Notes on Micah 6:6-8.

Ben (Nov. 2013).
_______

Micah the prophet identifies himself as the ‘Morasthite in the days of Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah, kings of Judah’-Micah1:1.

Jotham’s rule in Jerusalem is noted briefly in 2 Chronicles 27 and 2 Kings 15:32-35. The scripture states that Jotham ‘did that which was right in the sight of the Lord’ but the horrible contrast is exemplified by his people that did yet corruptly-2 Chronicles 27:2. Thus, in the rule of Jotham, we see a good king but the people under him drifted towards apostasy and evil. Jotham was succeeded by his son, King Ahaz who turned to apostasy and brought Judah to ruin.

A brief observation of the times of his reign has an important bearing on our present study. King Ahaz’s rule is noted in 2 Chronicles 28 and 2 Kings 16. I feel that 2 Kings 16 focuses more on his spiritual ruin and apostasy whereas 2 Chronicles 28 reflects more on the political ruin and defeat of King Ahaz as a consequence of his evil against the Lord (2 Chronicles 28:19). A vivid account is given relating to the downfall of King Ahaz. Rezin, King of Syria and Pekah, King of Israel waged war against King Ahaz. Rezin, the king of Syria occupied Elath, while Pekah, the king of Israel slew in Judah ‘an hundred and twenty thousand in one day’-2 Chronicles 28:6. At this point of crisis, King Ahaz sent messengers to Tiglathpileser, the king of Assyria to help him (2 Kings 16:7) by sending him a present consisting of the silver and gold ‘that was found in the house of the Lord’.

Here, I find a strange unfolding of events. King Ahaz did not trust in the Lord to save him from the brutality of the kings of Israel and Syria but trusted in the king of Assyria. The result was surprising-‘And the King of Assyria hearkened unto him’ and helped King Ahaz by slaying king of Syria. This is reflective of a dangerous inclination towards evil. A man who distrusts God but yet overcomes enters into a dangerous position where he finds his evil as the only ground of supposed truth and reality. What ensued later was the development of the extraordinary evil. King Ahaz on his visit to Damascus to thank the King of Assyria was fascinated by a heathen altar (at Damascus) and ordered Urijah the priest to construct a similar altar (2 kings16:11). Then the king comes and offers on the heathen altar built by Urijah (2 kings 16:12). Can there be anything more devastating to the worship of Jehovah? This I feel is a peculiar evil that has unfolded with hideous intensity down through the ages- a strategy that involves changing the true order of worship and replacing it with the ‘good’ things found in other religions and philosophies. This could be an instruction for us to tread cautiously particularly when the ‘charismatic-denominational worship’ is knocking at the door of our assemblies today.

Alas! The depravity of the king- not abolishing the worship of Jehovah but adulterating it, polluting the sanctuary of God, deceiving the priest and the people to accept heathenism within the temple!

Perhaps the shocking aspect of this evil is the profusion of offerings. In 2kings 16:13, 15 the king offered ‘burnt offering, meat offering and drink offering and sprinkled the blood of his peace offerings…commanded Urijah…burn the…offering’. What hypocrisy? What degradation? What deception? Is not this ‘teaching for doctrines the commandments of men’ (Matt 15)? Is not this ‘giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils (1 Tim 4:1)?

The people of Judah refused to accept the true worship but embraced the imaginations of the king and rejoiced to see it become a reality when the heathen altar finally was kept in the temple. The worship of Jehovah was changed into a wild religion, an ugly orgy- full of meat offerings, drink offerings, peace offerings, burnt offerings-but on a strange altar, utterly devastating. (It is not that there were no incidents of grosser orgies in heathen lands of those times, but what is striking is the pollution of the only place on earth where the Lord chose to have His witness).

[ I would like to focus on this particular subject in a different article, but yet I see a strong connection to our present study, that I feel it is needed to point out the following observation (though I still regard it as an enquiry).

J.N Darby brought out the remarkable truth that the second beast (false prophet) of Rev 13 (out of the earth) is actually the ‘antichrist’ and not the first beast (out of the sea). He has brought out certain strong arguments which cannot be ignored. The reader may refer to his work. He has maintained that 2 Thessalonians 2:9 as referring to the second beast-‘even him, whose coming…lying wonders’. He concludes that the ‘seducing’ prophet ‘has the form of royalty and prophecy established by signs, and such signs to the eyes of men as had erst sufficed to establish Jehovah’s sole name and authority in the mind of Israel, of the destruction of an incapable Baal’. This is undoubtedly, J.N Darby’s reference to imitation of Elijah’s victory at Mt Carmel by the second beast when ‘he maketh fire come down from heaven’-Rev 13:12.

I am led to think that J.N Darby’s view is right if at all the idea of counterfeit manifestation of evil is utmost necessary to understand prophecy at length. I strongly believe that there is a sort of evil that attempts to imitate the sovereignty of the ‘Most High’. I will be brief as this is not our present study. I see, that when Zechariah was commanded to set the crown upon the head of Joshua, the high priest and to say ‘…he shall be a priest upon his throne’ –Zech 6:13. This scene refers to the Lord Jesus Christ, in whose blessed Person both the offices of kingship and priesthood are perfectly blended. This revelation was during the post-exilic times, but still an earlier revelation in Psalms 110 ( Thou art a priest for ever…) cannot be ignored. Now what do I see? A strange evil that seeks to imitate is set in motion: Uzzaiah’s attempt to usurp the priestly authority, Ahaz’s approaching the heathen altar prepared by Urijah the priest, Manasseh setting up a carved image in the house of God. This is not simply desecrating the holy things as done by drunken Belshazzar of the Neo- Babylonian times, but a deliberate propensity towards evil that unfolds with increasing intensity: when finally it consummates with the ‘abomination of desolation stand in the holy place’ (Matt 24:15)-(the middle of the Daniel’s seventieth week and which of course, Antiochus Epiphanes was perhaps a shadow) and when ‘he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God’ (2 Th 2:4). This unfolding of evil, I think can be compared with the ‘mystery of iniquity’ (though there are striking distinctive characteristics of the ‘mystery of iniquity that doth already work’ because of which the Restrainer is at work. But this, I think is slightly different with the ‘depths of Satan’ at Thyatira)]

In 2Chronicles 28:17, 18 we find the scourge from Jehovah (previously brought upon by the kings of Israel and Syria, but served no purpose of correction either for the people or the king). The Edomites and Philistines attacked Judah and caused tremendous loss and captivity. Now king Ahaz seeks his refuge not in the Lord but in a mortal, even the king of Assyria. But Tilgathpilneser, king of Assyria came unto King Ahaz not to help him but to distress him (2Chronicles 28:20). Here, I find the consummation of evil in the life of the king- ‘in the time of his distress did he trespass yet more against the Lord’. The final shelter for the king came to be the devil itself- ‘for he sacrificed unto the gods of Damascus (2Chronicles 28:23) and ‘shut up the doors of the house of the Lord’(2 Chronicles 28:24). This unveils the pattern of development of apostasy in any age. It begins by clinging nominally to the principles but ‘denying the power thereof’ (2Tim3:5) and later rejecting it altogether so that ‘the dog is turned to his own vomit again’ (2Pet2:22) even to the extent that King Ahaz built in every city high places to burn incense unto other gods (2 Chronicles 28:25) - the utter collapse and moral ruin of the nation of Judah.

King Hezekiah succeeded Ahaz. The reign of King Hezekiah forms an important backdrop for the ministry of Isaiah the prophet. But, in the context of our present consideration of Micah, I would proceed further.

Micah 1:1 points out ‘which he saw concerning Samaria and Jerusalem’ which implies this prophet’s ministry as touching not just Judah but Israel as well. And therefore a brief study of the kings of Israel during the times of Micah would be helpful to appreciate the reality of the times. Shallum, a conspirator reigned only a month in Samaria but was later killed by Menahem (2 kings 15). 2kings15:16 reflects the cruelty of Menahem when he butchered pregnant women but was later humbled by Pul (Tiglath-pileser?)(2king15). Menahem was succeeded by his son, Pekahiah but who was killed by his captain Pekah (2king15).

King Pekah of Israel and his war with King Ahaz (already looked into) provides rare glimpses into the divine counsels of wisdom and justice. We have here two kings, both in their respective kingdoms and both turned apostate and evil. (Pekah’s evil noted in 2kings 15:28). When Pekah of Israel and Rezin of Syria attack King Ahaz of Judah. This is seen to be the Lord’s work in humbling the king of Judah (2 Chronicles 28:5,6). But the king receives no correction but calls upon the king of Assyria for help. The king of Assyria helps the king of Judah- a strange development but in the very process, Rezin and Pekah are judged (Rezin slain and Pekah humbled-2king 15:29) for their evil as well. Pekah’s evil returned upon his head when the king of Judah got help from the king of Assyria and finally Pekah suffered a violent death in the hands of Hoshea (2king15). Are not these evidences in history that the Lord judges evil? Neither Kings nor commoners can evade heaven’s rule in the kingdom of men. The sad story of the end of Israel begins with King Hosea who later along with the nation was finally liquidated into captivity by Shalmaneser and Sargon in about 721BC.

The ministry of Isaiah is important at this present juncture, for he refers to himself as the ‘son of Amoz…during the days of Uzzaiah…Hezekiah’(Is 1:1) and therefore he brings out a vivid description of the apostasy of his times, which we can compare with that of Micah. At a time, when Judah and Samaria were deeply entangled in falsehood, the splendid language of Micah finds utterance-“Wherewith shall I come before the Lord and bow myself before the high God?” At a time when the land whose people ‘devise iniquity and work evil upon their beds.. who covet fields, and take them by violence (Micah2)’, where its ‘princes are rebellious and companions of thieves (Is 2)’, the introspection of the prophet is profound. ‘Shall I come before him with burnt offerings…Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams.. with ten thousands of rivers of oil?’. What does it imply? Does it not relate to the splendor of apostate religion set up by Ahaz-full of meat offerings, drink offerings, peace offerings, burnt offerings? Does it not refer to the lamentation of Isaiah- ‘To what purpose.. saith the Lord..your appointed feasts my soul hateth (Is1)’ and further ‘their lips do honour me but have removed their heart from me (Is29:13)’.

‘Shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul (Micah 6:7)’. This, refers to the inhuman rites of child sacrifices practiced devotedly by Ahaz in the valley of Hin’nom (2Chronicles 28:3).’ Then, the need for a remedy is brought to question. What could be the solution to a ‘sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, a seed of evildoers’ (Is 1:40)? Was it more sacrifices? No. The reply is found in Micah 6:8- ‘He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good..’ This I find, is profound truth. The response is addressed to ‘man’ and not to refer something explicitly Jewish. Here, then is drawn before us, glimpses of the ultimate dealings of God with man, not in sacrifices but ‘to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God’ (Micah 6:8)

[I find that Isaiah and Micah speak about the Messiah (though Zechariah is second only to Isaiah in its occupation of the glorious theme), the Messiah’s arrival is spoken in the backdrop of moral ruin. Is it not to point, in general to the desolation of mankind and its need for divine intervention by the coming of ‘God manifest in the flesh’? The degenerate state to which Judah and Samaria fell, blends with general degeneration of man.]

‘O man’ in Micah 6:8 is not just signifying Jewish context but relates to both Jew and Gentile as could be similarly expressed by Rom 2:1 ‘Therefore…O man, whosoever thou art’. ‘Wherewith shall I come before the Lord ?’ How does man approach God? It is not by ‘thousands of rams’- a reference to proper Judaism (though the sacrifices are foreshadow but yet in themselves ineffectual for coming near to God) nor is it by ‘giving my firstborn’- a reference to child sacrifices, the worst element of Heathenism. Thus, neither Judaism nor Heathenism is helpful to gain access to God (unless, of course we appreciate Judaism on a far greater plane because of its inherent element of ‘foreshadow’ of the antitype)

Here, I find a particular thought, first found to be small but later developing into a great body of truth. ‘For thou desirest not sacrifice…not in burnt offering’ (Ps 51:16). This has been enlarged when the Holy Spirit draws Ps 40:6 in the context of epistle of Hebrews. I strongly think that ‘to do justly, and to love mercy..’ is not moral uprightness but something deeper than that. It is the holiness of life that evolves from a perfect standing before God- the inherent perfection that ought to be but incapable of being realized. Why? Sacrifices are to show the inability of man to do good and therefore the significance of the substitute is raised to the consideration of all men. But, if the substitute- ‘blood of bulls and goats’ cannot take away sins (Heb 10:5): if the substitute-blood of calves and of goats cannot erase the conscience of sins in the hearts of worshippers of Jehovah (Heb 10:20)- what else could? There is nothing to answer from the side of man. He can perform thousands of sacrifices, but what use it for him, if he is helpless to satisfy God? Ps 40:6 draws our attention to this peculiar situation but the very next verse (Ps 40:7) is a sudden profusion of Divine love and mercy-‘Lo I come.. to do thy will’ as also being referred to in Heb 10:6-8. What does it imply? It relates to ‘offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all’-Heb10:10. Thus, the believer is capacitated to do justly, to love mercy and to walk humbly with God because, he now has the ‘boldness to enter into the holiest’ Heb10:19. For the sacrifices only sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh but without power to serve God (Heb 9:13) but the blood of Christ purges our conscience from dead works (morality) to serve the living God (Christian living)-Heb 9:14.

I have certain observations to dwell upon, that is the progression of the splendid truth in the scripture. In Ps 40:6-7, the inability of man to satisfy God through sacrifices is first revealed, then rapidly the other truth is revealed relating to the humble arrival of Christ.

But, in Micah, the arrival of Messiah is forcefully revealed in chap5 and only later is man’s failure (through sacrifices) is brought to consideration in Chap6. This, I feel is in line with the epistle of Hebrews. In the epistle of Hebrews, the Melchisedec priesthood of Christ is shown superior to the levitical priesthood in Chap 5-8 but later the efficacy of the sacrificial offering of Christ is revealed from Chap9. Thus in Micah, the ‘whose goings forth have been of old, from everlasting’-in Chap5 (Micah’s reference to Melchisidec characteristic ) can be compared to that of Heb7 about Melchisidec himself -‘having neither beginning of days’. And, then Micah goes on to speak of the ineffectual sacrifices and the powerlessness of man in Chap6 as in line with Heb 9. What I find, is the truth has been enlarged, as we traverse from Micah to Hebrews.


Go to Collected-Writings.net