Micah 6:1–16

1LISTEN TO WHAT the LORD says:

“Stand up, plead your case before the mountains;

let the hills hear what you have to say.

2Hear, O mountains, the LORD’s accusation;

listen, you everlasting foundations of the earth.

For the LORD has a case against his people;

he is lodging a charge against Israel.

3“My people, what have I done to you?

How have I burdened you? Answer me.

4I brought you up out of Egypt

and redeemed you from the land of slavery.

I sent Moses to lead you,

also Aaron and Miriam.

5My people, remember

what Balak king of Moab counseled

and what Balaam son of Beor answered.

Remember ˻your journey˼ from Shittim to Gilgal,

that you may know the righteous acts of the LORD.”

6With what shall I come before the LORD

and bow down before the exalted God?

Shall I come before him with burnt offerings,

with calves a year old?

7Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams,

with ten thousand rivers of oil?

Shall I offer my firstborn for my transgression,

the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?

8He has showed you, O man, what is good.

And what does the LORD require of you?

To act justly and to love mercy

and to walk humbly with your God.

9Listen! The LORD is calling to the city—

and to fear your name is wisdom—

“Heed the rod and the One who appointed it.

10Am I still to forget, O wicked house,

your ill-gotten treasures

and the short ephah, which is accursed?

11Shall I acquit a man with dishonest scales,

with a bag of false weights?

12Her rich men are violent;

her people are liars

and their tongues speak deceitfully.

13Therefore, I have begun to destroy you,

to ruin you because of your sins.

14You will eat but not be satisfied;

your stomach will still be empty.

You will store up but save nothing,

because what you save I will give to the sword.

15You will plant but not harvest;

you will press olives but not use the oil on yourselves,

you will crush grapes but not drink the wine.

16You have observed the statutes of Omri

and all the practices of Ahab’s house,

and you have followed their traditions.

Therefore I will give you over to ruin

and your people to derision;

you will bear the scorn of the nations.”

Original Meaning

God Brings a Covenant Lawsuit Against Judah (6:1–8)

AS MICAH BEGINS to deliver this sermon based on the characteristics of a lawsuit in a nation’s courts, his audience undoubtedly quickly realizes the significance of the analogy he is using. But it is probably a surprising concept to many. Why does God bring charges against his own covenant people? What is the basis for his accusations against them? Have they done something so wrong that God is turning against them? Will God actually take his own chosen people to court because they are not faithful in keeping some minor part of the covenant relationship? Will he destroy Judah as he destroyed the northern nation of Israel a few years back (in 722 B.C., see 2 Kings 17)? This paragraph is held together by the repeated use of mh (“what”) in 6:3[2x], 5[2x], 6, 8[2x], which inquires about “what” has gone wrong with this relationship.

The initiation of God’s lawsuit (6:1–2). After an initial call to attention in 1:1a, God exhorts his prophet7 to arise as a plaintiff in the court (Deut. 19:15) and plead this case before the mountains. The role of the mountains is unclear, but heaven and earth were witnesses when God made his covenant with Israel (Deut. 32:1; Ps. 50:1) and when his people sinned on the mountains of Judah.8 The mountains (personified) know about the people’s immorality and false worship of other gods; there is no way the people can deny what has happened.

Verse 2 reveals the purpose of God’s lawsuit. With deep sadness yet stern resolve, God indicates that his covenant lawsuit is against his own people. He has serious accusations of covenant unfaithfulness to bring against them. All is not well in this relationship; thus, an adversarial confrontation is invited to resolve the conflict and restore mutual understanding and commitment between the partners. The Hithpa’el reflexive form of the verb “lodging a charge” (ykḥ) suggests that this will be a dialogical dispute in which they will argue with each other.

A defense of God’s action (6:3–5). Instead of immediately accusing the people of Judah with a whole series of failures, as one might expect in a lawsuit, God begins his speech by rhetorically asking two questions about what he has done wrong. This may be understood as a response to the people’s attitude toward God or simply as a wise rhetorical strategy that would be more successful than a direct frontal attack. The way the questions are asked projects God’s tender love and deep care for “my people” rather than a hostile desire to end their relationship.

With strong pathos in his words,9 God appears to be searching his own heart to determine if there was some evidence of unfaithfulness on his part or some unreasonable burden he has put on his covenant partner. Why is there such neglect by Israel, such boredom with the things of God? These questions will remove the listeners’ defensive posture and open them up to considering God’s failures—that is, their supposed objections to what God has done for them. Of course, if they cannot find any failure on God’s part, then they will have to look at the possibility that they have failed in some way. The questions end with a request for some response from the people of Israel to explain what God has done wrong.

Since no response is presented to accuse God of any failings, he defends his past behavior by reciting his great acts of grace on behalf of his people. Four examples are given: the Exodus from Egypt, the giving of great leaders to the people, the deliverance of the nation from the requested curse of Balak, and the crossing of the Jordan and entering the land (6:4–5). In brief references to past traditions in the Torah, Micah calls the people to remember God’s righteous deeds on their behalf. Through this process they will be led to evaluate his faithfulness and ask whether the present covenant problems are God’s fault.

God’s saving deeds or “righteous acts” are celebrated in hymnic material (see Ps. 77:6–20; 105–106), in prophetic disputations (see Amos 3:1–2; 9:7–10), in confessions in covenant-renewal ceremonies (Josh. 24; 1 Sam. 12), and in prayers (Neh. 9). God’s people were in Egypt and helplessly oppressed in slavery (Ex. 5–6) when God delivered/redeemed10 them by miraculously bringing them out of bondage (Ex. 14–15). This fundamental righteous act of God’s grace established Israel as his chosen people and functioned as a rationale for the establishment of the covenant relationship (19:4; 20:2). This use of ancient tradition is a powerful persuader that God has not been unfaithful to his people; no wrong can be found in his actions.

His great saving deeds involved the capable leadership of Moses, Aaron, and Miriam (Mic. 6:4b; see Josh. 24:17; 1 Sam. 12:6–8; Ps. 77:20; 105:26). Although these leaders were not perfect (Ex. 32; Num. 12; 20), they did lead the people through these perilous years.

God also calls the people to remember how he reversed the evil plans that Balak concocted and how he caused Balaam to pronounce blessings on Israel (Num. 22–24). Balak requested Balaam to curse the people (22:6, 16; 23:8, 13, 27; 24:10), but Balaam spoke only good news. Through his mouth God promised multiplication of the people, their strengthening, the coming of a future ruler, and the defeat of Israel’s enemies.

The final glorious deed mentioned by God through Micah was crossing over the Jordan from Shittim on the east side to Gilgal on the west side (Josh. 2:1; 3:1).

This gracious list of deeds for Israel shows God’s care for his people and the fulfillment of his promise to bring them into the Promised Land. The rhetorical force of these illustrations in Micah argues for the position that the people of Judah have no basis for complaining against God.11 He has not failed to keep his side of the covenant relationship. An obvious implication of this evidence is that the fault does not lie with God.

A defense of Israel’s action (6:6–7). Sensing the force of this conclusion, Micah imagines what some in his audience might say, or perhaps he is actually quoting the response of some Israelites. This is not a Torah liturgy made up of questions a priest would ask a person when coming to the temple.12 Note how the entrance questions recorded in Psalms 15 and 24 deal with moral qualifications, not the size of one’s offering. Note too that the present passage has nothing to indicate inquires about entrance into the temple.

These questions in verses 6–7, in other words, are rhetorical statements in which the people try to defend themselves by explaining how faithful they have been to God. Their questions match the earlier questions of God in 6:3 (mh, “what”), and they seem to protest their innocence by asking God similar questions. What have they done that God should find fault? They do not know what more they can do to please him. They bow low and humble themselves when they come into the glorious and powerful presence of God; is that not enough? Does God just want more burnt offerings? Would he be pleased with a greater quantity of sacrifices—as many as a thousand rams? How about ten thousand containers of oil or even a person’s firstborn? Are not the Israelites obedient, full of reverence, and generous in giving to God?

But something seems out of line with these questions. They focus on excessive giving, as if God is primarily interested in the size or cost of the gifts. The nonsensical extremes (a thousand, ten thousand, a precious child) become absurd and reveal a fundamental problem in understanding what God requires of his people. What purpose did animal sacrifices have in restoring a person’s relationship with God? Were they just a means of bribing God by giving him an enormous quantity of gifts? No, they were much different. They were an outward sign of the inner attitude of a person’s broken and contrite heart.

What God requires (6:8). The answer to the audience’s question is based on past traditions revealed earlier to the people (“he has showed you,” or “he has told you”). Thus, Micah is not attempting to reveal some new standard of conduct or give an expanded or secret list of requirements previously unknown. God has already communicated what he requires. He wants from “man”—that is, from the creatures he created on the earth—three basic things.13 By explaining these three principles Micah hopes to correct the misunderstanding of his audience in 6:6–7 and to explain the basis for God’s verdict of this lawsuit in 6:13–16.

Earlier God required that his people love him with all their heart (Deut. 6:5); obey rather than sacrifice (1 Sam. 15:22; Hos. 6:6); fear, serve, obey, and not rebel (Deut. 10:12; 1 Sam. 12:14); and return to God, maintain loyalty and justice, and trust in him (Hos. 12:6). These past examples and Micah’s present admonition do not really answer the question concerning what sacrifices one is to bring to the temple. As Mays comments, “The question is focused on ‘with what’ [in Micah 6:6–7], on external objects at the disposal of the questioner. The answer [in 6:8] is focused on the questioner himself, on the quality of his life.”14 God is more interested in the person than any gift one might bring. One’s character and behavior are what matter to God.

(1) Micah’s list of core requirements first focuses on “acting justly” toward others. Since the people are covenant partners with God, they must demonstrate mutual respect for one another within the community. “Justice” describes right social relationships between people based on God’s view of what is appropriate. These behavior patterns were described in covenant documents (Ex. 20–23), covering both legal and normal social relationships in and outside the courts. Such instructions included protection for foreigners, the poor, slaves, orphans, and widows, who could easily be wronged or taken advantage of by others (Isa. 1:17).

This characteristic of justice prohibits violent acts of physical abuse or any kind of behavior that attempts to take something that rightfully belongs to another. When people in Micah’s audience forcibly confiscate other people’s land or possessions (Mic. 2:1–2, 8–9), treat people inhumanely (3:1–2), and selfishly cheat others so that their financial position will be enhanced (3:9–11), these are unjust social relationships. Since the entire nation is a united covenant partner with God, it is important that people within that group not mistreat others who are essential members of this partnership with God.

(2) The second principle is to love “mercy” (ḥsd, i.e., “steadfast covenant loyalty”). The semantic range and usage of this term makes its interpretation somewhat unclear. Is this word used as a near synonym of “justice,” pointing to the need for people to relate to other people in a merciful manner with loving affection rather than with injustice?15 Waltke sees covenant loyalty being done when “anyone who is in a weaker position due to some misfortune or other should be delivered not reluctantly, but with a spirit of generosity, grace and loyalty. Acts of justice and succor motivated by a spirit of mercy guarantee the solidarity of the righteous covenant.”16

If the word is not taken just as a parallel to justice, an even broader scope may be in view. Ḥsd describes the nature of a relationship characterized by loyalty to covenant obligations as well as acts of mercy that are not obligatory. In God’s own steadfast covenant loyalty, he constantly is attentive and faithful to his covenant relationship. Like God, his people are also to relate to him in a spirit of steadfast covenant loyalty. When God’s people exhibit a deep love for this kind of relationship with him, its power impacts one’s commitment to deeply love those aspects of covenant life that relate to interpersonal human relationships as well.

Thus, the heart of ḥsd as steadfast covenant loyalty is not just being merciful to people in need. That response is only one outworking of a deep commitment to covenant life within God’s community. On a day when one is not required to be merciful to any unfortunate person, one is still involved with maintaining a faithful covenant relationship with God and other people within the covenant. In other words, loving to maintain steadfast covenant loyalty will impact a person’s attitude to worshiping God on the Sabbath, leaving the land fallow every seven years, releasing slaves according to Mosaic instructions, caring for the poor, and giving a tithe each year. If there is no commitment to remain faithful to this divine covenant relationship, then covenant life will cease to exist. Understood in this way, ḥsd is a broad term that encompasses much more than merely acting mercifully toward others.

(3) The final requirement is related to a person’s humble walk with God. The Hebrew root ṣnʿ describes a life walk that is not proud (Prov. 11:2) but is attentive, careful, and prudent to follow God’s will. Thomas translates this phrase “to walk circumspectly,”17 while Hillers prefers “wisely.”18 This suggests that Micah is warning against carelessly or presumptuously doing things your own way, instead of being attentive to do God’s will. Such a walk with God is humble in that it puts a person’s will in a secondary position and gives prudent attention to doing his will. In some sense this requirement is the broadest of the three, for if one does this, one will certainly treat others justly and faithfully maintain all the covenant responsibilities.

Micah’s delineation of God’s requirements is noteworthy insofar as it includes no negative statements about what is forbidden to the Israelites. It presents a positive case of what God thinks is best for humankind. It is the key to a full life within the covenant. It draws attention to the main things that matter and consequently ignores the petty attitudes of trying to please God by bribery through more or bigger sacrifices. God’s radical requirements are more comprehensive and more penetrating than the casual deed of just bringing an animal to sacrifice at the temple. His covenant relationship lays a claim on every human relationship, calls every act into loyal submission to the covenant agreement, and desires that every attitude of selfishness be prudently submitted to God’s will. This high calling requires discipline and full commitment on the part of anyone who wants to be part of God’s holy nation.

Bridging Contexts

REMEMBER GOD’S GRACE. A key principle in the first part of this chapter is not to forget the grace of God (Mic. 6:3–5). As early as the giving of the law at Sinai, God called on the nation of Israel to remember “what I did to Egypt, and how I carried you on eagles’ wings and brought you to myself” (Ex. 19:4). If they did so, the Israelites would be willing to commit themselves to keeping the covenant stipulations as a good covenant partner. B. Childs concludes that memory indicates an active relationship to some object or person that exceeds a simple thought process.26 It is a persistent and reflective examination of the implied meaning of an act so that its value is not lost to the people involved.

Thus, a major function of worship ceremonies is to help people remember God’s gracious deeds in the past. In the covenant-renewal ceremony in Joshua 24, the initial covenant deeds of God are traced back to calling Abraham out of Ur, guiding the lives of Isaac and Jacob, bringing the people up from Egypt, defeating the king of Sihon, frustrating Balaam’s curses, crossing the Jordan, defeating the Canaanites, and finally receiving the land. It was important for the people, having just been given the land, to remember what God had graciously done for them so that they would respond appropriately to him.

Elsewhere remembering God’s gracious deeds in the past is associated with reciting them in worship to give praise to God (1 Chron. 16:12; Ps. 105). Not forgetting what God has done is an integral part of the motivation used to encourage covenant obedience in Deuteronomy (Deut. 5:15; 7:18; 8:2; 9:7; 15:15; 24:9). If one forgets about the past, there is no debt of gratitude, no sense of obligation, and no feeling of closeness because the intimate bond between the receiving and giving partners is broken. If the past is not remembered, a new generation of people might conclude that God has not done anything special for them. People who forget God’s grace may be tempted to blame God for his lack of concern for them when difficult times come. But the past is reality; it can neither be erased nor denied. Only a proud and foolish person would try to deny the significance of the past deeds of God on his or her life.

What God really wants. The second principle is not to get confused about what God really wants and requires. Although he enjoys true worship that glorifies his name, he is not impressed with mere ritual observance or attempts to buy his favor with a huge quantity of gifts. Micah 6:6–7 deals with the improper attitude of the worshiper. The people in Micah’s day do not understand what more they can do to please God because they do not understand the essential things God wants. They repeatedly come to sacrifice at the temple. What more could God possibly want? Does a person have to give a million dollars before he is satisfied? What does it take to keep him happy?

Psalms 15 and 24:3–6 describe the behaviors and attitudes God desires to see in those who worship him. In one of David’s prayers he remembers that the sacrifice that pleases God most is a broken and contrite heart (51:17). God knows every person’s heart and each deed of unrighteousness; therefore, it is impossible to fool him with a show of spirituality. A second-rate, outwardly pious deed does not function as a legitimate replacement for a first-class commitment to love God with all your heart and serve him. God is not impressed with the size or number of our gifts but by the quality of our relationship with him. If you do not love God, nothing else counts.

Honesty and integrity. God will judge those who do not conduct their business dealings with others honestly and without deception or lies (Mic. 6:9–12). The Bible is full of admonitions about the importance of honest and ethical behavior in business (Deut. 25:13). Although many live outside the agricultural setting of selling grain, the trusting relationship between the sellers and buyers is regularly experienced at the farmers’ market as well as in other places of business or trade. One cannot be spiritual and close to God while robbing or cheating others out of their money. There is a consistency between a person’s acts and heart. Those who consistently lie with their tongues and cheat others with their hands (Mic. 6:11–12) are called wicked and violent people. They are not doing justice or walking humbly with God.

Moral requirements. God’s moral requirements of his people are declared openly (6:8). They are to act justly toward others in all their dealings, remain steadfastly loyal to God and the principles of covenantal life together with his community, and reject any careless or presumptuous attitude of doing things their own way. Such a walk with God is humble in that it puts a person’s will in a secondary position and gives prudent attention to doing his will. This kind of wise and circumspect life looks first at one’s responsibilities to God and others rather than focusing on selfish, personal concerns. These three broad requirements connect real-life behavior with God to higher spiritual ideals that should cause everyone to put God first.

Blessings. Finally, Micah’s message teaches that if people are not living in a proper relationship to God, they will never be satisfied (Mic. 6:13–15). Deuteronomy 6:5 focuses on God’s requirement that his people love the Lord with all their heart, while 10:12 requires them “to fear the LORD your God, to walk in all his ways, to love him, to serve the LORD your God with all your heart.” God does not need sacrifices (Ps. 50:7–13); he desires a broken spirit rather than many sacrifices (51:16–17). Isaiah 1:10–17 reveals God’s weariness with meaningless ritual if the hearts of worshipers are not walking in God’s ways. Those who do these things will see God’s blessings, but those who do not will never be satisfied with life.

Contemporary Significance

THIS LONG LAWSUIT in Micah 6 is based on the covenant relationship God has with the people of Israel. It includes certain expectations of both partners. God agrees to be their God, to dwell among them, and to bless them by giving them the land of Canaan (Ex. 6:4–8). But in order for this relationship to thrive, they agree to be a holy people, to obey God’s voice, and to love, fear, and serve him (Ex. 19:5–6; Deut. 10:12). These basic factors still describe the nature of the relationship people have with God under the new covenant (Jer. 31:31–34; Luke 22:20; 1 Peter 2:9). We too must be holy people who love, fear, and serve God (Mark 12:28–31).

In some ways the condemnation of the churches in Revelation 2–3 is similar to the court case against Judah in Micah 6. When the church of Jesus Christ is not faithful to its covenant responsibilities, it must answer for its behavior. Someday, when individuals meet God face to face, they will have to answer for their behavior. There will be something of a court setting. The books will be opened, and a verdict will be proclaimed. God will either invite people to enter the joy of his presence, or he will command them to leave his presence and enter eternal darkness (Matt. 12:36–37; Rom. 14:10; 2 Cor. 5:10). Insights from Micah’s description of God’s judgment court should help us to prepare for our day in court by changing the way we live.

Remember the grace of God. One way church members today can ensure a proper relationship to God and avoid his condemnation is never to forget what he has done for them. This is why Paul encourages the church at Corinth to celebrate the Lord’s Supper, basing it on the memory of what Jesus did at his last Passover and on the cross: “Do this in remembrance of me” (1 Cor. 11:24). He knew if believers forget that Jesus died for them, severe consequences will follow. Of course, just remembering is not enough; one must do what God has said (James 1:25). Although repeated remembering can become boring repetition, values and beliefs are cemented in the minds of believers by repeatedly emphasizing them.

The author of Hebrews reminds his audience not to forget the word of admonition in the Old Testament books “that addresses you” (Heb. 12:5–12), for by this means God’s people endure in faithfulness through the discipline of remembering the past. Peter also maintains that those who lose sight of the importance of moral discipline, self-control, the need for perseverance, and Christian love and godliness do so because they do not “remember” the greatness of their purification from their past sins (2 Peter 1:5–9).

Jesus called his audience to “remember Lot’s wife” (Luke 17:32) and not make the same mistake she did. He also prepared his followers for his death so that they would remember what he said (John 16:4) and not forsake him when the dark hour of his death came. Paul asked the church at Ephesus to “remember that formerly you who are Gentiles . . . were separate from Christ . . . without hope and without God in the world” (Eph. 2:11–12). The angel of God called to the church of Sardis was to “remember . . . what you have received and heard; obey it, and repent” (Rev. 3:3)—lest judgment come on them like a thief in the night.

The educational function of the church is heavily related to edifying people about the past history of God’s dealings with his people. Through Bible study, people are reminded again and again that God has done many things for them. If we do not teach our children about the great deeds of God in the past, describe the teachings of Jesus, and drill into their minds the admonitions of Paul, how will they ever learn how to act in a Christian manner? A solid Christian education program is necessary if the church expects its members to maintain the faith.

In the secular realm, every ethnic and national group knows they must remind their young people about the past history of their group in order to create an identity and connection with the ideals and struggles of the group. When any group, and especially the church, forgets the suffering of the past and its many mistakes, it is doomed to a loss of significance for the next generation and is in danger of extinction. If we as believers do not remember what God has done for us and has said to us, how can we ever expect to maintain the church as a powerful force in society? As Micah knows, a group that does not remember what God has done for it will soon not please God with its actions.

Misunderstandings about what God wants from us. Today people may think they have done what God expects if they have been baptized or joined the church, just as Micah’s audience thought they had done everything God wanted when they sacrificed a number of animals (Mic. 6:6–7). Some think that they have pleased God because they celebrate Communion once every month or contributed at least a good part of their tithe every week. Others assume God will be pleased with them for saying the Rosary or the Lord’s Prayer several times a day. A few think that following the Golden Rule or doing as well as the guy next door is all that is required. An Amish might tell you that all you have to do is to dress a certain way to please God, while an older saint may claim that you have to sing songs in a certain way to find approval in God’s eyes.

These different options tend to be based not only on personal opinions but also on the belief that God is only impressed with repeated performance of duties or with what I find culturally comfortable. In most cases, a good thing (e.g., repeatedly saying a prayer) becomes a poor substitute for the most important requirement from God: truly communicating with him.

Some churches have so identified themselves with political, feminist, ethnic, or social causes that they have altered their reason for being. Fulfilling the ideals of the “cause” or ideology can easily become identified as what God really wants. This can even subtly grow into the misunderstanding that we can only please God if we sing out of a certain hymnbook or read a certain translation of the Bible. Cultural ethnocentrism can blind people who worship by lifting their hands into thinking that this outward expression of emotional conviction will get one more points with God than the deeply reflective chant of an Eastern Orthodox believer. Is a Spanish model of worship better than a Chinese approach? Will a Methodist model please God, while a Pentecostal pattern displeases him? Is the good old way we worshiped when we were kids the only thing God accepts?

In contrast to this trend to stick with what we have known from our culture and are comfortable with from the past is the experience of J. H. Townsend, pastor of the urban First Baptist Church in Los Angeles. His congregation has “church school classes for Korean, Spanish, Anglo and Filipino members. . . . But we worship as one body in Christ, every Sunday, surmounting the language barrier with simultaneous translation, heard over headsets. . . . Our abiding interest is in fashioning ourselves into one people.”27

All these controversial issues about worship point back to the need for the church to again face the question: Have we misunderstood what will please God, or are we really just concerned about what pleases us? Micah clearly indicates that outward display of religious piety is not the key. This is especially true when it comes to the misconception that we can somehow please God more or earn his favor automatically by increasing the number of things we do for him. Many acts of grand display to show our colors cannot take the place of one truly sincere act of true devotion that glorifies God. The simple prayer of a righteous person can accomplish much more than the long, loud, and emotional displays of the TV pastor praying for the benefit of his watching television contributors. Eventually God will ask us all: Whom are you trying to please?

What does God require? One could ask how every passage of Scripture applies to believers today and come up with an enormous list of things God requires. Micah also could have listed the 613 commandments in the Pentateuch or drawn several hundred more principles just from the book of Proverbs. Today we would have to add the teachings of Jesus and the admonitions of Paul, Peter, and John to this impressive list. Fortunately, all these applications from diverse contexts of the Bible point back to a few basic factors that determine a person’s relationship to God. When the church gets its eyes off these central absolutes and starts focusing on the contextual applications of these principles in different settings, conflicts will arise and people will start to focus more on how they do things to please God, rather than what they do.

The exposition above has already defined what it means to act with a heart attuned to justice toward others, to maintain steadfast loyalty to the covenant principles that define our relationship to God, and to be circumspect by disciplining our attitudes so that we are always submitting our will to God’s (6:8). These broad requirements are designed so that they can be applied in many different circumstances in the church and in a person’s secular associations with others. The three points that Micah emphasizes are directed toward a person’s inner spirituality as well as the actions these inner motivations produce.

Although there are numerous groups that promote spirituality as the umbrella for their concern for “earth-keeping” or the psychological healing of modern dysfunctionalisms, these causes will not produce people who please God unless they evidence the characteristics Micah mentions in 6:8. Ecology is not bad, and twelve-step plans to help people rid themselves of binding addictions are not bad; but if people involved with such programs do not act with justice, maintain a steadfast covenant loyalty with God, and walk wisely and in dependence on God, they will not please him.

One may find it a little too easy to condemn the values of some of the modern secular “movements” that have captured the imagination of so many (a substitute for their religion, in some cases). But it is more difficult to do a self-examination and ask how the various programs in your church are producing the spiritual values Micah mentions. When was the last time Micah 6:8 was mentioned in a sermon you heard? How many churches even attempt to build or evaluate their programs based on these criteria? Has any church attempted to test such issues through a questionnaire, addressed the areas that are weakest, and then retested to see if any progress has been made? Have churches consciously set these as goals they want to achieve?

Do congregations evaluate pastoral candidates on these three issues? How can a seminary curriculum get across that the nature of one’s walk with God is more important than getting a B grade in a church history class? Should seminaries graduate students who have not achieved some level of mastery in these key ministry requirements? God looks at the heart rather than the outward facade; should we not pay attention to the things God holds to be most important?

Our acts betray our true beliefs. The proof is in the pudding. Yes, if it looks good but tastes terrible, it is never going to pass muster. God knows both our hearts and our actions; thus, it is not hard for him to point out shortcomings. Two of the telltale areas are: How do we deal with money, and do we always tell the truth?

In this commercialized age, there is a temptation to separate private piety from the secular practice of making a living. But if justice is required by God, this impacts how honestly we deal with others in business and how fairly we treat customers. Is it dishonest to fool customers by keeping the same size cereal box while reducing the weight of the product inside? Is it appropriate for a company or restaurant to brag about the hefty weight of its hamburgers and then have a small-print disclaimer admitting that this weight is connected to the product before it is cooked, thus allowing the company to include inexpensive and disappearing water and fat as part of its “quarter pounders”?

Misrepresentation of products can come in all forms, but all of it is motivated by the desire to show a product in a way that will deceptively encourage customers to buy it. Although some business people might respond that everyone else is making slightly deceptive claims, most books on business ethics maintain that “customs, conventions, and the accepted courtesies of a society are not the foundation of ethics.”28 Deeper convictions of right and wrong undergird ethical principles, and respect for the personal dignity of each person gives root to the honest and just treatment of others.29

Since buyers usually do not have enough information about the expenses of producing a product, the actual fair-market value plus a reasonable markup is unknown. This inequality of information can lead to unethical price-fixing by collusion among sellers. Charging whatever the market will bear is not an appropriate ethical pricing policy. Some merchants attempt to implement schemes that give the customer inflated costs for services or deflated rewards for producing goods.30 Illustrations of ethical problems in doing business are found in many business textbooks,31 and these can function as case studies for ethical analysis and the development of appropriate moral responses to business situations.

Although some may think of “business ethics” as an oxymoron, as unthinkable as “military intelligence,” this perception should be understood as a sign of the desperate need for principled and trustworthy business practices. Because many scandals are uncovered every year (often much worse than Micah’s example of having two different sets of weights), an examination of business ethics needs to be addressed by churches to enable Christians to avoid the pitfalls of “business as usual.” Theories of ethical egotism, ethical relativism, utilitarianism, religious ethics, and ethics determined by conscience should be examined for strengths and weaknesses.32

Although people often get uncomfortable when preachers start talking about money, an interactive seminar on business ethics could open the door to a more comfortable discussion about God’s concerns with all financial matters. In the end it all comes down to whether people want to please God and do what he requires. If this is one’s priority, honesty and justice will follow naturally.

Original Meaning

Accusations and Verdict (6:9–16)

ACCUSATIONS OF COVENANT disloyalty (6:9–12). Having set the standards for proper covenant behavior in 6:8, God now raises specific examples demonstrating that the people in Jerusalem have failed to live up to their covenant agreement. There has been no justice for others, no deep desire or commitment to maintain their loyalty to covenant principles, and no attempt to walk circumspectly with God. The specific address to “the city” in 6:9 does not imply that this is a new message to a new audience, for Micah is speaking to the people of Jerusalem throughout this lawsuit. It is also unnecessary to relocate 6:12 right after verse 9.19

The address to the city (6:9), presumably Jerusalem, focuses attention on the government, business, and religious leaders. Jerusalem is a major center for trade, the place where many wealthy people live; thus, it is one of the key places where the dishonest commerce is going on in the days of Manasseh (6:10–12). The NIV translates the last line of verse 9 as “Heed the rod and the One who appointed it” in the text, but the footnote indicates this reading is problematic. Since the word mṭh can mean either “rod” or “tribe” (NASB, RSV), many commentaries translate this word as “tribe.” We prefer “Give heed, O tribe,” since it provides a better parallel with “Listen! The LORD is calling to the city” in the first part of the verse.20

Interjected between these two addresses is a brief comment or a bit of advice. It is about sound judgment and practical good sense. Micah advises that if the people are wise, they will fear God’s name, implying that they should take the following words that God speaks seriously.

The accusations Micah wants his audience to pay attention to in 6:10 are plagued with textual problems. The NIV “Am I still to forget” is accepted in several commentaries, but it is just an educated guess.21 Since the “wicked house” and “ill-gotten [wicked] treasures” seem overly repetitive in this verse, Allen, Wolff, and Waltke have taken byt (“house”) as bt (“bath, a liquid measure”), thus giving the translation “a wicked measure,” which provides a good parallel to “the short ephah, which is accursed” in the last line.22

In spite of the difficulties in the transmission and translation of this verse, clearly God is accusing the merchants in the market of cheating people through the use of dishonest weights and measures (see Amos 8:4–5). If a person can sell you a bushel of corn for three dollars but uses a bushel basket that actually contains only nine-tenths of a bushel of grain, the seller will add to his cash in his wicked treasury. The same thing can be accomplished by having “deceptive weights” or a scale that is not true (Mic. 6:11). If one pays three shekels of silver for a product, the merchant can quickly increase his profit by setting on one side of a scale a three-and-a-quarter-pound weight, which the buyer must balance with his silver. God cannot just look the other way and declare people innocent of any wrongdoing. Micah’s case is persuasive because no one would ever expect God to approve these evil acts.

An additional accusation of injustice is that the rich people in Jerusalem are disloyal to covenant principles because they are full of lawlessness, violence, and oppression (6:12a). Being “full of violence” (lit. trans. of 6:12a) implies that almost all actions are affected by this negative behavior pattern. The way they express this aggressive behavior is related to their improper use of their tongues (6:12b). They lie and use deceit to get their way. This may refer to their aggressive browbeating of people who question their cheating, untruthful statements about the products they sell, insults that deny people their rights, and maybe even deceit in court cases.

Verdict of punishment (6:13–16). Because of Israel’s infidelity, the present covenant relationship is unbearable to God. Thus, the only possible verdict for this lawsuit is: guilty as charged. By giving this terrible conclusion, Micah is hoping to convince his audience of the seriousness of their sins. God’s people must realize that this kind of behavior is unacceptable and will no longer be tolerated. God does not enjoy punishing his own covenant people any more than a parent enjoys punishing a child, but “because of your sins” God himself will “make you sick, smiting you,” or “will sorely smite you” (not the NIV “I have begun to destroy you”).23

In contrast to God’s decisive “I will” action in 6:13 are the “you will” consequences on Israel in 6:14–15. This divine frustration of the natural order is what is called a “futility curse.” These curses, which bring to naught the usual expectations of people, are common in ancient Near Eastern treaties as well as in the Bible (Lev. 26:26; Deut. 28:30–31, 38–40; Hos. 4:10; Amos 5:11).24 The usual blessing of God on nature will be reversed into a curse so that eating will not satisfy, planting will not be followed by harvesting, treading on grapes will not result in wine, and storing up things will not produce a savings. Nothing will happen as it is supposed to; everything a person tries will be frustrated by God’s curse. The second half of Micah 6:14 does not follow this pattern as closely as the rest of 6:14–15, but part of the problem may be some misunderstanding of the vocabulary.25

The verdict ends with a brief conclusion that has a final accusation and punishment statement. To show the seriousness of the problem in Judah, Micah compares Judah to the northern kingdom under the reigns of Omri and Ahab, two wicked kings of Israel. Micah does not spell out what specific sins he is referring to, but his audience knows about these kings. 1 Kings 16:25–28 refers to Omri as a king in Samaria who did evil in God’s eyes and was more wicked than all the kings before him—including encouraging the nation to worship idols. Ahab did even worse by building a Baal temple and altar in Samaria (16:29–33). Ahab and Jezebel cruelly killed the prophets of God (18:4) and lied to have Naboth stoned so they could take his land (ch. 21). Later, 2 Kings 21:3 states that Manasseh followed the worship patterns of Ahab, as Micah claims here. These actions are in direct contradiction of the Torah traditions that condemned the worship of other gods (Ex. 20:2–4).

Since the people in Jerusalem at the time of Manasseh are following the same practices as Omri and Ahab, the same thing that happened to the northern kingdom will happen to the southern kingdom. God will abandon the inhabitants of the city of Jerusalem and allow them to be ruined and annihilated by their enemies, and the nations will scornfully mock them. This is God’s verdict if there is no immediate turning from their evil ways.

Bridging Contexts

Contemporary Significance