The Interplay Between Doom and Hope in Micah

From BT

    The superscription to this book places the start of Micah’s ministry during Jotham’s reign, which was from 750 to 732 BC, and the end during Hezekiah’s, which was from 716 to 687 BC. Micah, who came from the southern kingdom, and preached mostly in Jerusalem, was certain that the Spirit of God had come upon him, was helping him to see clearly the sinfulness of Judah, and was giving him the courage to speak out against it (3:8).

Social Sins

    It appears that Micah had seen many rich people obtain permanent ownership of poor people’s land. This was against the rules. The assignment of land to each tribe, clan and family was enshrined in the regulations associated with the Sinai covenant. Land was not to be bought or sold permanently; nor was its ownership to pass permanently in any other way to any other tribe or person (e.g. Lev. 25:23; Num. 36; 1 Kgs. 21:3). But by some means, rich people in Micah’s day were forcing poor people off their land; possibly when the poor got into debt the rich forced them to sell their land in order to pay the debt. Apparently the jubilee provision for such land to return to its original owner was ignored. This abuse is described precisely in 2:1–2, 9 and more generally in 3:1–3. When the poor person tried to prevent it by going to a judge, the judge accepted a bribe from the rich person (3:9–11; 7:2–3).

    Micah also condemned cheating in business: the use of a light weight when weighing out a commodity, or a heavy weight when weighing gold, or a small measure when selling something by volume. This is another case of the rich (the merchant) exploiting the poor (the customer; 6:10–12). Both injustices were connected with greed, for money and property.

    Micah was undoubtedly angry at this ill-treatment of the poor. He was also aware, from his knowledge of the Sinai covenant, that such ill-treatment was against the laws of God, and that God had promised to punish the breaking of his laws. But the main reason why the prophet preached as he did, denouncing the evils and promising the imminent judgment of God, was that in his personal communion with God, God confirmed that these practices constituted covenant-breaking and that he would soon punish them (1:1–2; 3:8).

Sins Involving the Perversion of Worship Practices

    Micah spoke against the worship of Canaanite idols, in both the northern kingdom (1:7) and the southern (5:13–14; also possibly 1:5b, if the MT reading, which labels Jerusalem a ‘high place’, i.e. a pagan shrine, is the correct one), and against witchcraft (5:12).

    He also denounced peace prophets (3:5–7, 11). These prophets had succumbed to the fascination with money mentioned above, and were prepared to give favourable oracles in order to ingratiate themselves with the rich and powerful; they pointed to God’s promise to David to protect Jerusalem (2 Sam. 7:16), and chose not to say anything about the conditions attached to it. Again Micah’s own observations and his awareness of the laws and threats in the Sinai covenant were no doubt important reasons for his preaching, but his primary motivation was the direct revelation he received from God.

Judgment

    Micah announced that God would punish these sins. In chilling oracles he predicted that Samaria would become ‘a heap of rubble’ (1:6, NIV), and that Jerusalem would be ‘ploughed like a field’ (3:12). This latter prophecy, when originally spoken, was understood by its listeners to be conditional; Jeremiah 26:18–19 says that Hezekiah repented on hearing Micah’s oracle and that God relented and did not bring disaster upon him. However, this does not mean that Micah’s words had done their work and ceased to be relevant; the threat remained, warning subsequent generations that if Judah broke the covenant Jerusalem would be ploughed like a field. Eventually this judgment came to pass. (This passage in Jeremiah provides remarkable evidence of how a Hebrew prophet’s sayings were preserved and transmitted so effectively that a century later people could quote them in conversation.)
    In other messages Micah added further detail to his description of the judgment which would come if there was no repentance; it would involve exile in Babylon (4:10). In Micah’s day Babylon did not seem to pose any threat to Judah, but at the time of a visit to Jerusalem by Merodach-Baladan, king of Babylon, in 705 BC (Is. 39:1–8), God revealed also to Micah’s contemporary, Isaiah, the prospect of the nation going into exile in Babylon.

    Most of Micah’s descriptions of the judgment to come were not as specific as these. He often represented it as corresponding precisely to the sin, in the spirit of the ancient talion rule of an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. Against those who ‘plan iniquity’ God would ‘plan disaster’ (2:1, 3). Those who robbed others of their land would themselves be robbed of theirs (2:4–5). Those who ignored the cries of the poor would in their turn be ignored when they cried out to the Lord (3:1–4). (See also 1:7b.)

Hope

    If the canonical anthology of Micah’s oracles is representative of his preaching, he must have spent almost as much time preaching hope as preaching doom. Having preached the judgment of God, he went on to insist that that judgment would not be the end of Judah’s story. Destruction would not be total; a ‘remnant’ would remain (2:12; 4:7; 5:7–8; 7:18). Micah’s use of this word conveyed both bad news (only a remnant would survive) and good news (at least some would survive). (This promise of a remnant is found also in Isaiah, e.g. in Is. 7:3.)

    Micah also promised that God would rescue and redeem Judah from Babylon (4:10); the people will return to Jerusalem (4:6–8). In the last days many nations would look to Jerusalem for ‘the word of the LORD’, and as a result there would be peace; nations would beat their swords into ploughshares (4:1–5; cf. Is. 2:1–5).

    Moreover, a new ruler will be born in Bethlehem; he will reign ‘in the majesty of the name of the LORD’; his people will dwell securely and ‘his greatness will reach to the ends of the earth’ (5:1–5). There are a number of similarities between what is said here about the coming ruler and the messianic expectations of other OT writers: for his ruling not in his own strength but in the strength of Yahweh, cf. 1 Samuel 2:10; for his providing security for his people, cf. 2 Samuel 7:10; for the worldwide extent of his reign, cf. Psalm 2:8; for the peace he will bring, cf. Isaiah 9:6; 11:6–9; the cryptic phrase ‘whose origins are from of old’ and the reference to Bethlehem may be intended to indicate that the coming ruler is descended from David without connecting him with David’s decadent line, cf. Is. 11:1. Micah’s prophecy is unique in identifying Bethlehem as the birthplace of the coming ruler.

    Many of Micah’s expressions of hope find their fulfilment in the new covenant. With regard to 4:1–5, the letter to the Hebrews speaks of believers in Jesus now having come ‘to the heavenly Jerusalem, the city of the living God’, because they have access to the presence of God (12:22). The promise ‘he will teach us his ways’ (4:2) was fulfilled when Jesus explained what God had done and what he required of his people (Matt. 28:18–20; Mark 1:22).

    With regard to 5:1–5, John 7:42 shows that the Bethlehem prophecy was understood messianically in the 1st century AD, and Matthew used it to confirm that Jesus was the Messiah (2:6). The NT claims that Micah’s promise that the coming one would ‘shepherd his flock’ was fulfilled in Jesus (Matt. 2:6; John 10:1–18; 1 Pet. 2:25; 5:4; Rev. 7:17). Paul too draws upon these verses: in Ephesians 2:14 he applies Micah’s promise ‘and he will be their peace’ to Jesus. For Micah this peace consisted of the re-unification of Israel and Judah (5:3) and peace with their external enemies. Paul proclaims a greater re-unification, of Jews and Gentiles, and peace with God.

    Paul also believed that in his own time, as in the time of Micah, God’s plan of salvation included a significant role for a remnant within Israel (Rom. 9:27; 11:5).

The Interplay Between Doom and Hope in Micah

    Micah is not the only prophetic book to include both oracles of doom and oracles of hope; so do Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel. But in Micah the rapid alternation between the two is striking, especially the movement from judgment to salvation at 2:12 and 7:7. Most commentators think that Micah’s material has been arranged in three sections, chapters 1–2, 3–5, and 6–7, each section beginning with the command ‘Hear’ (1:2) or ‘Listen’ (3:1; 6:1). If this is correct, then each section consists of oracles of doom followed by oracles of salvation: 1:2–2:11 followed by 2:12–13; 3:1–12 followed by 4:1–5:15; 6:1–7:7 followed by 7:8–20. Is this arrangement significant?

    By placing the salvation oracles after the doom oracles the compiler (who may have been Micah himself, 3:1) has given them greater weight; salvation, not doom, is Micah’s and God’s final word. This holds true even if the book is divided up in some other way, because its last verses are about salvation. The same pattern is seen in all three major prophets and in Hosea, Amos, Zephaniah, Haggai and Zechariah. B. S. Childs has found it also in many psalms and in the two historical works, Deuteronomy–Kings and Chronicles–Ezra–Nehemiah (Childs, Old Testament Theology in a Canonical Context, pp. 238–239). It reveals that God’s mercy is stronger than his wrath; his sending of his Son would confirm this. It may also reveal the ultimate triumph of mercy and grace, an important theme of OT eschatology. Micah’s emphasis on hope is based on the covenant made long before between God and Israel, to which he alludes many times: 6:1–8 is a covenant lawsuit; nine times God calls Israel ‘my people’; and the last verse of the book indicates that the prophet’s hopes for the future are founded upon God’s promises to ‘our fathers’.

    Moreover, the arrangement of doom and salvation oracles is intended to prevent readers from thinking of one theme without the other. God’s judgment and his redemption are closely linked; they are both part of his single purpose. Each is best understood in connection with the other. Though the people of Judah are sinners, justly under punishment, Yahweh is incomparable (note the pun on Micah’s name in 7:18; who is like Yahweh?) as the one whose forgiveness is more powerful than their sins; he delights in mercy and will not persist in anger. Yet his mercy can be properly understood only if his wrath is also properly understood. Similarly his wrath should not be considered in isolation from his mercy.

    In the death of Christ both the wrath and mercy of God are revealed; the reader of the NT is confronted by both simultaneously and must grasp both.