Writhe in agony, Daughter Zion, like a woman in labor, for now you must leave the city to camp in the open field. You will go to Babylon; there you will be rescued. There the LORD will redeem you out of the hand of your enemies. – Micah 4:10

Today’s Scripture Reading (December 29, 2016): Micah 4

By the end of the eighth century B.C.E., the Assyrian Empire dominated the world stage. They were the big boogie man on the block that filled the nightmares of the children of the Middle East. In 721, The Northern Kingdom of Israel fell to the Assyrians, and they were never to be heard from again. Two decades later, it was Judah’s turn. The defeat of all of the tribes of Jacob by the Empire was at hand. The Assyrian attack on Judah would come through the Philistine coastline. And the towns of Southern Judah would be the first to fall under their onslaught.  

One of the first towns that the Assyrians would have would have entered would have been the one that Micah called home – Moresheth. None of the towns of the Judean countryside was any match for the Assyrian Empire. The defeat of Moresheth and all of the neighboring towns and villages would have happened quickly.

Scholars are split over whether the last chapters of the book of Micah were actually written by the eighth-century prophet. The first three chapters are almost universally accepted as genuine. But the last four chapters are questioned, at least by some. And the reason for the questioning is partially because of the specificity of this prophecy. Micah doesn’t just say that Judah was going to be carried into exile and then restored. He specifies Babylon as the villain, but in the day of Micah Babylon was no match for the Assyrian empire. Therefore, some question the latter chapters, postulating that these chapters were written three hundred years later after the return of Judah from the Babylon exile had begun.

Of course, it is possible that the God gave the eighth-century B.C.E prophet insight into the rise of the next empire. And Micah would not have been the only prophet in Israel that understood that God was not going to allow the Assyrians to overrun Judah. That would be the task of someone else – the job of the next power to take their place at center stage of the known world.

If this is the work of the eighth-century prophet, it is eerily accurate. Judah would be restored after Babylon, but between the time of Micah and that restoration was going to be a time of trouble and agony. Zion would writhe in pain as a woman about to give birth. And just like a woman experiencing the pains of childbirth, after the pain was over Judah would give birth to something beautiful – a new Israel with the potential to do great things. Israel would be rescued from Babylon, a new temple would be built, and then a Savior would be born who would save Micah’s people from their sin. 

Tomorrow’s Scripture Reading: Micah 5

I said, “Listen, you leaders of Israel! You are supposed to know right from wrong … - Micah 3:1

Today’s Scripture Reading (December 28, 2016): Micah 3

I admit that I have a bit of an infatuation with John of England. Part of my interest in the King no doubt stems from watching and reading the Legend of Robin Hood. But historians continue to wrestle with the legacy of John. The main question is, is he bad because of the story of Robin of Locksley says he is bad or is there some credible evidence of John’s evil nature? Many historians claim the latter. And their evaluation of John starts with the main plot line of the Robin Hood saga; John really did try to take his brother’s, King Richard the Lionheart, kingdom away from him while Richard fought in the Crusade. The defense of John at this point is that Richard was more concerned with the Crusade than he was about England, but that still does not justify what John did. Add to that charge the accusation that he sexually forced himself on the wives and daughters of his nobles; in a chivalrous age when aristocrats spared their enemies, John killed his; he ordered the death of twenty-two knights by imprisoning them and starving them to death; he starved to death the family of a former friend; and in 1203 he arranged for his nephew, Arthur of Brittany, to be killed; and the result is that this was one king who did not see a line between right and wrong. And that defines him evil.

The expectation that a political leader understands the distinction between right and wrong would seem to be the starting point for whether or not they deserve our respect and allegiance. If the leader does not know the difference between right and wrong, then they should not be in a position of leadership, regardless of the strengths they might bring with them. Not knowing the difference between right and wrong disqualifies them from leadership.

As far as Micah was concerned, this was the situation in Judah. Micah watched Israel fall, and he lived through the Assyrian assault on Jerusalem. And according to the prophet, these things could only happen because their leaders had lost the concept of right and wrong. And without understanding that, they were incapable of leading the nation. Interestingly, Micah lived through the reigns of three kings – Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah. Of those three, two of the kings were known in the Bible as good kings. Only Ahaz stands as a king who did evil in the sight of God. Considering the words of this passage, we then need to date this prophecy during the reign of Ahaz, which places it probably just before or at the time of the Fall of Israel. But the message is clear, the terror that is about to take place in Israel and Judah could have been avoided by leaders who understood the difference between right and wrong.  

Tomorrow’s Scripture Reading: Micah 4

The One who breaks open the way will go up before them; they will break through the gate and go out. Their King will pass through before them, the LORD at their head.” – Micah 2:13

Today’s Scripture Reading (December 27, 2016): Micah 2

William Shakespeare was known by many names, and most of them were connected to his career  as a playwrite and a poet. Early in his career he was known as “the upstart crow,” apparently indiscriminately flapping his wings in the writing of his poetry. More commonly, Shakespeare is known as “The Bard” or “The Bard of Avon” or “The Immortal Bard.” He was “The Swan of Avon,” a name given to him posthumously by fellow poet Ben Johnson in his poem, “To the Memory of My Beloved, the Author, Mr. William Shakespeare.” And, of course, he was known as “Spanky.” Okay. Maybe that is not an “of course.” No one is sure why he was called Spanky by his friends, but Spanky sounds like something that most likely originated out of his childhood or out of life being lived out inside of a large family. So the next time you read Hamlet and Othello, just remind yourself that it was written by a guy who his friends and family called “Spanky.”

The child of the manger would also go by many names. He would be called The Christ or The Messiah, The Prince of Peace, Rabbi, Counsellor, and The Living Word of God among countless others. But one of the more obscure nickname for Jesus is that he is “The Breaker,” a nickname that comes from this verse in Micah 2. He is the one who breaks open the way and goes before us. The Breaker is the one responsible for the restoration of his people – the one who redeems in the name of the God who sent him.

I love the words of David Guzik on this passage. “We can see this as a more obscure, but no less precious messianic title of Jesus - The Breaker. In this office, he is the captain and leader of His people, advancing in front of His flock. How we need a Breaker, a trailblazer in our life!”

Tomorrow’s Scripture Reading: Micah 3