
As in the Song of Moses, the nations tremble in dread and awe before
the “greatness of Yhwh’s arm” (Ex 15:13-16).
As Jeremias observes, the nations here are no longer described as
“enemies” but as those who are overwhelmed by the fear of Yhwh,
turning to Him in such a state. The terrifying imagery of 7:17 entails a
silver lining of hope for the nations. For though shamed, their continued
existence remains possible as they dwell in a continued state of the fear
of Yhwh. As Jeremias claims, “The true might of their life is fear before
God.”50 The intertextual links to Jonah, along with Micah’s proximity to
Jonah in the XII’s canonical shape, suggest reading Jonah 1 as an
illustrative and substantive narratival construal of Micah’s prophetic
word.51 As the storm ceases and the great fish appears, the pagan sailors
stand gobsmacked before the wondrous deeds of Yhwh. The narrator
describes the effect of this dramatic moment on the sailors as follows:
“Then the men feared the LORD even more” (‫;וייראו האנׁשים יראה גדולה‬
Jon 1:16). The intertextual association of the nations fearing in Mic
7:17b and Jon 1:16 suggests reading the two texts in relation to each
other. If so, then Jeremias’s understanding of the silver lining for the
nations is affirmed. In Jonah 1, the fear of Yhwh leads to the worship of
Yhwh, however laconic the narrative is about the long-term effects of

50
“Diese Bewegung führt die Besiegten und ihrer vormaligen Macht Beraubten zu einem
positiven Aspekt des ‘Schreckens’, nämlich zur Ehrfurcht vor Gott als der wahren Macht
ihres Lebens;” (Jeremias, 229).
51
See Zapff, “The Book of Micah,” 141–42.
230 Micah: An International Theological Commentary

the sailors’ repentance.52 Similarly, the locust plagues in Joel represent

the Day of the Lord as a time experienced and a time to come. Drawing
from the Exodus traditions (Ex 10:2), Joel clarifies the purposes of the
wondrous deeds of Yhwh, namely, the knowledge of the LORD (Joel
1:2-3; Joel 2:27).53 As the experience of the locust plague in Egypt
resulted in the knowledge of Yhwh, so too will his current and future
wondrous deeds yield the same for both Israel and the nations. Micah
7:7-17 is an expansion on the variegated depiction of the nations
observed in chs 4–5. As with the books surrounding Micah—Jonah and
Nahum—the future remains open for the nations regarding their
relation with and posture before Israel’s God. Fear leading to repentance
and worship (Jonah; Mic 4:1-4; 7:17b) or continued hostility, arrogance,
and rejection leading to doomed consequences (Nahum; Mic 4:13;
7:10) remains open to the future.
Micah’s prophecy ends with a hymn of praise exulting in the character
of Israel’s God (7:18-20).54 As observed above in the introduction to this
unit, the prophetic book ends by providing the only grounds for Judah’s
future hope, viz., the name and character of Yhwh. As the plagues in
Exodus and the Day of the Lord in Joel lead to the proper knowledge
of God, so too here in Micah’s prophecy does the display of Yhwh’s
judgment and mercy lead to a proper understanding of God’s identity.
The question “Who is a God like you” plays on the prophet’s name,
Micah (who is like Yhwh). At the same time, the Exodus traditions hover
near the surface of this question. The Song of Moses asks, “Who is God
like you, O LORD, among the gods?” (Ex 15:11). The display of God’s
glory and wonder (Ex 15:11b) is inextricably linked to the revelation of
the divine name: “I will be who I will be” (Ex 3:14; 6:2).55 As the Exodus

52
See Ben Zvi, Signs of Jonah, 123–26. For Ben Zvi, the sailors of Jonah 1 “adumbrate a
future world in which all the nations will consist of pious people who will follow many
of the divine teachings held now by the Israelites” (ibid., 124). The distinction between
Israel and the nations remains, though the theological differences between the two blur
(cf. Isa 56:3-7).
53
See Seitz, Joel, 47–48; Ronald L. Troxel, Joel: Scope, Genre(s), and Meaning (Critical
Studies in the Hebrew Bible 6; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2015), 42–43, 46.
54
See Introduction.
55
Ibid.
 Micah 7—Lamenting in Hope 231

narrative unfolds, the golden calf fiasco leads to the pinnacle moment
of divine self-revelation as Yhwh provides Moses with a display of his
glory by the revelation of his name (Ex 34:6-7). The character traits
(middoth) of Yhwh’s name describe him as merciful and severe, with
his mercy far outweighing Yhwh’s severity. “How can I give you up,
Ephraim?” (Hos 11:8).
Thus ends the prophetic book of Micah with a rehearsal of the
merciful character of Yhwh as derived from the middoth of Ex 34:6-
7. Yhwh pardons and forgives sins. He holds fast to his people as his
inheritance (cf. 7:14). Though his people lack faithfulness (‫ ;חסד‬7:2),
Yhwh delights in maintaining his own faithful love (‫ )חסד‬to the object of
his affections. His anger endures for a moment while his mercy extends
in perpetuity. Though Israel’s hands were dripping with guilt before the
golden calves, Yhwh’s wrath elided into his mercy and favor (Exodus
32-34). As Calvin comments, “This passage teaches us, as I have already
reminded you, that the glory of God principally shines in this,—that he
is reconcilable, and that he forgives our sins.”56 Have forgiven our sins
and having cast them into the depths of the sea, sin as a pernicious and
material force is removed from God’s view. The result of such removal
is Yhwh’s reconciliation with his people.57
Martin Luther on into the depths of the sea: “That is, He will put our sins far away from
us so that they never again trouble our conscience. He will give us peace of conscience and
a very free conscience, for indeed, peace follows the forgiveness of sins—a peace where the
heart feels the sweetness of divine goodness, now that its sin has been forgiven, etc.”58
John Calvin on 7:18-20 and authentic worship:

Hence the fear of God, and the true worship of him, depend on a perception of his
goodness and favour; for we cannot from the heart worship God, and there will be,
as I have already said, no genuine religion in us, except this persuasion be really
and deeply seated in our hearts,—that he is ever ready to forgive, whenever we flee
to him.59

Francis Watson’s Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith provides a prolonged engagement
with the XII’s canonical history and reception in the Qumran texts and Paul. The canonical
shaping of the XII entails a thorough eschatological reception of these prophetic voices as
a witness to God’s continued dealings with his people. Their “non-fulfillment” opens these

56
Calvin, 400.
57
See Gary A. Anderson, Sin: A History (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009), 23.
58
Luther, 277.
59
Calvin, 401.
232 Micah: An International Theological Commentary

texts to the future and places future readers at “the intersection between a past dominated
by the divine judgment and a future characterized by the hope of salvation.”60 As mentioned
elsewhere in this commentary, Ben Zvi shares a similar logic regarding Micah’s intended
audience, namely, those rereaders who find in Micah a word from times past yet open to and
shaping of the rereader’s present and future. For Watson, the canonical shape of the Twelve
provides a hermeneutic by which to read the corpus. He concludes, “[T]he hermeneutic
entailed in the canonical form of the Book of the Twelve is above all a hermeneutic of
hope.”61 The conclusion of Micah lends material support to Watson’s thesis.
Joel Kaminsky’s Yet I Loved Jacob: Reclaiming the Biblical Concept of Election makes
the following claim: “Nearly every book among the fifteen canonical Latter Prophets
ends on a note of hope for future restoration.”62 While aware of the dangers of a kind of
naïve Biblicism where the practice of biblical authors becomes normative—e.g., the New
Testament authors’ Bible was the Septuagint therefore Christians today should use the
Septuagint—nevertheless, the prophetic pattern of ending prophetic words with hope
is suggestive for the form and shape of Christian preaching. Gospel hope is the telos of
Christian preaching on analogy to the prophetic books of the Old Testament. The burden
of preaching entails an honest appraisal of the human condition under the scrutiny of God’s
Word. Yet, as Paul reminds, God shuts up humanity in their disobedience so that he might
have mercy on all. The balance of the middoth (Ex 34:6-7) where mercy tips the scales
speaks to the character of God and the hope of Christian proclamation. “A bruised reed he
will not break” (Isa 42:3).
The covenant pledge Yhwh made to Judah’s ancestors, Abraham
and Jacob, will sustain the relationship with his people, leveraging his
severity with his mercy and love.63 In fact, the community of faith is the
present iteration of Abraham and Jacob in this moment of the divine
economy. These figures relate in figural fashion to the community
of faith both as representatives who went before and as extended
identities of the elect in the present moment of the divine economy.64
God’s promises to Abraham and Jacob are as solid and faithful as God’s
promises to the current community. For to speak of the one requires
the presence of the other. What is the basis for hope in the community
of faith? The answer from Micah—as in Exodus and many Psalms—is
none other than the enduring, gracious character of God. Weeping may
endure for the night but joy comes in the morning.

60
Watson, Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith, 138.
61
Ibid., 137. Watson’s reading of Deuteronomy in the same volume is not as compelling.
See the critical interaction in Seitz, The Character of Christian Scripture, 56–58, 60–62,
and esp. 152–53.
62
Joel S. Kaminsky, Yet I have Loved Jacob: Reclaiming the Biblical Concept of Election
(Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2007), 156.
63
Wolff observes an association between the last verse of the Magnificat (Lk 1:55) and Mic
7:20 (Wolff, 234).
64
Such is the logic of Hosea’s reference to Jacob’s wrestling with God as an exemplar of the
repentance Israel was to embrace (Hos 12:2-6).
 Index

Note: Locators with letter ‘n’ refer to notes.

a priori 179 110 n.28, 115 n.40, 118 n.46,
Aaron 196 123 n.62, 124, 129 n.8, 131,
Aaronic blessing 132 137, 138, 141 n.50, 142 n.53,
Abraham 166, 187, 225, 232 151 n.4, 152, 155, 156 n.20,
abstraction 11, 26 n.61, 27 n.65, 88, 161, 169 n.54, 170–1, 182 n.23,
92, 104, 110, 129 183, 184, 193, 195 n.11, 200
Achaemenid period 43 n.25, 203 n.40, 204 n.42, 209
Achan 104 n.63, 226 n.38
actualization 38, 102, 122, 164, 193, André, Gunnel 219 n.17
203, 204, 226 anger. See wrath
Adam 85, 124, 125 Anglican Prayer Book tradition 117,
Adonai 83, 85, 163 132–3
Adullam 99 antinomianism 198
adultery 105 n.15, 163 apostates/backsliders 111
Advent 26, 175 Aquinas, Thomas 25–6, 28, 76, 180–1
Ahab 105, 106, 212 Aram 166
Ahaz 71, 76, 142 Aramaic 20, 97, 180
Albertz, Rainer 74, 75 archaeology 9, 90
allegory 27 n.65, 30 Arendt, Hannah 207
Allen, Michael 47 Aristotle 107
alliteration 94 n.72, 97 arrogance 109, 188, 191, 229, 230
Ambrose, Bishop of Milan 71 Asherah 188, 212
Ammonites 129 “assembly of the Lord” 111, 209 n.63
Amon 158 associative field-mappings 27, 28
Amos 37 n.9, 53, 54, 55, 67, 73–6, Assyria/Assyrians 15, 16, 76, 84, 125,
79–80, 84, 85 n.39, 89, 94, 108, 162, 171, 182–5, 228
110, 113, 118, 130, 134, 137, Athanasius 24, 164
138, 141, 157, 158, 176, 184 atonement 87–8
n.33, 188, 190 n.53, 200, 210, Augustine 24, 26, 27 n.65, 71, 93
216, 219 n.67, 107–8
analogy 26 n.61, 41, 46, 100, 106, 123, authenticity 5, 9, 33, 34, 42, 45, 127,
144, 199, 232 139, 153, 187 n.44, 231
Anatolios, Khaled 23–4 authorship 4, 8, 13, 19–23, 28, 36 n.9,
ancient of Days 177, 180 43, 44–50, 68, 69, 72, 73–9,
Andersen, Francis I. 39, 48–9, 80–1, 119–20, 137, 144–5, 153 n.9,
83, 95 n.75, 96 n.79, 97, 102 179, 232
n.5, 103, 104 n.10, 108 n.23, Ayres, Lewis 14 n.32
234 Index

Baal 212 Boda, Mark 99 n.84

Babel 86 n.44 bones 131
Babylon/Babylonians 16, 66 n.26, 109, Book of Common Prayer 202
115–16, 123 n.62, 162, 180 Book of the Four 52 n.2, 53 n.3, 55
Balaam 197, 228 n.6, 73–5
Balak 197, 228 Book of the Twelve 4 n.6, 16, 51–69,
Balserak, Jon 94 n.74 75–6, 117, 147, 162–4, 166,
Baptism 71, 199 203–4, 209, 229, 231–2
Barth, Karl 7, 20–1, 22–3, 25, 26 n.61, Bosshard, Nupestil 37 n.10, 44, 156–7
68, 87–8, 92, 93 n.67, 94–5, n.24
144, 198, 201–2 Bozrah 123 n.62, 124
Bashan 191, 228 break through 125
Bathsheba 105 n.15 briars 216
Baumgartner, Walther 20–1 bribery 141, 142
Bavinck, Herman 4 n.8, 5 burnt offerings 199 n.24, 200
Becker, Uwe 5, 6
“becoming” 76, 77 Calvin, John 12–13, 23, 25, 37, 77,
Being 36 79, 88, 91, 94, 101, 103–4, 112,
Beiser, Frederick 10–11, 12 116–17, 121–3, 125, 134–5,
belief 11, 17, 18, 19, 22, 23, 100 139–40, 169, 176 n.14, 181,
Benjamin 82 n.28 184 n.34, 185, 191, 203, 222,
Ben Zvi, Ehud 43–5, 52 n.1, 226 n.39, 231
74–5, 77–9, 91–2, 99, 100, 109, Cameron, Michael 26 n.62
112–13, 116 n.43, 123 n.62, Canaanite tradition 153, 188, 200
142, 161, 163, 166, 189–90, canon consciousness 2
195, 199 n.23, 208 n.59, 214 Carson, D. A. 24 n.55
nn.1–2, 215, 223, 226, 230 casting lots 111
n.52, 232 Catholicism 25, 104 n.11, 154
Bethel 210 cessation. See rest
Bethlehem 167, 168, 170, 171, 173–7, Chapman, Stephen 69 n.29
179, 180 cheating 163
BHS (Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia) Childs, Brevard 2, 5 n.9, 12 n.29, 13,
94 n.72, 98, 108 n.23, 110 n.28, 20 nn.45–6, 35, 40–1, 44, 53
112, 115, 119 n.49, 138 n.41, n.3, 68–9 n.29, 79 n.23, 100,
166 n.51, 169 n.53, 183 n.29, 104 n.12, 105, 139, 144, 152,
209, 210 n.66 153 n.12, 156, 158 n.29
Biblicism 232 child sacrifice 200
bibliology 8 Chladenius, Johann Martin 12
Biddle, John 178–80 Christology 26 n.62, 29, 85, 94–5,
“biting” 135 180, 198 n.18, 222
bitterness 98, 110 2 Chronicles 122, 166 n.51, 168
blind eye 21, 29, 113, 117, 121 Church Dogmatics IV.1 (Barth) 22,
blood/bloodshed 61, 67, 141–2, 216, 87, 198 n.18
219 church fathers 24, 180–1
 Index 235

Church’s existence 84–5 168, 169 n.55, 173–81, 182,

Clements, Ronald 36 184, 227
Colossians 7 Dawson, John David 27 n.65
comfort 116, 118, 123, 220, 226 Day of the Lord 37 n.9, 133, 162, 188,
“coming” 76, 77, 86 n.44, 99, 226 190 n.53, 218, 219, 225 n.37,
commandments. See Law 230
comparative religion 9 Dead Sea 228
compositional history 1–31, 34, 35, death 87 n.47, 99, 101, 125, 147, 168,
37, 38, 44, 46, 49, 50 n.35, 51 169, 202, 207
n.1, 52, 56, 72, 83, 152, 155, Decalogue 59, 104 n.11, 202. See also
156–9 Law
conceptual incoherence 41 deception/deceptive spirit 98, 120–1,
confession 7, 14–15, 18, 20, 21, 28, 128, 134, 138, 210, 216
143, 144, 145, 180, 201 n.28, De Doctrina (Augustine) 26, 107
220–1, 223 deliverance 125, 132 n.18, 199, 220,
confidence 115, 116, 119, 120, 142–3, 228
145, 146, 188, 204, 220, 221. desire 93 n.67, 103–5, 107, 108, 109,
See also faith 120, 127, 192, 204, 207
1 Corinthians 137 Desire of Nations, The (O’Donovan)
2 Corinthians 3 133–4
cosmology 9 n.24 despair 167, 169, 173, 220
covenant formula 109 destruction/doom 34, 81, 90–2, 95,
covetousness 104–5, 106 n.20, 111 119, 140, 145, 170, 194 n.6,
creation 66, 120, 133, 176, 178, 181, 211 n.68, 212
194, 196, 207, 224 “deuteronomistic” influence 35, 53,
Creator 66, 67, 108, 219 55 n.6, 74, 75, 76, 106 n.20,
creed 30 119
Cross, Richard 11 Deuteronomy 86 n.41, 91, 93, 101,
Cross, the 87, 202 103, 105, 110, 111, 119, 132
cross-reference 2, 144–5 n.18, 142, 170, 174, 176, 188,
crucifixion 87 190 n.52, 194, 196 n.14, 198,
cruelty 131–2, 219 200, 201, 202, 204, 205, 208,
curse 115, 186–7, 197, 202, 210–11 210, 211 n.68, 212 n.72, 227,
Cyril of Alexandria 144, 164, 165, 232 n.61
180, 185, 211 dew 186, 187
Cyrus Cylinder 5 n.9 de Wette, Wilhelm Martin Leberecht
13
Damascus 15 dialectics 26, 53–4, 63, 65, 69
Dante 136–7 Diblaim 100
darkness 137, 138, 188, 219, 224 Dillers 34, 48, 226
Daughter of Zion 63, 95 n.76, 98, 99, dirge 111, 222–3
100, 167, 168–70 discernment 37, 47, 68, 109, 118,
David 37 n.9, 82 n.28, 85, 98–9, 105 145, 206
n.15, 119, 124, 131 n.14, 167, discourse 6, 24 n.55, 28, 71, 99, 198
236 Index

disgrace 114–15, 118–19, 173 111, 119–20, 147, 161, 162–6,

dishonesty 105 n.15, 130 n.9, 211 173, 185, 211, 231
n.68 eternity 8 n.19, 27 n.65, 175, 176–8,
disobedience 23, 87, 92, 120, 202, 232 180
distancing 58 n.11, 109 Eucharist 199, 202
divinations/diviners 137, 188 evil 98, 102–4, 108–10, 130–3, 136–7,
Divine Comedy (Dante) 136 202, 207
divine favor 111, 204, 219 n.17, 228, Ewald, Heinrich 33 n.3
231 “Exegetical Obituary, An” (Levin) 75
divine knowledge 26 n.61, 86 exile 41, 82 n.28, 99, 100, 121–3, 164,
Dorrien, Gary 9 n.24 166, 168, 219, 224
dowry 98 Exodus 16, 53–4 nn.3–4, 55–60,
Dozeman, Thomas 59, 104 n.12, 197 64–5, 66, 68, 98, 104 nn.11–12,
dreams 137 105 n.14, 117, 130 n.9, 132,
drunkenness 134 146, 149, 162, 174, 196, 198
duplex gratia 140 n.17, 199, 209, 218, 227–32
Durham, John 104–5 exploitation 92, 118, 169, 210, 212
n.71
ears, open/itching/deaf 17 n.38, 116, Ezekiel 5–6, 85, 94, 111, 113 n.32, 118
120, 121 n.48, 123, 165 n.49, 218, 227
ecclesiology 84–5
Edom 123 n.62, 124, 225 Fabry, Heinz-Joseph 66, 84
Egypt 15, 64, 83 n.31, 132 n.18, 196, face of God 132–3
197, 199, 227, 229, 230 faith 7, 9 n.24, 13, 18, 20 n.46, 22, 23,
Eichmann, Adolf 207 24, 45, 62, 67, 78, 85, 119, 120,
El 188 144, 145, 160 n.36, 161, 178,
elect 191, 198, 225 n.37, 232 180, 201 n.28, 203, 208, 214,
election 92–3, 100, 125, 131, 198, 215, 216, 220–1, 222, 223, 232
199, 200, 206, 216, 227, 228, faithfulness 16, 57, 69, 91, 101, 140,
232 147, 161, 162, 163, 164, 169,
Eli, sons of 218 190, 203, 204–5, 208, 211,
Elliott, Mark 30–1 213–22, 231, 232
Elohim 63 false weights/scales 210
Emery, Gilles 25, 26 n.61, 181 family 108–9, 118, 198 n.17, 214,
Emmanuel 173 215, 220
emptiness 108 famine, of God’s Word 138
enjoyment vs. use 107–8 favor 111, 228, 231
Enlightenment 10–11, 18–19, 133 fear of Yhwh 208–9, 224, 229–30, 231
Ephraim 15, 218, 231 fidelity 59, 92, 118, 136
Ephrathah 167, 168, 170, 171, 174 fields (land) 105, 111, 145, 149, 227
Epigonen 45 fig tree/figs 62, 106 n.18, 158, 163,
epistemology 22, 23, 24, 41 211, 216
Esau 225 Fishbane, Michael 2
eschatology 24, 60–7, 100, 106 n.18, flesh 47, 77, 131–2
 Index 237

forgiveness 41, 57, 58, 65, 67, 85, 86, goods vs. preferables 107
187, 224, 231 gospel 17, 23, 46, 79, 87, 94–5, 119,
form-critical approach 5–6, 33, 44, 125, 140, 164, 176 n.12, 180,
45, 46, 78, 102 n.5, 123, 215, 198–9, 232
219 n.17, 221–3 Gowen, Donald 58
Fortschreibung 1, 6, 34, 35, 36, 38 grace/gracious 9, 26 n.62, 54 n.4,
n.12, 40, 46, 49, 193 n.3, 208 56–60, 63, 64, 68, 79, 87, 92–3,
n.58 97, 117, 139, 140, 146, 149,
Freedman, David Noel 3, 39, 48–9, 173, 197, 198, 199, 203, 204,
80–1, 83, 95 n.75, 96 n.79, 97, 206, 207, 211, 228, 232
102 n.5, 103, 104 n.10, 108 grapes 211, 216
n.23, 110 n.28, 115 n.40, 118 gratitude 200, 205, 206
n.46, 123 n.62, 124, 129 n.8, Great Commission 164
131, 137, 138, 141 n.50, 142 greatest commandment 101
n.53, 151 n.4, 152, 155, 156 Gregory of Nyssa 24
n.20, 161, 169 n.54, 170–1, 182 Grotius, Hugo 180
n.23, 183, 184, 193, 195 n.11, guilt 57, 65–6, 108, 110, 136, 142, 174,
200 n.25, 203 n.40, 204 n.42, 208, 214, 218, 222, 224, 231
209 n.63, 226 n.38 Gunkel, Hermann 13, 45, 57 n.9,
fundamentalism 19 222–3
fury. See wrath Gunneweg, A. J. 14
Gunton, Colin 87
Gadamer, Hans-Georg 12 n.29
Galilee 228 Habakkuk 53 n.3, 66, 110, 141, 142,
Gath 97, 98, 99 220–1
Gelston, Anthony 110 n.28, 156 Hagstrom, David Gerald 48–9
Genesis 30 n.71, 86 n.44, 120, 137, Hananiah 115–16, 139
167–8, 224 happiness (eudaimonia), pursuit of
Geneva 79 107–8
German Historicist Tradition, The harvest 211, 216
(Beiser) 11, 12 haughtiness 109, 191
Geschichte Israels (Noth) 21 Hays, Richard 176 n.12
Gideon 174 Hazony, Yoram 151 n.3
Gilead 228 healing 165
Gilgal 197 Hebrews 77, 119–20, 221
Gilkey, Langdon 9 n.24 Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich 10
glory 59, 99, 107, 116 n.43, 118 n.48, Heidelberg Catechism 186–7
191, 207, 230–1 Helmer, Christine 8 n.19
Godly grief 165. See also repentance Herder, Johann Gottfried 12
gold 104, 136 heritage 90, 95, 227
golden calf 58, 59–60, 67, 227, 231 hermeneutics 7, 8, 9, 13, 14–15, 17,
Goldingay, John 80 n.25 22–7, 29, 30, 43, 44, 45, 71, 79,
Gomer 100 85 n.34, 119, 125, 139, 144,
Good Friday 87, 147 169, 175, 177, 179, 232
238 Index

Hermisson, H. J. 41, 53 Inferno (Dante) 136–7

ḥesed 57 infidelity 16, 86, 89, 92, 100, 111, 118,
Hezekiah 15, 71, 76, 142 n.53, 146, 188, 189, 212, 213
147, 184, 214 inheritance 82 n.28, 105–6, 111–12,
hierarchy. See social structure 113, 119, 226, 227, 231
high places 86–7, 88, 145–6 iniquity 57
historicism 2, 4, 10–12, 13, 18–19, 21, integrity 33 n.3, 68, 127, 151 n.3, 154,
39, 122 n.59, 155, 178 190
Holy Spirit 4 n.8, 5, 6, 7, 8 n.19, 23, intercession 94 n.70, 226–7
25, 46, 73, 96, 107–8, 138–40, intertextuality 1–2, 16, 35, 38, 43, 50,
145 56, 62, 64, 65, 66, 68, 73, 86
hope 4 n.8, 17, 23, 24, 33, 38 n.12, n.41, 98, 110 n.26, 130 n.11,
39, 43 n.22, 47, 48, 49, 62, 142, 146, 162, 165 n.49, 188
63, 65, 67, 69, 100, 110, 116, n.45, 193, 210, 212 n.70, 225
121, 122–3, 125, 128–9, 132, n.36, 229
140, 146, 147, 149–50, 155, Irenaeus 30, 31, 85
162, 163, 164, 166, 167, 168, Isaiah 5, 17, 20, 33–9, 41, 42 n.21, 46,
173–92, 213–32 53, 61 nn.19–20, 66 n.25, 71,
Hosea 4 n.6, 52, 53, 54, 55, 68, 73–6, 74, 75, 80, 82 n.28, 88, 90, 99,
80 n.24, 85, 89 n.57, 91, 100, 109, 123, 129 n.8, 131 n.14,
130, 157, 162, 165, 167, 187, 137, 143 n.56, 173–4, 188, 191,
210, 216, 218–19, 232 n.64 212 n.74, 223 n.26
Hossfeld, Frank-Lothar 153 n.10 and Micah, diachronic/shared
House, Paul R. 56 oracle 150–71
Hübner, Hans 3 Israel 2, 4 n.8, 5, 8 n.19, 9, 15, 16,
Hugh of St. Victor 25 n.59 20–1, 36–9, 41, 47, 51, 59–61,
humiliation 110, 173, 193, 212, 229 63–8, 72, 76, 78, 79, 80, 82,
humility 93, 101, 185, 205, 206, 207 84–6, 88–9, 92–3, 98, 99, 102,
hunger 107, 108, 211 105–6, 108–9, 110 n.26, 111,
Hunsinger, George 26 n.61 117, 123, 125, 129, 130–4,
hymn 66, 222–3, 224, 230 149, 151 n.3, 153 n.10, 155,
hypocrisy 117 157, 159, 162, 163, 166, 167,
168, 169, 170–1, 173, 174, 184,
Ibn Ezra 121 n.54, 125 187, 190, 194 n.4, 195, 196,
idioms 8 n.19, 62, 103, 162, 204 n.42 197–202, 208, 211, 212, 216,
idolatry 58–9, 66, 86–7, 91–3, 94 221, 225 n.37, 226, 228, 230,
n.74, 108, 145–6, 188–9, 206, 231, 232 n.64
212 Issachar 105
imagery 65, 80–1, 86–90, 91, 94 n.71,
100, 109, 123, 124, 133, 135, Jabbok 166–7, 168
137, 145, 167, 224, 227, 229 jackel 94
images. See idolatry Jacob (patriarch) 83, 84, 88, 89, 121,
incarnation 27 n.65, 77, 175, 180, 185 166–8, 225, 232
indifference 132 Jacob, Benno 57, 60 n.16
 Index 239

Jacobs, Mignon 47–8, 160 n.35 93, 95–6, 98, 99 n.84, 100–11,
jealousy 58, 60 127, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134,
Jebusites 153, 157 135, 138, 139, 140–1, 143,
Jehoiakim 141, 146, 147 144, 146, 151, 153 n.12, 162,
Jehoshaphat 62 164, 166, 167, 168–9, 170, 173,
Jephthah 129 174, 177, 182, 183, 184–5, 188,
Jepsen, A. 89 n.57, 91 189–91, 193, 197, 200, 201,
Jeremiah 20, 33, 34, 35, 36, 38 n.12, 202, 208, 210, 211, 212 n.70,
74, 75, 95 n.77, 108, 109, 213–21, 224–5, 227, 228, 230,
115–16, 131 n.14, 134, 139, 232
141, 143, 146–7, 174, 183, 226 judge 17, 76, 86, 87, 95, 159, 170–1,
Jeremias, Jörg 34–5, 38, 44, 46 n.25, 216, 217
49–50, 61 n.18, 73–5, 82, 86, Judges 86, 129, 174
91, 94, 110–11, 121, 129–30, judgment 13, 16–17, 24, 34, 37, 47,
141–2, 145, 146, 161, 165, 166, 48, 49, 58, 62, 65, 67, 72, 76,
170, 174, 176, 182, 186, 190, 78, 81, 83–90, 92, 94–7, 99
193, 195 n.8, 208 n.58, 212 n.84, 100, 108–12, 115, 120–1,
n.70, 214, 217–19, 224, 229 122 n.59, 123, 124, 125, 131,
Jeroboam II 55 134, 137, 138, 142, 145, 149,
Jerome 96 155, 165, 167, 170–1, 186–7,
Jerusalem 34, 36, 38 n.12, 43 n.22, 66 189–91, 194, 198, 202, 208–12,
n.26, 71, 74, 79–91, 95–8, 102 213, 217–19, 221, 224–5, 230,
n.4, 129, 130, 140, 142, 143 232
n.56, 145, 150, 153 n.10, 164, Jüngel, Eberhard 87, 101
167, 174, 177, 184, 190, 207, justice/injustice 9, 28, 47, 58, 67, 78,
212, 215, 221, 222 n.24 87, 103, 106 n.20, 113, 116,
Jesse 184 118, 127–47, 156, 170, 200–8,
Jethro 130 n.9 213, 216–19
Jews 79, 101, 181, 207 justification 19, 56, 127, 140
Job 94, 138, 196, 214
Joel 37 n.9, 55, 62, 63, 64, 65, 75, 76, Kaminsky, Joel 225 n.37, 232
136, 137, 218 n.16, 219, 230, Kessler, Rainer 34, 66 n.26, 81 n.26,
232 95, 103 n.8, 161, 163 n.43, 193
John 25, 76, 123 n.63, 144, 145, 176 n.3, 194 n.6, 195 n.11, 200
n.12, 227 n.27, 212 n.74
Jonah 52, 53–8, 60–9, 84, 108, 146, Kimchi, David 161
163, 229–30 kindness 204, 206, 220
Jonathan 99 1 Kings 98, 105–6, 170–1, 212
Joshua 13, 104, 129 n.8 2 Kings 55, 122, 175, 200
Josiah 131 n.14 Klassiker 45
Jotham 71, 76 Klooster, Fred 144
Judah 15, 16, 38 n.12, 39–40, 52, 53 Knierim, Rolf P. 89
n.3, 60–1, 65–9, 71, 72, 74, 75, knowledge 26 n.61, 77, 86, 130–1,
76, 78, 79, 81, 82, 84, 88, 89, 163, 206 n.51, 207, 224, 230
240 Index

Kratz, Reinhard 41, 53 n.3, 82 n.28, liturgy 38, 82 n.28, 143, 153, 201
89, 157 n.27 n.28, 202, 222, 223
Kugel, James L. 90 Logos 178, 180
Kuhrt, Amélie 15 Lohfink, Norbert 74
Kyrie Eleison 202 Lord of the Rings, The (Tolkien) 196
love
labor 40 n.15, 168, 173–4 God’s 57, 60, 102, 140, 200, 203–7,
Lachish 16, 98 210, 219, 232
lamentation 60, 81, 93–6, 99 n.84, of neighbor 88, 101–25
100, 110, 111, 112, 213–32 lust 105 n.15
Lamentations 94 Luther, Martin 8 n.19, 12, 69, 79, 101,
land, as inheritance 105–6, 111–12, 104 n.11, 125, 137 n.37, 150,
119 154, 166, 181, 182, 198 n.18,
Law 82–93, 101–5, 112, 125, 164, 199, 207, 226 n.39, 231
198, 202, 203 lying/lies 120, 134, 163
leader/ruler, description of 129–30,
141 MacDonald, Neil 16
Lebanon 191 Malachi 4 n.6, 37 n.10, 52, 53 n.3,
legalism 198 54 n.5
Legaspi, Michael 18 Manasseh 174, 212, 228 n.49
leitmotif 102, 117, 179 Mark 102
lepers 138 marriage 100
Lescow, Theodor 128 n.1 Marshall, Bruce 17 n.38
Levin, Christoph 52–3 nn.2–3, 55 Masorah Parva 147
n.6, 75, 157–8 Masoretic Text (MT) 52, 54–5, 73,
Levinson, Bernard 2 n.3 84, 98, 112, 116 n.42, 120 n.52,
Levinson, Jon 14 141 n.50, 149, 154, 167–71,
Leviticus 105 173–8, 181–92, 208, 210 n.66,
Limburg, J. 195 n.11 215
lion 62, 64, 186, 187 Matthew 3, 143–4, 164, 175
lip service 201 Mays, James Luther 35 n.5, 47, 48
litany of “the good” 203–4 n.33, 92, 97, 98, 108, 120 n.52,
literal exposition, levels of 25 n.59 124 n.66, 135, 142 n.53, 150
literary devices 97 n.1, 152, 161, 175, 190, 195,
literary form 12 n.29, 20 n.46, 25, 26, 214
28, 29, 30 n.71, 34–5, 38, 41, McConville, Gordon 163, 202 n.37,
42–7, 50 n.35, 61 n.19, 64, 72, 204, 206 n.51
75, 77, 78, 80, 83, 94 n.72, 102, McKane, William 38 n.11, 103, 118,
113, 117–19, 128, 140, 142, 160 n.35
147, 152, 154–6, 157 n.25, 170, Melugin, Roy 78 n.21
185, 190, 203, 208, 209, 211, mercy 47, 55, 56–60, 61, 64, 65, 67,
215, 222, 226, 232 69, 85, 117, 147, 149, 201,
literary structure 38, 47–9, 71, 84, 204, 205, 209, 213, 230, 231,
105, 161, 187, 189, 193, 221 232
 Index 241

Merleau-Ponty, Maurice 28 nakedness 94, 97, 191

Messianic prophecy 33, 161, 173–92, natural law 19
226 n.38, 227 Near East 9, 20, 21, 106 n.20, 153
metaphors 23, 30, 61, 68, 86, 87, 88, n.10
94, 95, 99, 104 n.10, 109, 120, neck(s) 109
124, 127, 131, 132, 137, 146, neighbor, love of 88, 89, 101–25
173, 174, 186, 187, 214, 216, Neo-Assyrian Empire 15, 76, 125, 162
217, 227 new beginnings 173–92
metaphysics 8, 10–11, 12, 17–29, 125, Nicene orthodoxy 178
179–81 Nichomachean Ethics (Aristotle) 107
metonym 96 n.78, 89, 99, 118 n.48, Nineveh 60–1, 64, 65, 66, 67, 108
145–6, 208 NIV (New International Version) 160
Micah (prophet), persona and n.35, 170
prophetic role 76, 81 Nogalski, James D. 47, 53, 55, 56, 74,
Micah (Ben Zvi) 43 81, 110 n.26, 151, 160 n.36,
Michaelis, Johann David 18 181–2, 183, 184, 210
middot (attributes) 56–8, 60, 61, 117, noise 124
149, 162, 209, 231, 232 nominalism 11, 18
midrash 3 Northern Kingdom 89 n.57, 95, 129
Migdal Eder 166–8 n.5, 130, 157 n.27, 212
military reliance 188–9 Noth, Martin 21
Miriam 196 NRSV (New Revised Standard
Moab 197, 200 Version) 43, 109, 166 n.51,
modernity 9–17, 12, 18, 19, 71 170, 181, 183 n.29, 209 n.63,
money 136 228
monotheism 51 Numbers 119, 197, 199, 228
moralism 198 n.20 numbers, significance of 183–4
Moresheth 15, 71, 76, 98, 146
Moses 58–9, 130 n.9, 174, 196, 218, Obadiah 96 n.78, 157 n.24
226–7, 229, 230–1 obedience 59, 120
Moses’s song 86 n.41, 230 Oberman, Heiko A. 137 n.37
mountains 65, 83 n.30, 86, 127, 145, O’Donovan, Oliver 107 n.22, 133–4,
149, 158, 164, 194–6 198 n.20
mourning. See lamentation omnipotence 11 n.27
mouth of the Lord 157, 222 n.24 omniscience 86
mouths, covering of 64–5, 138, 229 Omri 212
Mowinckel, Sigmund 153 n.11, 173 n.1 ontology 2, 7–8, 23, 29, 85, 107 n.22,
mystery 8 n.19, 26 n.61, 96 125, 177, 199
oppositional ethos 4 n.6
Na’aman, Nadav 82 n.28 oppression 106
Naboth 105–6 oracle 35 n.5, 42 n.21, 66, 67, 78,
Nachgeschichte 33 82–3, 87, 100, 102, 152 n.8,
Nahum 52, 53–4, 57, 58, 60–7, 68, 69, 155, 156 n.20, 157 n.25, 158–9,
84, 163, 230 160, 165, 177, 189, 222–3, 228
242 Index

Origen 27 n.65, 29–30 pride 92, 93, 101, 109, 188, 189, 191,
original utterance 28 205, 207
ostrich 94 priests 88, 94, 106 n.20, 125, 136,
Owen, John 178–80 142, 222
owl 94 Promised Land 119, 196, 197, 210
prophet, role of 142, 218
pain, of loss 99 n.84 prophetic books 5–6
paleography 9 prostitution 90, 91–2, 100. See also
parallelism 90, 186 idolatry
parents, mistreatment of 105 n.15 Protestantism 25, 69
paronomasia 97 Proverbs 37 n.9, 110, 183, 184
particularism 47, 67, 84, 187 proverb/taunt song 110–11
Passion 87 providence 12 n.29, 19, 46, 168, 186
pasture/pastoral imagery 21, 158, Psalms 37 n.9, 38 n.11, 66 n.26, 86,
167–9, 181, 185, 226, 227, 94 n.74, 104, 119–20, 125 n.67,
228 133, 152–3, 202, 220, 220 n.21,
patience 51, 57, 58, 59, 64, 66, 115, 223–4, 226, 232
117, 191, 209, 222 pseudo-historicism 39, 41 n.18
Paul 3, 5, 26, 120–1, 137, 145, 165, pseudo-prophets
198 n.18, 207, 224, 231–2 characterization of 113–18,
Paul, Shalom 210 120–1
Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith vs. Yhwh’s prophets,
(Watson) 231–2 contradistinction 127–47
peace 39, 61, 118, 132, 135, 138, 149, purging/cleansing 187–8
150, 154 n.17, 155, 156, 159, purpose 11, 25, 73, 139
163, 174, 181, 182–3, 185, 191, puzzle 127–8
231
peasants 102 n.4 Qumran 3, 4 n.6, 52, 123 n.63, 154,
Pentateuch 39, 86 175, 203 n.40, 231
Penuel 166
perseverance 115 Racovian Catechism 178–80
perversion 93 n.67, 106, 136 Radner, Ephraim 11 n.27, 84, 85
pesher 3 reception/reception history 2–5, 12
Peter 136, 138 n.29, 16, 40, 42, 73, 75, 77, 78,
2 Peter 13, 73 80, 146, 147, 231
Pharisees 13, 73, 101 redaction/redaction criticism 1–2,
Philistia 99 16, 33, 35, 36 n.9, 37, 38–44,
philology 9, 13, 20, 21, 28, 30 n.71, 47, 48 n.33, 49, 52–4 nn.2–4,
97, 176, 177, 180, 181 n.23, 64 n.24, 66, 71, 73, 74, 75, 83
182 n.23 n.32, 122, 128, 142 n.53, 152,
phonetics 26, 27, 98 153 n.12, 154 n.13, 155, 157
piety 37 n.9, 141, 142, 200 n.25, 216 nn.24–5, 158, 160, 160 n.35,
pilgrimage 120, 154 n.17, 161 162–3, 185, 189, 195, 208 n.57,
pleasure 107–8 214, 221–2
 Index 243

redemption 16–17, 19, 29, 34, 73, 82, Sabbath 119, 120
86, 92–3, 100, 120, 123, 125, sacraments 26, 136
129, 131, 132, 146, 147, 163, sacrifices 63, 117, 199–200, 204
167, 169, 170, 173, 178, 181, sailors 61, 63, 84, 163, 229–30
183, 185, 196–200, 206, 224, salt 108
226, 227–9 salvation 47, 48, 49, 53 n.3, 73, 93, 99
reductionism 12, 19, 21, 34, 87, 133, n.84, 100, 121, 123, 136, 165,
179, 180, 200 169, 178, 182, 183, 187, 203,
Reformation 20, 69., 144, 153–4 212 n.74, 213, 215, 221, 232
refuge 62–5, 67, 176 Samaria 15, 34, 71, 79–84, 87, 88, 89,
rejection 100, 125, 189, 230 90–2, 95–7, 100, 129 n.5, 145,
religiosity 120 190, 194 n.6, 212
remnant 52, 123, 165–6, 185, 186, 187 Samuel 218
Renaud, Bernard 35 n.5, 130 n.10 1 Samuel 99, 105 n.15, 119, 137, 218
Rendtorff, Rolf 51 n.1, 60, 61 n.18, 63 2 Samuel 86, 91, 98–9, 167, 175 n.7,
renewal 67, 85, 220 196 n.13, 210, 218, 228
Reno, R. R. 30 n.71 sanctification 73, 135–6, 140
repentance 60, 61, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, Sargon II 15
79, 85, 108, 130, 136, 146, 147, Satan/devil 96–7, 125, 185
165, 166–7, 191, 193, 202, 207, Saul 82 n.28, 99, 174
211, 215, 224, 230, 232 n.64 Sauter, Gerhard 23
rescue 115, 200 saving arm 121
rest 119–20, 142, 166, 176 Schart, Aaron 52 n.2, 53, 54 n.4, 55
restoration 67, 111–12, 133, 140, 165, n.6, 56, 61 nn.18–19, 66 n.26,
167, 169, 189, 199, 211, 225, 74, 75
226, 227, 228, 232 Schleiermacher, Friedrich 23
resurrection 164, 166, 202, 204 Schmid, Konrad 37 n.10
revelation 4 n.8, 8, 26 n.61, 59, 67, Schopenhauer, Arthur 10
68, 85, 106 n.20, 138, 139, 145, Scripture, compositional history 1–2
181, 230–1 Scripture principle 144–5, 179
revenge 66 secular approaches 14 n.32
rhetoric 2, 68, 97, 98, 103, 115, 116, security 119, 132, 141, 174, 188
130, 131, 138, 162, 194 n.4, 196, Seitz, Christopher 46, 76, 147
197, 200 n.25, 216, 218, 229 self-determination 59, 93, 199
Ricouer, Paul 59 self-giving 87, 101, 200
righteousness 101, 103, 116, 131 n.14, self-reliance 93, 188–9, 191
136, 140, 200 n.26, 207 semantics 8 n.19, 27–8, 80, 91, 97–8,
robbers. See pseudo-prophets 104, 105 n.14, 157 n.24, 166
Roberts, J. J. M. 42 n.21 n.51, 170, 204, 206
Robinson, Marilynne 220 Sennacherib 15–16, 81, 100, 214
Rosenzweig, Franz 2 n.3 Septuagint 170, 232
ruins 90, 111, 149, 173, 192 severity 55, 58–60, 61, 64, 65, 67, 68,
rupture 87, 109 69, 112, 115, 117, 147 n.73,
Ruth 96 n.78 149, 209, 213, 231, 232
244 Index

Shalmaneser V 15 Stansell, Gary 153 n.12

shalom 201 “state of sin” 92 n.64
shame 64, 97, 110, 138, 171, 229 steal(ing) 104 n.10, 105
shaved head 100 Steck, Odil 37 n.10, 41, 44, 53 n.3,
Shaw, Prue 136 143 n.56, 156
Shema 101 Steiner, George 26–7
Sheol 194 Stoebe, H.J. 206
Shephaleh region 76, 96–7, 100 Stoics 107
Shepherd 121–5, 134, 167, 174–5, stones, heap of 90, 145, 149
183, 184–6, 223, 226–7 stubbornness 111
Sheppard, Gerald T. 36 n.9 suffering. See lamentation
Shiloh 157 survivors. See remnant
silver 136, 140, 229 swearing 163
Simoniacs 136 Sweeney, Marvin 66 n.25, 89, 94 n.71,
Simon Magus 136 95 n.76, 105, 111 n.29, 114,
sin 16, 17, 57, 59–60, 86, 88–90, 117, 121, 122–3, 125, 137, 151
92, 93 n.67, 100, 101, 108, n.3, 158 n.29, 159, 159 nn.32–3,
125, 136, 139, 185, 198, 199 160, 161, 166, 182, 184, 189,
n.24, 202, 210, 231. See also 193 n.3, 195 n.11, 214
transgression symbolism 27 n.65, 93, 109, 119,
Sinai 58, 86, 198 143, 184, 201 n.28. See also
sinner 87, 135, 136 metaphor
skin 131 syntax 15–16, 59, 82 n.29, 96, 97, 120
slavery 106 n.18, 109, 132 n.18, 196 n.52, 123, 175 n.7, 195, 210
Smith, Ralph L. 47 n.66, 218 n.14
social justice 106 n.20 Syria 228
social structure 106, 109 Syro-Ephraimite war 15
Socinianism 178–80
Sola Scriptura 144 Talmud 57
Sommer, Benjamin 2 n.3, 4, 39, 41, Tarshish 56, 191
41 n.18, 53 n.3, 122 n.59, 151 “tearing away” 104 n.10, 132
n.3, 154, 155 temple 63, 85, 143, 145, 146, 153, 157,
Son of Man 177 163, 164. See also worship
soothsayers 137 Temple Entrance Liturgy 199
Southern Kingdom 15, 82, 88, 89 temporality 12 n.29, 65, 79, 147, 160,
n.57, 100, 129, 130, 157 n.27 176, 180, 181, 183, 185, 189,
sovereignty 150, 185, 189 198
Spinoza, Benedict de 10, 13, 29, text-critical analysis 50 n.35, 113
179 theodicy 55
spirit of the Lord 115. See also Holy Theodore of Mopsuestia 180
Spirit Theodoret of Cyrus 164, 166 n.50,
splendor 118 n.48, 169. See also glory 180
Spronk, Klaas 53 n.3 theological commentary,
Stade, Bernard 33–4 characteristics 1–8
 Index 245

theophany 65, 66 n.26, 83, 86, 87, 88, vision 23, 63, 77, 79, 137, 142, 151 n.3,
93, 153 n.12 155 n.19, 161, 164, 191, 212 n.74
thirst 108 visitation 218–19, 225
Thiselton, Anthony C. 93 n.67 vocation 72, 81, 109, 134, 138, 142
thorn bush 217 Völkerkampf 153
Tiglath-pileser III 15 von Balthasar, Hans Urs 133
Timothy 120–1 von Rad, Gerhard 2, 5 n.10, 6, 17
2 Timothy 120–1 n.38, 30 n.71, 40, 120, 160–1
Tolkien, J.R.R. 196 n.36, 174, 206
Torah 61, 74, 77, 103, 106 n.20, 131, Vorbild 157, 158
142, 159, 162, 163–4, 218 vow 63, 163
Tota Scriptura 144
Tractatus (Spinoza) 179 Wagenaar, Jan A. 38–9 n.12, 189,
traditio vs. traditum 2 190
transgression 88–90, 92, 98, 100, 119, wailing 94, 110
127 walk with God 205–9
Transjordan region 183, 228 Waltke, Bruce 47, 50 n.35, 92, 97,
tribes 105, 111, 141, 168, 174, 209 104 nn.9–10, 117–18, 124, 130
n.63, 228 n.49 n.10, 138 n.41, 141 n.50, 142
Trinity 6–7, 8 n.19, 13–14, 17–29, n.53, 156 n.22, 170, 181 n.23,
76–7, 87, 107, 125, 176 n.14, 184, 195 n.11, 201, 209 n.63,
177–81 210 n.66, 214, 217, 226 n.40
triumph 69, 229 Warfield, B. B. 20
Trueman, Carl 179 warnings 23, 42, 64, 79, 81, 85, 87, 91,
truth 17 n.39, 25, 69 n.29, 120–1, 139, 92, 95, 97, 112, 113, 119, 120,
169, 179, 191 122 n.59, 147 n.73
Truth and Method (Gadamer) 12 n.29 wasteland 90
Tucker, G. M. 80 n.24 water 63, 86, 108
Watson, Francis 4 n.6, 231–2
unbelief 92, 120 Weber, Max 12
unfaithfulness 163, 202 Webster, John 7–8, 73, 198
universalism 67, 84, 187 weeping 98, 171, 232
uprightness, walking in 115, 116–17, Westermann, Claus 30 n.71
216 wickedness. See evil deeds
wilderness 166, 196
Van der Toorn, Karel 40 n.15 will, God’s 36, 61 n.18, 136, 139, 143,
van der Woude, A. S. 113, 115, 116, 176, 189
122 n.59, 128, 182 Williams, Rowan 27–8
van Leeuwan, Raymond 55–6 Williamson, Hugh 20 n.45, 40,
Vatke, Wilhelm 13 80 nn.24–5, 82 n.28, 89 n.57,
vengeance 66, 187, 189, 190, 191 99, 106 n.20, 129 n.5, 152–3
Vergegenwärtigung 2 nn.8–9, 154, 156, 157 n.25, 157
vine 62, 106 n.18, 158, 163 n.27, 158, 166 n.51, 183 n.29,
vineyard 90, 105 211 n.68, 226 n.40
246 Index

Willis, John T. 47, 83 n.32, 114 n.36, wrath, God’s 58–60, 65, 87, 187, 189,
115 n.40, 169 n.54, 186, 223 n.26 190 n.52, 213, 219, 227, 231
wine 120, 211 Wright, Christopher 198 n.17
wisdom 68, 94, 206, 208
Wissenschaftliche 18 Yeago, David 180
witness 9, 13, 17, 22, 43, 51–69, 73, 79, Yehud 43–4, 68 n.29, 78, 100, 163,
83, 85–6, 93, 101, 123, 144–5, 166 n.50, 177, 189
147, 164, 180, 194–6, 203, 215, Yet I Loved Jacob (Kaminsky) 232
221, 222, 227, 229, 231 yoke imagery 109
woe oracle 102–3, 214 Young, Frances 144–5
Wöhrle, Jakob 52–4 nn.3–4, 55 n.6, 56
Wolff, Hans Walter 38 n.12, 108 n.23, Zapff, Burkardt 54 n.4, 61 n.19
120 n.52, 123, 128 n.1, 136, Zechariah 46, 154 n.17, 164
142, 143, 152, 154 n.17, 169 Zedekiah 184
n.55, 171, 175, 182 n.23, 186–7 Zenger, Erich 153 n.10
n.42, 190, 195 n.8, 196 n.13, Zephaniah 4 n.6, 55 n.6, 73, 74, 75,
201, 210 n.66, 214, 217, 218 76
n.14, 227, 232 n.63 Zerubbabel 180
Wolterstorff, Nicholas 132 n.18, Zimmerli, Walther 5–6
133–4, 140, 143, 200–1 Zion 39 n.12, 61, 63, 66, 67, 82 n.28,
“word of the LORD” 95 n.76, 98, 99, 100, 105 n.14,
linguistic feature of the prophetic 106, 110, 113, 115, 118, 119,
expression 76–8 127, 129 n.5, 130, 134, 141,
prophetic word as 76, 79 143, 144, 145, 149, 150–3,
sending agency of Yhwh 76–8 154 n.17, 157 n.24, 157 n.26,
visions and 79–82 158, 162, 163, 164, 166–70,
wordplays 97–8 173, 175, 182, 185, 187–9, 190
“wound” 81, 95–7, 100, 145, 165, n.53, 191, 193, 213, 215, 217,
167, 212 221–32
 Scripture Index

Old Testament n.24, 68, 117, 8.3 201

162, 209, 231–2 9:26, 29 227
Genesis 34:11 227 10:12 205
1 224 34 16, 149 10:12-13 208
2:2 120 34:28 218 10:12-22 202, 202
2:9 104 98 18:2 n.37
12:2 166 12:32 200
12:3 187 Leviticus 14:1 170
20:16 195 n.11 9:3 199 n.24 17:16-17 188
24 30 n.71 13:45 138 18 132 n.19
31:29 103 18:21 200 19:14 211 n.68
31:36 195 n.11 25:23 105 21 86 n.41
32:22-32 166 24:18 132 n.16
32:32 166 Numbers 26 86 n.41
35:16 168 6:24-26 132 27:17 211 n.68
35:21 168 21:8ff 134 28:25, 27 212 n.72
49:17 135 22:24 197 28:30-31 210
23:9 228 28:32 103
Exodus 25:1 197 28:37 110
3 59, 174 26:55 111 29:21-27 190 n.52
3:7 132 26:59 196 n.15 30:19 194
3:14 230 32:1 228 31:16 86 n.41
3:20 229 35:33 169 31:17, 18 132 n.19
6:2 230 36:2 111 31:28 194
10:2 230 31 86 n.41
15:11 230 Deuteronomy 32:1 194
15:11b 230 4:13 202 33 111
15:13-16 229 4:20 227 33:10 142
18 130 n.9 4:26 194 33:20 132 n.19
18:2 98 4:36 209 n.62 33:27 176
19:6 227 5:5 202
20:17 104 5:21 105, 105 n.14 Joshua
20:17a 104, 104 n.11 5:24 201 1:7 37 n.10
20:17b 104, 104 n.11 5:25 209 n.62 1:18 41, 43
32 58 6:4 101 2 197
32-34 146, 231 6:4ff 93 7:21 104
33:14 228 6:20-25 198, 198 n.17 10:24 129
34:6-7 53–4 nn.3–4, 7 174 12:1-6 228 n.49
55–60, 64–6, 64 7:5 91 18:8-10 111
248 Scripture Index

Judges 10:27 175 77-78 226

4:4-5 86 14:3 122 78:4 229
5:11 197 14:25 55 80 133
6 174 15:29 228 88:14 132 n.19
6:32 195 n.11 90:2 176
11:6 129 2 Chronicles 94 223
11:11 129 16:12 166 n.51 95 119–20
25:23 122 95:11 119, 120
Ruth 27:3 168 132:13f 105 n.14, 119
3:11 96 n.78 137:7-8 123 n.62
Nehemiah 143:7 132 n.19
1 Samuel 3:26 168
2:21 218 Proverbs
3 137 Job 3:27 103
9:6-10 135 n.29 2:5 138 8:14 205, 208 n.60
11 105 n.15 9:14 196 n.13 8:26 183
12:3f 196 n.13 10:15 214 11:2 205
13:34 218 13:24 132 n.19 15:19 217
22:1 99 16:7 196 16:11 210
23:13 99 30:29 94 18:24 210
26:19 119 34:29 132 n.19 22:28 211 n.68
30:18-31 184
2 Samuel Psalms
1:16 196 n.13 2:6 183 Isaiah
1:20 98 13:1 132 n.19 1:1 80, 81
5:24 228 13:5 220 1:2 194
7 167 15 199 1:7 210
7:13 175 n.7 19:10 104 1-12 35
13:34 218 22:12 228 1:23 142
14:19 210 22:25 132 n.19 2:1 80 n.24, 158
18:24-27 218 23 123 2:1-4 150, 151 n.3
21:19 86 23:4 226 2:2 156
23:13 99 27:9 132 n.19 2:2-5 35, 153 n.9
30:7 132 n.19 2:2b 155 n.19
1 Kings 46 82 n.28, 115, 2:3 77
9:16 98 144, 152 2:4 158, 164
16:31-33 212 46:6 143 n.56 2:5 159, 161, 191
18:22 170 48 115, 144, 152 2:6ff 188
21:4 106 48:3 153 n.10 2:6-8 35, 191
22:24 171 50:1-7 86 n.42 2:7 188
68:7-8 86 2:9-22 229
2 Kings 68:19 105 n.14 3:9 196 n.13
3:27 200 69:17 132 n.19 5:1-3 90
9:17-20 218 76 152, 153 n.10 5:1-7 90, 216
 Scripture Index 249

5:5 122, 225 54:1-3 225 28:9 138

5:8 102 n.5, 105 54:7 165 n.49 29:14 165 n.49
5:11 102 n.5 54:8 132 n.19 29:23 86
5:13 99 56:8 165 n.49 31:8 165 n.49
5:18 102 n.5 56-66 34 31:10 123, 165 n.49
5:20 102 n.5 57:15 109 33:5 132 n.19
5:23 142 58:1 89, 138 41:5 170
6:1 109 58:12 117 42:5 86
6:10 109 61:4 117 47:5 170
6:11 210 61:8 139 49:4 111
7:14 35, 175 64:5 132 n.19 116 34
7:20 94 n.71 66:18-21 226 118–19 34
8:16 5 119–20 35
8:16-18 220 Jeremiah
8:17 132 n.19 1:2 with 1:4 77 Lamentations
8:22 137 3:1 169 4:3 94
9:6 182 3:9 169
10:5 171 5:15 190 Ezekiel
10:6 169 5:18-19 113 1–24 6 n.11
10:10-11 91 6:4 136 3:17 218
10:11 95, 96 6:6 218 10 118 n.48
11:1 35, 175 n.7 6:13 218 11:17 165 n.49
13:1 80 n.24 6:17 218 16 85
13:21-22 94 7:4 143 21:2 113 n.32
16:5 131 n.14 8:3 108 21:7 113 n.32
20:1-6 94 n.71 9:13 216 24:17-22 138
20:2 94 10:19 95 n.77 24:17-23 94
22:5 219 14:9 143 n.56 32:7-8 137
24:12-13 216 15:11 94 33:11 146
24:18 194 15:18 95 n.77 34:2-3 131
27:13 226 16:16 170 34:11-16 227
28:7 134 17:16 94 34:13 123
28:29 208 18:11 102 n.5 39:23 132 n.19
29:14 229 18:20 94 39:24 132 n.19
30:8 5, 195 n.11 22:13-17 141 39:29 132 n.19
30:26 95 n.77 22:15-16 131 n.14 45:10-11 210 n.65
40:1-2 123 23:3 123, 165 n.49 48 111
40:4 86 23:3-4 227
40:8 22 23:13-32 134 Daniel
40:11 227 26:17-19 146 7:9 177, 180 n.20
40:25-31 139 26:18 33, 142
40:26 139 26:18-19 142 n.53 Hosea
42:3 232 28 109 1:3 100
43:5 123 28:6-9 139 1:4 218
250 Scripture Index

1:5 110 Joel 1:2 83, 83 n.30, 84,

1:7 91 1:2-3 230 102 n.5, 129
1:9 109 2 65 1:2-4 83, 88
2:4:(2) 195 n.11 2:10 137 1:2-5 84
2:12 90 2:27 230 1:2-7 81, 82, 85,
2:15 218 4 62–3 88, 92
3:5 124 4:9 136 1:2-9 74, 81
4:1-2 163, 206 4:10 62 1:2b 85, 86
n.51 1:3 35, 83
4:2 122, 134 Amos 1:3-4 86
4:6 142 1:1 79, 79 n.23 1-4 187
4:9 219 n.17 1:2 67, 190 1:5 83, 88, 174, 190
4:14 91, 219 n.17 1:3 89 1:5-7 88, 89 n.57
5:1 130 2:6 118 1:5a 88
5:9-10 211 3:1-4 210 1:5b 88
5:14 187 3:2 14, 108, 219 n.17 1:5c 88
6:1 165 3:8 85.n 39, 108 1:6-7 81
6:6 203 4:4 210 1:7 91, 210
7;14 170 5:5-6 210 1:8-9 100
8:4 91 5:10 141 1:9 118
8:13 218 5:12 89 1:10 99
8:14 85, 91 5:13 110 1:10-16 76, 100
9:1 91 5:15 130 1:12 98
9:7 120 n.52 5:18 188, 190 n.53, 1:13 98
9:7-8 218 219 1:14a 98
9:8 218, 218 n.14, 5:18-20 137 1:14b 98
219 n.17 5:21-24 200 1:15 98, 99
9:9 218 7 184 n.33 2:1-2 107
9:10 216 7:1-6 94 2:1-3 102 n.5, 132
10:15 210 7:12 135 n.29 2:1-5 78, 101, 102,
11:8 231 7:16 113, 113 n.32 114
12:2-6 167, 232 8:1ff 216 2:2 105, 132 n.16
n.64 8:2 216 2:3 118, 133
12:3 218 8:5 210 2:3c 109
12:4 210 8:11 138 2:6 112
12:6 202 9:11 176 2:6-7 112
12:7 210 9:13 113 n.32 2:6-8 114 n.36, 115
13:2 91 n.40
14 170 Jonah 2:6-11 112
14:5 187 1 63, 229 2:10 116, 142
14:9 37, 91 2:12-13 121, 121
14:10 43 Micah n.54, 122 n.59,
14:10a 162 1:1 71, 78 n.21, 79, 125, 128, 165,
14:10b 162 82, 139 167, 226–8
 Scripture Index 251

2:13 125 4:8-5:1 167 7:1 214–15, 220–1

3 210 4:8-5:1 (4:14 MT) 167 7:1-6 219
3:1 106, 129, 130, 4:8-5:4 (5:3 MT) 149 7:1-7 213–15,
131, 216 4:8-5:5 MT 169 217–18, 221–2
3:1a 128 4:9 186 7:2 216–17
3:1-3 134 4:9-10 170 7:3 217
3:1-4 127, 133 4:11-13 187, 211 7:3-6 216
3:2 104 n.10 4:13 83 n.31, 169, 7:4 217, 219 n.17
3:2b 132 n.16 230 7:4b 217–18
3:2b-3 132 4:14 170, 171 7:5-6 220
3:5 118 5 118 7:7 215, 218, 220,
3:5-8 134 5:1 173, 215, 226 220 n.21
3:8 202, 215 5:1 (4:14 MT) 149, 7:7-10 221
3:9 140 186 7:7-17 230
3:9-10 82 n.28 5:1(2) 177, 178 7:7-20 221, 226
3:9-12 140, 143, 157 5:2 35, 175, 178, 7:8 215
n.24 179, 180 7:8-10 215, 221
3:10-11 217 5:2 (5:1 MT) 167, 7:8-20 215, 222–3,
3:12 90, 145, 146, 168, 169, 173, 175 223 n.26
147, 147 n.74 5:2-4 173 7:10 222, 230
4:1 156 5:2-4 (1-3 MT) 174, 7:11 228
4:1-4 160, 162, 163, 181, 182 7:11-13 221
174, 211, 225, 5:3 (5:2 MT) 173 7:12 226
225 n.37, 226, 5:4b 183 7:14 227–8
230 5:5 (5:4 MT) 181 7:14-17 221
4:1-5 35, 150, 151 5:5-9 (5:4-8 MT) 7:17 229
n.3, 159, 163 181 7:17b 229, 230
4:1-5:15 160 n.36 5:7-8 186, 187 7:18-20 221–2, 230
4:2 77 5:8-15 211 7:20 232 n.63
4:3 158 5:9-13 35 8-9 93
4:3b 155 5:9-13 MT 84 8-10 168
4:4 106 n.18, 157, 5:9-14 187 n.44 Judah
158 5:10-15 187 1:8-9 81
4:4-5 159 5:14 84 vv. 1-2 102, 108–11,
4:5 150, 151 n.3, 6:1 83, 83 n.30, 84 196
155 n.19, 159, 6:1-2 194 vv. 1-3 132, 132
161, 161 n.39, 6:1-7:7 35, 213, 216, n.17, 140
162, 163 224 vv. 1-4 160, 165
4:6-5:1 [4:14 MT] 6:1-8 131, 194, 194 vv. 1-5 182
149 n.7, 204, 207 vv. 1-7 139, 201
4:6-7 165, 165 n.49 6:10-11 210 vv. 1b-2 195
4:7b 166 6:10-12 210 vv. 2-4 83, 88
4:8 150, 168, 170, 6:13-15 211 vv. 2-4 and v. 5 83
173 6:16 215 vv. 2-4 (1-3 MT) 184
252 Scripture Index

vv. 3-4 86 Habakkuk 7:42 176 n.12

vv. 3-5 108, 196, 1:2-4 220 10 227
199 2:6 110 10:1-18 227
vv. 5-6 (4-5 MT) 2:12 141, 141 n.51, 10:3 227
182, 185 142 10:14-18 227
vv. 5-6, v. 7b 218 2:12 (2:6ff) 142 16:33 125
vv. 5-7 88–90 3:17-19 221 19:19 227
vv. 5-8 134, 137
vv. 6-7 91, 93, Zephaniah Acts of the Apostles
120, 137, 168, 1:15 137 8 138
199–200 3:8 86 8:9-24 136
vv. 7-8 (6-7 MT) 3:15 143 n.56
186 3:17 143 n.56 Romans
vv. 7-9 [6-8 MT] 3:18-20 165 n.49 1 219
185 3:19 123 2:4 224
vv. 7-10 222 9:11 125
vv. 8-1 222 Zechariah 12 198
vv. 8-9 93, 118 1:1-6 46 15:4 4–5
vv. 8-10 112, 117, 8:3-5 164
168, 224 8:20-22 157 n.24 1 Corinthians
vv. 8-10; 14-17 222 9:9-10 188 n.45 9:9 137
vv. 9-10 168 10:3 227
vv. 9b-11 141 14:16-19 226 2 Corinthians
vv. 10-12 96, 209 6:2 3
vv. 10-14 (9-13 Malachi
MT) 183 3:22-24 37 n.10 Colossians
vv. 11-13 222, 225 1:17 7
vv. 12-13 122–3, New Testament
225 2 Timothy
vv. 12-14 (11-13 Matthew 4:3-5 121
MT) 188 2:6 175
vv. 14-17 222, 224 7:21-23 143 Hebrews
vv. 18-20 222–4 28:19-20 164 1:1 77
3:14 119
Nahum Mark 3:17-4:11 119
1:2:8 64, 66 12:28-31 102 4:1 119
1:3 57, 64 n.24, 12:1-3 221
65, 67 John
1:6 65 1:1 176 n.12, 222 2 Peter
1:6a 67, 84 n.33 1:5 163 1:20-21 73
1:7 62 1:14 77
1:7b 62 1:16 229 Revelation
1:9 62 1:18 76 2–3 85
3:19 95 n.77 3:16 205