1Woe to those who plan iniquity,
to those who plot evil on their beds!
At morning’s light they carry it out
because it is in their power to do it.
2They covet fields and seize them,
and houses, and take them.
They defraud a man of his home,
a fellowman of his inheritance.
3Therefore, the LORD says:
“I am planning disaster against this people,
from which you cannot save yourselves.
You will no longer walk proudly,
for it will be a time of calamity.
4In that day men will ridicule you;
they will taunt you with this mournful song:
‘We are utterly ruined;
my people’s possession is divided up.
He takes it from me!
He assigns our fields to traitors.’ ”
5Therefore you will have no one in the assembly of the LORD
to divide the land by lot.
6“Do not prophesy,” their prophets say.
“Do not prophesy about these things;
disgrace will not overtake us.”
7Should it be said, O house of Jacob:
“Is the Spirit of the LORD angry?
Does he do such things?”
“Do not my words do good
to him whose ways are upright?
8Lately my people have risen up
like an enemy.
You strip off the rich robe
from those who pass by without a care,
like men returning from battle.
9You drive the women of my people
from their pleasant homes.
You take away my blessing
from their children forever.
10Get up, go away!
For this is not your resting place,
because it is defiled,
it is ruined, beyond all remedy.
11If a liar and deceiver comes and says,
‘I will prophesy for you plenty of wine and beer,’
he would be just the prophet for this people!”
Original Meaning
THESE VERSES ARE all part of one sermon. The idea of taking people’s homes and inheritance is found both in 2:1–5, which refers to the powerful who covet and steal property, and in 2:6–11, which focuses on how the powerful reject God’s instructions and take the property of the weak. The two paragraphs are also linked by “these things” (2:6), which refers back to the judgments discussed in 2:3–5. The date of this sermon is unknown but is usually placed in the reign of Ahaz, when wickedness was rampant in Judah. The opposition to a righteous prophet’s words noted in 2:6 fits this period.
The audience seems to be made up of powerful people who abuse the rights of others.1 The reference to taking garments from “men returning from battle” (2:8) suggests that this is shortly after a war. This may refer to booty taken from the defeated or to the taking of things from those who are fleeing to escape the ravages of war. Some see this reference as indicating that powerful people in the military are in Micah’s audience.2 The accused are called a “family” (mišpaḥah) in 2:3 (“people” in NIV), which suggests an identifiable class of powerful people in Jerusalem. A. S. van der Woude believes Micah is speaking to a group of false prophets, based on the interaction against prophesying in 2:6–7.3 Instead, we think this dispute is against the powerful leaders in Jerusalem who have rejected Micah’s announcement of divine justice in 2:3–5 and have accepted the positive hopes of the false prophets (2:6–7).
The first paragraph (Mic. 2:1–5) is a short woe oracle that follows the traditional pattern of other woes (see Isa. 30:1–5; Amos 6:1–7) by beginning with a cry of woe (Mic. 2:1), followed by a series of accusations (2:1–2), and concluding with a statement of judgment that begins with “therefore” (2:3–5).4 The paragraph is held together by the contrasting use of the repeated vocabulary. The “plan” of the wicked is the “evil” of “taking away” houses and “fields” (2:1–2), but the “plan” of the Lord will bring “disaster/evil/calamity” on them and cause them to “take up” a taunting song because their “fields” will be assigned to traitors (2:3–4).5 These people will reap what they have sown.
Several woe oracles in the Old Testament are associated with a lament for the dead or for those who are about to die (1 Kings 13:30; Jer. 22:12; 34:5), so one should hear this message as sorrowful words, similar to the lament in the preceding section. In a similar manner, the prophet Amos mourned in a woe oracle over the northern nation’s deceptive misunderstanding of the Day of the Lord (5:18–20) and their foolish complacency because of their riches and power (6:1–7).6 The woe oracles in both Amos and Micah lament the blindness of their audience’s understanding and the tragedy that will soon engulf them.
The second paragraph (Mic. 2:6–11) is a disputation speech,7 in which the audience argues with Micah about his earlier prophecy (2:1–5), his theological perception of the nature of God (2:7), and God’s relationship to his covenant people (2:6, 8). Other prophets dispute with their audiences over similar ideas (Isa. 49:14–21; Ezek. 33:23–29; Amos 3:1–8; Mal. 1:6–9; 3:13–4:3). In most cases the audience has misunderstood how God relates to his people and has accepted pious phrases, half-truths, and unbalanced teachings that assure their own prosperity and security. Tragically, these deceptions cause them to fail to deal seriously with the human responsibility to love and follow God completely and to treat their neighbors justly.
The Powerful Covet and Steal Property (2:1–5)
THIS PARAGRAPH BEGINS by explaining why Micah is lamenting in this woe oracle (2:1–2). The “woe” introduces a funeral-like lament (see 1 Kings 13:30; Jer. 34:5), which actually precedes the death of anyone in this setting; thus, it functions as a warning of what will happen. To persuade his audience successfully of God’s evaluation of the deeds of Judah’s powerful military and political leadership, Micah must present an accurate portrayal of the situation and communicate his evaluation in a way that causes his listeners to consider seriously what he has said. The emotional appeal of his mournful cry and the logic of his accusation will help convince his audience. They are on the way to destruction and the grave if they do not change their ways.
Micah regrets the fact that some powerful people spend their evenings planning evil so that in the morning they can carry out their strategies of injustice (Mic. 2:1).8 The timing of these evil deeds is not when one usually expects crimes to happen. Most thieves work at night when no one can see them; ironically, these powerful thieves brazenly operate in broad daylight by using legal and illegal means to take what they want from others. Since they are people of status, wealth, and political influence, many have successfully added new land and property to their holdings.9
The spiritual problem is that these greedy people covet (ḥmd) in their hearts what belongs to others, in direct rebellion against the tenth commandment (Ex. 20:17). Their inappropriate and lustful desires lead to actions that ignore the theological principle that God owns the land (Lev. 25:10, 23; Num. 36) and has given it as an eternal gift to each family forever.10 The powerful people rob some, oppress others, and defraud whomever they wish. The results are the same: People lose their homes and fields and become destitute. As Mays suggests: “In Israel’s social order a man’s identity and status in the community rested on his household or family, dwelling place, and land. . . . Lose it, and he lost all the rights which were based on its possession; he had no ‘place’ in the community.”11
This loss of land also involves the loss of a sacred trust that God has granted to each family. Micah probably knows people from Moresheth Gath who have suffered in this way and has heard the sad stories of some who were tricked or legally outmaneuvered in the courts (Mic. 2:8–9). The nation is in a terrible state, with many destitute people who have lost everything.
The abrupt “therefore” of 2:3 marks the change to the announcement of punishment and demonstrates a connection between the crime and its consequences. The messenger formula, “the LORD says,” and the direct first-person address by God (“I am planning”) emphasize the authority and sureness of what will happen. God’s plan (counter to the plans of the wicked) is to send a severe and inescapable calamity against these wicked, oppressive people. They will no longer walk around in pride with their heads held high because of their wealth and privilege. The fact that “you will not be able to remove your necks from it, or walk upright” (lit. trans. of 2:3b) suggests that they will be under the binding yoke of someone else and will have no power or freedom (see Isa. 9:4; 10:27; Jer. 28:14). Once the wealthy are subdued, it will not be hard for this enemy to take their property away from them.
Micah then sings a brief sarcastic lament (Mic. 2:4b), which will be sung by an unidentified lamenter, such as (1) the conquerors of the wealthy, (2) one of the poor people left in the land, singing to ridicule these former leaders in Jerusalem, or (3) one of the powerful leaders lamenting over what he and his friends have suffered and lost.12 The sorrow of this lament song focuses on the hopelessness of the powerful, their loss of property, (“we are utterly ruined”13), and the giving of what was theirs to traitors (2:4).14 Today one might mockingly say: “Isn’t it too bad! It is so unfortunate, what these rich people had to go through. What they coveted and stole is now being coveted and taken from them. They’re going to end up with nothing. Doesn’t it just break your heart to see them get what they deserve!”
Some of these words are no doubt similar to what Micah has heard the poor people saying as they lamented when the Hebrew land barons were taking their land (2:1–2). Micah’s lament suggests that these powerful landowners will soon be singing a similar tune. The wealthy will ask: How can God allow this to happen? How can my land be taken by the rebellious traitors of the nation who conquer the land?
Verse 5 is Micah’s concluding comment after the mocking lament. When this disaster comes upon these elite leaders, they will lose all their rights to own land in the future. They will be excluded from participating in the redistribution of the land after the restoration of the people to the land. This picture imagines a reenactment of Joshua’s original division of the land by lot (Num. 26:55–56; Josh. 14:1–2; 19:51). The exclusion of these evil leaders from the assembly of the Lord implies that these covetous people will all die or be purposely excommunicated because of their treasonous deeds against the poor. Hidden behind this devastating word of judgment is also the hopeful implication that some day the faithful people of God will again inherit the land (see Mic. 2:12–13; 7:11–12); the promise to Abraham will be fulfilled in spite of the destruction God will bring on the nation in the near future.
The Powerful Reject God’s Word (2:6–11)
MICAH’S PROPHETIC WORDS do not please his audience. Consequently, they dispute his theological perspective on God and his relationship to his people, and they even try to get him to stop prophesying (see also Isa. 30:10; Amos 7:10–17). This paragraph is held together by its reference to the topic of who should be prophesying what, both at its beginning (Mic. 2:6–7) and end (2:11). The main issue here is the audience’s unwillingness to accept the prophecies of God given through Micah but their openness to accept whatever useless drivel a drunken prophetic deceiver may have to say. Of course the reason why they do not approve of Micah’s messages is his condemnation of them as the enemy whom God will judge. Therefore, Micah weighs in with additional evidence to support his claim that these military and political leaders are oppressing God’s people (2:8–10) and deserve his judgment.
The reconstruction of the dispute is difficult because one is not always sure who is speaking in each verse. L. C. Allen and J. L. Mays, after making some emendation of the Hebrew text, have the wealthy leaders of the house of Jacob being quoted by Micah in all of 2:6–7, while H. W. Wolff (cf. NIV; NASB) properly maintains the first-person pronoun in 2:8a (“my people”) and sees this as Micah’s rebuttal of the faulty theology in 2:6–7a.15 There is also a debate about who is speaking in 2:6b, but this is heavily dependent on whether one follows the Hebrew text or emends it slightly.
First, Micah’s opponents want the godly prophet(s)16 to stop prophesying immediately. The word for “prophesy” (nṭp) is not the usual one by which prophets declare a divine revelation. The word nṭp means “to drip, flow” (Judg. 5:4; Amos 9:13) and may here be a derogatory term for the overenthusiastic sputtering and blabbering of a prophet.17 Micah thus quotes his opponents’ pejorative reference to himself, but then calls them the same term (Heb. “they drip/sputter,” for NIV “their prophets say”).
Some believe the last line of verse 6 gives the reason for this opposition to Micah (if the false prophets are speaking). These prophets believe that the disastrous things Micah has predicted in 2:3–5 will never “overtake”18 them (cf. Amos 9:10; Mic. 3:11). After all, they are God’s chosen people, and the covenant promises guarantee them protection from God. The other option is to follow the Hebrew text (giving Micah a rebuttal both in vv. 6b and 7b) and take this line as Micah’s prediction of shame and disgrace on the nation (see the preceding footnote).
Although both approaches make good sense in the context, we prefer to adopt the original Hebrew reading.19 Thus 2:6 can be interpreted:
A. [The charge of the false prophets] “Do not give sputtering prophecy,” they sputter.
B. [The rebuttal of Micah] “They are not sputtering prophecies concerning these things;
shame will not be removed.”
The second argument against Micah (2:7a) is that God will not do the kind of things Micah is predicting because he is not an angry God. They remember the ancient authoritative traditions that emphasize God as patient, long-suffering, compassionate, and slow to anger (Ex. 34:6; Ps. 86:15; 145:8; Jonah 4:2), and they use these truths to defend their position. In this case the wealthy leaders are not in error about the character of God; they are just half right—and at least half wrong.
A change comes again in verse 7b because this too is Micah’s rebuttal. His response initially affirms what they say. Yes, God and his words are good. But then he suggests a major adjustment to their theology by claiming that God’s goodness and blessings are experienced only by the upright, not universally by every Hebrew. The other half of the story is that he “does not leave the guilty unpunished” (Ex. 34:7), “will not acquit the guilty” (23:7), and “if you forsake the LORD and serve foreign gods, he will turn and bring disaster on you and make an end of you, after he has been good to you” (Josh. 24:20).
The wealthy land barons who have bought into the theology of the false prophets downplay or deny the reality of God’s anger by forgetting that God unleashed his burning anger on Pharaoh and the Egyptians at the Red Sea (Ex. 15:7). He also burned in anger against Israel when they refused to go into the land from Kadesh Barnea (Num. 14:11–12) and in anger threatened to bring the covenant curses on the nation that worships other gods (Deut. 29:25–28).
The optimistic approach, which deliberately overlooks one whole realm of God’s action and reimagines the Creator into a humanly synthesized and sanitized version of a great loving Santa Claus, has little basis in history, in revelation, or in personal experience.20 Such reconceptualizations by the false prophets pervert what is known into what some wished for. The wealthy leaders are foolish to believe this comfortable but false view of God. Such theology turns God into an immoral being who does not distinguish between right and wrong and has no standards of justice. Thus Micah 2:7 could be interpreted:
A. [The question of the false prophets] Should it be said, O house of Jacob:
“Is the Spirit of the LORD angry? Does he do such things?”
B. [Micah’s rebuttal quotes God] “Do not my words do good to him whose ways are upright?”
If God has promised to give good to the upright (2:7b), the key question is: Are the people in Micah’s audience upright people, whom God will bless? Micah answers this question in 2:8–10, boldly claiming that God’s covenant people are acting like enemies of God (2:8). This conclusion is based on the assumption that justice will characterize the way covenant people should treat one another. Since Micah’s audience has grossly mistreated others, they cannot be upright and cannot expect anything good from God. To support this line of argumentation, Micah gives several explicit examples of injustice where the powerful have become enemies of God.
Using direct address (“you”), the prophet accuses some in his audience of taking the clothes of innocent people who are peaceably walking down the road just a couple days previous. This text is cryptic,21 but it appears that the Hebrews strip or unclothe unsuspecting people as if they are gathering the booty after a war (NIV), or that they steal clothing from people who are turning/returning from a war, or that they take clothing from peaceful people—that is, from defenseless people who are not armed like soldiers to defend themselves.22 It sounds as if they are treating their own fellow citizens as they would treat some hated foreign enemy. No wonder God sees these oppressors as the enemy of his people. This verse probably does not refer to wealthy people not returning a pledged cloak to poor people who are in debt (see Ex. 22:26–27; Amos 2:8).23 The exact circumstances of the innocent person who is attacked and robbed are not fully explained, but it is clear that the powerful leaders are unjust in their treatment of others.
Even worse is their relationship with the widows of the land. After suffering the loss of their husbands (possibly in war, though the text is silent on this point), widows would have great difficulty maintaining their homes and land. If they are not already in debt, soon they will find themselves so overwhelmed with debt that they will have no hope of repayment. Before long they will be “driven out” of the one piece of security they have left—their precious and pleasant homes. Such unjust heartlessness by the wealthy is devoid of all sympathy.
This problem, which is repeatedly addressed by the prophets, still existed in New Testament times (Mark 12:40) and is not unknown today. Instead of freely opening their hands to help the poor with generous gifts to meet their needs—which is the standard God desires (Deut. 15:7–18)24—the powerful take everything they can get their hands on. They leave people with no possessions, no dignity, and no hope for future generations.
In this unjust process God says these powerful people “take away my blessing from their children forever” (Mic. 2:9). Some think the “dignity” of these small fatherless children is taken away, but the word used here (hdr) probably describes the “glory, splendor” of something given by God, specifically, the riches of land that each family could pass on as an eternal inheritance to their children (Jer. 3:19).25 Many will never know the blessing God gave their ancestors because their eternal land grant has been removed from their control and enjoyment.
These brief accusations are concluded with a statement of judgment on the wealthy Hebrew landowners, who are God’s enemies (Mic. 2:10). Micah abruptly commands his audience to get up and leave this land, for it is not their resting place. Earlier God promised the people rest and security in the land he would give them (Deut. 12:9–10; 2 Sam. 7:1, 11; 2 Chron. 14:6; Ps. 95:11),26 but Micah is nullifying that hope for these oppressive leaders. They will have no rest, no inheritance, no part in the future messianic rest that God will bring his people. They have “defiled” the land (i.e., made it unclean for God27); thus, it is “ruined” beyond hope and will be abandoned. Because they have destroyed the people to whom God gave the land, they will not enjoy its blessings but will be driven from it, just as Micah claimed in Micah 2:3–5.
Having supported his original accusations against the powerful military and political leaders with additional evidence, Micah returns to the problem of the false prophets, who lead these people astray and cause many to reject God’s revelation through Micah (2:11 picks up from 2:6–7). Why do the wealthy believe these sputtering, so-called prophets? Do the people in his audience have no perception of what a prophet is supposed to say and do (see 3:8 for Micah’s view of a true prophet)?
With humor, scorn, and irony in his voice, Micah imagines a man “of the wind” (ruaḥ; not “of the Spirit,”28 like the true prophet in 3:8), who is a deceptive prophet. If this known deceiver should come and “prophesy” (or “sputter”—the same root as in 2:6) about such insignificant issues as wine and beer,29 he will be immediately embraced and accepted by these people as a fitting prophet. What a pathetic person to believe! What theology will this deceiver understand? The picture is meant to ridicule both the character and the message of the false prophets in order to undermine the bad theology these wealthy people follow.
These leaders are not interested in what God has said through Micah, but they are interested in hearing a windy discussion concerning what is the best wine produced in the land last year. How can God accept the theology of people who rely on a prophetic source like this? This audience must critically evaluate the word of God they have heard from Micah and decide if it carries authority and is consistent with the theological framework of earlier revelation about God and his covenant relationship with his people. They need to recognize that Micah is a man who is filled with the Spirit (3:8).
Bridging Contexts
THIS LONG SECTION deals with principles of God’s equitable justice for powerful and wealthy leaders who mistreat others and who covet what belongs to others and the human problem of misunderstanding the nature of God and his revelation. The first issue is addressed in other contexts (see 3:1–4), so attention will be given to the last two areas.
Coveting what belongs to others. One of the central theological themes in this section is the disastrous consequences of coveting things that belong to someone else. Covetousness gets to the root of human sinfulness because it exposes a person’s inner thoughts and the problem of self-control. E. J. Bush believes that Adam and Eve got into trouble in the Garden of Eden (Gen. 3) because they
looked around with that anxious itch of covetousness in their hearts and said, “This is not enough. We’re not really in control. We want to be like God.” . . . Nothing could stop them from grasping for the power and knowledge that would destroy their joyful, innocent relationship with their Creator.30
V. P. Hamilton agrees because “indulgence here would give to the woman something she did not, in her judgment, presently possess, and that is wisdom. . . . Here is the essence of covetousness. It is the attitude that I need something I do not now have in order to make me happy.”31 The decision to follow the inner desires of the heart led to a disastrous separation from God and the curse of death on all people. Adam and Eve could not control their selfish desires, so they took something that did not belong to them.
Coveting was also behind Ahab’s murder of Naboth (1 Kings 21:1–29). Ahab originally was willing to pay for the field or trade Naboth’s field for a better one, but when the deal fell through, the king became depressed and angry. Naboth’s unwillingness to accommodate the king demonstrates how important it was in Israel to maintain the family’s inheritance on their ancestral land (1 Kings 21:3; cf. Num. 27:1–11; 36:1–12), based on the belief that God gave this land forever to his family.32 Because of Ahab’s deep desire for this property and his sullen attitude, his unscrupulous wife, Jezebel, concocted a plot to have Naboth stoned. This kind of event is similar to what is happening in Micah’s day, perhaps even killing people to get their property (see 3:9–10).
The issue of the heart’s desire (which can lead to coveting) is at the center of Jesus’ new commandments in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5:21–47). He is not content to argue that people should meet the minimum standards of not killing, not stealing, or not committing adultery, for he knows that some can outwardly keep these laws but still have deep internal struggles with their evil desires. Thus “Jesus . . . focuses on a person’s inner desires, intentions, and motives”33 and reminds his listeners about the problem of coveting another person’s wife or desiring to kill another person. As Olsen claims:
The most important commandment is the first: you shall have no other gods. . . . Worshipping other gods . . . wanting other things for our security or sense of happiness—that is at the root of why we break all the commandments. We worship things, so we steal. We worship pleasure, so we commit adultery. We worship power, so we kill.34
This worship puts our highest regard on something we want, and this attitude of coveting leads to actions God despises. Later, Jesus claimed that evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, and slander “come from the heart” (Matt. 15:8–19). These sins are committed because covetous desires motivate people to act in evil ways to get something that someone else has. Consequently, “for Jesus the inner attitude is of supreme importance.”35
Jesus also told the parable of the rich fool, who built more and more barns for his crops so that he would have plenty of things laid up for a life of ease and fun in the future (Luke 12:13–21). Because this man was not rich toward God (12:21), Jesus warned his followers not to be anxious about the cares of this life (12:22–26). They should seek first the kingdom of God (12:31), for where their treasures were, there their hearts would be (12:34). A. B. Malherbe quotes the church father Chrysostom (Oration 17), who reminded his readers about the anxiety that wealth brings, warned about how covetous people carry out their plans at night, and argued for a proper proportion of goods and the avoidance of the pursuit of insatiable covetousness.36
It is interesting how John derives the source of sin from coveting things valued in our world or culture. He admonishes his readers: “Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For everything in the world—the cravings of sinful man, the lust of his eyes and the boasting of what he has and does—comes not from the Father but from the world” (1 John 2:15–16). Coveting is self-seeking, an impulse or lust for satisfaction; it is one of the chief problems we must combat on a daily basis.37 It is not just a sin that afflicts the poor, and it is not conquered by having great riches. Coveting comes from desiring more or better things so that one can have greater pleasure. Paul encourages the Colossians to “put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry” (Col. 3:5).
Misunderstanding the nature of God and his revelation. The woe oracle and disputation define the nature and activity of God in unique and unexpected ways. The wealthy and powerful leaders in Micah’s audience do not think that God will plan a calamity to remove them from their land (Mic. 2:3–5), is so impatient with them that he will destroy Judah, considers them as his enemies, or reveals his will through a prophet like Micah. The central principle described here is that any person or group can fall into the trap of putting God in a humanly constructed box that inadequately captures the dynamics and richness of the Godhead.
A human theological construct may limit God’s actions to a set of accepted beneficial activities, circumscribe his character around an incomplete set of attributes, or prescribe the revelation of himself only through a preset method or person. This limitation causes people not only to misunderstand how God has acted in the past but prevents them from comprehending his possible actions in the future. Such blindness leaves people unapproachable by the truth because they have ruled out certain things as impossible.
To illustrate this point, it might be helpful to write down on a sheet of paper the different ways God reveals himself and to whom. Then compare this to what we know from the Bible to see how it matches up with what is written there. One might think that God would reveal himself only to his chosen people—maybe to people like Abraham and Joseph. But to our surprise, when Abraham sinned by lying about his wife, God did not speak to sinful Abraham but to Abimelech, the king of Gerar (Gen. 20:1–10). Later when Joseph was in prison in Egypt, God surprisingly revealed the future to the butcher, the baker, and Pharaoh, so that God could then reveal the interpretation of these dreams to Joseph (chs. 40–41).
Much later God instructed another pharaoh to fight the Assyrians, but the righteous king Josiah did not accept this news from God through Pharaoh and was killed at Megiddo in 609 B.C. (2 Chron. 35:20–24). To many people’s disgust, Jesus mixed with sinners, touched lepers, talked to a Samaritan woman, ate with a tax collector like Zacchaeus, and called the traitor Judas to be his disciple. In all these cases God is revealing himself in untraditional ways to undeserving people.
Since his disciples were expecting Jesus to reveal his messiahship by defeating the Romans and setting up God’s kingdom through earthly power, some seemed to be confused by his death. Amazingly, God chose to appear in a theophany to Saul, the unworthy killer of Christians, and miraculously transformed him into the great missionary to the Gentiles (Acts 9). Clearly there is a danger in limiting how or through whom God can reveal himself; yet many today have a narrow view of the possible ways God can work to reveal himself. Micah’s audience also feels that God could never be speaking through this prophet and that he would not be saying the things Micah is prophesying.
Often the reason for limiting God (and thus rejecting truth) is a person’s preconceived beliefs about the nature of God, the way he will act, or his view of us. Micah’s view of God’s character and his view of his audience deviate from the perspective of his hearers; therefore, he is excluded from the social role of prophet and considered a sputtering lunatic. They think God could not have said these things, which they perceive as contradictory to his character traits. In a similar manner, Amos prophesied that the Day of the Lord would bring destruction on Israel (see comments on Amos 5:18–20) and the end of the reign of Jeroboam II (7:9). Amaziah the priest then called Amos a traitor and rejected what he said (7:10–17).
Malachi knew that God loved his people, but they did not think this was true (Mal. 1:1–5). He preached the justice of God, but some in his listeners questioned if God really was just (2:17–3:5). The people in Jeremiah’s day thought they were protected by God’s presence in the Jerusalem temple, but Jeremiah claimed they were trusting in deceptive words and that God would depart from the temple and destroy it and the city of Jerusalem (Jer. 7:1–15). Jesus attacked the legalistic teachers of the law and the Pharisees (Matt. 23), and Paul condemned those who wanted Christians to keep their old Jewish ways (Gal. 1–3). In each case we have people with incomplete, false, or wrongly applied ideas about God and themselves.
These types of misunderstandings lead people to reject the truth when it is declared by a true messenger of God. Such religious blindness and prejudicial views prevent people from seeing all of what God has revealed because their socially constructed view of reality excludes or reinterprets ideas so that the status quo is not disturbed.38
Every person has opinions about God based on culture and experience: Is he patient or impatient? Does he do only good or bring destruction also? Will he punish his own people? Which prophet or messenger of God should we believe? The answers to these questions are complicated, for God deals with real people in different ways and does not follow the same pattern in every case. Sometimes God even surprises his followers by unusual ways (e.g., Job, Jonah, Habakkuk, and Peter). God’s ways are then a corrective to our slanted way of looking at things. If we remain open to learning new truth from Scripture, it is possible to renew our minds based on authoritative truth rather than church tradition, past experience, or personal preferences.
Contemporary Significance
HOW HAS COVETING affected our culture? Does the problem of coveting exist in the economic systems of the world today? In many ways, coveting is at the heart of many economies. If all advertising removed any hints that might lead to coveting, how would this affect sales? If no one coveted for a month, would the sales rate fall precipitously in most industries and stores?
The rate of coveting is now measured by consumer debt and consumer confidence numbers—important numbers that signal future economic growth. This plague of coveting is not just part of the economy; it has infiltrated many parts of our materialistic culture. Ads in books and on television play on the lusts and desires of people. Coveting what others have is a major underlying cause of problems in situation comedies, romance and mystery novels, and movies. Coveting leads to immoral sexual relationships and even to murder.
J. Stapert sees coveting and greed as a key problem in major-league sports.39 Years ago players could not even imagine the idea of a strike because of their love for the game. Later, when unions were established, players began to covet the huge profits of the owners, who were being bankrolled by big television contracts. Deciding who is greedier is not the issue—neither group can manage their covetous desires. Stapert claims that “we fans would see both the club owners’ and the players’ greed for what it is, if we weren’t so blinded by our own envy.”40
This cultural acceptance of having and getting more and more has led to a cultural acceptance of coveting what others have. Paul encouraged people to be content with what they have and warned that the desire to be rich brings senseless and hurtful desires that will lead to destruction (1 Tim. 6:6–10). Many are now declaring personal bankruptcy because they cannot pay credit-card bills on the goods they have coveted. Is there any difference between shoplifting goods you have not paid for and leaving a store legally but later illegally refusing to pay for the goods by declaring bankruptcy?
The whole advertising industry knows the weakness of its audience and so appeals to the human desire to have more. If advertisers can appeal to a person’s covetous desire to have the best and latest clothing styles like other people (certain labels on shoes and jeans), sales will be good, and the store owner’s greed will be satisfied. Why have shopping malls become so popular? They offer “stimulations that arouse and titillate our acquisition fantasies, just as lustful people seek out stimulation that arouse them sexually. . . . It is not vicious to want to acquire things . . . it becomes vicious when it becomes disordered, when the desire for food or sex becomes obsessive.”41 Who has not felt a sense of greed after reading Ed McMahon’s congratulatory news that you will be the next ten-million-dollar winner of the latest sweepstakes (if your number is chosen)?42 Who has not felt a sense of envy and covetousness when they see the new car or house that someone has built because they won some money?
Coveting what others have motivates a great deal of crime. Those teenagers who cannot afford high-price labels on the latest fashions now steal the shoes off those who can afford them. Factory owners covet the success and power of other companies in their field, so they steal research information from their competitors to reduce their costs of research and increase their income. Violence erupts because one man covets another man’s girlfriend. Robberies take place because people want the possessions that are in the home of someone else.
Generosity is an attitude that will counteract our natural desires of coveting and greed. “The generous person is loosely attached to goods and wealth and more deeply and intensely attached to God and his kingdom. . . . The generous person acquires goods in a different spirit . . . she does not cling to the ones she has.”43 Generous people take joy in helping others, so they think of the needs of others and not just their own. They recognize the generous way God has blessed them and want to respond in the same way to others. Community good is often more important than individual success, and security in the future is not a major obsession. They have learned the truth of Jesus’ statement that “a man’s life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions” (Luke 12:15).
C. K. Lysons suggests three principles to guard against these sins: (1) practicing justice in paying people an appropriate wage (not too little or too much) and in charging people a fair price for goods (not inflating profits); (2) showing liberality and sympathy toward those in need, rather than selfish protection of possessions; and (3) living in simplicity or even poverty.44 In the end each person must soberly assess his or her own attachment to things, learn to manage desires, and consciously reject any impulse to take what rightly belongs to another. Micah’s audience has failed to do this, and God will bring disastrous destruction on them because of this.
How have we misunderstood the nature of God? Here’s something to try. Ask the people in your congregation whether they think God is someone who will bring disaster on people based on their sinfulness. Is he a just God who rewards and punishes people fairly? Is Paul’s admonition true in Galatians 6:7–8: “A man reaps what he sows. The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life”? Will God respond justly and judge my own sinful attitudes and behavior? Are our audiences deceived with the impression that God will not punish them?
This sense of invulnerability and of having a special and secure place in the mind of God is a common trap for religious people because many tend to think he will always bless them. Some will say, “Since I keep the Golden Rule, go to church from time to time, and believe that God exists, God will bless me. After all, I have never killed anyone.” The wise man Job had to struggle with the dilemma of not always receiving the blessing of God, and Christians today are frequently just as shocked and confused as Job when tragedies happen to them.
Part of this problem is created by pastors who concentrate almost entirely on the good news of God’s love and forgiveness. It is right to emphasize that God is compassionate and long-suffering; it is appropriate to tell the world about his matchless love. But when a congregation comes to the point of denying God’s deeds of judgment or acts of anger (like Micah’s audience in 2:7), something is wrong. What are the danger signs? Micah gives several suggestions that might apply today.
(1) If a person stops listening to one of God’s messengers who is faithfully preaching from a biblical text (cf. 2:6), it may be a sign of deceptive beliefs. People may express this resistance by complaining about the preaching or, in more severe cases, by trying to fire the pastor and remove “the problem” from the church. A less confrontational approach is to switch churches so that the individual can listen to someone with a more acceptable message. The reputation of Christ and the church is damaged when the effectiveness and liberty of faithful preachers are undermined by complaints about good biblical preaching or more trivial issues. These problems deflect the energies of those who preach the whole counsel of God and put the messenger on the defensive, lest someone be offended and raise more problems.
A sense of boldness is needed if the Spirit is going to convict people of sin and stretch a congregation to new heights of commitment and service. When a spirit of resistance and division arises, it is important for people on both sides to evaluate their theology and motives. Like Micah, a pastor must reflect on what is being said and determine if it is consistent with God’s Word, or whether anything was said out of impure motives. Likewise, those who complain must examine their hearts and get together with the leadership to work out their differences.
Church conflict based on doctrinal differences takes on a more serious tone than problems of personal style, differences on changing a single phrase in the constitution, what color paint to use in the church kitchen, or developing a new motto for the church. Micah’s difficulty relates to basic theological beliefs. His audience thinks that God is not impatient or angry with his people (2:7), so that the punishment Micah predicts (2:3–5) cannot happen to them (2:6). This false sense of security is partially created because of a slanted reading of past revelation, unbalanced preaching by other prophets, and a failure to apply principles of divine justice to themselves.
Many in the church also do not have a healthy fear of God’s just anger at sin, even though this concept is repeatedly illustrated throughout Scripture. Some have wisely given up the fire and brimstone preaching of the past but in its place have substituted an anemic message focused on the common felt needs of their parishioners. If the issue of God’s hatred of sin is avoided and God’s help in becoming “all you can be” is the primary emphasis, it is not surprising to find that people have trouble applying any negative thoughts or actions to him. It is only logical to conclude that he will never bring disaster on us, if we are his people who worship him.
Micah presents two solutions to this problem. (1) The messenger of God can clarify the theological witness of Scripture to restore a balanced presentation of God’s character. God is only good to the upright (though, to be sure, the rain falls on the just and unjust), not to everyone (Mic. 2:7). He is a just God, who distinguishes between his righteous followers and his wicked enemies (Ex. 34:6–7; Mal. 3:13–4:4). God’s action toward any individual or group is not based on their size, might, financial or social status, education, skin color, or country of origin (even if it is Hebrew). His blessings or curses are influenced by the sin or obedience of people (Deut. 27–28). It is true that God sometimes gives grace because others are so wicked or because he is fulfilling a promise made years ago (Deut. 9:4–6), but it is dangerous to presume on that grace. Whatever the theological dispute may be in the church, all parties need a thorough and balanced understanding of the teachings of all of Scripture on a topic in order to resolve the conflict.
(2) The other approach Micah employs clarifies how God views those who reject his Word (Mic. 2:8–11). Although they may think of themselves as religious people whom God would never punish (2:6), God looks at those who oppose his teachings (2:6), oppress the weak in society to enrich themselves (2:8–9), and follow the teachings of deceptive people (2:11) as his enemies (2:8). Not all of these conditions are necessary to be the enemy of God; in fact, any one of them can bring opposition from God.
The point of application comes in evaluating ourselves, our churches, and our leadership. Do we oppose the teachings of God in any way by twisting the intent of some verses or by ignoring others? Do we oppress or take advantage of the weak by what we say or do? Are we open to following the leadership of people who do not tell the truth but deceive people with pleasant words that entertain? Are people like this friends or enemies of God?
Since it is so easy to be self-deceived in any self-evaluation, often an outsider (note that Micah is not part of the group he condemns) can throw more light on the evaluation process and raise questions that will allow the Holy Spirit to begin the process of conviction and repentance. Such a person does not have social friendship with one party in the conflict, which could prevent complete honesty and a neutral perspective.
My own view of the church was altered by being immersed in another culture for a year. Seeing the way other people did things opened up new possibilities, plus the time away allowed for a fresh look at old accepted habits. When I returned from my sabbatical year, what surprised me was the strangeness of the way things were done back home. In this passage Micah is the outsider whom God uses to give a shocking picture that the insiders are unable to see. Perhaps more church experiences in overseas areas by leaders and laypeople will assist in this process of self-evaluation at home.