MA (Theology)

Assignment Cover Sheet

10069007
Student ID:
BS 527 Preaching from the Hebrew Text of Micah
Course Details:
A seminar paper
Assignment:
Judgment and hope in the book of Micah
Topic:
3,602
Word Count:
Friday, June 5, 2009
Due Date:

Office Use Only

Date Received:

Mark:

MARKER’S COMMENTS:

1
I. Introduction

The book of Micah in its present form contains not only the messages of

judgment but also the messages of hope. The presence of the two messages is not a

unique feature of the book of Micah, as a prophetic book. Rather, in general, the

prophetic books convey these two aspects of prophecy- judgment and hope.1 What

makes the book of Micah distinguishable from others is the way these two messages

are arranged. Different from other prophetic writings, the book of Micah does not

endeavour to move from one large collection of messages of judgment to the other

collection of the messages of hope.2 Instead, the book shows a repeated pattern of

alternating the two messages throughout the book. The importance of such an

arrangement of the two messages appears in an argument that “the double note of

judgment and hope gives Micah its basic structure.”3 Since it appears that the book of

Micah is a compilation of the sermons delivered by the prophet,4 it is likely that the

book is intended to deliver a specific message in arranging the two messages in such a

way. For that reason, it is worthwhile to pay attention to the relationship between

judgment and hope in the book to recognize the intended meaning.

II. Identifying the messages

In discussing the relationship between judgment and hope in Micah, the first

necessary step is to locate where each message is found in the book. Most prophecies

in the book have enjoyed a consensus in terms of the nature of the message. Some

sections indisputably deliver the messages of judgment: the indictments from Yahweh

1
W.A. VanGemeren, Interpreting the Prophetic Word, (Grand Rapids, MI: Academie Books, 1990),
44.
2
B.K. Waltke, A Commentary on Micah, (Grand Rapids, MI/ Cambridge, U.K.: W.B. Eerdmans
Publishing Company, 2007), 14
3
W.S. Lasor, D.A. Hubbard, and F.W. Bush, Old Testament Survey, 2nd (Grand Rapids, MI:
Cambridge, U.K., W.B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1996), 272.
4
Waltke, Micah, 13.

2
as well as announcement of punishment over the Israelites’ sins can be clearly

construed as the messages of judgment (c.f. 1:2-2:11; 3; 6:1-7:6). At the same time,

the future promise of the leadership and deliverance of Yahweh convey the messages

of hope (c.f. 4:5; 7:7-20). However, one or two passages in the book have failed to

summon total agreement concerning the nature of the message. One of them is Micah

2:12-13.

Even though at first glance Micah 2:12-13 seems to deliver the message of

hope, its unexpected appearance in the book requires further examination. A sudden

and unexpected message of hope, seemingly without any logical connection either to

the preceding or to the following message of judgment, is considered as “an enigma.”5

For that reason, there are understandings which outline how the verses deliver

judgment. Such understandings pay attention to the usage of the words in the verses.

For example, Gershon Brin agues that the occurrences of the following verbs in other

prophetic writings show that ‫ץ‬F ‫ ב‬H ‫ ק‬,‫ף‬F ‫אס‬do not always express the messages of hope,

which is different from the generally assumed connotation of the words (Jeremiah

8:13-14; Hosea 9,9, etc).6 Brin further argues that these two words have a meaning of

trouble and war in general. Meanwhile, James Mays takes note of the usage of the

verb ‫ פרץ‬in verse 13 in other parts of the Scriptures as well. Mays argues that the verb

is used to describe Yahweh’s breaking the wall of Jerusalem (c.f. Ps 80:12; Isa. 5:5).

Based on such usage of the verb, Mays discerns the elements of the punishment of

Yahweh, by sending them into the Exiles. In Mays’ understanding, Yahweh is not ‘the

breaker’ “who breaks walls of captivity to rescue his flock, but the one who breaks

down the fortified gate of Jerusalem and leads them out through it.”7

5
J.L. Mays, Micah, (London: SCM Press LTD, 1976), 74.
6
G. Brin, “Micah 2,12-13: A Textual and Ideological Study,” ZAW 101 (1989) 121.
7
Mays, Micah, 25, 74-75.

3
 Nevertheless, to regard 2:12-13 as containing the elements of judgment is

excessive and against the natural reading of the text.8 Micah 2:12-13 contains an

unmistakeable message of hope: Yahweh says that he will gather the remnant of the

Israelites like sheep (verse 12), and Yahweh is described in the third person as leading

His people through the gate as a king (verse 13). Portraying God as the Shepherd is a

well-known metaphor of the promise of hope in the Scripture (c.f. Psalm 23; Ezekiel

34; Isaiah 40:11ff. etc). For that reason, it is not quite convincing to propose that “the

sheep mentioned here not for their idyllic aspect but indicate that the people is in

defenceless condition, being subjected to the enemy.”9 It is also a distortion of the

meaning to translate ‫ם‬V ‫יה‬Y‫ל \ פ [ נ‬as “against them” rather than the conventional “before

them.”10 In understanding the text, Mays approaches it with a certain presupposition.

Mays argues that chapters 1-3 demonstrate a prophetic drama of the history of

punishment as the “Samaria-Jerusalem programme.”11 For that reason, Mays does not

allow that hope is found in chapters 1-3. With such presupposition, Mays seems to fail

to grasp the apparent meaning of the verses.

The resemblances between 2:12-13 and chapter 4-5, which agreeably contain

hope, is noted.12 Such affinities are evident especially in comparison between 2:12-13

and 4:6-7. In both texts God is depicted as the one that assembles (‫ )אסף‬and gathers (

‫)קבץ‬. In both texts, the people who are assembled and gathered are referred to as the

remnant (‫ר \ ית‬Y ‫)א‬.[ ‫ש‬It is also to be noted that ‫ר \ ית‬Y ‫ש [ א‬

plays an important role in the section

of hope in the book of Micah (4:7; 5:6, (7) and 7:18), which surprisingly escapes the

attention of both Mays and Brin. Yahweh is also the one who rules as King (2:13; c.f.

8
P.P. Jenson, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah: A Theological Commentary, (New York, London: T&T Clark,
2008), 128.
9
Brin, Micah 2,12-13, 123.
10
Brin, Micah 2,12-13, 124.
11
Mays, Micah, 25.
12
F.I. Anderson & D.N. Freedman, Micah: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB
24e, (New York: Doubleday, 2000), 333.

4
4:7). The hopeful imagery of God either as the Shepherd gathering the sheep or as the

King leading the people penetrates the prophetic writings (c.f. Ezekiel. 37:24;

Zechariah. 14:16). Based on the parallel study with 4:6-7 and its dominating

imageries of Yahweh in the Scripture, it seems more probable to regard Micah 2:12-

13 as containing the message of hope.

A sudden and unexpected message of hope appears in Micah 2:12-13, lacking

any connection to the previous or the following messages of judgment. It seems

strange to the modern eyes. Nevertheless, there is no guarantee that what is strange to

the modern eyes was also taken in the same way by the ancients’ understanding.13 As

a matter of fact, such a sudden and unexpected shift of the messages occur between

chapters 3 and 4 (from judgment to hope) and between chapters 5 and 6 (from hope to

judgment). For that reason, the abrupt appearing of hope in Micah 2:12-13 in the

context should not be weighed too much, especially to the point that the evident

message of hope is blurred.

III. The relationship between judgment and hope

If the understanding that Micah 2:12-13 contains hope is correct, the book of

Micah displays an unusual exchange between judgment and hope. There are three sets

of alternating the two messages- judgment and hope. Setting aside the subscription in

1:1, the following are the three sets of messages of judgment (A) and the messages of

hope (B):14 Judgment A (1:2b-2:11), Hope B (2:12-13); Judgment A-2 (3:1-12), Hope

B-2 (4:1-5:14); Judgment A-3 (6:1-7:6), Hope B-3 (7:7-20). In such a manner the

book of Micah expresses a different way of deploying the two messages of judgment

and hope, compared to other prophetic books. With the aforementioned arrangement

13
Anderson & Freedman, Micah, 342.
14
c.f. Waltke, Micah, 14.

5
of the messages, it is very likely that there is an intended relationship between

judgment and hope in the book of Micah. In general, there are two approaches in

examining this relationship.

The first approach is the diachronic method. By and large, diachronic

resolutions assign different time periods to the message of judgment and to the

message of hope. For example, Hans W. Wolff comments that in the book of Micah

no message of hope can be attributed to Micah who ministered in the second half of

the eighth century.15 In turn, it implies that the messages of hope are later redactional

additions by editors to the original messages of judgment by Micah. At the same time,

it should also be mentioned that not every message of hope has come from the same

time period. Micah 4:1-8 is the latest passage in chapters 4-5, while Micah 5:6-14 [7-

15] is a message of hope to the early exiles, and Micah 4:9-5:1 is the oldest passage.16

Even some passages (7:11-13) originated from the days of Nehemiah, in the first half

of the fifth century.17 What is the rationale for Wolff to claim that the messages of

hope are a later development than the messages of judgment? Wolff refers to the

account of the elders in the days of Jeremiah.18 In Jeremiah 26:17-19, according to

Wolff, Micah was remembered as a deliverer of the message of the destruction of

Jerusalem. For that reason, Wolff argues that any messages of hope found in the book

of Micah are a later addition to the original doom messages of Micah by later

redactionist(s).

What would be the relationship between the messages of judgment and the

messages of hope in the understanding like that of Wolff? According to Wolff, the

messages of hope are the later generation’s responses to the questions raised by the

15
H.W.Wolff, Micah: A Commentary, (tran. Gary Stansell; Minneapolis, Augsburg, 1990), 17.
16
Wolff, Micah,20-21.
17
Woff, Micah, 26.
18
Woff, Micah, 17.

6
doom-filled messages of Micah.19 For example, Wolff argues that Micah 4:1-8 is an

answer for the question raised in 3:12: What will become of Jerusalem after its

destruction? For that reason, even though the section is the latest in chapters 4-5, it is

placed in the present place close to 3:12.20 In such a scheme, the relationship between

the two messages is that hope is simply a later addition to the former messages of

judgment. There is no close connection between the two messages. The result of such

treatment between the two messages affects its understanding of the message of

Micah. Under the title of the message of Micah, Wolff writes:

The heart and center of Micah’s message can be stated briefly: Yahweh is bringing inexorable doom on

Samaria, Jerusalem, and the cities of Judah. The guilt for this rests with the authorities and the leading

citizens, such as judges, prophets, and priests.21

It appears that for Wolff the message of Micah is found only in some part of chapter

1-3. It is not possible for Wolff to incorporate the messages of hope in considering the

entire message of Micah, since they are only a later addition, which he names as

“secondary.”22 At this point, as to the relationship between judgment and hope in the

book of Micah, one of the main drawbacks of diachronic resolutions appears: No

overall coherent message can be drawn from the entire book of Micah in diachronic

explanations.23 Because of diachronic solutions, Wolff seems to be unable to interact

with the entire book of Micah in its present form which contains not only the

messages of judgment but also the messages of hope.

19
Wolff, Micah, 17.
20
Wolff, Micah, 21.
21
Wolff, Micah, 14
22
Wolff, Micah, 17.
23
See, M. R. Jacobs, The Conceptual Coherence of the Book of Micah, JSOTSup 322 (Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), 43-44.

7
 In such diachronic resolutions, there is a certain assumption. It is expressed

well in the words of William McKane, who also takes the diachronic method in his

commentary. McKane proposes that

… … the proclamation of Micah in the eighth century B.C. has generated prophecy of different kinds

in the succeeding centuries. These new prophets had different reasons for revering the name of Micah

and for claiming the authority of that prophet.24

The quoted assumption seems to be reasonable for diachronic resolutions.

Nevertheless, such postulation is burdened with some questions to answer. Firstly,

how likely is it that the later generation can add messages different in nature? The

diachronic solutions answer in a positive way. Nevertheless, given evidence seems to

point in a different direction. The very text which diachronic resolutions use for its

proposal proves the point.

Jeremiah 26:18 contains the most part of the prophecy of Micah 3:12 with its

background story. This aspect demonstrates that the prophecies in the book of Micah

once possessed related stories. For the discussion in question, it is to be noted that the

prophecies are preserved while the related stories are forgotten. The reason for such a

different treatment seems to be the recognized divine origin of the prophecies.25

Because of the God’s given authority of the prophecies, it is also very likely that the

prophecies were preserved in a fixed written form, different from orally circulated

related stories. For that reason, it is quite unlikely that the later generations were able

to add the messages in different nature at their whim to a fixed form of the prophecies

which were regarded as sacred from the previous generations.

24
W. McKane, The Book of Micah, (Edinburgh: T&T CLARK, 1998), 7
25
Anderson & Freedman, Micah, 115.

8
 Secondly, isn’t it more reasonable to assume that the messages of hope in

Micah would have been rejected by the Israelites in the scheme of diachronic

approaches? If diachronic approaches are maintained, it seems very unlikely that the

messages of hope were accepted as the authentic part of the book of Micah. When it is

allegedly argued that Micah spoke only of judgment, it seems more reasonable to

conjecture that the later Israelites could have easily rejected the new addition of the

messages under the name of the prophet whose authority was still felt among them.

Thirdly, it is very questionable that why only later prophets were able to raise

questions and provide messages of hope. There is no reason why Micah in eighth

century B.C. could not wonder what would happen after judgment. As a matter of

fact, there are many past incidences in which Yahweh had shown favor after the

punishment of the people for their sins, including the Exodus.26 In that aspect, it is

also noteworthy to point out that the possibility of Yahweh’s blessing is announced

after the covenant curses in Deuteronomy 30:1-10. Given the understanding of the

covenant in the book of Micah (c.f. Micah 1, 6), there is no reason to assume that the

prophets in the eighth century did not know such a covenant tradition found in

Deuteronomy 30. For that reason, there seems to be no substantial rationale to argue

that Micah in the eighth century could not be able to preach future hope provided by

Yahweh.

One more thing can be mentioned concerning the account of the elders in

Jeremiah 26:17-19. As Wolff acknowledges, the intention of the elders in the passage

is to exhort the king to repent.27 The questions in Jeremiah 26:19 demand affirmative

answers: “Did Hezekiah king of Judah and all Judah put him to death? Did he not fear

Yahweh and entreat the favor of Yahweh, and did not Yahweh relent of the disaster

26
c.f. Anderson & Freedman, Micah, 334.
27
Wolff, Micah, 17

9
that he had pronounced against them?” (Jeremiah 26:19)28 It seems to be the case that

announcing judgment is tantamount to inviting repentance. Upon the repentance, the

verdict of the judgment can be relented. In that aspect, it is rightly argued that in

announcing judgment, “the messages are warnings, not final verdicts.”29 In the

counsel of God, judgment is not the ultimate intended goal (c.f. Jeremiah 18:7-8).

Based on such idea of God’s counsel, it is possible to appreciate the scheme of the

book of Micah in placing the messages of hope subsequent to those of judgment. At

the same time, diachronic approaches can not comprehend the rationale of the scheme

of the book of Micah, since the messages of hope are not considered the original part

of the book.

Taking the entire book of Micah as a single unit in its present form, it appears

that judgment and hope are interrelated. Being interrelated, they present “a unified

theological message” in the book.30 The fact that both messages are related is evident

in that they have a common source.31 In the book of Micah, the author of both the

judgment and the hope is no-one less than Yahweh. Micah 1:6-7 depicts the prophecy

of the destruction of Samaria. According to the account of 2 Kings 17, it was the

Assyrians who besieged Samaria and captured the city. Nevertheless, in Micah 1, it is

Yahweh. Yahweh is the real agent of the destruction of Samaria: “Therefore I will

make Samaria a heap in the open country” (1:6). In announcing the punishment

against the false prophets, it states: “Thus says Yahweh… … it shall be night to you,

without vision, and darkness to you, without divination” (3:6). It is also Yahweh who

brings His unfaithful covenant partner to the court (6:1-5) and carries out the

28
The English translation is taken from English Standard Version, otherwise mentioned.
29
Anderson & Freedman, Micah, 343.
30
D.G. Hagstrom, The Coherence of the Book of Micah; A Literary Analysis, SBLDS 7 (Atlanta:
Scholars Press, 1998), 129.
31
The following discussion is mainly benefited from Jacobs, Concept, 216-223.

10
judgment against them (6:9-16). In the book of Micah, Yahweh is the executor of

judgment.

It is to be noted that judgment is not the only thing that originates from

Yahweh. Yahweh is also the source of hope for the Israelites in the book of Micah.

The messages of hope appear especially in the promise of Yahweh. Yahweh promises

that He will gather the remnant of Israel as their King and Shepherd (2:12-13). The

promise of Yahweh even extends to those who were scattered. Yahweh will gather

those who are driven away from the land (4:6). Even in their distress and troubles,

God’s people put their trust in Yahweh, since He will again show compassion and

faithfulness to His distressed people (7:18-20). In such a way, in the book of Micah,

the messages of judgment and hope are related since they have the same common

source- Yahweh.

The fact that both judgment and hope are related appears also in the fact that

judgment is assumed in the promise of hope. In the book of Micah, hope is

conceivable only because of the future promises. And the promises come only from

Yahweh. What is to be noted is that the promises presume the destitute situation. For

example, Yahweh promises to gather the remnant of Israel in 2:12. Yahweh can not

promise in such a way if there are not scattered. And the cause of being scattered is

the sin of the Israel mentioned in the preceding section. The relationship between

judgment and hope is clearly evident in 4:9-10. The Israelites are warned that they

will go into Babylon, which is the land of Exile. The judgment of Exile is already

announced in 3:12. The main cause of the judgment is the evil deeds of the leaders

(c.f. 3). For that reason, the Israelites had a reason to cry out of destitution since it

seems there is not a king among them and their counselor perished (c.f. 4:9). At the

same time, it is also from Babylon where Yahweh will redeem Israel. Without going

11
into the distress of Exile, there will not be marvelous redeeming work from Yahweh.

The suffering of Exile seems to be a prerequisite to the hope of deliverance from the

suffering. An analogy is given in the text: childbirth. It is as if the pain of the

childbirth is a necessary step to the joy of the birth of the new life.32 In a similar way,

it is a promise of Yahweh in Micah 7:15 that “as in the days when you came out of the

land of Egypt, I will show them marvelous things.” Such promise of hope

undoubtedly presumes the Exile of the people. The Exile is the result of God’s

punishment for the unfaithfulness as well as the wicked deeds of the Israelites (c.f.

6:9-7:6). Meanwhile, it should be noted that if there is no Exile, there would not be an

opportunity for the people to witness Yahweh’s marvelous works, which will follow

Yahweh’s punishment. In that sense, in the book of Micah, a new type of hope is

given. This hope does not lie in the expectation of avoiding judgment. Rather, this

hope comes from having experienced judgment as a necessary process. In such a way,

judgment and hope is related in that judgment functions as a signal of hope.33 What

would be the attitude of the remnant concerning such dealings of Yahweh? It appears

in the words of the prophet as a representative of the Israelites in Micah 7:9: “I will

bear the indignation of the LORD because I have sinned against him… … He will

bring me out to the light; I shall look upon his vindication.”

IV. Conclusion

After identifying the nature of the messages in the book of Micah, this paper

intended to understand the relationship between the two types of message. Diachronic

methods regard only the messages of judgment as the integral part of the message of

32
c.f. Waltke, Micah, 246.
33
Jacobs, Concept, 219. A similar relationship between judgment and hope is found in Jeremiah 1-24
as observed by J.G. McConville, Judgment and Promise: An Interpretation of the Book of Jeremiah
( Winoa Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1993), 44.

12
Micah in the eighth century B.C. Hope is a later addition. One disadvantage in such

an approach is the failure to recognize the coherence of the book. Instead, when the

book is taken as a single unit, judgment and hope appear as closely related. In such a

way, the book of Micah expresses a coherent message by alternating judgment and

hope. That message is that judgment is not the final word for the Israelites from

Yahweh.34 There is hope. And the hope is found only in Yahweh. Nevertheless, such

hope does not come from avoiding judgment. Rather the hope arises after

experiencing judgment. This new hope is possible, since Yahweh remembers mercy

even in His wrath (c.f. Habakkuk 3:2).

34
Jacobs, Concept, 223.

13
Annotated Bibliography

Anderson, F.I. & Freedman, D.N. Micah: A New Translation with Introduction and
Commentary. AB 24e. New York: Doubleday, 2000.

Brin, G. “Micah 2,12-13: A Textual and Ideological Study,” ZAW 118-24.

Hagstrom, D.G. The Coherence of the Book of Micah; A Literary Analysis, SBLDS 7
Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998.

Jacobs, M.R. The Conceptual Coherence of the Book of Micah, JSOTSup 322
Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001.

Jenson, P.P Obadiah, Jonah, Micah: A Theological Commentary. New York, London:
T&T Clark, 2008.

Mays, J.L. Micah. London: SCM Press LTD, 1976.

McKane, W. The Book of Micah. Edinburgh: T&T CLARK, 1998.

Lasor, W. S. Hubbard, D. A. and Bush, F. W. Old Testament Survey. 2nd Grand

Rapids, MI: Cambridge, U.K., W.B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1996.

VanGemeren, W. A. Interpreting the Prophetic Word. Grand Rapids, MI: Academie

Books, 1990.

Waltke, B.K. A Commentary on Micah. Grand Rapids, MI/ Cambridge, U.K.: W.B.
Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2007.

Wolff, H.W. Micah: A Commentary. tn. Gary Stansell; Minneapolis, Augsburg,

1990.

14