OT113

THE TEXT IN ITS ANCIENT CONTEXT

The authors of Micah waste little time in laying out the sense of doom and destruction that they want to convey. After a brief biography of the prophet in Mic. 1:1, the text launches into a series of oracles that convey YHWH’s rage against both Israel and Judah, foretelling severe punishments for their transgressions. The contextual ambiguity, addressed above, is prevalent here; negligible information is offered as to the nature of Israel and Judah’s sins or the identities of their perpetrators and of their victims. But while the details may be understated, a sense of looming doom is not.

Following Micah’s biography in 1:1, the book immediately proceeds to a prophecy that foretells the impending arrival of YHWH, who will judge Israel—for the acts of idolatry and corruption that it used to procure its wealth—and Judah for unspecified crimes (1:5–7). In return for their sins, both kingdoms will be laid to ruin at the hands of invading forces (1:15). The impact of YHWH’s justice is to be swift and, despite Micah’s proclamation, unexpected; in an ironic twist of fate, the inhabitants of the Judean town of Maroth will suffer YHWH’s wrath while eagerly awaiting the fruits of its favor (1:12).

Chapter 2 offers more specifics about the nature of the transgressions for which God’s people are to be punished. Micah lashes out at those who use their power to steal land from others (Mic. 2:1–2, 9). There are many Hebrew words for oppress, but ‘ashaq, which is used in 2:2, refers to violence, robbery, and poverty, and conveys well the serious consequences of land seizures in agrarian societies.

The sociological field of cultural-evolutionary theory reveals that as agrarian societies are absorbed into world systems of trade, a series of societal patterns tends to unfold, regardless of culture or time. As administrative elites are enticed by the earning potential of newly available trade routes, they coerce subsistence farmers into abandoning traditional risk-reducing strategies for the high-risk, specialized cultivation of exportable crops. As heightened risk translates into crop failure, producers are forced to take out survival loans at exorbitant rates, which ultimately leads to default and foreclosure. Administrators then consolidate these lands into huge estates that can be effectively managed for the large-scale cultivation of export goods. In the end, these rulers hoard the benefits of trade as previously self-sufficient subsistence farmers are either forced into wage labor or become displaced (Coomber 2011, 217–19). To combat such suffering, agrarian societies often establish prohibitions against the permanent sale of farmland, as found in biblical texts (Lev. 25:10, 23–28; Num. 27:1–11; Ruth 4:3–6; and 1 Kgs. 21:1–4), Sumerian and Babylonians laws, and in former colonies of the Ottoman Empire (Coomber 2010, 109, 197). In response to their crimes, the Judean landgrabbers would have to watch as foreign armies divided the very estates they had stolen from their neighbors (2:4).

The only hopeful message in Micah 1–3 is found in 2:12–13, which provides assurance that the survivors of YHWH’s wrath will be gathered back together like a flock in pasture. The origins and meaning of this passage are much disputed. Whereas Francis Andersen and David Friedman interpret 2:12–13 as a later, postexilic addition (Andersen and Friedman, 32–34), others read these words of hope as mocking the lies of Judah’s false prophets who cry peace when there is war (Ben Zvi, 67). Whether taken as original text, postexilic redaction, or example of false prophetic assurances, the “comfort” tone found in 2:12–13 does not last.

Chapter 3 continues with oracles of doom, targeting corrupt politicos and religious leaders who, like the landgrabbers of Micah 2, will be punished by foreign invasion. Without listing their crimes, the authors of 3:1–3 launch a salvo against Judah and Israel’s political elites, likening them to cannibals who devour the flesh from people’s bones. This imagery, which is graphic to the extreme, would have resonated with the prophets’ intended audience. While the Hebrew word pashat, commonly translated as “flay,” refers to a specific method of butchering that was used in cultic sacrifice (Lev. 1:6), the authors’ audience would have also recognized pashat as a common Assyrian terror tactic that was widely advertised to discourage rebellion in occupied areas (Andersen and Friedman, 353). At the time of the resulting invasion, YHWH would answer the ruling elites’ cries with the same silence with which they had responded to their subjects’ cries for justice (3:4).

In Mic. 3:5–8, YHWH’s anger focuses on the prophets, who are condemned for neglecting the people by crying “peace” for those who fill their mouths and declaring “war” against those who do not or cannot offer food (3:5). YHWH’s anger at the religious establishment, however, appears to pit divine expectations against the religious norms of the time. Most prophets, such as Ezekiel, Jeremiah, and Isaiah, were professionals who expected to be compensated for their craft; this is found in Saul’s concern over not being able to offer Samuel food in return for a prophetic request (1 Sam. 9:6–8). Whether or not the prophets of Mic. 3:5–8 were aware that their expectations of payment had offended their God, 3:5–7 proclaims that YHWH will cut them off by removing their ability to practice their craft. It appears that the transgression of the priests and prophets in 3:11 is rooted in willingness to perform their rites for money, but not as YHWH’s earthly representatives.

As with the use of pashat in Mic. 3:3, the threats leveled against Israel’s and Judah’s religious and political leaders in this passage were rooted in the geopolitical events of the late eighth century. The threat of Assyrian aggression was realized in Israel’s destruction in 721 and during Judah’s invasion and near annihilation in 701, and the punishments would have been read in light of these foreign invasions.

THE TEXT IN THE INTERPRETIVE TRADITION

While the greater geopolitical context of the late eighth century is largely known, the book of Micah offers very little information regarding the nature of the particular transgressions that it condemns; it is possible that those who contributed to the book at later dates were also unaware of the exact nature of these misdeeds. Other than general accusations of corruption and idolatry, Micah’s first chapter gives little information as to the crimes that were to bring Israel and Judah’s destruction, which led the Presbyterian English commentator Matthew Henry (d. 1714) to focus on more general meanings of the text in his commentary. He warns of “spiritual diseases” to which those who are given great power are exposed, setting a negative example for their subjects (Henry, on Mic. 1:1–7).

The ambiguity of Mic. 2:1–4, which informs the reader only that one anonymous group took land from another anonymous group through unspecified means, lends itself to varied interpretations, mostly involving the sin of coveting another’s land. John Calvin, for example, interpreted this passage as a reminder of God’s disdain for frauds and plunderers, encouraging the reader to channel his or her desires toward what is right and just (Calvin, 175).

Reading Mic. 2:1–4 through the lens of international capitalism, twentieth-century interpretations have largely read the text as an admonishment of greedy merchants or businessmen who seized land from poor farmers. Such commentators as James Mays and Ralph Smith have framed the contents of Mic. 2:1–2 as a struggle between the interests of Judah’s wealthy and poor. Both Mays and Smith view the passage as condemning a small group of merchants who used corrupt government officials to steal arable land from poor farmers (Mays, 64; Smith, 24). Neither merchants nor poor farmers are mentioned in the text, but since the perpetrators and victims are not identified, such speculations are understandable, if not useful. Juan Alfaro takes even greater interpretive license, suggesting that the mishpakhah (“family”) mentioned in 2:4 refers to a “mafia family” of organized criminals that profited through stealing poor farmers’ lands (Alfaro, 25).

The condemnation of corruption among religious elites caught the attention of early Christian commentators who were dealing with corruption in their own times. Jerome drew on the corruption of priests and prophets in Mic. 3:11 to limit the pay of clergy in order to prevent them from chasing the purse rather than the Spirit (Arelatensis, 76:456). Cyril of Alexandria (253–54) referenced Mic. 3:9 to address the problem of those who would “pervert what is right” by corrupting holy texts to suit their own needs. Despite the aforementioned troubles in transmitting the book of Micah, the contents of 1:1–3:12 have resonated with interpreters through the centuries and remain highly relevant in the early twenty-first century.

THE TEXT IN CONTEMPORARY DISCUSSION

Despite the fact that the first three chapters of Micah focus on issues that are prevalent in almost any society—problems of political and religious corruption—they are rarely used to confront modern injustices. Perhaps this is due to a lack of an overarching narrative or the cumbersome nature of the book. However, recent archaeological and sociological research has uncovered previously unrecognized levels of relevance that these texts have in addressing modern-day imperialism and economic exploitation.

Considering the vast societal transformations that Judah experienced in the late eighth century as the region was absorbed into Assyria’s trade nexus, it is plausible that the land seizures of Mic. 2:1–2 did not represent a few venal individuals who subverted an otherwise just system, as Mays, Smith, and Alfaro suggest, but were the result of a pan-Judean shift in economic policy. Marvin Chaney argues that as Judah was presented with new opportunities to trade wine, olive oil, and cereals with Assyria and its trade partners, Judah’s rulers coerced previously autonomous farm families into abandoning their traditional risk-reducing subsistence practices for the specialized, trade-focused cultivation of these crops. As increased risk led to crop failure, survival loans resulted in the foreclosure of family-held lands, allowing ruling elites to consolidate and control the productive efforts of the region. Such forms of exploitation are found in our modern economic context.

Building on Chaney’s work, Coomber has used examples of these patterns in agrarian societies that have been absorbed by global capitalism to shed light on Mic. 2:1–4’s hidden contexts and consider the relevance of such prophetic complaints in the modern world (Coomber 2010, 2011, 2013). Uncovering connections between trade exploitation in the ancient and modern world not only offers a voice for agrarian workers displaced by market forces, whether Tunisian peasants or Iowan farmers who must to compete against heavy subsidies for corporations (Levins and Galbraith), but can also provide a powerful critique of those who benefit from such injustices today.

THE TEXT IN ITS ANCIENT CONTEXT

Commonly considered a postexilic addition, Micah 4 makes for an abrupt transition from the foreboding mood of Micah 1–3. The prophecy of chapter 4 moves the reader forward in time, envisioning a day when YHWH’s house not only will be reestablished but also will become the center of worship for the peoples of many nations. While God’s role as judge is foretold to be both active and present, YHWH will serve as a vehicle for peace by arbitrating between powerful nations, which will beat their swords into plowshares and spears into pruning hooks as war is rendered a thing of the past (Mic. 4:3–4).

It should be noted that Mic. 4:1–3 is nearly identical to Isa. 2:2–4, raising questions as to which passage was the original. While it has traditionally been thought to have originated with Micah, recent scholarship suggests that the oracle was borrowed from the Isaianic tradition and given greater power through extending God’s reign over nations that were far away (Mic. 4:3; cf. Isa. 2:4). This more powerful rendering places Jerusalem not only at the center of Israel but also at the center of YHWH’s reign in history.

Immediately following Mic. 3:12, which proclaims Jerusalem would be reduced to “a heap of ruins,” Mic. 4:1–8 reverses the city’s destruction to make it more powerful than it had ever been. Ben Zvi suggests that this reversal was created to assure postexilic audiences that YHWH’s power had not been diminished by Jerusalem’s fall, but would be expanded to ensure that the city remained at the center of God’s power (Ben Zvi, 104–5, 111–13). By connecting the past of King David’s reign to a Jerusalem that would serve as a harbinger of peace to the nations of the world, 5:1–5a would have offered its ancient audience encouragement and pride as they awaited Israel’s coming glory.

Connections between Israel’s past and future continue into Micah 5, where a ruler from Bethlehem is prophesied to bring peace and security to the land (5:2–6). The placement of this great monarch’s origins in Bethlehem, the city of King David’s birth, gave ancient audiences a sense of continuity after the interruption in rule of Israel’s and Judah’s defeats and exile. The power of this coming king, and his mandate by YHWH, is revealed through the grand shift in power that is prophesied in 5:5–6; if the once-great Assyrian Empire decides to invade the once-weaker state of Israel, the Assyrians will be routed and conquered under the promised Bethlehemite ruler. Such words would have bolstered the wounded pride of postexilic audiences.

The greatness of this new era is further emphasized in Mic. 5:10–15, which promotes Israel’s dominance into the future and YHWH’s ongoing role in human history. The passage depicts YHWH as playing an active role in Israel’s affairs, cleansing Israel of military and cultic objects and destroying disobedient nations who stand in the way of God’s plans.

THE TEXT IN THE INTERPRETIVE TRADITION

While both Judaism and Christianity have received Micah 4–5 as a portrayal of Zion’s coming restoration, there has been significant divergence between Jewish and Christian interpretation. Many of these differences rest in the fact that the fourth and fifth chapters feed into the Christian narrative of Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem and also the evangelical image of all nations coming together under God’s reign, as described in the New Testament.

The promise of peace found in the imagery of turning weapons of war into tools of farm production, as found in Mic. 4:3 (and also in Isa. 2:4 and Joel 3:10), has captured the hopes and imaginations of its audiences. Rather than an event pertaining to the second coming of Jesus of Nazareth, Maimonides, a twelfth-century-CE rabbinic scholar, interpreted the prophecy of Micah 4 as pertaining to a bright future on earth during the time of the Messiah. In addition to reading 4:1 as a glorious period in which rule would return to Israel and subjugation to wicked kingdoms would become a thing of the past (Maimonides 1975, 171), he interpreted the words of Mic. 4:3, “nation shall not lift up sword against nation,” as heralding a virtuous time in which people would “attain much perfection and be elevated to the life of the world-to-come” (Maimonides, 166–67). This passage invited audiences not only to hear the warnings against corruption in the book of Micah, but it also offered the promise of a brighter future.

Many Christian interpretations have taken Micah 4 out of its ancient Hebrew context to address their own religious systems. In The City of God, Augustine (18.30) claimed that Micah used the mountain imagery in 4:2 to describe a gathering of nations under Christ. Justin Martyr read Mic. 4:1–3 as a foretelling of Christ’s coming and that the beating of swords into plowshares happened when the twelve disciples came together with Christ to “teach to all the Word of God” (Justin Martyr, Mic. 4:1–3). Later, Matthew Henry interpreted Mic. 4:1–8 as a promise to the Christian church of a time in which “the reign of Christ shall continue till succeeded by the everlasting kingdom of heaven” (Henry, on Micah 4). Each of these interpreters reshaped the passage’s message to relate to their own religious beliefs and spiritual needs.

The imagery of Mic. 4:3 has also appeared in recent popular culture. The imagery of turning weapons into farm tools has also been used in such popular songs as “Down by the Riverside” and Don Henley’s hit single “The End of the Innocence.”

THE TEXT IN CONTEMPORARY DISCUSSION

Beyond hopes for peace in a distant future, the fourth chapter’s powerful and hope-filled imagery of turning weapons of war into tools for peacetime productivity can be an effective tool for promoting nonviolence today. There are many recent examples of Mic. 4:3 being used to address war, from its domestic economic impact to the threat of nuclear annihilation. American president and former general Dwight Eisenhower used a reversal of the peaceful imagery in 4:3 to warn of the rise of a military industrial complex, which he feared would bring about a time in which plowshares would be turned into swords.

The imagery of Mic. 4:3 has also been adopted by a number of antiwar organizations that have taken it upon themselves to help fulfill Micah’s prophecy. Operation Plowshares, a Christian antinuclear-weapons group, became famous in 1980 when eight of its members broke into a Pennsylvania nuclear-missile site and successfully damaged warhead nose cones and engaged in other acts of civil disobedience. Another group called Silo Pruning Hooks entered a Missouri Air Force base in 1984, where they used a jackhammer to damage the lid of a nuclear silo. Eight members of the Catholic Worker Movement, who called themselves Pitstop Ploughshares, broke into Shannon Airport in Ireland in 2003, where they caused £80,000 of damage to United States bombers that had been awaiting sorties during the second Gulf War. Many of the aforementioned activists served prison sentences for their faith-based acts of nonviolent resistance to war.

In addition to the above examples of how Mic. 4:3 has been used to address violence in the modern world, the imagery of this verse can also speak to how nations use their money. For example, the fact that the United States allocates vast amounts of national wealth toward its military says a great deal about its fiscal priorities. In the 2013 budget, the US defense department was allocated $525 billion in discretionary spending, as compared to $23 billion for agriculture and $70 billion for education (United States Government, 2013). Whether or not these priorities are in order, the vision found in Mic. 4:3 has the potential to play a powerful role in the conversation.

THE TEXT IN ITS ANCIENT CONTEXT

From the early twentieth century, scholars have dated this section of Micah to the postexilic period. But regardless of its time of origin, Mic. 6:1–8 presents audiences with a court setting in which Judah’s injustices are placed on trial. The passage opens with a demand that the accused people plead their case before the judgment of YHWH and the whole earth (6:1–2), and concludes with a correctional instruction in 6:8 that was considered by Northrop Frye (206) to be one of history’s greatest moral breakthroughs. This trial scene, however, breaks from some of the standard conventions of its time.

Whereas court cases traditionally start with a leveling of charges against the accused, here the deity opens the proceedings in the defendant’s box, raising concerns about YHWH’s own possible shortcomings and giving the accused a chance to voice any complaints that they may have (6:3–5). Through YHWH’s line of questioning, which suggests a sense of confusion and betrayal as YHWH works to understand how it might have offended the people and caused them to go astray, YHWH highlights all that has been done for the people (6:3–5). The accused does not appear to take the opportunity to lodge any complaints, but responds in 6:6–7 with a series of questions as to how the accused might appease YHWH’s anger, offering a crescendo of cultic sacrifices from burnt calves to the climax of child sacrifice. Thomas Römer (21) argues that the accused were not referring to some ancient practice that had been replaced by animal sacrifice, but an institution of child sacrifice that coexisted alongside animal sacrifice. The reference to child sacrifice in 6:7, and its rejection in 6:8, is commonly thought to have marked a break from the practice.

Whereas Mic. 6:6–7 is often received as an earnest attempt to make amends with God, Ben Zvi (147) argues that the dialogue’s conclusion in instruction, rather than an announcement of salvation, may indicate that 6:6–7 represents a defense against YHWH’s charges. Using an intertextual approach, Mignon Jacobs reads 6:6–7 as a complaint against the deity, in which Israel refutes its God for wearying its people by offering a sarcastic list of outlandish sacrificial demands (Jacobs, 177–78).

In the pinnacle of the unit (Mic. 6:8), the voice of the prophet summarizes the Torah, laying out what it means to live well under YHWH: “to do justice, and to love kindness, / and to walk humbly with your God.” Whereas the accused party’s response to YHWH’s anger is cultic sacrifice (6:6–7), 6:8 moves their religious practice beyond temple ritual and into the way they conduct their daily lives. This message is congruent with Isa. 1:11–17, where cultic offerings are also rejected in favor of a lifestyle that promotes the peace and justice of God. In so doing, Mic. 6:8 works to replace the notion that justice is YHWH’s job, and places its responsibility on the shoulders of the people.

THE TEXT IN THE INTERPRETIVE TRADITION

The futility of the people’s offerings in Mic. 6:6–7 has been received as a push for right living. Ambrose (306–7) looked to cultic offerings of 6:6–7 as a call to turn away from ritual appeasement and concentrate on living “a good life.”

One of the most shocking aspects of Mic. 6:1–8 is the suggestion of child sacrifice in 6:7. Clement of Alexandria asserted that the suggestion of child sacrifice spoke out against “those human impulses that are unhelpful in gaining knowledge of God” (Ferreiro, 171).

Calvin read 6:6–7 as the prophet’s voice, mocking his audiences’ futile remedies for atonement. He relates this to those of his own time who devise means to alleviate their guilt before God. Using the Catholic Church’s leadership as an example, Calvin relates the extreme remedy of child sacrifice (6:7) to the mentality of papacy, which will “toil in ceremonies, and if they pour forth some portion of their money, if they sometimes deprive nature of its support, if with fastings and by other things, they afflict themselves, they think that by these means they have fully performed their duties” (328).

THE TEXT IN CONTEMPORARY DISCUSSION

The powerful messages and thought-provoking problems that the authors of Mic. 6:1–8 posed to their audiences can provide modern readers with ample material for discussion. From a faith perspective, the passage raises questions about what it means to live a life of faith under a God who seeks justice, kindness, and humility.

The people’s response to the court proceedings of Mic. 6:1–5 is to shield themselves with ritual piety and prescribed laws. The prophet’s rejection of these means of atonement can speak to modern “holier-than-thou” attitudes toward spiritual purity, suggesting that piety comes not simply through ritual observance but in how the faithful conduct themselves toward their neighbor and also God. This passage can serve to encourage faith practitioners and communities to move beyond traditional ritual practice and into engaged spiritual practice that centers itself on kindness, justice, and humility, as had been displayed in Pope Francis I’s calls to view service to the poor as service to God. He exemplified this sentiment by taking the unprecedented step of washing the feet of prisoners during his first Maundy Thursday service as pontiff. Included in the foot-washing were people of other faiths and women, the latter of whom may have broken liturgical law.

What it means to live in justice, kindness, and humility is left open to interpretation, enabling the text to flow into the varied cultural contexts into which it is received. This ambiguity not only lends the passage an ongoing relevancy but also demands reflection on the part of the reader and encourages conversation with others. The powerful messages of 6:8 can also serve as a rallying cry, tempered with humility, for such justice struggles as the Catholic Worker Movement, School of the Americas Watch, Christian Peacemaker Teams, and the work of liberation theologians from Latin America to India.

The humility aspect of Mic. 6:8 also speaks to the tendency to resolve tensions by blaming an other (see Gen. 3:12–13), which can cause harm to innocent parties and also deny oneself the benefits of self-reflection. An extreme example of blaming the other is found in the followers of Pastor Fred Phelps, who view the September 11, 2001, attacks as a direct outcome of God’s anger against homosexuality, leading them to celebrate at the funerals of fallen service members and the victims of LGBT violence. Pastors Pat Robertson and the late Jerry Falwell also asserted that the 9/11 attacks were a product of God’s wrath against “homosexual culture,” while adding feminists, supporters of legalized abortion, and the American Civil Liberties Union to their list of scapegoats. While several passages within the Old Testament do promote corporate punishment for perceived sins—recently addressed by Hugh Pyper and Philip Davies—Mic. 6:6–8 presents an opportunity to focus on one’s own conduct rather than on the conduct of the “other.” Within the context of theologies that perceive God as punishing sin through historic events, Phelps, Falwell, and Robertson laid blame at the feet of those with whom they disagreed, but did not consider how their own failings may have brought about such wrath. The instruction of 6:8 can encourage a spirituality that searches for kindness, justice, and humility within oneself rather than finding fault in others.

THE TEXT IN ITS ANCIENT CONTEXT

Following the instruction of Mic. 6:8, the text returns to the problems of corruption that were addressed in Micah 1–3. Addressing “the city,” its assembly, and the tribe, YHWH’s anger is directed against their “treasures of wickedness” and the wickedness of the temple that houses them. In 6:10–12, the city—commonly thought to be Jerusalem though it could also be Samaria—is presented with a list of crimes, including financial inequity, general violence, and deceit, which will lead to its destruction by foreign invaders, as laid out in 6:13–16.

The accusations of Mic. 6:9–12 reflect those found in Micah 1–3, but offer a wider focus by denouncing the people alongside of their leaders. In 6:11, YHWH condemns an economic practice that was used by merchants and is also supported by the archaeological record: using different weights for the selling and purchases of goods in the temple market (Yeivin, 64–68). What is often lost in English translations, and may give insight into the urgency with which the authors addressed economic injustice in a religious context, is a suggestion that these corrupt activities affected YHWH’s well-being. The NRSV translation of 6:11 reads, “Can I tolerate wicked scales / and a bag of dishonest weights?” However, “tolerate” comes from the Hebrew word zakah, which means “to be clean” or “pure.” In its first-person singular interrogative form in 6:11, the meaning conveyed is “Can I be made pure/clean/innocent by these wicked scales and a bag of dishonest weights?” Arnold Ehrlich (287) and William McKane (195) argue that this is an error in the Masoretic Text, based on the Septuagint’s third-person presentation of the verb dikaiōthēsetai, which means “shall they be justified?” However, there is precedent to consider that the authors were concerned that YHWH could be tainted by human injustice. If this is the case, 6:11 offers a greater sense of urgency in rooting out injustices pertaining to religious economic practice.

The passage’s focus on the violence and deceit of the wealthy and city dwellers in Mic. 6:12 reflects common connotations of monarchic Jerusalem in the postexilic era (Ben Zvi, 164). Whether the text’s origins are in the eighth century or after the Babylonian exile, the authors and audience were able to draw on the accusations and curses of 6:13–15, and again in 7:2–3 to help explain the destruction of the unnamed city.

THE TEXT IN THE INTERPRETIVE TRADITION

John Calvin and Matthew Henry both interpreted Mic. 6:9–16 as a warning against trapping oneself through fraudulent acts. Calvin saw the individuals in the city as more wicked than the other inhabitants because they not only robbed their neighbors but also set up a system in which the victims were forced to become perpetrators; the general inhabitants were not engaged in sin with the intent of doing harm, but forced to cheat in order to avoid poverty (Calvin, 336). Matthew Henry’s commentary adds that for the whole of the city, “what is got by fraud and oppression, cannot be kept or enjoyed with satisfaction” (Henry, on Micah 6).

Early Christian theologians used the agrarian analogy of the harvest in 7:1 as an opportunity to reflect on the works of those who align themselves with the church, writing that not only pagan nations but also those of the church must consider what they are cultivating within themselves. Origen proclaimed, “Let each of us scrutinize himself. Is he an ear of corn? Will the Son of God discover something in him to pick or harvest?” This call for introspection dovetails with the call for humility in 6:8.

THE TEXT IN CONTEMPORARY DISCUSSION

In the wake of the financial collapse of 2008, caused largely by the world’s most powerful financial institutions’ dishonest investments and lending schemes, Mic. 6:9–16 remains pertinent in our time. The passage promotes the idea that God pays attention to financial conduct, suggesting that marketplace dealings are not to be viewed as separate from religious practice. The phrase “that’s business,” often used to justify questionable financial dealings, did not appear to absolve YHWH’s targets in Micah.

The imagery of people using wicked scales and dishonest weights in 6:11, the violence and deceit of 6:12, and the imagery of hunting each other in nets in 7:2 dovetail with the Ponzi schemes of Bernard Madoff and Alan Stanford, as well as recent cases of mutual-fund fraud, misleading mortgage practices, and illegal foreclosures that have left so many in ruin. These biblical images can also speak to prosperity theologians who promise congregants God-given monetary wealth if they donate their money into these pastors’ vast coffers.

Whether from a faith or secular perspective, Calvin’s aforementioned interpretation of Mic. 6:9–7:7, which considers the inhabitants of the city as unwilling perpetrators of injustice, raises questions about the inherent injustice in our global economy. Many poorer and middle-class citizens in the world’s wealthiest nations cannot afford to purchase goods that are not produced by sweatshop labor. In our current economic system, it is difficult for people to prepare for retirement or their children’s college education without investing in corporations that are involved in unethical practices. Micah 6:9–7:7 raises a lot of uncomfortable questions that serve as a starting place for conversations on how economics might move beyond bottom-line motivations to consider more equitable approaches to prosperity and growth.

THE TEXT IN ITS ANCIENT CONTEXT

The closing verses of Micah return to the themes of hope that are found in Micah 4–5. The passage opens with the city’s voice expressing a steadfast faith in YHWH and the idea that even when the prophet falls (7:8) YHWH will execute judgment on the city’s behalf. While Mic. 7:9 promotes the idea that Jerusalem’s fall was the work of God—an indignity that the city endured for its sins—it will be the enemies of Judah who will suffer the final downfall (7:10).

With a promise of restoration, found in Micah 4–5, the prophet foresees a time when the city’s walls will be rebuilt (7:11) and the people of the great empires will come to its gates (7:12). Only this time, the Assyrians and Egyptians will not approach as conquerors seeking the spoils of war, but in shame and with fear as they stand in dread of YHWH’s power (7:16–17). The passage offered its ancient readers hope in the face of overwhelming adversity, whether a looming Assyrian invasion or the humiliation of exile. Other renderings of 7:12 view those approaching the city from Assyria and Egypt not as foreigners but as the returning Hebrews who are coming home after the exile, highlighting their penitence and willingness to adhere to YHWH’s will.

In the form of a praise offering, the book of Micah concludes with an idyllic picture of a God of justice and mercy. With great hope, the prophet asks what other gods can be compared to YHWH, a God who forgives sins, lets anger abate, and will cast out the people’s sins to offer compassion (7:18–20). This closing praise promoted the idea that despite the iniquities of the people, YHWH’s covenant had not been broken, but would continue, stronger than ever.

THE TEXT IN THE INTERPRETIVE TRADITION

The messages of hope and divine forgiveness in Mic. 7:8–20 have been a focus of interpreters throughout the centuries, and are reflected in the Jewish practice of tashlik, which comes from the verb shlk, or “to throw,” in 7:19. Performed on Rosh Hashanah (the Jewish New Year), the practice consists of participants casting rocks that represent their sins into a body of water. It has been thought to be a good omen to see a fish during this ritual, which can serve to take away the participants’ guilt. The sixteenth-century Jewish mystic Moshe Cordovero also drew on Mic. 7:18–20; he viewed this passage as an embodiment of the Jewish ethic of forgiveness (Schimmel, 85–88).

Origen referenced God’s forgiveness in Mic. 7:19 as an example of mortal charity. Referencing Micah, he wrote, “The prophet in Scripture says, ‘We should cast our sins into the depths of the sea.’ John continues, ‘He who has food should do likewise.’ Whoever has food should give some to one who has none” (94.99). Basil the Great offered another interpretation of this verse, likening the waters in 7:19 to the Christian baptismal waters that wash away the baptized person’s sins (Ferreiro, 177). Calvin interpreted this passage as a testament to the power of God’s promises, remaining loyal to the covenant made with Abraham, despite Israel’s sins (389–90).