IN THAT DAY,” declares the LORD,
“I will destroy your horses from among you
and demolish your chariots.
11I will destroy the cities of your land
and tear down all your strongholds.
12I will destroy your witchcraft
and you will no longer cast spells.
13I will destroy your carved images
and your sacred stones from among you;
you will no longer bow down
to the work of your hands.
14I will uproot from among you your Asherah poles
and demolish your cities.
15I will take vengeance in anger and wrath
upon the nations that have not obeyed me.”
Original Meaning
MICAH ENDS THE long section of 3:1–5:15 with a final oracle about purging all false sources of dependence—anything other than God himself. Allen calls it an announcement of punishment, while Mays give a more appropriate name: a message of salvation through purging.1 Although some see a certain chiastic parallelism between 4:1–4 and 5:10–15, this is unlikely, for the only common element to both paragraphs is the destruction of instruments of war.2 Each verse in 5:10–15 is constructed in an identical manner, except the final statement about the destruction of the nations that do not obey God (5:15); thus, the material is tightly unified in a single paragraph.
Some scholars relate this oracle to the approaching Assyrian attack on Jerusalem.3 Isaiah told Hezekiah about the foolishness of trusting in the horses and chariots of Egypt (Isa. 30:1–3; 31:1–3). Hezekiah himself then downplayed the importance of military forces to his people (2 Chron. 32:7–8) and worked hard to rid the nation of all forms of pagan worship (2 Kings 18:1–4). This sermon is probably a supportive message to legitimate Hezekiah’s actions in the eyes of some doubters in Jerusalem (see Mic. 5:5–7). The prophet is apparently trying to persuade the leaders and citizens in Jerusalem to support the king’s religious reforms.
The central theological message of this section is that God wants his people to stop worshiping and putting their hope in objects made by humans, which cannot save them (5:13b). Strong walled cities like Lachish and Jerusalem, strong armies from Egypt or Babylon, idols and Asherah poles, even witches who cast spells in the names of these gods—all these are of no value. They are human creations, which provide no lasting security. Hope is found only in God. He will purge all these feeble human attempts to provide hope. Only those who listen to God and obey him will escape his judgment (5:15).
False Political and Military Hopes Will Be Purged (5:10–11)
VERSE 10 BEGINS the same as 5:5, 7, 8 (5:4, 6, 7 in Heb. text) with wehayah (lit., “and it shall be”). This section adds the modifier “in that day,” which links it with the identical phrase in 4:6 and the similar phrase (“in the last days”) in 4:1. Thus, it seems to describe what God will do in an eschatological period. What Micah writes regarding what will happen in the last days has a repetitious regularity that builds force and emotion as you progress through them (a common technique used by African American pastors today). “I will destroy” is pounded into the psyche of the listener at the beginning of both of these verses to emphasize God’s decisive action to end all trust in false, humanly created hopes. God sovereignly controls the future.
God will cut off both horses and chariots (5:10), the main means nations in that day used to destroy their enemies and assert sovereignty over land they owned or wanted to own (see also Isa. 2:7; 30:15–17; 31:1–3; Hos. 14:3). Micah is reacting against the nationalistic fervor of war that optimistically imagines that military might is the key to the success of a nation (see Mic. 5:5–6). The early covenant instructions warned kings not to multiply horses (Deut. 17:16). The nation needs to put its confidence in the name of God rather than in horses and chariots (Ps. 20:7). Since God will judge between the nations and bring an end to war (Mic. 4:3–4), his promise to remove these instruments of war is not surprising. The purging of this source of human power and control comes when people put their total trust in God for security.
In a second, more drastic step, God will cut off and tear down the major walled cities in the land as well as the mighty fortresses (5:11). Whenever war came in Palestine, people from the countryside rushed into the heavily fortified cities for protection from an approaching enemy (Jer. 4:16; 5:6). These cities were built on strategic hills and had thick walls (the Broad Wall that Hezekiah built in Jerusalem was twenty-four feet thick), high towers, and three-chamber gates to make them almost impregnable. As a result, people tended to put their trust in human resources rather than in God. Later in Lamentations, the people mourned the fact that God “swallowed up all her palaces and destroyed her strongholds” (Lam. 2:5), leaving the people without any human basis for hope. Although such massive buildings and huge walls appear to provide hope to the nation, God’s removal of them will leave the people with nothing to depend on but God.
False Religious Hopes Will Be Purged (5:12–14)
ISAIAH 2:6 AND 8:19 describe some of the witchcraft and sorcery that gradually infiltrated into Judah in the years preceding this message (during Uzziah’s and Ahaz’s reigns). Although Hezekiah attempted to remove the high places (2 Kings 18:1–4), not all the people who worshiped at these temples immediately changed their superstitious ways to follow God. Moses condemned such practices (Ex. 22:18; Lev. 19:26; Deut. 18:9–14), but they remained a part of the popular religious beliefs throughout the divided kingdom. The final purging of the land will remove this stumbling block and enable the people to listen to God.
Part of the false religious hope in Judah was tied to the people’s dependence on idols of foreign gods. These included cultic stone pillars representing the Canaanite god Baal and the wood carvings of his female partner, Asherah (Mic. 5:13–14). These man-made representations of foreign gods seduced the Israelites into trusting in magical formulas, accepting false theological understandings of divine power and divine transcendence, and participating in the gross sexual practices of the Canaanites. The Israelites are to worship only Yahweh as their God (cf. Ex. 20:4; Deut. 7:5, 25; Isa. 44:9–20). Idols are useless objects that have no power; they cannot give people hope. By purging the nation of these idols, God will help the people focus on their true source of hope. As Ward maintains, it is impossible “to reduce the transcendent majesty of God to measurable certainty and manageable size.”4
The reference to the removal of cities in the last line of Micah 5:14 seems repetitive of 5:11 and out of place in this list of idols. L. Allen and T. Gaster translate the word “idol” rather than “cities,” based on a Ugaritic cognate root meaning “idol.”5 Waltke follows Fisher, who believes there is a second meaning to this Hebrew root (i.e., temple quarters, inner room of a temple), based on its usage in 2 Kings 10:25.6 The solution for this problem is unclear, but these two options help alleviate the problem without rejecting the present Hebrew text.
The Purging of Those Who Do Not Obey God (5:15)
THIS SECTION’S CLIMAX features a final statement about God’s purging of people who do not listen or obey. Almost all commentaries regard 5:10–14 as the purging of God’s people, while 5:15 is a condemnation of Israel’s enemies, the foreign nations.7 Although this is certainly part of the meaning of “nations” or Gentiles (goyim), disobedient Israel is lumped with these nations and given this same name on more than one occasion (Ezek. 2:3; 36:13–15; 37:22).8 Thus, I maintain Micah is referring to the execution of God’s anger and fury against the people in all nations (including Judah) who do not obey God by submitting to his will.
The word translated “vengeance” (nqm) does not mean spiteful, vindictive revenge. Waltke’s study of this word finds it is used as “a legal term that signifies a ruler who secures his sovereignty and keeps his community whole by delivering wronged subjects and punishing their guilty slayers who do not respect his rule.”9 Thus Waltke translates the first part of Micah 5:15, “and I will avenge my sovereignty.” This refers to the just execution of divine control over the affairs of the world. In the process of exercising this full control, some who have ignored God’s ways and not obeyed him will reap their just reward.
This final statement is therefore both a challenge to Judah (lest it be among these nations) as well as a great basis for hope (God’s judgment of their enemies who reject him). Judah will not have to worry about its powerful enemies forever, for God’s sovereign power will one day eliminate all opposition to his rule. The Hebrews in Micah’s audience need to be concerned primarily about their own faithfulness to what God has spoken to them. In the end nationalism really does not matter; what matters is a people’s relationship to God.
Bridging Contexts
THIS SECTION IS focused on what God will do to remove humanly created sources of false hope. The prophet gives no exhortations here to the audience of his day, nor does he demand that they act in any certain way. Nevertheless, if God is someday going to destroy certain things, implicit in Micah’s statements is the idea that true followers of God should desire to implement his divine will into their lives today. In other words, knowing that God will bring an end to war in the last days (4:3) and bring in peace (5:5a), a believer should support this divine ideal today. Likewise, if God is going to purge the world of all false religious hopes in the last days (5:12–14), we should follow the Lord God today.
Since this prophecy functions as a support for Hezekiah’s policy of removing idols from Judah, it should support similar attempts to remove false worship practices that humans have created to give themselves a false sense of security. As Allen suggests, “Micah issues a clarion call to Israel for true faith in their God, a faith that transcends nationalism and addiction to religion and to the metaphysical, a faith that is grounded in the revelation of God’s character and will.”10 If the passage is dealt with in this way, several principles can be developed that will set the basis for modern application in the church.
No dependence on the military. God’s people should not depend on military forces or defensive systems to assure them of military victory (5:10–11). The clear and consistent message of Scripture is that the outcomes of battles on earth belong to the Lord (1 Sam. 17:47).
This was true of the battle between the mighty horses and “six hundred of the best chariots” (Ex. 14:7) of the Egyptian pharaoh and the frightened Israelite camp, which had no military power. Although the Israelites feared immediate slaughter by Pharaoh’s army, Moses encouraged them with the promise that “the LORD will fight for you” (14:14). God’s purpose was to gain glory for himself through his destruction of Pharaoh and his chariots (14:18). This happened in two ways: when the Egyptians confessed that “the LORD is fighting for them against Egypt” (14:25), and when the Israelites sang their song of victory: “The LORD is my strength and my song; he has become my salvation. . . . The LORD is a warrior; the LORD is his name. Pharaoh’s chariots and his army he has hurled into the sea” (15:2–4).
God’s power also overthrew stronger military forces when the Israelites defeated the Amalekites (Ex. 17:8–15) and when he destroyed the mighty walled city of Jericho (Josh. 6). Although Gideon was weak in his own faith, God miraculously enabled a small force of three hundred Israelites to confuse the large Midianite encampment and defeat them (Judg. 7). Through God’s power the young, militarily inexperienced David overcame the skilled giant soldier, Goliath, in order that everyone would know “that it is not by sword or spear that the LORD saves; for the battle is the LORD’s” (1 Sam. 17:47).
Hosea complained that “Israel has forgotten his Maker and built palaces; Judah has fortified many towns” (Hos. 8:14), rather than trusting in God for military protection and security. The psalmist argues against any false trust in military power because God “makes wars cease to the ends of the earth; he breaks the bow and shatters the spear, he burns the shields with fire. ‘Be still, and know that I am God; I will be exalted among the nations’ ” (Ps. 46:9–10). According to Revelation 19, God will win the final battles at the end of time. Thus, people should not depend on military strength, which is only a false hope, for their security.
No dependence on the humanly created religious activities. Another principle is that people should not depend on humanly created religious means of pleasing God (Mic. 5:12–14). Many of these are only deceptive charades that provide no contact with God and bring no eternal hope. From the giving of the commandments about not making a graven image (Ex. 20:3–4) and the condemnation of the worship of the golden calf (Ex. 32), to the constant fight against the worship of Baal throughout the history of Israel (Judg. 2; 1 Kings 11:1–13; 18; 2 Kings 17; 21), God’s people continuously desired to reimagine God in a form that was humanly controllable. People want to be able to have the security of knowing that a divine being will act in a predictable way if they pull the right strings and say the right liturgy.
Such reduction of the incomprehensible God, who is glorious beyond understanding, into a set object or series of defined behavior patterns is a deluded attempt to achieve religious security on human terms rather than on the basis of a dynamic relationship with a living God. This manipulation of the divine being in order to get human control of the future can exhibit itself in many forms. Idols and the soothsayers are one form of perversion, but more sophisticated people today are more apt to re-create an image of God in their minds by redefining him in terms acceptable to their philosophical beliefs and modern cultural assumptions. This is evident in arguments over God’s gender by feminists, his racial features by minorities, his limited power by those who have an open view of God, and the rejection of eternal judgment by universalists.
Equally as serious are the widespread prejudices by church members against conceiving of God as anything but loving, or the strange view that God will automatically take us to heaven if we are fairly good people. Many are deluded by false hopes that have no basis in Scripture. Those who truly follow God should not wait until he purges the world of these human creations in the last days (idols or any other false understanding of God), but should attempt to remove as many of these as possible today, just as Hezekiah did in his day.
Listening to and obeying God. The final principle (in Micah 5:15) is that God’s treatment of people will be based on their willingness to listen to what he has said and their commitment to follow his will faithfully. God will execute his sovereign will over all humanity, and those who pay no attention to what he has said or are fooled into believing some false understandings about him will discover the error of their ways. As Jesus taught in the parable about the wise and the foolish builders, “everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. . . . But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand” (Matt. 7:24–26). Someday the reign of God will come and the house built on false hopes will come crashing down.
Contemporary Significance
THIS PASSAGE ADDRESSES three modern cultural trends that people in the church need to take a stand on: the tendency for nations and individuals to anchor their hopes for the future on the military strength of a nation; the belief that any religious expression will be honored by God and provide a legitimate hope for the future; and the contention that a loving God would not establish his rule by punishing people who look at things a little differently from the biblical way.
Although there is nothing wrong with having an army, religious beliefs, or a positive view of God’s character, every conceptualization of reality (especially spiritual reality) is in danger of being incomplete, unbalanced, culturally biased, or half-true. Such ideas may have the form, vocabulary, or flavor of true faith in God but in actuality be deceptive and misleading. Of course, some tolerance of religious diversity is necessary for people from different backgrounds and belief systems to live together in peace, but toleration should not be seen as the approval of behavior and beliefs that are inconsistent with what God has said. Micah is clear: Either you listen to what God has said and follow it, or you will have to answer to God himself (Mic. 5:15).
Since many people in the church still struggle with what they should believe on various issues, spiritual leaders have the responsibility to provide guidance and correction with teachings that alleviate confusion and misunderstandings. Like Micah, leaders must move people to levels of greater spiritual maturity. We know we will not achieve perfection, but we press on, looking forward to the day when God’s goals will be perfectly accomplished at the coming of his glorious kingdom.
Trust in military resources? The Old Testament does not restrict kings from having military forces, nor does it argue that cities should never have defensive walls. Military conquests were necessary for the nation of Israel to inherit the land of the Canaanites, but God repeatedly reminded the covenant people that he was the One who was actually going before them to defeat their enemies (Deut. 7:1–6; 9:1–3). God assumes that kings will have an army (Deut. 17:16; 1 Sam. 8:11–12) but gives regulations about their size (Deut. 17:16), treatment of captives (20:10–14), the destruction of whole cities, and the dedications of all the booty to God (Josh. 6:17–24; 1 Sam. 15:1–3). The problem comes with the consequences of having large military forces.
God insists that his people should not put their hope in a large army (Deut. 17:16), trust in military alliances to bring success (Isa. 30:1–3; 31:1–3), or use a superior military force to inhumanely mistreat people (Amos 1). When kings have large armies, they are tempted to think in their pride that they are sovereign over the world (Isa. 10:5–15; 36:13–20; 37:22–29).
The prophets teach that God is the One who removes rulers from power and raises up kings and nations (Dan. 2). Sometimes he uses armies to defeat his enemies (Josh. 6; Hab. 1), but at other times the divine warrior himself defeats his enemies without human military effort. The Egyptian army was drowned in the Reed Sea (Ex. 14–15). God miraculously defeated the Assyrian army at Jerusalem when the angel of the Lord killed 185,000 troops (Isa. 37:36). Jesus never condemned the military might of Rome but reprimanded Peter because people of the sword often perish by the sword (Matt. 26:53). Some heroes of faith (e.g., Heb. 11:32) were military men.
Some believers today are pacifists, who oppose war and military service and take a nonviolent approach to conflict. They maintain that Christians should turn the other cheek and be more concerned about the spiritual battle for people’s souls rather than earthly battles for power and land.11 R. J. Regan and other Christians have proposed a just-war theory, which suggests that at certain times it is appropriate and the just obligation of peace-loving people to intervene by going to war to protect the mass slaughter of innocent people.12 Such approaches deal with the ethical questions of going to war, but more focus needs to be given to the proper use of military forces, the limitations of their use, and the psychological and religious impact of military power on people’s acceptance of the sovereignty of God.
Micah and Isaiah argue for trusting in God rather than in military forces (Isa. 31:1–3). The same key practical questions come back to people today: In what do we put our trust? Who do we think controls the military powers of this world? Are we willing to hold rulers and military leaders accountable for the misuse of power? What is a legitimate size for an army in God’s eyes? How can we as individual Christians and as a body of believers be involved in the process of determining the appropriate use of military forces? Are we willing to trust God instead of our military and defensive strength?
For a practical application of some of these questions, one could use Regan’s discussion of World War I (1914–1918), the Vietnam Wars (1946–1975), the Falkland War (1982), the civil wars in Nicaragua and El Salvador (1978–1992), the Gulf War (1991), the intervention in Somolia (1992), and the Bosnian War (1992–1995). An analysis of the behavior of armies on both sides of these conflicts helps one address thought-provoking questions at the end of each section to sharpen the reader’s understanding of the complexity of the political and ethnic conflicts. When one sees the enormous loss of life through massive killing of innocent people by powerful armies, one cannot help but pray that the day will come quickly when there will be no need for instruments of war. In the meantime, Christians must be a part of the political process of helping each nation understand its limitations and responsibilities.
What religious expressions engender false hopes? Few would argue that idols and graven images do not present a false hope to the worshiper, and most would concede that the flimflam con artists in the religious world provide no real hope to those who are deluded by a lot of fast talk. Equally serious are the deceptive false hopes that are more realistic imitations of the truth, especially the hope offered by cults that make some use of the Bible.
In 5:12–14 Micah describes deceptive forms of worship that are rejected because the worshiper does not distinguish between proper and improper conceptions of God. Modern missionaries must contend with people who actually have images of gods in their homes or places of worship. This passage supports a missionary’s exhortations to remove all idols since God will judge people who worship false gods. Other more sophisticated intellectuals may not worship an idol in their homes, but they believe in the predictions of the horoscopes, trusting in the alignment of the stars and planets instead of the Creator of the stars.
A contemporary area where the church may need to apply lessons from this passage is seen in the new interest in Sophia, the goddess figure that some feminist groups have deified. Is this a true reflection of God or a clever deception that God would want to remove? Sophia is the Greek word for wisdom, used to describe the wisdom of God (Rom. 11:33; 1 Cor. 1:24; Eph. 3:10). The strong connection between God and wisdom is especially prominent in Proverbs 1–9, where wisdom says: “I was appointed from eternity, from the beginning, before the world began” (Prov. 8:23). Wisdom is personified as a female figure, yet closely identified with God himself.
Although some modern authors use Sophia as just another name for God,13 others have crossed far beyond that threshold by introducing a foreign female goddess. Those attending the “Re-Imagining” conference in 1995 heard about a “Second Reformation” for the church. S. Cyre reported that “working from a basis in feminist theology, conference participants looked to pantheistic religions and the heritage of the Gnostic gospels to ‘reimagine’ a new god and a new road to salvation. The attendees blessed, thanked, and praised Sophia as a deity.”14 Mack B. Stokes viewed the conference as “theologically ignorant . . . ontologically superstitious . . . Christologically blasphemous . . . ecclesiastically irresponsible.”15
T. Finger takes a less confrontational approach to the subject but clearly recognizes wisdom in Proverbs 1–9 as “a personification of one of Yahweh’s attributes.”16 He finds traces of the idea of wisdom in Proverbs 1–9 and Wisdom of Solomon 7:24–26, where sophia “pervades and penetrates all things. For she is a breath of the power of God, and a pure emanation of the glory of the Almighty . . . a reflection of eternal light, a spotless mirror of the working of God” (NRSV). Finger also sees a connection between sophia and Jesus as the “Word” in the Gospel of John (both were with God at creation, and both manifest God’s glory). The wisdom connection with Jesus is also evident in 1 Corinthians 1:24, where Jesus is called the “wisdom of God” (see also Col. 1:15–17).17 Finger does not object to the use of Sophia as a name for God to enrich our appreciation and understanding of God, but he does object to the current trends because “much current Sophia worship . . . is so focused on an immanent divine presence, and seems to regard Jesus as so little different from us.”18
L. Lafebure has traced the history of Sophia in the church and finds that Catholics have often identified Sophia with Mary, while Russian Orthodox thinkers have developed a mystical tradition around reflection on Sophia.19 He has also found that second-century gnostics developed elaborate mythologies about Sophia while the early church tended to follow the lead of Philo of Alexandria, who made a connection between Sophia and the Logos.20 Origen saw that Christ was called wisdom and suggested that Sophia was “begotten beyond the limits of any beginnings that we can speak of or understand,”21 but Irenaeus identified Sophia with the Spirit, not Jesus.22 This desire for a female goddess by some women will continue to challenge the limits of church tolerance and inclusiveness. Although there is nothing wrong with imagining God as a mother caring for a child, a failure to distinguish between metaphor and reality could lead the church into further strife and even into heresy.
Many people are not even aware of the Sophia movement, but everyone is involved with reimagining God based on biblical metaphors, church traditions, and meaningful cultural models. Thus, there is a danger that anyone could imagine God in a way that is so far from the truth that a false god is created in the minds of worshipers. Drawing the line between heresy and an unbalanced picture is not our concern here. The main need is for each person to evaluate one’s own conception of God and for pastors and teachers to make sure that their representations of God are not out of focus or a lopsided picture of the fullness of the mystery and majesty of God.
Do we use the term Father too much and thus give a male gender to God? Do we emphasize God’s love, grace, and mercy but ignore the fact that God hates and despises evil? In a world of democracy and individual rights, do we ever picture God as the all-powerful King of kings, who is to be absolutely obeyed? Have we caused people to be afraid of God by making him a stern Judge who is just sitting up in heaven, watching us so that he can catch us in some small mistake? Or has God become so much a friend and buddy that there is no majesty or fear? What emphasis is placed on the holiness of God? Do we emphasize the justice of God and therefore encourage justice in relationships between genders, races, employees and employers, and nations? How do we imagine God makes a difference?
People tend to develop their worldviews (including religious images) from their social relationships, so the church has an awesome responsibility to give the world an accurate picture of God that is biblically based rather than culturally based. God’s decision to destroy Israel because they have misconceived who he is (Mic. 5:15) demonstrates that the way one reimages God does matter to him. In that instance the nation adopted a popular cultural model (a Canaanite or Assyrian image) rather than our modern concept of God. The threat of allowing our culture to remold God into its own image is a mistake each generation must resist.
Consequences for disobedience (5:15). Micah’s sermon ends with a clear indication that God will deal with all nations (and the individuals within them) based on obedience. Disobedience is the act of not listening to (šmʿ, to listen, obey) or following what God says. God’s response to rebellion will eventually come; he will not be long-suffering and patient forever. Someday he will exercise his divine justice by ruling in power over all nations. This warning is not just applicable to nations in the time of Micah but applies to all nations. If our nation consistently chooses to turn from God’s revealed will, it will experience horrible consequences when his just rule is established. Obedience is not optional but is a natural response to hearing what God has said. Once a person or nation has heard the truth, responsibility is required.
This idea can be applied to innumerable practical issues in the church. Although divine justice will be established at the end of time when God sets up his final kingdom, no one should think that God will let people get away with unjust behavior today. If one does not listen to what he has said about sexual purity, one should expect to be confronted by him on this act of disobedience. If one lies and deceives people about the truth, one should not be surprised at God’s attempts to establish justice by holding one accountable for past deceptions. If one cheats another person in a slick business deal, one should expect God’s disapproval for this injustice.
If God has commanded believers to go into all the world and make disciples, will he be pleased with people who refuse to listen to his instructions? If God requires from people just relationships with others, a deep love for steadfast covenant loyalty, and a circumspect walk with God (6:8), will he deal kindly with those who do not accept his requirements? In the end, obedience is an issue of choosing to do our will or to submit to God’s will. If people are unwilling to listen to and do God’s will, they are not his disciples. If one is not a disciple, one is an enemy of God and subject to his punishment.