Randall J. Pannell, Ph.D.Regent University1000 Regent University Dr.RH 317DVirginia Beach VA 23464

This article is not being submitted elsewhere and has not been published elsewhere.

THE DAUGHTER OF TROOPS:

Ambivalent Messianic Means and Ends

(Mic 4:14- 5:5)

Randall J. Pannell, Ph.D.

Regent University

1000 Regent University Dr.

RH 317D

Virginia Beach VA 23464

In the last quarter of the last century the Church began a search for a

conscientious legitimacy within its context of the real world. A major issue that emerged

was the use, and/or the support, of violence as a response to the oppression in the world,

especially the “third world.” In personally engaging the particular context in Latin

America, I became intrigued with a specific biblical text, Mic 4:14- 5:5, and explored it

with regard to what it seemed to offer to the Latin American discussion.1 Today this

issue has emerged within the age-old discussion of the legitimacy of war, especially as a

21st century tool of national diplomacy. I believe a further scrutiny of this text has

something to offer to the present context.

As an agent of liberation, the Church has a responsibility to be an agent of the

liberation of the oppressed, the abused and the exploited. However, when faced with the

existence of terroristic governments and extremist groups, are the violent means of

modern warfare acceptable? What should the Church’s stance be regarding such means?

A. Fierro offers the classic “liberation” response --

Neither liberation, resolution, rejection, nor protest can take place without some

sort of violence. . . . Violence is shared by all movements of liberation, revolution,

or protest. It gives them concrete form, fleshing them out in the real world. Without

violence they lose themselves in abstraction, un- reality, and ineffectiveness. The

only way to subvert the dominant powers of oppression is to oppose them with an

antagonistic power.2

Thus for many, then and now, the natural course of liberation requires violence

as an authentic option. In fact, Fierro called violence the only “realistic option.” He

contends that a distinction between a “theology of liberation/ revolution” and a “theology

of violence” is untenable, and thus seems to make the ultimate violence of war, not only

legitimate, but required.3

Just as Marx contended that violence is required for ALL enterprises of

liberation, many have become convinced that violence is necessary for the emergence of

a free and liberated humanity.4 So in the present climate, Christians are embracing and

legitimating violence and war as an acceptable, even first, option. Although some have

distinguished between “justified” and “unjustified” violence,5 it is clear that many

advocate a political praxis for the Church as agent of liberation which would include the

use, and/or the support, of violence.6

However, are these arguments within the current global political climate valid? Is

war and the overwhelming violence of modern warfare justified by the present political

demands, and thus acceptable for the church seeking to follow the mandates and

perspectives of its Bible? Is there a particular biblical perspective that might be useful in

assisting the church to formulate an alternative response?

I believe Mic 4:14- 5:5 to be such a significant biblical resource.7 This pericope,

along with Isa 9:1-6 and Isa 11:1-5, form what is often called the “trilogy” or foundation

to the imagery of the Old Testament profile of the OT’s principle agent of liberation --

Judah’s Messiah.8 Inasmuch as some have stated that the use of violence is a valid

“instrument to liberate,”9 it is useful to hear the perspective of this particular text

regarding both the means, as well as the ends, of the Messiah. In fact, just as there is

much ambivalence within the present discussions of the legitimacy of violence/war, this

text also reflects a similar ambivalence. With this in mind, the following investigation is

helpful.

It is important to note that Mic 4:14- 5:5 is not the only passage in the “Mican

tradition”10 dealing with warfare, violence and/or its administration. Without commenting

on the questions of unity in the book or the date of each particular literary unit, these

passages do serve as a literary frame of sorts to the pericope Mic 4:14- 5:5, and as such

need to be noted. Among other Mican texts which deal with the general topic, there is a

certain ambiguous image regarding violence.11

There are Mican texts which are either uncritical of violence and/or warfare, or

embracing of it. For example, 1:6-7

I will make Samaria a stone heap in the field, a place to plant for vineyards; I will

throw down into the valley her stones, and lay bare her foundations. All her idols

shall be broken to pieces, all her wages shall be burned in the fire, and all her

statues I will destroy. As the wages of a harlot they were gathered, and to the wages

of a harlot shall they return. (NAB)

In the very words of YHWH, the destruction of Samaria is the warranted “wages of a

harlot.” Even 4:13, the immediate antecedent of the pericope at hand, speaks of

YHWH’s giving “the daughter of Zion” a horn of iron and hoofs of bronze in order that

she might “crush many peoples” and “devote their spoils” and “their riches to YHWH.”

However, the majority of these Mican framing texts, including 1:13; 2:8; 3:9-10;

5:10-11; 6:12-13; 7:2, 16-17, offer a more critical, even condemnatory perspective

toward war and/or violence. Mic 1:13 condemns the inherent violence of military might,

classifying it as “missing the mark” or “sin” (tafj). Mic 2:8 reserves a severe indictment

for those who “strip the robe” from those who are “peace”-ful.12 Mic 3:9-10 holds the

rulers of Judah responsible for Jerusalem’s impending demise, accusing them of

abhorring justice, corrupting the righteous, and making bloodshed and violent injustice

the foundation of Judah’s society. Mic 5:10-11 envisions the day of YHWH as putting an

end to the bastions of military might, while 6:12-13 threatens the rich, who are described

as full of violence and deceit. The entire populace appears to be labeled by 7:2 as “lying

in wait for bloodshed, hunting one another down with a net,” whereas 7:16 avows that the

nations will be ashamed of their military might in the day of YHWH as they come

trembling and full of dread from their fortresses “like serpents and reptiles who lick the

dust.”

Also of note is the passage that the Mican tradition shares with ProtoIsaiah (Mic

4:1-3 = Isa 2:2-4).13 It envisions a day when the instruments of warfare, swords and

spears, will be changed into plowshares and pruning hooks. However, the Mican text

extends the imagery thusly –

Every man shall sit under his own vine or under his own fig tree, undisturbed; for

the mouth of the LORD of hosts has spoken. (4:4; NAB)

The shared texts envision a time when no nation will lift up sword against other nations,

neither will any nation train for war. The effect is the total absence of both harm and the

threat of harm. Instruments of war and violence are transformed into farming implements.

The Mican extension, however, envisions that the time involved in the training of an

army train for war (i.e. the “training for war” of v. 3) and violence are further

transformed into an image of productivity and fecundity, with each one free and

“undisturbed” to “sit under the vine and fig tree. In sum, these particular texts of the

framing context of Mic 4:14- 5:5, although not homogenous, are in the main

disenchanted with any notion of violence or bloodshed.

It appears that Mic 4:14- 5:5 is found within a somewhat ambiguous context

regarding the legitimacy of warfare and/or violence -- of a certain sort at least. The

majority of these texts, however, seem to recoil to some degree from the forms of

violence associated with either acts of war or the military establishment. This

ambivalence within the Mican tradition, is not without its influence on a careful reading

of 4:14- 5:5. It is somewhat surprising that the traditional interpretation of this messianic

logion has appeared to easily understand the “the anointed one of YHWH” as engaged in

a violent, warlike subjugation of Israel’s enemies.14 However, further investigation

reveals a perspective on an evolving methodology of the Messiah. Much like its literary

framework, which seems to be moving away from the strategy and methodology of

violence and warfare, Mic 4:14- 5:5 seems to take a step farther away from the agenda of

war-like violence. Although its perspective might be described as somewhat haphazard,

the pericope seems to offer a clearly alternative perspective on the appropriate response

to an “Assyrian” invasion and resulting oppression of Israel. The issue of appropriate

response is presented by this pericope within a dichotomous presentation that creates a

vivid contrast between competing philosophies of leadership -- one which would go forth

“for YHWH” in 5:1, versus one which “we would raise up” in 5:4.15

The scene of the pericope is set in 4:14 --

Now assemble yourselves in troops,

0 Daughter of Troops!

A siege is laid against us;

With a scepter the judge of Israel

is to be struck upon the cheek.16

The alarm is sounded from the watchtower. A defensive posture must be immediately

assumed as the city is besieged. As one of the truly horrible and devastating experiences

for the urban populace of the ancient world, the siege sorely taxed the resourcefulness of 1 R.J. Pannell, “The Politics of the Messiah,” PRS 15 (1988): 131-43.

2 A. Fierro, The Militant Gospel: A Critical Introduction to Political Theologies (Maryknoll:

Orbis, 1977), 201-202. (Emphases added.)

3 Ibid., 202.

4 K. Marx, Communist Manifesto (cited by J .Míguez Bonino, Doing Theology in a Revolutionary

Situation [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975], 125). Marx contended that “violence is the midwife of all old

societies pregnant with new ones.” Cf. Míguez Bonino, Doing Theology, 125-28; R. A. Alves, A Theology

of Human Hope (St. Meinrad: Abbey, 1975), 111-14; G. Gutierrez, A Theology of Liberation: History,

Politics and Salvation (Maryknoll: Orbis, 1973), 108-109; J. L. Segundo, Liberation of Theology

(Maryknoll: Orbis, 1976), 156-65.

5 Fierro credits this terminology to J. Moltmann (Militant Gospel, 205-206). Gutierrez employs

“just violence” and “unjust violence” (Theology, 108-109).

6 Cf. the militaristic verbiage of the religious right.

7 Versification follows that of BHS. For an introduction to the status of Mic 4:14 and its

connections with its surrounding material, see F.I. Andersen & D.N. Freedman, Micah (AB; New York:

Doubleday, 2000) 458-60. Note that Andersen & Freedman quote Renaud in remarking that “there is hardly

a text in the Bible that has led to so many divergent solution” (Micah, 458).

8 Cf. G.E. Wright, The Book of Isaiah , (Layman’s Bible Commentary; Atlanta: Knox, 1964), 50-

51. It will not be the scope of the present to involve the two Isaianic pericopes, although they would be

most revealing.

a city’s leadership to save both the population and the sovereignty of the city. However,

this particular siege seems particularly directed at “the judge of Israel,” a term to be

understood as Judah’s present Davidic leadership.17 Judah’s leadership (philosophy of

leadership?) is challenged with a slap on the cheek -- an action of contempt, insult, and

ultimately humiliation.18 The contempt seems to respond to both Judah’s leader and its

9 Alves, Theology, 125.

10 The term “Mican tradition” is used quite loosely for the canonical book of Micah and, as such,

does not suggest an homogeneity among the various traditions in Micah. For a discussion of the

Traditionsgeschichte of Micah, see Andersen & Freedman, Micah, 6-29; L. Alonso Schökel, Profetas:

Introduciones y comentario (Madrid: Cristiandad, 1980), 1033-41; B. S. Childs, Introduction to the Old

Testament as Scripture (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), 431-38; K. Jeppesen, “New Aspects of Micah

Research,” JSOT 8 (1978): 3-32; B. Renaud, La Formation du Livre de Michie (Paris: Gabalda, 1977);

Hillers, Micah, 104.

11 The apparent topic of these verses is war and/or armaments. Inasmuch as war, violence and

revolution have been described as corollaries (Fierro, Militant Gospel, 202), it will be assumed that “war”

implies “violence.”

12 This particular text is problematical. Cf. BHS and the various translations of hm*l=c^. Note

that LXX translates it as είρήνης.

13 Concerning inter-tradition relationships between Micah and Isaiah, see Andersen & Freedman,

Micah, 413-27; Childs, Introduction, 434-36; cf. J.L. Mays, Micah (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster Press,

1976), 95, n. a. There is not space to deal herein with this discussion.

14 E.g. Allen, Micah, 339-51; J. L. Mays, Micah, 111-20; Hillers, Micah, 69. Cf. Alonso Schökel,

Profetas, 1036-38.

1515 Note that Mays calls the figure of Israel’s ruler the “integrating theme” (Micah, 112). Also

fpv) (4:14) and lvwm (5:1) are used synonymously (cf. R. de Vaux, The Early History of Israel

philosophy of leadership. This seems reflected in the appellation of the citizenry as

“Daughter of Troops.”19 The people are somehow to be identified with a military term

and are characterized as “offspring” of a military establishment, or at least, a warlike

mentality. It is likely that the mentality/philosophy is the object of the contempt and

intended humiliation.

[Philadelphia: Westminster, 1978], 754).

16 Note especially, Andersen & Freedman, Micah, 457 – “Now thou [f.] shalt gather (thy) troops,

O Daughter of Troops. He put a siege against us. With the rod they struck on the jaw the judge of Israel.”

17 “It is possible that the ‘judge of Israel’ in v 14 is the same as the ‘king’ or ‘counselor’ of v 9

(who could be just one person)” [Andersen & Freedman, Micah, 459].

18 Note particularly, Andersen & Freedman, Micah, 459, who observe that “this humiliating scene

comes as an anticlimax after the triumph of v 13.” Also, W. Beyerlin, Die Kulttraditionen Israels in der

Verkundigung des Propheten Micha (FRLANT 54; Göttingen: Yandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1959), 20-21. D.

A. McKenzie considers “judge” to be “a title which perhaps reflects the claims of the Davidic kings that

they were the sole legitimate rulers of Israel” (“Short Notes: The Judge of Israel,” VT 17 [1967]: 121),

whereas Smith feels the use of “judge” was used “to call attention to the impotency of the present ruler. “

Smith continues, “The earlier judges were charismatic deliverers or saviors. The present king could not

even save himself” (Micah, 43). Cf. specific indictments of Judah’s leadership elsewhere in Mic 1:5-7, 9;

3:1-4, 9-12; 6:16; 7:3. Concerning the cheek slap as an act of insult, see 1 Kgs 22:24; Job 16: 10; Ps 3:8;

Lam 3:30; Isa 50:6; cf. Ps 89:39- 45.

19 The Hebrew dWdG=-tb^ is difficult. Note the following translations: “daughter of

marauders” (Mays, Micah, 11); “daughter of troops” (NASV; Andersen & Freedman, Micah, 457; S. J.

Schwantes, “A Note on Micah 5:1 [Hebrew 4:14],” AUSS 1 [1963]: 105-107); “city of troops” (NIV);”lady

under attack” (Allen, Micah, 339). Cf. Wellhausen’s “popular emendation” as followed by Hillers (Micah,

62), yd]d+G)t=t! dd}oGt=h! “gash yourselves with gashes.”

The import is further clarified by 5:4b-5a --

Should Assyria invade our land and tread upon our citadels,

We would then raise seven shepherds

and eight human leaders.

They would shepherd the land of Assyria with the sword,

The land of Nimrod with the bare blade.

Herein the mentality of Judah’s leadership is described as a characteristic response of

combating the force and violence of “Assyria” with even greater force and violence.20

Judah’s aim is to muster as “many leaders as possible,”21 in order to respond to Assyrian

violence in like kind -- namely “with sword and bareblade.”22 To be noted is the

populace’s role in establishing this mentality of reciprocity. The phrase “Should Assyria

invade. . . WE [i.e., “the Daughter of troops”] would raise seven. . . and eight. . . .”

presents a popular philosophy like unto that of the leadership. Simply stated, within both

Judah’s leadership and populace the genre of response to violence is one of greater and

escalating violence. Judah’s actual philosophy of response is not confined to the

20 Mays considers “Assyria” to be a “code-name for whatever great power threatens

Israel”(Micah, 120). Alonso Schökel prefers the reference to the legendary Nimrod of Gen 10:8-12, the

“hunter” and the “warrior” (Pro/etas, 1062).

21 This is the preferred meaning of the numerical sequence “seven. . . eight” (Mays, Micah, 120).

Within the gnomic literature, which might very well pertain here, the numerical sequence is associated with

riddles, synonymous parallelism and “totality” (J. L. Crenshaw, “Wisdom,” in Old Testament Form

Criticism [ed. J. H. Hayes; San Antonio: Trinity, 1974], 236-37; G. von Rad, Wisdom in Israel [New York:

Abingdon, 1972], 35-37; R. B. Y. Scott, The Way o/ Wisdom [New York: Macmillan, 1971], 70-71).

22 With BHS, hj*yt!P=B^ for MT h`yj#t*p=B!.

leadership, but appears representative among those responsible for “raising up” Judah’s

leaders.23 This is the mentality/philosophy that is addressed and challenged in 4:14.24

There is, however, a contrasting philosophy of leadership which is found

emerging in this pericope -- a mentality juxtaposed with the popular philosophy and more

specifically identified with YHWH himself. Mic 5:1-4a, 5b presents the following image

of contrast--

BUT, you 0 Bethlehem Ephrathah,

Too small to be among the brigades of Judah;

From you one will go forth FOR ME

in order to be ruler in Israel.

The goings forth of this one are out of earlier times,

Out of days of old.

Therefore, it will be conceded to them until which time the one

who is laboring gives birth;

And the remainder of the leader’s siblings return

In deference to the children of Israel.

Then he will stand and shepherd by the might of YHWH,

By the power of the name of YHWH God;

And they will settle down at that time because

23 Note a similar example of manipulation of leadership according to popular pressure in Mic 2:11.

24 The indictment does not include those who had no say in the type of leadership within Judah.

Those to be exempt are either those who rejected outright Judah’s form of leadership or those rejected and

oppressed by that leadership.

YHWH’s leader will be great unto the ends of the earth.

This one will be one of peace. . . .

One who would rescue from Assyria should it invade our land,

And tread upon our territory.

The numerous contrasts (contradictions?) concerning the course and type of

leadership in Judah are poignant.25 This leader, as opposed to the multiple leaders that

Judah would raise up, is intentionally more closely identified with YHWH. This leader

would shepherd “by the might of YHWH, by the power of the name of YHWH God”

(5:3; see Mic 4:5),26 which is contrasted to the opposite means of “the sword and the bare

blade.” This leader’s response to the Assyrian menace is not of an overtly violent nature.

It appears because of the contrasting nature of the presentation, not even to be of a

militaristic type of resistance. Mic 5:5 describes the response as lxn. L. Alonso Schökel

defines lxn as “a salvation without violence, beneficial for all.”27 lxn literally makes the

emphasis on to “snatch away” or “to extricate” -- thus the usual translation “to rescue” or

“liberate.” This movement away from specific or overt violence is the sense of Mic 5:4 in

which YHWH’s leader is characterized as one of “peace” versus one of war.28 The

contrasting messianic response seems to emphasize more a peaceful, beneficial rescue,

rather than a warlike, violent resistance. Importantly, the response is neither of the same

genre as that of the Assyrian menace, nor is it like the popular response of Judah’s

leadership.

The pericope also promotes the contrasting forms of response by highlighting the

differences in the end results of each mentality. First, the results concerning the personal

experience(s) of the leader(s) himself (themselves) are noted. According to Mic 4:14,

Judah’s present leader(s) is to experience imminent humiliation (see Mic 4:11). On the

other hand, 5:3 depicts YHWH’s leader as enjoying a reputation of greatness reaching

“unto the ends of the earth.”

Secondly, and even more striking, are the contrasting results for those considered

to be compatriots or beneficiaries (victims?) of the juxtaposed leadership types. Just as

Judah’s warlike leaders are besieged in 4:14, so is the populace – i.e., “the Daughter of

Troops.” The testing of Judah’s leadership philosophy and the resulting failure precipitate

a trauma to the people like unto the pain of childbirth. The Daughter of Troops is

25 Note S. R. Driver, Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament (9th ed.; Edinburgh:

Clark, 1913) 329; Willis, “Micah IV/14-V/5,” 532-35.

26 Contrast the terminology with the weakness and impotence of Judah’s own leadership.

27 Profetas, 1038; cf. S. Sabugal, who considers the major significance of lxn to be social

liberation of the oppressed (¿Liberaci6n y secularizaci6n? [Barcelona: Herder, 1978] 30-31). Cf. Amos

3:12; 4:11.

28 0n the translation of <olv* hz# hy`h*w+, see K. J. Cathcart, “Notes on Micah 5,4-5,” Bib

49 (1968): 511-12. Although having additional significance elsewhere, <wlv as principally antithesis to

war (hm*j*l=m!) in the Mican tradition is supported by the antithetical juxtaposition of the two terms in

Mic 3:5.

described in 5:2 as being in the rigors of childbirth.29 As Mays points out, “labor”

(hdlwy) most often is employed in the Old Testament as an image of the distress

brought on by the attack of enemies.30 Not only is the Daughter of Troops in distress, but

it appears that this distress will soon reach “full term.” In other words, the warlike and

violent nature of Judah and its leadership is soon to bear its fruit -- total collapse and utter

failure. There is no future for those following the popular Judahite form of leadership.31

Conversely, the cohorts of YHWH’s leader, called “siblings” (5:2), are to be

established/settled [in the land] as a result of their relationship with this one. The

resulting ends of YHWH’s leader, in contrast to those of the leaders of violence and

warfare, is a promised “return” vis-à-vis exile (5:2) and “settlement” [“a life of safety”]

vis-à-vis dispersion (5:3).32

29 Although not within the specific scope of the present pericope, there is a striking parallel

between the “one in child birth” here and in Mic 4:9-10. As those in Mic 4 are “the child of Zion” and the

agony that “grips” the child is the collapse or absence of leadership from its counselor-king, there may be

more than mere parallel imagery. This is further supported by the fact that the failure of leadership in Mic

4:9-11 has also resulted in siege and deportation for the population, and from exile the child will be rescued

and redeemed by none other than YHWH. On the counselor-king in Mic 4:9 as offering counsel contrary to

the wisdom of God which ultimately results in failure and distress, see H.-P. Stähli, “Juy y’ to advise,” in

Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament 3 vols., ed. E. Jenni & C. Westermann, trans. M.E. Biddle

(Peabody: Hendrickson, 1997), 2:556-59.

30 Mays, Micah, 116.

31 With A. Alt, there is no future for such a leadership as that of Judah (“Micha 2, 1-5:

ANADOSMOS in Juda,” in Kleine Schriften, 3 vols. [Munich: Beck, 1959], 3:375-76). Cf. Mic 2:4, 10;

3:12; 7:10, 16.

Although not explicit, the passage seems to imply that the two conflicting types of

leadership are built on distinctive foundations or lineages. Mic 5:1 presents YHWH’s

leader as coming from Bethlehem Ephrathah, “too small to be among the brigades of

Judah.”33 YHWH’s leader emanates from an area of Judah too insignificant to be

numbered in Judah’s military muster. Thus the origins of this leadership type, in specific

contrast to the popular militaristic mentality, are found in a segment either known as a

non-participant in Judah’s militaristic policy, or, at least, not easily identified with

Judah’s warlike politics.34 In either case, the one from Bethlehem Ephrathah is certainly

not an offshoot of Judahite militarism. In contrast, he is one of peace.

An additional aspect of the origins of the non-warlike means of the messianic

leader may be surprisingly found in the identification of YHWH’s leader with the house

of David in the references to Bethlehem and Ephrathah. Interestingly, both Bethlehem (1

Sam 16:1,18) and Ephrathah (1 Sam 17:12) are associated not with David himself, but

with Jesse, the father of David.35 One wonders if this is purposeful, and if so, what is its 32 There is similar imagery throughout the Mican tradition suggesting that the followers [i.e.

“siblings”] of YHWH’s type of leader can expect prudent counsel (4:2-3a), freedom from fear and harm

(4:4b), as well as productive and fertile (4:4a).

33 Concerning ypla as “brigades,” see R. G. Boling, Judges (AB 6a; Garden City: Doubleday,

1975), 54-55,132; Allen, Micah, 343,n24; Willis, “Micah IV/14-V/5,” 532. Cf. Judg 6:15; 1 Sam 10:19;

23:23.

34 Cf. Andersen & Freedman, who describe “three distinct stages” in the historical development of

ryux. They conclude that it has the attribute of “phratry” in this context – “the most significant (junior)

member of the least prestigious unit (family, clan, or tribe). They also note that the usage in Mic 5:1 “is

different from all other contexts” (Micah, 463-71, esp. 465-66).

purpose. W.A. VanGemeren sees in this text an “intentional disassociation” of the

messianic rulership from that of contemporary, popular Jerusalem because the current

house of David “had been tainted by the corruption of power, immorality, foreign

influences and idolatry.”36 This reference to Bethlehem and Ephrathah may imply a

purposeful attempt by this pericope to make reference to the pre-royal origins of David

vis-à-vis the current brand of Davidic leadership within Jerusalem.37 Such an allusion

would be to the Davidic image prior to the David of 2 Sam 7:16 and the powerful warrior

of 1 Sam 16:18. The reference of Bethlehem Ephrathah seems thus to envision one who,

like the child of Jesse, was known as one who tended the father’s sheep, a real

“shepherd” (see 1 Sam 16:11; 17:15).38 Although the image of “shepherd” has several

referents in the Old Testament prophetic literature (only some of which could be

construed as “ideal leadership”), the facet of the shepherd image most pertinent to the

Mican agenda is simply that of the pre-royal David, particularly in contradistinction to a

contemporary version of Davidic royalty.39 This notion may also be the import of the

phrase in Mic 5:1b which describes the “goings forth” of YHWH’s leader as “out of

earlier times, out of days of old.”40 This one from Bethlehem Ephrathah evokes an image

of the “faithful-shepherd David,” rather than of the “royal-champion David” who had

slain his tens of thousands.41

A pre-royal, pre-warrior Davidic image finds further poignancy in the parallel

between the characteristic response of the one of peace in Mic 5:5 and that of the

shepherd-boy David to the Philistine crisis in 1 Sam 17:31-37. As mentioned above, Mic

5:5 describes the response as lxn [to “snatch- away” or “extricate,” or to “to rescue” or

“liberate”]. 1 Sam 17:35-37 employs lxn in such a way as to make it basic to the “pre-

royal” Davidic profile. By placing the following in the mouth of David as he relates his

own sense of methodology to King Saul, it becomes foundational to the “shepherd boy’s

means” of liberation --

“Your servant was tending his father’s sheep. When a lion or a bear came and took

a lamb from the flock, I went after him and . . . rescued [lxn] it from his mouth;. . .

35 Any relationship between Micah and 1 Samuel 16-17, although feasible, is not the focus of this

paper.

36 W.A. VanGemeren, Interpreting the Prophetic Word (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990), 156.

37 Note Alonso Schökel, Pro/etas, 1061; Mays, Micah, 115. Cf. J. L. McKenzie who feels it is

“quite likely” that “the reference to Bethlehem simply signifies that this king is to come from the royal line

of David, not necessarily that he will be born in Bethlehem” (“Royal Messianism,” CBQ 19 [1957]: 43-44).

38 Certainly shepherd is a common designation for royal leadership throughout the ancient Near

East. In fact, much of the iconographic evidence of the ANE frequently depicts kings as shepherds who are

portrayed in violent acts such as killing lions, bears, etc. Although the typical image is clearly not normally

intended to make reference to a non-violent nature, it is worth considering herein, given the additional

associative juxtaposition of shepherd with Bethlehem and Ephrathah.

39 Note the negative references to “shepherd” in Ezek 34:1-10; Mic 5:4b. Cf. J. J. Glueck, “Nagid-

Shepherd,” VT 13 (1963): 144-50. In Micah, it appears to be especially in contradistinction from the

current, monarchical Zionistic version of the Davidic house. Micah perhaps is even attempting to

disengage the messianic hope from the corruption and ultimate failure of the later House of David and Zion

(cf. Andersen & Freedman, Micah, 469-70). Andersen & Freedman note, “the reference to Bethlehem [in

5:1] suggests that the piece contains traditions about David’s career, but, apart from the town of his birth,

none of the well-known facts of his life [especially his ‘later’ life] can be identified as being alluded to with

certainty” (p. 470).

“And David said, “YHWH who rescued [lxn] me away from the paw of the lion

and the paw of the bear will rescue [lxn] me from the hand of this Philistine.”

The similarity between the response of the pre-royal, pre-warrior shepherd boy to

the Philistine crisis and that of the one of peace to the Assyrian crisis is remarkable. In

each case, lxn is characterized both by liberation, in marked contrast to the “natural”

militaristic response of the established leadership, and by “rescue through extraction

from” rather than “resistance to force through an even greater force.”

Therefore, it is of little surprise that “he who goes forth for YHWH, from

Bethlehem Ephrathah, out of days of old, in order to shepherd by the might of YHWH,

by the power of the name of YHWH God,” rather than “by the sword or by the bare

blade,” is summarily described as “one of <wlv / peace.”42 The response is lxn, a

liberation focused away from violence, yet beneficial for “the siblings.”43 There can be no

greater contrast than in the response of YHWH’s anointed as opposed to that of the

“seven shepherds” and the “eight human leaders” whom Judah would raise.44

40 Mays has suggested that the reference to “earlier times” simply identifies the ruler with a

“period now viewed as an era behind [or prior to] the current order” (Micah, 115-16). However, “earlier

times” is used in synonymous parallel with “the days of old,” which is used elsewhere in the Mican

tradition with special reference “to the days when the shepherd tended his flocks” in the fertile fields of

Bashan and Gilead (7:4). This certainly parallels the image of the pre-royal David. Cf. J. L. McKenzie,

“Royal Messianism,” 44.

41 This represents a contrast to the image of rwBG la found in Isa 9:5, but has similarity to the

<wlv-rc , the unending increase of <wlv, as well as the ambience of peace found in Isa 9:5,6; 11:6-10.

Note also the Isaianic terminology “stump of Jesse” (Isa 11: 1) and “the root of Jesse” (Isa 11:10). Cf. J.

Paterson, The Goodly Fellowship o/the Prophets (New York: Scribner’s, 1948), 95.

The options are distinct. Either the focus is to rest on a violent resistance toward

Assyria by the Daughter of Troops, or on a liberation/rescue FOR the brethren. The

choice seems to be either one of massive retaliation, or, in the words of Mic 4:3b-c, one

of “swords hammered into plowshares and spears into pruning hooks; nation will not lift

up sword against nation, and never again will they train for war.” The two politics, and

thus political means, are stark in their dichotomy. Hence, Mic 4:14- 5:5 can be read as

follows --

Now assemble yourselves in troops,

0 Daughter of Troops!

A siege is laid against us;

With a scepter the judge of Israel is struck upon the cheek.

But you, 0 Bethlehem Ephrathah,

Too small to be among the brigades of Judah,

From you one will go forth for me in order to be ruler within Israel.

The goings forth of this one are out of earlier times,

42 Cf. Willis, “Micah IV/14-V/5,” 544. Note that 1 Sam 16:3-13 describes the anointing (jvm) of

David in terms of <wlv (vss. 4, 5).

43 Cf. the remainder/remnant of the sheep” snatched” (lxn ) from the lion’s mouth [a symbol of

exile] in Amos 3:12 with “the remainder/remnant of the siblings” which “returns” (bwv) [from exile?] in

Mic 5:2. Cf. Th. Lescow, “Das Geburtsmotiv in den messianischen Weissagungen bei Jesaje und Micha, “

ZAW 9 (1967): 195-97.

44 These “human leaders” (<da ykysn) ‘ādhām of Mic 5:4 seem to poignantly distinguish this

genre of leadership from any form of divine leadership. See F. Maass, “<d`a*,” TDOT 1 (1974): 83-87.

Out of days of old.

Therefore, it will be conceded to them until which time the one who is laboring

Gives birth;

And the remainder of the leader’s siblings return

In deference to the children of Israel.

Then this one will stand and shepherd by the might of YHWH,

By the power of the name of YHWH, the God of this one;

And they will settle down at that time because

YHWH’s one will be great unto the ends of the earth.

This leader will be one of peace.

Should Assyria invade our land and tread upon our citadels,

We would then raise seven shepherds and eight human leaders,

Who would shepherd the land of Assyria with the sword,

The land of Nimrod with the bare blade.

But YHWH’s leader would rescue from Assyria should it invade our land

And tread upon our territory.

In summary, the pericope has confronted the leadership mentality of “the

Daughter of Troops” with the prospect, even certainty, of a siege and challenge to its

philosophy of leadership and its political means. The text, however, presents an

alternative to the Daughter’s leadership with that of YHWH’s leader. The dichotomy is

apparent and far-reaching. The significance of this reading of Mic 4:14- 5:5 seems to bear

immediate fruit within the Mican tradition – i.e., Mic 5:6-8. Mic 5:6-8 is typically read

as a double simile concerning the remnant of Jacob. The usual reading is as follows --

The remnant of Jacob. . . will be

Like dew from YHWH,

Like showers on vegetation. . .

AND . . . like a lion among the beasts. . .

Like a young lion among the flocks.45

This seems to offer to contradictory outcomes – one of gentle nourishment, and one of

predatory violence. However, in light of the suggested reading of Mic 4:14- 5:5, it seems

more prudent to read the two similes as contrasting outcomes to two distinctive methods

of leadership. The resulting alternate reading of Mic 5:6-8 would yield the following

contrast:

Then the remnant of Jacob46 surrounded by many peoples47

Would be like dew from YHWH,

Like showers on vegetation

Which wait for no one

Or delay for the offspring of people;48

OR the remnant of Jacob surrounded by many peoples

45 E.g. Allen, Micah, 351; Andersen & Freedman, Micah, 488; Hillers, Micah, 70-71; Mays,

Micah, 121; Smith, Micah, 46- 47; JB; NASB; NEB; RSV; TEV; NIV; NAB.

46 Cf. “the remnant/remainder of the siblings” in Mic 5:2.

47 Note the siege setting of Mic 4: 14.

48 Cf. “the human leaders” or “the leaders of humankind” in Mic 5:4.

Would be like a lion among the beasts of the forest,

Like a young lion among the flocks of sheep49

Which, if he passes through, tramples down and tears;

There is no one to rescue.

Your hand would be lifted up against your adversaries,

And all your enemies would be cut off.

The above reads addresses the consequences of Judah’s leadership mentality,

particularly consequences for those to whom Judah is to be a blessing (see Gen 12:3).

The remnant “like dew”/”like showers which wait for no one”50 represents Judah under

YHWH’s leader, whereas the remnant “like a lion”/”like a young lion” which would lift

up its own hand against its enemies (“the peoples”) represents Judah under “the seven

shepherds and eight human leaders.” For both Judah and the peoples, the former yields

the consequences of rescue [lxn], establishment, and refreshment, while the latter yields

siege, death, violence of sword and bare blade, and NO rescue [lxn]. It is the absence of

“one to rescue” which makes the poignant contrast between the consequences of the latter

and the former remnants. This contrast serves to give definition to the concept of lxn.

Mic 4:14- 5:5 primarily says what it is not, whereas 5:6-8 establishes that lxn includes

via the similes of “dew” and “showers on vegetation which wait for no one” the elements

of nourishment, refreshment, and gentleness. It is significant for the present discussion,

49 Note again David the shepherd as he delivers his flock from the paw of the lion (1 Sam 17:35-

37).

50 Those who consider the similes noted here as complementary cite the hostile sense of the simile

“like dew” as it occurs in 2 Sam 17:12 (e.g. Hillers, Micah, 71).

that in such a reading the politics of the Messiah does not allow for the introduction of

violence in its agenda. The “one who rescues,” the “one of peace,” does not raise a hand

against the peoples, neither does he cut off, nor trample down and tear. This alternative

messianic liberation involves a focus on nurturing and refreshment.

One final affirmation of the proposed reading of Mic 4:14- 5:5 is found in Mic

5:9-10. Herein YHWH himself declares a divine opposition to, and an intention to

destroy, those things which bring about aggression, bloodshed and violence. The text

reads thus --

A Declaration of YHWH --

It will be in that day

That I will cut off your horses from among you;

And I will destroy your chariots.

I will cut off the cities of your land,

And I will tear down ALL your fortresses.51

The word of challenge leveled against “the Daughter of Troops” and its leader in Mic

4:14 has now become a word of judgment upon leader and followers alike. Those who

advocate and practice the violent bloodshed of war as the political solution to Assyrian-

like crises will, in the words of Mic 7:16a, 17b, “be ashamed of all their might . . . they

will come trembling out of their fortresses, to YHWH our God they will come in dread.”

The politics of war and violence is bankrupt and will suffer humiliation in “that day.” The

way of peace and true liberation, however, are to be honored and affirmed. The anointed

one of YHWH is the “one of peace,” not one of war, “one who will rescue,” not one of 51 Cf. Mic 4:3c; also Hos 1:7; Zech 9:10.

violence and destruction. The instruments of liberation are not armies, fortresses, swords,

bare blades, or spears. Rather divinely conceived rescue comes via “the strength of

YHWH” and “the power of the name of YHWH.” The type of liberation advocated by

YHWH’s leader, that which is “like dew and showers which wait for no one,” brings

rescue, refreshment, gentle nurturing, establishment “in the land,” and peace.

Therefore, those who argue that “the use of violence is in the politics of the

Messiah an instrument to liberate” and thus a means of this leadership are not supported

by the Mican messianic perspective of Mic 4:14- 5:5. The Mican pericope no doubt

wrestles to express this alternative messianism. However, those who contend that

“violence is shared by ALL movements of liberation” must also listen to the liberation

movement advocated by the Mican tradition. It is not universally true that ONLY by

violence can the defense of the oppressed be assured. Neither can it be categorically

stated that ONLY violence is effective in the face of exploitation, coercion and abuse.

Although the Mican tradition does not expound extensively on the content of liberation

[lxn], neither “just violence” nor “legitimate violence” can be a part of the agenda of the

“one of peace.” In the words of Erich Zenger, “the word of God does not provoke the

violence of the victims against their executioners; the vicious circle of violence is

broken.”52 Jacques Ellul has said that violence is both “human” and “natural”; it also

“self-justifying” and “hypocritical” in the face of imminent “harm.”53 However, as W.

52 Erich Zenger, A God of Vengeance? Understanding the Psalms of Divine Wrath, trans. Linda M.

Maloney (Louisville: Westminster John Knox press, 1996), 28.

53 See Ellul’s’ ‘laws of violence” (Violence: Reflections from a Christian Perspective [London:

SCM, 1969], 94-103).

Brueggemann has described <wlv, the messianic “peace” is a time of creation, not

destruction, representing a real hope for the future, as well as an historical quality for the

present. <wlv denotes liberation, salvation and survival. It IS the consequence of justice

and righteousness, not of violence and bloodshed. It is the end of coercion and

fragmentation among people. Whereas violence begets more violence, <wlv is a time

“when all God’s creation eases up on hostility and destruction and finds another way of

relating.”54

Earlier, the question posed was: “are violent means acceptable to bring about

liberation?” In light of our reading of Mic 4:14- 5:5, the answer is at least not clearly

unequivocal. In fact, the answer is very negative toward violent means and war-like

responses to threatening circumstances. The primary use of violence is not “an instrument

to liberate,” neither is it the means nor the ends of a messianic agenda. Thus the church

must similarly struggle against the “Daughter of Troops” / “young lion” mentality, and

search for – even advocate – a different “dew”-like means of Shalom.

54 W. Brueggemann, Living Toward a Vision: Biblical Reflections on Shalom (Philadelphia: UCC,

1976), 123.