MIDWESTERN BAPTIST THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

THE MICAH 6:8 TRICOLA AND ITS INFLUENCE ON JESUS’

DENUNCIATION OF THE PHARISEES IN MATTHEW 23

A PAPER

SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT

OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE COURSE

DR37340 ADVANCED BIBLICAL THEOLOGY

BY

JOSH GELATT

KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI

DECEMBER 10, 2021

 Introductory Issues

Research Question and Thesis

It is often assumed that Matthew 23:23 intentionally echoes or is otherwise dependent on

Micah 6:8.1 The evidence for this is seen in verbal parallels, contextual similarities, and the

forceful denunciations of Israel’s leadership in the surrounding passages of both verses. What is

often left unexplored is what bearing the context of Micah 6:8 may have on the meaning of

Matthew 23:23, particularly as it relates to understanding the concept of justice. Specifically,

what connection is Micah making between justice and words like loving-kindness and humility?

What impact does this have on Matthew’s conception of justice, mercy, and faithfulness?

The terms κρίσις and ‫ִמְשָׁפּט‬

As used in biblical literature, the semantic range of κρίσις, like its Hebrew counterpart

‫ִמְשָׁפּט‬, includes two basic ideas (which can be furthered refined and nuanced).2 As Sylvia

1
Craig Blomberg, “Matthew,” in The New Testament Use of the Old Testament, ed. G. K. Beale and D. A.
Carson (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007), 84; Fredrick Dale Bruner, Matthew: A Commentary: The
Churchbook: Matthew 13-28: Revised and Expanded Edition (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2004), 447; W. D.
Davies and Dale C. Allison Jr., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew,
vol. III (New York: T&T Clark International, 2004), 294; Donald A. Hagner, Matthew 14–28, vol. 33B, Word
Biblical Commentary (Dallas, TX: Word Publishing, 1995), 670; Craig S. Keener, The Gospel of Matthew: A Socio-
Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2009), 551; Leon Morris, The Gospel According to
Matthew, Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1992), 583; Walter C. Kaiser Jr., “The
Weightier and Lighter Matters of the Law: Moses, Jesus and Paul,” in Current Issues in Biblical and Patristic
Interpretation: Studies in Honor of Merrill C. Tenney Presented by His Former Students (Grand Rapids, MI:
Eerdmans, 1975), 176–92; John Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew: A Commentary on the Greek Text, New
International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2005), 938; H.N. Ridderbos, Matthew,
Bible Student’s Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1987), 429; David L. Turner, Matthew, Baker
Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008), 556.

2
An older but still significant study on the semantic range of ‫ ִמְשָׁפּט‬as used in the Old Testament was done
by Osborne Booth, which served as his doctoral dissertation. The chief conclusions were later recapped in a JBL
article in 1942. See Osborne Booth, “The Semantic Development of the Term ‫ ִמְשָׁפּט‬in the Old Testament,” Journal
of Biblical Literature 61, 2 (1942): 105–10. He argues that in the Prophets and the book of Proverbs ‫ ִמְשָׁפּט‬is used in
the sense of the “proper administration of law by man” (p.117).

1
Scholnick noted in her study of the use of ‫ ִמְשָׁפּט‬in the book of Job, the definition can even

change within a particular work.3 First, either term can mean judgment in the sense of a legal

declaration of guilt or innocence, as well as the legal ramifications of that judgment, such as

vindication or punishment.4 Related to this is the sense of ‘lawsuit’, referring to the forensic

process within a court of law,5 and the broader sense of ‘ruling power’ (i.e. the right to issue

judgment).6

Second, it can mean ‘justice’ in the sense of a moral quality, particularly as it relates to

the ethical and upright treatment of others.7 In this sense, κρίσις (as well as ‫ )ִמְשָׁפּט‬is a

Verhältnisbegriff (“relational concept”), to borrow a term from Hermann Cremer.8 For example,

Deuteronomy 18:3 directs that the priests should be supported by the tithing system, referring to

it as “the priest’s ‫ִמְשָׁפּט‬.” The two senses are interrelated and interdependent and caution should

be used not to press the distinction between these two semantic uses further than necessary. The

ethical treatment of others implies a duty to recognize someone’s rights and worthiness to

receive right treatment. ‘Judgment’ occurs because of the lack of ethical treatment or the

presence of unethical treatment. This can be seen even in the usage of the root word ‫‘( ָשַׁפט‬to

Sylvia Huberman Scholnick, “The Meaning of Mišpāt in the Book of Job,” Journal of Biblical Literature
3

101 (1982): 521.

4
Beauken argues that the servant song of Isaiah depicts Israel as longing for God’s mišpāt, but in some
cases the justice God offered was “not the justice that Israel was looking for” (p.27), as justice (by definition) can
contain salvific or punitive actions. See Beuken, W. A. M., “Mišpāt: The First Servant Song and Its Context,” Vetus
Testamentum 22, 1 (1972): 1–30.

5
Eliezer Berkovits, “The Biblical Meaning of Justice,” Judaism 18 (1969): 188–209.

6
Scholnick, “The Meaning of Mišpāt in the Book of Job,” 529.

7
T. Muraoka, A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint (Belgium: Peeters, 2009), 414–16.

8
Hermann Cremer, Die Paulinische Rechfertigungslehre Im Zuammenhange Ihrer Geschichtlichen
Voraussetzungen, 2nd ed. (Gütersloh: Bertelsmann, 1900), 16.

2
judge’). The ‫ שׁ ְֹפִטים‬served as significant figures in Israel’s history who were tasked with making

right judgments to bring relationships back into proper order. For example, Judges 2:16 notes

that Yahweh raised up the ‫ שׁ ְֹפִטים‬to deliver Israel “out of the power of those who plundered

them.”9 Richard Beaton notes that the Jewish concept of ‫ ִמְשָׁפּט‬was rooted in monotheism, “in

which God, as king and judge, was the dispenser and guardian of ‫ִמְשָׁפּט‬.”10 Those who

experienced injustice at the hands of oppressive rulers looked to God for vindication and

justice.11 From the viewpoint of the Old Testament, judgment (a legal action) and justice (an

ethical action) converge in God, so much so that there was a single term for both concepts. The

term is thus understandably frequently paired in the Old Testament with salvific or

compassionate terminology. Micah 6:8 is a classic example, with “do justice” (‫ )ִמְשָׁפּט‬being set

in parallel with kindness (‫)ֶחֶסד‬.

Of the twelve occurrences of κρίσις in Matthew, nine are used in the sense of ‘judgment’

(5:21, 22; 10:15; 11:22, 24; 12:36, 41, 42; 23:33).12 However, there is good reason to understand

at least three of its occurrences in the ethical sense of justice (namely, 12:18, 20; 23:23).13

9
For a discussion of the use of ‫ ָשַׁפט‬and ‫ שׁ ְֹפִטים‬in the Old Testament, see Hemchand Gossai, Social
Critique by Israel’s Eighth-Century Prophets: Justice and Righteousness in Context (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock,
1993), 120–40.

10
Richard Beaton, “Messiah and Justice: A Key to Matthew’s Use of Isaiah 42.1-4?,” Journal for the Study
of the New Testament 22, 75 (January 2000): 11.
11
Ibid.
12
For a discussion of ‘justice’ and ‘righteousness’ in the Gospel, and Matthew in particular, see Scot
McKnight, “Justice, Righteousness,” in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels: A Compendium of Contemporary
Biblical Scholarship, ed. Joel B. Green, Scot McKnight, and I. Howard Marshall (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity
Press, 1992), 411–16; For a more general overview of biblical usage, see Temba L. J. Mafico, “Just, Justice,” in
Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary, ed. David Noel Freedman (New York: Doubleday, 1992); M. A. Seifrid,
“Righteousness, Justice, and Justification,” in New Dictionary of Biblical Theology, ed. T. Desmond Alexander and
Brian S. Rosner (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000).
13
Luz strongly argues for rendering this as ‘judgment’ in 12:18, 20, though he concedes that a “positive”
and “beneficial” judgment is in view (i.e. restorative justice for the oppressed). See Ulrich Luz, Matthew 8-20: A

3
 Matthew 23:23

The Broad Literary Context of Matthew’s Gospel

A running motif throughout Matthew’s Gospel is the plight of the poor, vulnerable, and

disenfranchised who are “wearied” (σκύλλω) and caste down (ῥίπτω)” (Matthew 9:36). The

average Jew found himself ruled by a foreign power who couldn’t be expected to provide mercy

and compassion. He was also overseen by spiritual shepherds (the Pharisees) who had abandoned

the covenantal obligations and prophetic calls to seek justice for the vulnerable. Matthew

‘bookends’ his Gospel referring to the Pharisees as “vipers” (Matthew 3:7; 23:33), promising

they will receive justice/judgment (κρίσις, 23:33) for their neglect of “justice (κρίσις), mercy

(ἔλεος), and faithfulness” (πίστις, 23:23).14

Throughout the Gospel, the Pharisees are contrasted with Jesus. The Pharisees are

depicted as focused on maintaining religious laws and spiritual traditions (cf. Matthew 9:11-13;

Commentary, ed. Helmut Koester, trans. James E. Crouch, Hermeneia (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2001),
194.
14
Due to the harsh language employed, the Gospel of Matthew is often accused of anti-Semitism. Luz
correctly states, “If we understand ‘anti-Semitic’ to mean a culturally or even racially motivated rejection of
Judaism, then Matthew has nothing to do with anti-Semitism,” see Ulrich Luz, Matthew 21-28, trans. James E.
Crouch, Hermeneia (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2005), 173). L.T. Johnson, conversely, is more open to the
problematic nature of these texts, saying, “the scurrilous language used about Jews in the earliest Christian writings
is a hurdle neither Jew nor Christian can easily surmount,” see Luke Timothy Johnson, “The New Testament’s Anti-
Jewish Slander and the Conventions of Ancient Polemic,” Journal of Biblical Literature 108, 3 (1989): 419. After
surveying the use of polemic in the Greco-Roman world during that period, Johnson concludes the New Testament
authors (as well as various Jewish groups) utilized the standard custom of speaking to one’s opponents. However, by
comparison, “the NT’s slander against the Jews is remarkably mild” (p.441). Yari Furstenberg recently sought to
demonstrate that Jesus’ drew his argument and depiction of the Pharisees from the current intersectarian debate
concerning Torah observance, particularly as seen in Qumran literature and clusters of complaints against the
Pharisees recorded in the Mishnah. See Yair Furstenberg, “Jesus Against the Laws of the Pharisees: The Legal Woe
Sayings and Second Temple Intersectarian Discourse,” Journal of Biblical Literature 139, 4 (2020): 769–88.
Prybylski observes, “the fact that we are dealing with an internal Jewish dispute has a direct bearing on the intensity
of the Matthean polemic and its very derogatory language”, further concluding that this language should not be
taken as evidence for “overt hatred, but as natural side effects of an internal dispute,” see Benno Prybylski, “The
Setting of Matthean Anti-Judaism,” in Anti-Judaism in Early Christianity: Volume 1: Paul and the Gospels, ed.
Peter Richardson and David Granskou, Studies in Christianity and Judaism (Wilfrid, Ontario: Wilfrid Laurier Press,
1986), 198.

4
9:34; 12:1-14; 15:1-14; 23:1ff), whereas Jesus is presented as one who has compassion for the

people (Matthew 9:36; 14:14; 15:32; 20:34) and who had “come to save that which is lost”

(Matthew 18:11). Several scholars have drawn attention to Matthew’s use of summary passages

at critical points in his narrative.15 Birger Gerhardsson notes that these summary passages “are of

the greatest interest for understanding how the ministry of Jesus in Israel has been apprehended

and presented in the Gospel.”16 He identifies nine major summaries (4:23, 24-25; 8:16-17; 9:35-

38; 12:15-21; 14:13-14, 34-36; 15:29-31; 19:1-2; and 21:14-16). Out of these, four summaries

are commonly seen as being especially significant (4:23; 9:35; 8:16 and 12:15-16).

In both 4:23 and 9:35, nearly identical language is used to summarize Jesus’ teaching

ministry, prompting Dale Allison and W.D. Davies to conclude these serve as “a sort of

inclusio.”17 As 4:23 makes clear, the focus has been limited to Jesus’ activity in the region of

Galilee (v.23a, “Jesus went throughout Galilee”). A shift now occurs as word spreads as far as

Syria (v.24), Judea, Jerusalem, and the “ten cities” East of the Jordan (v.25). That activity

included both his teaching and miraculous healing.18 The excitement generated becomes the

15
For further discussions on Matthew’s summary texts, see X. Leon-Dufour, "The Gospel According to
Matthew," in A. Robert- A. Feuillet, introduction to the New Testament (New York: Desclee, 1965), pp. 167-173; H.
J. Held, "Matthew as Interpreter of Miracle Stories," in G. Bornkamm, G. Barth, H. J. Held, Tradition and
Interpretation in Matthew (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1963), pp. 246-247; W. G. Thompson, "Reflections on the
Composition of Matthew 8:1-9:34," pp. 366-368; Zack C. Phillips, “Filling Up the Word: The Fulfillment Citations
in Matthew’s Gospel” (Ph.D diss., Duke University, 2017); Thomas J Ryan, “Matthew 15:19-31: An Overlooked
Summary,” Horizons in Biblical Theology 5 (Spring 1978): 31–42.

16
Birger Gerhardsson, “Sacrificial Service and Atonement in the Gospel of Matthew,” in Reconciliation
and Hope: New Testament Essays on Atonement and Eschatology Presented to L.L. Morris on His 60th Birthday,
ed. R. Banks (Exeter: Paternoster Press, 1974), 20.
17
W. D. Davies and Dale C. Allison Jr., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to
Saint Matthew, vol. I (New York: T&T Clark International, 2004), 411.
18
Jesus’ teaching ministry is referenced explicitly in 4:17 (“from that time on Jesus began to preach
“Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near”) and 4:23a “(Jesus went throughout Galilee, teaching in their
synagogues, proclaiming the good news of the kingdom…”). His miraculous healing is referenced in 4:23b (“…and
healing every disease and sickness among the people”).

5
basis for the large crowd gathered to hear the Sermon on the Mount (5:1). The summary in 9:35

follows a sustained miracle section of 8:1-9:34, where we encounter ten separate healing acts.19

The summary language in 9:35 is nearly identical to that of 4:23;20 however, it is now expanded

as Jesus commissions his disciples to preach and perform miracles (10:1).21 The inclusio is

further intensified in that we are provided an explanation for Jesus’ emphasis on teaching and

healing. Namely, because “he had compassion for them because they were harassed and helpless,

like sheep without a shepherd” (9:36).

Unlike the summaries in 4:23 and 9:35, the summaries found in 8:16 and 12:15-16 are

followed by a citation from an Isaianic servant text. In 8:16, we are told that Jesus “cast out the

[demonic] spirits with a word and cured all who were sick.” This is immediately declared to be

the fulfillment of Isaiah 53:4 (seemingly following the Masoretic text), “He took our infirmities

and bore our diseases.” In 12:15-16, a similar summary is given (“many crowds followed him

and he cured all of them,” 12:15), which is soon followed by another fulfillment quotation from

Isaiah 42:1-4. Combined, these four summary passages demonstrate Matthew’s repeated

emphasis on the overall ministry of Jesus, especially as it relates to those who are suffering,

marginalized, or lost. This theme of justice and salvation for all runs throughout Matthew’s

gospel, serving as something like a Grundgeschichte for his depiction of Jesus.

The Denunciation Speech in Matthew 23

19
These include: the leper (8:1-3); the Centurion’s servant (8:5-13); Peter’s mother-in-law (8:14-17);
“healing” of the storm (8:23-27); the demoniacs (8:28-33); the paralytic (9:2-8); the girl raised from the dead (9:18-
19, 23-25); the woman with hemorrhages (9:20-22); two blind men (9:27-30); the mute demoniac (9:32-34).
20
For a discussion on the structure of 8:1-9:34, see William G Thompson, “Reflections on the Composition
of Mt 8:1-9:34,” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 33, 3 (July 1971): 365–88.

21
In 10:7, Jesus commissions his disciples to teach, “As you go, proclaim the good news, ‘The kingdom of
heaven has come near.’” In 10:1, Matthew tells us that “Jesus summoned his twelve disciples and gave them
authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to cure every disease and every sickness.”

6
 The prior conflict with the Pharisees now reaches its breaking point in chapter 23. The

chapter is divided into three sections: (1) the core accusations being leveled against the Pharisees

in vv.1-12, (2) a series of warnings in vv.13-36, and (3) a concluding lament in vv.37-39.

In the first section, Jesus levels three accusations: (1) the teachers of the law and the

Pharisees “do not practice what they preach” (23:3b); (2) they place “heavy, cumbersome loads”

upon people’s shoulders (23:4); and (3) “everything they do is done for people to see” (23:5-7).

This becomes the basis for the repeated label of ‘hypocrite’ (ὑποκριτής, cf 23:13, 15, 23, 25, 27,

39). They are also depicted as ‘blind guides’ (ὁδηγοὶ τυφλοὶ, 23:16), fools and blind men (µωροὶ

καὶ τυφλοί, 23:17), snakes (ὄφεις, 23:33a), a ‘son of hell’ (υἱὸν γεέννης, 23:15), full of ‘robbery

and self-indulgence’ (ἁρπαγῆς καὶ ἀκρασίας, 23:25), ‘whitewashed tombs’ (τάφοις κεκονιαµένοις)

that are full of uncleanness (ἀκαθαρσίας, 23:27) and a brood of vipers (γεννήματα ἐχιδνῶν,

23:33b) who kill, crucify, and flog God’s prophets (23:34). Jesus then links the Pharisee’s

present actions of resistance against God with the actions of past Israelite leaders, most notably

those depicted in the Old Testament prophetic literature (23:35).

In the second section, Jesus offers a series of seven woes. In each, he uses the interjection

οὐαί, which was a New Testament Semitism used to express pain, lament, or a threat.22 There

may be an echo to passages like Isaiah 5:8-23 or Habakkuk 2:6-20 which also offer a series of

warnings to the spiritually rebellious. D. A. Carson believes the woes in Matthew 23 form a

chiastic structure. The first (23:13) and seventh (23:29-32) deal with failing to recognize Jesus

(1st) and the prophets (7th). The second (23:15) and the sixth (23:27-28) each focus on a

22
Horst Robert Balz and Gerhard Schneider, Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament (Grand Rapids,
Mich.: Eerdmans, 1990), 540.

7
superficial zeal with causes spiritual harm. The third (23:16-22) and fifth (23:25-26) rebuke the

Pharisees’ misuse of Scripture. At the center is the fourth woe (23:23-24), which deals with the

“fundamental failure to discern the thrust of Scripture.”23 If this chiasm is to be accepted, it is

reminiscent of Jesus’ earlier rebuking question in Matthew 12:3, “have you not read?” (cf 19:4).

For Jesus, the heart of the issue is the widescale failure of the Jewish leadership to correctly

understand and apply Torah.

The Issue of Tithing

The central focus of Matthew 23:23 is the divergent interpretations of the Torah held by

Jesus and the Pharisees, specifically as it relates to two Torah categories: (1) Old Testament

tithing regulations, and (2) Old Testament commands regarding mercy and justice. Herbert W.

Basser and Marsha B. Cohen correctly state, “The tithing of mint, dill, and cumin was a scribal

enactment, not an explicit biblical precept.”24 The Pentateuch did, however, mandate the tithing

of produce, including “seeds from the ground” (Lev 27:30; Num 18:21-32; Deut 14:22-29). As

with all the laws of the covenant, these fell under the category of ‫“( ִצ ְדקָֹתיו‬righteous acts”). We

should here note that in the literature of the Old Testament the terms ‫( צדק‬the masculine form)

23
D.A. Carson, “Matthew,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Matthew, Mark, Luke, ed. Frank E.
Gaebelein, vol. 8 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984), 477.
24
Herbert W. Basser and Marsha B.B Cohen, The Gospel of Matthew and Judaic Traditions: A Relevance-
Based Commentary, The Brill Reference Library of Judaism (Leiden Netherlands: Brill, 2015), 607.

8
and ‫( צדקה‬the feminine form) were used interchangeably.25 However, by the time of the Second

Temple period the term ‫ צדקה‬was used almost exclusively in the sense of “acts of mercy.”26

The Tannaim of the first century would have understood ‘righteousness’ as total and

complete obedience to the Torah. As the m. Perkei Avot states, Jews must be as “careful with a

light [minor] commandment as with a grave [major] one” since no one knows the reward one

will receive in the world to come for obedience.27 As Keener states, “one area of piety for which

Pharisees were particularly known was their scrupulousness in tithing.”28

In the case of Pentateuchal food tithing laws, this presented a problem as the texts are

difficult to harmonize. Each seem to stipulate differing tithe structures. Perhaps partially due to

that confusion, rabbis in the Second Temple period (and beyond) debated what food products,

exactly, needed to be tithed.29 The Mishnah records the generally-held rabbinic belief that even

the smallest grains and produce fell under tithing laws. One tradition specified this included

“pressed figs, dates, carobs, rice, and cumin”,30 though it expressed uncertainty about dill.31

25
For a compelling study on this point, see J.A. Ziesler, The Meaning of Righteousness in Paul: A
Linguistic and Theological Enquiry, vol. 20, Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series (Cambridge
University Press, 1972), 17–49. For a well-researched discussion on the highly significant word-pair “‫”משפט וצדקה‬,
see Moshe Weinfeld, Social Justice in Ancient Israel and in The Ancient Near East (Jerusalem: The Magnes Press,
1995).

26
In contemporary Jewish idiom, ‫ צדקה‬refers to charitable giving.

27
m. Perkei Avot 2.1.
28
Keener, The Gospel of Matthew: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary, 550.
29
For a brief survey on how first and second century Jews attempted to harmonize these texts, see E.P.
Sanders, Jewish Law from Jesus to the Mishnah: Five Studies (Philadelphia, PA: Trinity Press International, 1990),
44–45.

30
Demai 2.1
31
Demai 1.1

9
Rabbi Eliezer, however, mandated the tithing of dill,32 though later tradition clarified this

referred only to planted dill, not wild dill.33 Another debate arose over black cumin (nigella

sativa). The Mishnah records the followers of Shammai did not consider black cumin as falling

under tithing laws whereas the followers of Hillel required it.34 Due to its potency, black cumin

was used in extraordinary small quantities, leading E. P. Sanders to suggest the Shammaites may

not have considered it a food.35 As Goulder has noted, there are no known documents which

suggest the tithing of mint was a Pharisaic practice. However, considering first-century rabbis

also debated the tithing of hot water,36 this most likely reflects an actual dispute.37

The First-Century Jewish Practice of Just and Merciful Deeds

Jesus’s concern for the lack of dedication to just and merciful deeds is seen elsewhere in

Jewish literature. The Mishnah records Rabbi Elazar, a first-century tanna, as saying, “one who

performs acts of charity (‫ )ְצָדָקה‬is greater than one who sacrifices all types of offerings”.38 As

noted above, by the time of the Second Temple period the term ‫ ְצָדָקה‬was generally used in the

sense of “acts of charity.” As such, they understood ‫ ְצָדָקה‬as being a subset of ‫ֶחֶסד‬. One could

practice ‫ְצָדָקה‬, just as one could also practice ‫( ֲחָסִדים‬often using the phrase ‫ ְגִּמילוּת ֲחָס ִדים‬, “acts of

32
m. Maasrot 4.5
33
Avodah Zarah 7b.11
34
Oktzin 3.6; cf Eduyot 5.3
35
Sanders, Jewish Law from Jesus to the Mishnah: Five Studies, 48.
36
m. Maasrot 4.4
37
Goulder takes this as evidence that Matthew was unfamiliar with Jewish religious practices. M.D.
Goulder, Midrash and Lection in Matthew (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 1974), 22.
38
b. Sukkah 49b

10
loving-kindness”). Later, rabbinic works would codify the distinction between ‫( ְצָדָקה‬which was

seen as mercy towards the poor) and ‫( ְגִּמילוּת ֲחָס ִדים‬the far broader category of kindness and

compassion towards everyone).39

These acts of loving-kindness were taken so seriously that to deny the practice of ‫ְגִּמילוּת‬

‫ ֲחָס ִדים‬was a denial of Judaism itself.40 The earliest individual statement by a rabbi in the

Mishnah states that ‫ ְגִּמילוּת ֲחָס ִדים‬were one of the three pillars of Judaism (“the world stands

upon three things: the Torah, the Temple service, and the practice of loving-kindness”).41 A

passage in the Talmud Bavli tells of two rabbis arrested by the Romans for practicing their faith.

One was arrested simply on the charge of studying the Torah while the other had multiple

charges, all of which related to living out the Torah’s commands for acts of loving-kindness. The

first comforted his friend with these words:

“Fortunate are you, as you were arrested on five charges but you will be saved;
woe is me, as I have been arrested on one charge, but I will not be saved. You will
be saved because you engaged in Torah study and in deeds of loving-kindness
(‫) ְגִּמילוּת ֲחָס ִדים‬, and I engaged in Torah study only”.42

The passage above immediately adds, “as Rav Huna says, anyone who occupies himself with

Torah study alone is considered like one who does not have a God.” Rabbi Akiba, who was killed

39
Sukkah 49b lays out three reasons why ‫ ְגִּמילוּת ֲחָס ִדים‬were superior to ‫ְצָדָקה‬. It states, “The Sages
taught that acts of kindness are superior to charity in three respects: Charity can be performed only with one’s
money, while acts of kindness can be performed both with his person and with his money. Charity is given to the
poor, while acts of kindness are performed both for the poor and for the rich. Charity is given to
the living, while acts of kindness are performed both for the living and for the dead.”
40
Ecclesiastes Rabbah 7:1
41
Perkei Avot 1:2
42
Avodah Zarah 17b

11
by the Romans in 135 CE, even declared “he who does not visit the sick is like a shedder of

blood.”43

The discussion of acts of kindness comes up repeatedly in the Talmud Bavli, which wasn’t

above using anecdotal evidence to prove its point. In one text, we are told of two men “from the

house of Eli”, Rabba and Abaye. The text states, “Rabba, who engaged almost exclusively in Torah

study, lived for forty years, whereas Abaye, who engaged in Torah study and in the performance

of acts of kindness lived for sixty years.”44 We know these acts of kindness were, at times, also

performed on a nation-wide scale. Josephus records that Queen Helena of Mesopotamia sent great

sums of money to the most outstanding Jewish men of Jerusalem (τοῖς πρώτοις τῶν Ἱεροσολυµιτῶν)

to distribute to the poor.45

However, early Jewish literature also preserves voices who argued for the primacy of Torah

study over and above the practice of mercy. This may have been based on a genuine belief that

Torah study would naturally result in merciful conduct. We see this tradition in Kiddushin which

records this exchange:

Rabbi Tarfon and some elders were reclining in the upper chamber in the house of
Nitza Lod when the following question was asked of them: Which is greater, study
or action? Rabbi Tarfon replied and said, action is greater. Rabbi Akiva replied and
said, study is greater. They all replied and said, study is greater because study leads
to action.”46

43
Nedarim 40a
44
b. Rosh Hashanah 18a
45
Antiquities 20.2
46
Kiddushin 40b

12
 It is in this sense that Rabbi Simla’i stated, “the beginning and the end of the Torah is acts

of kindness [‫] ְגִּמילוּת ֲחָס ִדים‬.”47 However well intended, the establishing of Torah study as

necessarily superior to the practice of mercy resulted in the minimalization of merciful acts, at

least in some circles. The tractate Semachot contains two opposing views on whether one should

cease Torah study to attend a funeral or bridal procession.48 The Avot D’Rabbi Nattan tells of a

rabbi who regrets visiting a sick (and disgruntled) individual, lamenting “I have left aside words

of Torah and occupied myself with meaningless things.”49

The issue in Matthew 23:23 is, as Carson suggests, the divergence of how Jesus handles

the Old Testament from that of the Pharisees. Often scholars suggest the Pharisees looked to the

details of the law, whereas Jesus looked below the surface at its deeper meaning.50 Indeed,

Josephus later noted the Pharisees' skill in analyzing the details of the law,51 but the comparison

nevertheless fails. The issue is not ‘details-vs-big-picture’ but the correct appropriation of Old

Testament material. Jesus’s rhetorical questions, “have you not read?” (12:3; 19:4) points

towards the details of the Torah, not away from them. Jesus has entered an ongoing rabbinic

debate and, while affirming the importance of faithfulness (πίστις) to God, is nevertheless siding

against any who downplay the importance of κρίσις and ἔλεος to others. Jesus wasn’t objecting to

47
Sotah 14a
48
Semachot 11.7
49
b. Avot 41. As with the other Talmudic tractates, this is a late work (c.700-900 CE), though it likely
reflects a much earlier debate.
50
For example, see Keener, The Gospel of Matthew: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary, 350.
51
Josephus, War 2.162; Life 191.

13
their detailed study of the Torah (“these you ought to have practiced”), but rather their

prioritization of that study over and above ethical acts.52

Micah 6:8

The Tricola in Micah 6:8

In the analysis below it will be argued that Micah 6:8 is composed of a triadic parallelism

where each of the three colons (“do justice”, “love mercy”, and “walk humbly”) are meant to be

understood in conjunction with each other. However, before we investigate the text of 6:8 we will

first explore the (1) the broad literary context of the book of Micah, and (2) the immediate context

of the prophetic oracle in 6:1-8.

The Broad Literary Context

The book of Micah places the prophet within the reigns of Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah

(1:1), which dated roughly from 750-686 B.C.E. This makes him the direct contemporary of

Isaiah, 53 who likewise heavily emphasized the theme of justice.54 Little is known about the

author, though 1:1 tells us he is from Moresheth. This is typically associated with Moresheth-

Gath (cf 1:14), which was a rural village some twenty miles southwest of Jerusalem.55 Eric

52
Keener, The Gospel of Matthew: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary, 551.
53
The near-identical speech in Isaiah 2:24 and Micah 4:1-4 suggests these two prophets were familiar with
one another, or at the very least one utilized speech from the other. On this issue, see the article by Rick W
Byargeon, “The Relationship of Micah 4:1-3 and Isaiah 2:2-4: Implications for Understanding the Prophetic
Message,” Southwestern Journal of Theology 46, 1 (2003): 6–26. See also the article by Marvin A. Sweeney who
proposes that Micah and Isaiah had differing visions for the coming era of peace: Marvin A. Sweeney, “Micah’s
Debate with Isaiah,” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 93 (2001): 111–24.
54
For a monograph-length study on the theme of justice in Isaiah, see Thomas L. Leclerc, Yahweh Is
Exalted in Justice: Solidarity and Conflict in Isaiah (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2001).
55
For discussion related to the various proposals regarding Moresheth-Gath, see the following: Eric A.
Mitchell, “Micah: The Man and His Times,” Southwestern Journal of Theology 46, 1 (2003): 57–76.Yigal Levin,
“The Search for Moresheth-Gath: A New Proposal,” Palestine Exploration Quarterly 134, 1 (2002): 28–36.

14
Mitchell proposes Micah was originally a farmer living in the village,56 whereas Hans Wolff

suggests he was most likely a village elder.57 He prophesied the coming destruction of Jerusalem,

which spurred Hezekiah to enact widescale spiritual reform.58 Nevertheless, a century later the

prophet Jeremiah would confirm Micah’s prophecy of Jerusalem’s destruction had come true (Jer

26:18).

The book is comprised of a series of oracles. Scholars have often noted the seemingly

disconnected nature of these prophetic speeches,59 with one explanation for their “jerkiness of

style” being they began as independent prophecies that were eventually bound together.60 Joseph

Blenkinsopp puts the number at “eight or nine,” 61 Bruce Waltke believes it contains about

twenty “once-independent oracles,”62 and Hans Wolff divides the book into four basic groupings

56
Mitchell’s proposal stems from the frequent agrarian terminology found through the book (1:6, 8, 16;
2:2-4; 3:12; 4:3, 4, 12, 13; 5:4-6, 7; 6:15; 7:1, 4, 11, 14). Mitchell, “Micah: The Man and His Times,” 66–67.

57
Wolff notes that Micah is never referred to as a prophet (even in Jeremiah 26:18) and that his great
concern for justice makes sense if he was an elder. Hans Walter Wolff, Micah: A Commentary, Continental
Commentaries (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Fortress, 1990), 6–7.

58
Leslie C. Allen, The Books of Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, and Micah, The New International Commentary on
the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1976), 240.
59
Von Ewald was among the first to propose dividing the book between material directly relating to Micah
(chapters 1-5) and material later added to the book (chapters 6-7, which he placed during the reign of Manasseh).
Heinrich A. von Ewald, Die Dichter Des Alten Bundes, vol. 2 (Göttingen: Vanderhoeck & Ruprecht, 1866), 527.

Bruce K. Waltke, “Micah,” in The Minor Prophets: An Exegetical and Expository Commentary: Volume
60

2: Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, and Habakkuk, ed. Thomas Edward McComiskey (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker
Academic, 1993), 594. For further discussion on the various oracles, and especially the history of research regarding
the construction of the book of Micah, see the following: M.R. Jacobs, The Conceptual Coherence of the Book of
Micah, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 322 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press,
2001), 14–45; D.G. Hagstrom, The Coherence of the Book of Micah: A Literary Analysis, Society of Biblical
Literature Dissertation Series 89 (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1988). See also the later article by Jacobs where she
updates the history of research since the publication of her 2001 book: Mignon R. Jacobs, “Bridging the Times:
Trends in Micah Studies since 1985,” Currents in Biblical Research 4, 3 (2006): 293–329.
61
Joseph Blenkinsopp, A History of Prophecy in Israel: Revised and Enlarged (Louisville, KY:
Westminster John Knox Press, 1996), 92.Bruce K. Waltke, A Commentary on Micah (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans,
2007), 13.
62
Waltke, “Micah,” 594.

15
of texts, each with numerous interpolations from a later redactor(s).63 Regardless of its original

composition or component parts, an overall pattern emerges “of alternating sections of judgment

and salvation.”64 Brevard Childs suggest three basic cycles of this pattern constitute the book:

First cycle (judgment in 1:2-2:11; salvation in 2:12-13); second cycle (judgment in 3:1-15;

salvation in 4:1-6:27); and third cycle (judgment in 6:1-7:7; salvation in 7:8-20).65

With the rise of the neo-Assyrian empire and the flagrance of Jewish sin, Micah of

Moresheth “saw clouds of doom on the horizon.”66 The book opens with a summon to hear a

speech from Yahweh, using the imperative form of ‫‘( ָשַׁמע‬hear, listen’). While the speech is

ultimately directed to the Jewish people (“v.1, “…concerning Samaria and Jerusalem”), the

reference to ‫‘( ַﬠִמּים‬peoples’) is more expansive. Wolff believes, most likely correctly, that there

is an implied warning to all humanity, which is further indicated in 5:15 (5:14 MT) when “the

nations” (‫ )ַהגּוֹ ִים‬are threatened for not hearing.67

In the opening verses, God announces his judicial activity against the cities of Samaria

and Jerusalem (1:1) for their ‫( ֶפַּשׁע‬rebellion, 1:5a) and ‫( ַחָטּאת‬sin, 1:5b). This iniquity is likened

to a “wound” (‫ )ַמָכּה‬which is derived from ‫ ָנָכא‬, a term which is elsewhere used in the sense of a

forceful blow with a hand (Ex 21:26; Ps 3:7), stone (1 Sam 17:49), arrow (1 Kgs 22:34), or spear

(1 Sam 19:10). The noun ‫ ַמָכּה‬could refer to a whipping (Deut 25:3) or wound (1 Kgs 22:35).

63
Wolff, Micah: A Commentary, 17–27.

64
Brevard S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press,
1979), 431.
65
Ibid.
66
Wolff takes this as evidence of redaction. Wolff, Micah: A Commentary, 1.
67
Ibid., 169.

16
Notably, out of the forty-eight occurrences of the term in the Old Testament, the LXX translates

it with πληγή (plague) two-thirds of the time. Furthermore, this ‘wound’ is incurable (‫)ָא ַנשׁ‬, a

term that only occurs elsewhere in the Old Testament in Isaiah (17:11), Jeremiah (15:18; 17:9,

16; 30:12, 15), and Job (34:6). The iniquity of the people, and especially their leaders, has

become rampant. In chapter 2, they are described as those who scheme to seize the land of

others, robbing them of provision and inheritance (2:2). Whereas later prophets would lament

injustices at the hands of foreigners, Micah depicts rich Israelites as greedy land barons who

evict women and children from their homes (2:9). They are likened to those who trample the

heads of the poor into the dusk (2:7). Isaiah 3:15 offers a similar complaint, asking, “What do

you mean by crushing My people and grinding the face of the poor?” The chieftains (‘heads and

rulers’, Micah 3:1) “detest justice” (3:9) and only dispense it when they are bribed (3:11). They

figuratively are said to “tear the skin off of my people” (3:2) and “chop them up like meat in a

pot” (3:3). The use of ‫‘( ָלֵכן‬therefore’, LXX διὰ τοῦτο) in 3:12 introduces the punishment which

“is the natural result of the terrible situation which has just been described.68 That the

punishment is directly due to the actions of the leaders is made clear with ‫ִבּ ְגַלְלֶכם‬.69

The judgment in 3:12 is offered as a tricolon, each referring in some way to Jerusalem.

‘Zion’ will become a plowed field (3:12a, cf 1:6), ‘Jerusalem’ will become a heap of ruins

(3:12b),70 and ‘the mountain of the house’ will become a wooded height (3:12c, i.e. ‘overgrown

68
David J. Clark and Norm Mundhenk, A Translator’s Handbook on the Book of Micah, UBS Handbook
Series (New York: United Bible Societies, 1982), 182.
69
This is, most likely, the prediction referred to in Jeremiah 26:18 [LXX 33:18].

70
The Old Greek rendered the Hebrew ‫“( ִﬠ ִיּין‬heap of ruins”) with ὀπωροφυλάκιον (both here and in 1:6),
which is best translated something like “garden-watcher’s hut.” This is surprising, especially since in the
corresponding passage in Jeremiah 26:18 [LXX 33:18), which relies on Micah 3:12, the Greek is rendered quite

17
high place’?).71 This last line is a reference to the Temple, though Yahweh’s name is not evoked.

It is as if Micah “desacralizes” this formerly holy place, as Waltke puts it.72 Due to Israel’s sin,

the temple is bereft of Yahweh’s holy presence.73 The tricolon forms a single (even if

multifaceted) idea: the land of the covenant will become a ‘desolation’ (‫שׁמה‬, 6:16). Even more

pointedly, the people of that land will become “an object of hissing” who “bear scorn” (6:16).

Despite this strong language of judgment, the book also focuses on Yahweh’s coming

salvation. The very mountain that will be made an overgrown forest (3:12c) will “be established

as the highest of the mountains” (4:1). It will be a place where people from all nations joyously

gather (4:2). Wars and strife shall cease (4:3) and no one will live in fear (4:4). God’s people are

told “you will be rescued “(‫ִתּ ָנֵּצִלי‬, 4:10a) and “He will reclaim you” (‫ ִי ְגָאֵלְך‬, 4:10b). Yahweh is

the one who pardons (literally ‘lifts’, ‫ ) ָנָשׂא‬iniquity (7:18). A ruler will arise (5:1) who will gather

up the people of Israel (5:2) so they can live securely (5:4) and in peace (5:5). They will be

triumphant over their enemies (5:9) and the adversarial foreign nations who do not heed Yahweh

will receive His vengeance (5:15). In this day, Israel will see “marvelous things” (7:15) as they

literally as ἄβατον (‘untrodden’, ‘impassable’). For theories regarding this divergence, see W. Edward Glenny,
Micah: A Commentary Based on Micah in Codex Vaticanus (Boston, MA: Brill, 2015), 87.

71
Hillers suggest this should be read in light of Micah 5:8[7], which mentions ‫“( ַבֲהמוֹת ַיַﬠר‬the beasts of the
field”). On this view, 3:12 contains a scribal error (‫ ָבמוֹת‬inadvertently replacing ‫)ַבֲהמוֹת‬, thus “for See Delbert R.
Hillers, Micah: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Micah (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1984), 47.
Wolff also takes this view, translating the clause as “and the temple mount will be given over to the beasts of the
forest.” See Wolff, Micah: A Commentary, 90. This proposal is intriguing. However, in addition to lacking
manuscript support, two additional facts mitigate against this view. First, ‫ ָבָּמה‬seems to be set in parallel to ‫ַהר‬
(mountain). Second, the LXX (which omits ‫ ָבָּמה‬entirely), says that the “house of the mountain” (τὸ ὄρος τοῦ οἴκου)
will be “like a grove thicket” (ὡς ἄλσος δρυµοῦ). Nevertheless, the overall effect of the tricolon is clear. The
inhabited Zion will become a ‘unpeopled’ field, the structures of Jerusalem will become ruins, and the glorious
temple will become a forest (either in the sense of an overgrown hill or a forest overrun with wild beasts).
72
Waltke, A Commentary on Micah, 183.
73
For more on the Old Testament theme of God’s absence, see Joel S. Burnett, Where Is God? Divine
Absence in the Hebrew Bible (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2010).

18
did in the Exodus (the use of ‫ ִנְפָלאוֹת‬intentionally invokes the language of Exodus 3:20 and

34:10).

Yet, this future deliverance nevertheless requires Israel’s repentance. Chapter 6 lays out

what this repentance will look like. Their false-worship has been rejected (6:6-7), so in its place

there must be justice, loving-kindness, and humility (6:8). Even though Israel must temporarily

“bear the indignation of Yahweh” because of their sin against Him (7:9), Micah recognizes that

Yahweh is, ultimately, a God who pardon’s iniquity (7:18a) and desires to show clemency

(7:18b) and compassion (7:19). The book ends with an affirmation of Yahweh’s “faithfulness to

Jacob and unswerving loyalty to Abraham (7:20).

The Oracle of Micah 6:1-8

Micah 6:1-8 is an individual divine oracle, clearly marked off by the signal marker ‫ָשַׁמע‬

(“hear”) in 6:1 (see also 1:2; 3:1, 9) and ending in 6:8, as the signal marker reappears in 6:9

marking the beginning of another speech. This is an example of Gerichtsrede, or court speech,

wherein a case is brought against a defendant.74 In language remarkably similar to Isa 1:2, Ps

50:1, and Deut 32:1, participants are summoned to “hear” (‫ )ָשַׁמע‬the court case, with the

mountains (‫ַהר‬, 6:1b, 6:2a) and earth’s foundations (‫מְס ֵדי‬

ֹ ) serving as the witnesses to the

proceedings (some versions of the LXX have λαοί rather than ‫ַהר‬, bringing 6:2 into conformity

74
Anderson and Freedman, among others, question the very existence of “prophetic lawsuit”. See Francis I.
Anderson and David Noel Freedman, Micah: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, Anchor Yale
Bible (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2008), 509. For more on this genre, see Aage Bentzen, Introduction
to the Old Testament, vol. 1, 2 vols. (Copenhagen: Gads Forlag, 1952), 199–200. E. Würthwein, “Der Ursprung Der
Prophetischen Gerichtsrede,” Zeitschrift Für Theologie Und Kirche 48–49 (1952 1951): 10. H.B. Huffmon, “The
Covenant Lawsuit in the Prophets,” Journal of Biblical Literature 78 (1959): 285–95. D.R. Daniels, “Is There a
‘Prophetic Lawsuit’ Genre?”,” Zeitschrift Für Die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 99 (1987): 339–60.

19
with court case in 1:2).75 The defendants are asked to “plead” (‫ ) ִריב‬their case (6:1), a term

signifying difficulty, contention, or quarrelling. Yet, while the defendants may believe they have

a quarrel with Yahweh, he also has a quarrel with them. This is clarified in 6:2, where ‫ִריב‬

appears twice in parallel, as Yahweh is described as having a “controversy (‫ ) ִריב‬with his people”

and “will contend (‫ ) ִריב‬with Israel”. Combined, vv.1-2 can be taken in the sense of Yahweh

declaring, “Go ahead and quarrel with me, because I certainly will quarrel with you.” Yet, the

culpability for this quarrel is placed upon the defendant, who is commanded to answer what

Yahweh has done to him to receive this treatment. The language in 6:3 is given in the imperative

‫ֲﬠ ֵנה ִבי‬, “answer me!”76

Far from being a tyrant, Yahweh reminds the Israelites that he brought them out of Egypt

and redeemed (from ‫ָפּ ָדה‬, ‘to deliver, ransom, buy back’) them (6:4a). He sent them righteous

leaders such as Moses, Aaron, and Miriam (6:4b) and intervened against unrighteous kings

(6:5a). The phrase “from Shittim to Gilgal” in 6:5b may refer to the last Israelite camp on the

east side of the Jordan river (Shittim) and the first camp on the west side of the river (Gilgal),

making this a reference to the miraculous crossing of the Jordan river.77 This is reminiscent of

75
Several manuscripts and Rahlf’s edition of the LXX follow the Hebrew text and have βουνοί (mountains)
instead λαοί (peoples). See discussion in Glenny, Micah: A Commentary Based on Micah in Codex Vaticanus, 145–
46.
76
Or “testify against me.” Huffmon notes that the oracle depicts the Israelites as the defendant, the prophet
as the lawyer for the plaintiff (Yahweh), and the mountains and hills before whom all plead their case. See Huffmon,
“The Covenant Lawsuit in the Prophets,” 287.

77
For a discussion of the various views, see Joanna M. Hoyt, Amos, Jonah, and Micah, Evangelical
Exegetical Commentary (Bellingham WA: Lexham Press, 2019), 758.Rodney R. Hutton, “What Happened from
Shittim to Gilgal? Law and Gospel in Micah 6:5,” Currents in Theology and Mission 26 (1999): 94–103.

20
the lawsuit speech in 1 Samuel 12:3ff where Yahweh’s mighty deeds are also recounted (note

especially the use of ‫ ֲﬠ ֵנה ִבי‬in both 1 Sam 12:3 and Micah 6:3).78

The 6:8 Tricola

According to Adele Berlin, a ‘grammatical parallelism’ is formed when two or more cola

are linked together by syntactic elements within the text.79 When this occurs in threes it forms a

‘triadic parallelism’, variously referred to as a tricolon. The individual colons, or what Robert

Alter refers to as ‘versets’,80 are independent and grammatically complete units which are

nevertheless connected to the other colons using parisosis (a parallel structure formed through

the use of similar words, syllables, or other grammatical features).81 These were exceedingly

common in Ugaritic, Akkadian, and ancient Hebrew literature,82 and appear frequently in the Old

Testament poetic and prophetic books. One example is Hosea 5:1 where the tripartite structure

can be seen below:

Hear this, O priests!

Give heed, O house of Israel!
Listen, O house of the King!

78
For a discussion on the numerous linguistic similarities between 1 Samuel 12 and Micah 6, see Wolff,
Micah: A Commentary, 170.
79
Adele Berlin, The Dynamics of Biblical Parallelism: Revised and Expanded, Biblical Resource Series
(Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2007), 130.
80
Robert Alter, “The Characteristics of Ancient Hebrew Poetry,” in The Literary Guide to the Bible, ed.
Robert Alter and Frank Kermode (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1987), 612.
81
Michael Wade Martin, “The Poetry of the Lord’s Prayer: A Study in Poetic Device,” Journal of Biblical
Literature 134, 2 (2015): 358.
82
Wilfred G.E. Watson, Classical Hebrew Poetry: A Guide to Its Techniques, Journal for the Study of the
Old Testament Supplement Series 26 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1986), 151.

21
Though each colon is grammatically independent, they are linguistically connected through the

sematic similarity of the terms “hear this” (‫)ִשְׁמעוּ־ז ֹאת‬, “give heed” (‫) ְוַהְקִשׁיבוּ‬, and “listen”

(‫)ַהֲא ִזינוּ‬. An additional structural link is seen in the use of the imperative in each colon. Another

example is Isaiah 15:6, as seen below:

The waters of Nimrim are a desolation

The grass is withered
The new growth fails
The verdure is no more.

In this case, each colon is set in parallel to the others using two key word-groups. First, various

terms are employed to reference the grass (‘grass’, ‘new growth’, ‘verdure’). Second, each colon

parallels the other through terms that describe destruction (‘withered’, ‘fails’, ‘no more’). In both

examples (Hosea 5:1 and Isaiah 15:6), the meaning of an individual colon does not exactly

correspond to the others. Rather, utilizing both similarities and differences, a more complete

picture emerges. The three leadership groups mentioned in Hosea 5:1 together form the ruling

establishment of the Northern Kingdom.83 As such, Hosea is indicating that all spheres of

leadership fall under his rebuke. Likewise, Isaiah 15:6 isn’t simply declaring that the fields will

wither. A more complete picture of destruction is in view. Today’s grass has withered (colon A),

but tomorrow’s grass is already doomed (colon B), and the desolation is so complete that the

green color of the fields is now but a distant memory (colon C).

A similar phenomenon is occurring in Micah 6:8. The triadic parallelism can be seen

below:

but to do justice [‫]ִאם־ֲﬠשׂוֹת ִמְשָׁפּט‬

and to love kindness [‫] ְוַאֲהַבת ֶחֶסד‬

83
A. A. MacIntosh, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Hosea, International Critical Commentary
(Edinburgh: T&T Clark International, 1997), 175.

22
 and to walk humbly [‫ ] ְוַהְצ ֵנ ַע ֶלֶכת‬with your God

The cola are linked together structurally and grammatically through infinitival

constructions of each primary verb (do, love, walk). The very nature of parallelism suggests that

the author is saying something similar, but also something different, with each colon. Robert

Lowth advanced a theory of “synonymous parallelism”, which he believed fit most parallels in

the Hebrew scriptures. In this view, each colon is seen as corresponding “to one another by

expressing the same sense in different, but equivalent terms.”84 Each additional line is

essentially redundant, though it may achieve a greater rhetorical effect. While groundbreaking,

Robert Alter’s later scholarship demonstrated Lowth’s concept as naïve. There are several types

of parallelism in Hebrew writings, few of which are ever “static synonymity.”85 Instead, Alter

distinguished between “parallelism of specification” and “parallelism of intensification.”86 J.P.

Fokkelman offered further refinement. Speaking of bicolon parallels, he notes how Hebrew

parallel often acts like binoculars, allowing us to see two similar (yet different) pictures while

simultaneously creating a new, single image. This image is built upon the two single images but

forms something more significant.87 Each colon adds an ‘image’ (or rather, an idea) to the

overall picture of the tricola. D. J. A. Clines, speaking of poetic couplets, writes, “the meaning of

84
Quoted in F.W. Dobbs-Allsopp, “Robert Lowth, Parallelism, and Biblical Poetry,” Journal of Hebrew
Scriptures 21 (2021): 23.
85
Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Poetry (New York: Basic Books, 1985), 22.
86
Ibid., 3–26.
87
J.P. Fokkelman, Reading Biblical Poetry: An Introductory Guide, trans. Ineke Smit (Louisville, KY:
Westminster Press, 2001), 38–41. See discussion in Irons, The Righteousness of God: A Lexical Examination of the
Covenant-Faithfulness Interpretation, 66–67.

23
the couplet does not reside in A nor in B…It is in the whole couplet of A and B in which A is

affected by its juxtaposition with B and B by its juxtaposition with A.”88

As Anderson and Freedman put it, “The compact expressions [in Micah 6:8] are related

to one another and mutually self-defining.”89 In the analysis below we will seek to understand

two primary issues. First, what is the intended meaning of each individual colon? Second, what

is the relationship between the three cola and how, if at all, are they “mutually self-defining?”

The Opening Statement in 6:8

The LXX turns the opening statement of 6:8 into two questions using the interrogative

pronoun τίς, “has it been announced to you, man, what (τί) is good or what (τί) the Lord seeks

from you?” This brings 6:8 into conformity with 3:1, which asks the rhetorical question, “should

you not know justice?” Combined, these two passages form a powerful rebuke. The answer to

the questions in 6:8 is implied: the Lord has indeed already announced this information to the

Israelites. The LXX clarifies this with the use of the passive ἀνηγγέλη (“has been announced”) in

6:8a. Thus, as Glenny notes, “the petitioner in 6:6-7 is on the wrong track. He need not inquire

what he has to do to be accepted by the Lord, because this is something they should know.”90

Both the Hebrew ‫ ָא ָדם‬and the LXX ἄνθρωπε are given in the singular, though both the preceding

and subsequent material suggests all Israelites are in view. The use of the singular is a rhetorical

88
David J A Clines, “The Parallelism of Greater Precision: Notes from Isaiah 40 for a Theory of Hebrew
Poetry,” in New Directions in Biblical Hebrew Poetry, ed. Elaine R. Follis, Journal for the Study of the Old
Testament Supplement Series 40 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987), 95.
89
Anderson and Freedman, Micah: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, 25.
90
Glenny, Micah: A Commentary Based on Micah in Codex Vaticanus, 167.

24
device, with the speech addressed to a representative Israelite.91 We should not rule out that by

using the term ‘man’, Micah’s message also intends a more universal function. While Israelites

are expected to honor the covenant, God’s covenantal ethic ultimately applies to all humanity.

All stand without excuse, especially Israel, since these ethical requirements have already been

announced.

Yet, where has this been announced? That the Israelites knew this information is evident

from Hosea 12:6, “But as for you, return to your God, hold fast to love and justice, and wait

continually for your God.”. While the language varies slightly, this seems to refer to the same

tradition alluded to in Micah 6:8. A century later, the prophet Jeremiah would offer this divine

utterance in Jeremiah 22:15: “Did not your fathers eat and drink and do justice and

righteousness?” He then adds in v.16, “Is not that what it means to know me?” Many scholars

have long detected a Deuteronomic connection in these prophetic utterances, though often this is

paired with a redaction-critical approach to interpretation.92 This is seen not only in the content

of the ethical exhortations in 6:8 (justice, love, humility) but also in the historical recounting of

the “saving acts of Yahweh” in 6:3-5. The mention of Shittim is especially significant as the

major speeches of Deuteronomy were given there.93 Deuteronomy 16:20 had already declared

that the “new land Yahweh your God is giving you” was conditioned on their practice of justice

(“justice, justice you shall pursue”, note the double use of ‫)ֶצ ֶדק‬. This was based on Yahweh’s

earlier declaration to Abraham that the coming nation is to “keep the way of Yahweh by doing

91
Ibid., 166.
92
This is often taken, particularly among German scholarship, as evidence of a later Deuteronomistic
school which influenced the final form of these writings (or invented them altogether). For a prominent example, see
Wolff, Micah: A Commentary, 171.
93
Anderson and Freedman, Micah: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, 532.

25
‫( ְצ ָדָקה וִּמְשָׁפּט‬Genesis 18:19). In Micah 6:8, the prophet asks, “what does Yahweh require (‫) ָדּ ַרשׁ‬

of you?” It is very likely this is consciously dependent on Deuteronomy 10:12, where a similar

question is posited (using ‫ָשַׁאל‬, ‘ask’).94 Deuteronomy 18:19 likewise emphasizes that God

requires (‫ ) ָדּ ַרשׁ‬obedience to what he has revealed to Moses. Micah is thus calling Israel back to

its original covenantal obligations by evoking three images in parallel.

The First Colon: ‫ֲﬠשׂוֹת ִמְשָׁפּט‬

The questions of 6:8a are immediately answered in 6:8b. First, the Israelites are

commanded to “do” (‫ָﬠָשׂה‬, ποιεῖν) justice. The infinitive construct has the sense of “engaging

oneself in and effecting justice.”95 Hoyt captures the meaning correctly when she writes, “They

are not merely to support the idea of justice—they are to actively bring about justice.”96 The term

‫ ִמְשָׁפּט‬occurs five times in the book of Micah. Three of these occur in the context of rebuking

Israelite leaders for their failure to pursue justice (3:1, 8, 9). Micah is intentionally creating a

conceptual link between the terms ‘justice’ (‫ )ִמְשָׁפּט‬and ‘good’ (‫)טוֹב‬. Amos likewise equates ‫טוֹב‬

with judicial justice (‫ִמְשָׁפּט‬, specifically “justice in the gates”, Amos 5:14).97 An implied contrast

is being made with the injustices described in chapters 2-3, which can only be understood as

‘bad’ or undesirable. Micah now envisions a new situation that can be good (‫)טוֹב‬, which is

94
Glenny, Micah: A Commentary Based on Micah in Codex Vaticanus, 165.
95
Ibid., 168.
96
Hoyt, Amos, Jonah, and Micah, 765.

97
The frequent Old Testament pairing of ‘justice’ with the elders and judges who sit at the city gates
perhaps explains the record in the Talmud Bavli of Eleazar ben Pedat’s teaching that "to do justly" in Micah 6:8
refers to judgments rendered by judges (b. Sukkah 49b.8; b. Makkot 24b.26). However, as Moshe Weinfeld notes,
this cannot refer to the execution of justice in a court since “the demand is made of every man,” see Weinfeld, Social
Justice in Ancient Israel and in The Ancient Near East, 36.

26
further described by the moral qualities of justice, love, and humility mentioned in this verse.

Micah is starting with the abstract (‫ )טוֹב‬and moving to the concrete (‫)ִמְשָׁפּט‬.

James Mays aptly defines biblical justice as upholding “what is right according to the

tradition of YHWH’s will, both in legal proceedings and in the conduct of life.98 Yahweh’s will

is expressed, especially in Deuteronomy, in the ‫ִמְּשָׁפִּטים‬.99 Though commonly translated as

‘ordinances’, they could be literally rendered “the justice commands.”100 The ‫ ִמְּשָׁפִּטים‬thus

become the basis for doing ‫ִמְשָׁפּט‬, and where ‫ ִמְשָׁפּט‬is lacking it is frequently because Yahweh’s

‫ ִמְּשָׁפִּטים‬have been disregarded.101 These served as the ethical commands of the covenant (cf

Deut 5:1-2) which were necessary to uphold a right relationship, including the Israelite-Yahweh

and Israelite-to-Israelite relationships (and, by extension, any human-human relationship). The

term ‫ ִמְשָׁפּט‬thus serves as a “comprehensive term for the conditions of the covenant, the way of

life, which it embodies.”102 However, “justice” in the Old Testament isn’t primarily a legal

category of thought.103 It is essentially relational with the legal aspect only coming into play

when a relationship fracture (i.e. ‘injustice’) has occurred. Abraham Heschel puts it this way,

98
James Luther Mays, Micah: A Commentary, Old Testament Library (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster
Press, 1976), 141–42.

99
Deuteronomy 4:1, 5, 8, 14, 45; 5:1; 6:1, 20; 7:11; 8:11; 11:1, 32; 12:1; 26:16, 17; 30:16; 33:10.

100
Rosenberg refers to the ‫ ִמְּשָׁפִּטים‬as “a collection of norms which is to serve as an instrument for the
establishment of a just order.” See M.S. Rosenberg, “The Stem Špt: An Investigation of Biblical and Extra-Biblical
Sources” (PhD diss., 1963), 140.

101
Gossai, Social Critique by Israel’s Eighth-Century Prophets: Justice and Righteousness in Context, 176.

102
G.W. Anderson, “A Study of Micah 6:8,” The Scottish Journal of Theology 4 (1951): 194.

103
Berkovits argues the opposite; namely, that ‘justice’ in the Old Testament is primarily a legal concept.
See Berkovits, “The Biblical Meaning of Justice,” 188.

27
“An act of injustice is condemned, not because a law has been broken, but because a person has

been hurt.”104

As Hans Walter Wolff noted, justice is something the book of Micah expects to be

performed by the leaders of the Jewish people. In 3:1, the terms ‫‘( ָראֵשׁים‬heads’) and ‫ְקִציֵנים‬

(‘rulers’) are set in parallel. Since both terms are plural, Micah is not referring to a king

specifically, but rather all levels of leadership. If the author’s hometown of Moresheth (1:1) is to

be identified as the remote village of Moresheth-Gath (1:14), and there is every indication it

should be, then the ‫ ָראִשׁים‬may refer to the heads of the tribes and clans (cf. Numbers 7:2), who

presumably played a more central governing role in rural regions. The relatively rare term ‫ְקִציֵנים‬

(used twelve times in the OT) was used in Joshua 10:24 to refer to a military commander, though

in Isaiah 1:10 civil rulers seem to be in view (who likewise are commanded to seek justice, Isa

1:17). It occurs twice in Judges (11:6, 11) in reference to the military/spiritual leadership of

Jephthah. It is quite likely that Micah is rebuking widespread corruption and rebellion against

God’s ‫ִמְּשָׁפִּטים‬, and the resulting injustices which flow from such rebellion.

The rebuke against the leadership becomes especially pointed in 3:1 with the question,

“should you not know justice?” For Jewish leadership, who were tasked with promoting fidelity

to the covenant, this question was meant to be humiliating. To disregard ‫ ִמְשָׁפּט‬as a way of life

was to disregard the covenant God had established with Israel.105 As outlined above, the leaders

“detested justice” and brutalized the people. The people then followed their actions, brutalizing

one another. Chapter 7 pointedly describes a nation where “no one left is upright” (7:2a), who

104
Abraham Heschel, The Prophets: An Introduction (New York: Harper Collins, 1962), 216.
105
Anderson, “A Study of Micah 6:8,” 194–95.

28
“lie in wait for blood and hunt each other with nets” (7:2b), who bribe and otherwise abuse

power over one another (7:3), and who betray even the most intimate relationship bonds (7:6).

Micah says, “even the best of them is like a thorn-bush” (7:4). The boldness of this rebuke is

largely why Peter Craigie refers to Micah as “the conscience of Israel.”106 The only remedy for

such widespread injustice (especially as outlined in chapters 2-3 and 7) is the practice of

‫ִמְשָׁפּט‬.107

The Second Colon: ‫ַאֲהַבת ֶחֶסד‬

The second part of the tricolon is the phrase ‫ ְוַאֲהַבת ֶחֶסד‬, which is unique in the Hebrew

scriptures.108 The first word (‫ )ַאֲהָבה‬is a rather generic term that roughly equates to the English

‘love’ and the Greek ἀγαπάω. As Robert Alden puts it, the meaning “ranges from God’s infinite

affection for his people to the carnal appetites of a lazy glutton.”109 Yet, it was also a central term

in the covenant. In Deuteronomy 11:13, Israel is commanded to love (‫ )ַאֲהָבה‬Yahweh.110

While the lexical meaning of the second term (‫ )ֶחֶסד‬is disputed, it could be used in the

sense of ‘charming’ or ‘gracefulness.’ Isaiah 40:6-7 says people are like flowers of the field

106
Peter C. Craigie, The Old Testament: Its Background, Growth, and Content (Nashville TN: Abingdon
Press, 1986), 192.
107
Anderson and Freedman, Micah: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, 529.
108
The phrase appears in Second Temple literature, occurring once in the Damascus Document (13.18) and
five times in the Manual of Discipline (2.24; 5.4, 25; 8:2; 10:26).

109
Alden Alden Robert L., “‫ָאֵהב‬,” in Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, ed. Archer, Gleason L.,
Jr. and Waltke, Bruce K. (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1999), 14.
110
William Moran has demonstrated that this term played an important role in Near Eastern covenants. See
William L Moran, “Ancient Near Eastern Background of the Love of God in Deuteronomy,” The Catholic Biblical
Quarterly 25, 1 (January 1963): 77–87.

29
whose ‫ ֶחֶסד‬fades (‫נבל‬, v.7), here in the sense of loveliness or gloriousness.111 However, such

usage is relatively rare in the Old Testament. Far more frequent is its connection to covenant

texts, and thus the significance of ‫ ֶחֶסד‬cannot be overstated.112 When used of the stronger party

in a covenantal relationship (king-vassal, father-son, rich-poor, etc.), it also implies ‘mercy’ or

‘grace’ since the stronger party, by definition, has the ability to withhold ‫ ֶחֶסד‬without

repercussion.113 However, a covenant by its very nature was based on the expectation of

reciprocal ‫( ֶחֶסד‬cf Joshua 2:12).114 Its fundamental meaning “designates an attitude

characterizing a relationship in which one seeks to insure another person’s well-being.”115 Thus,

in most cases we could translate ‫ ֶחֶסד‬with words like ‘kindness’, ‘benevolence’, or ‘loyalty’.116

111
English translations variously render this as “loveliness” (NASB), “goodliness” (AV), “constancy”
(NRSV), “beauty” (ESV) “faithfulness” NIV ’11), and “promises” (NET). The NIV 1984 edition renders this as
“glory”, perhaps influenced by the Old Greek’s δόξα ἀνθρώπου (“glory of humanity”).

112
Zobel believes the term has its origin in the family and clan relationships of the Ancient Near Eastern
world. See H.J. Zobel, “‫ֶחֶסד‬,” in Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, ed. Botterweck, G. Johannes,
Ringgren, Helmer, and Fabry, Heinz-Josef, trans. Willis, John T., Stott, Douglas W., and Green, David E., vol. 5
(Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1977), 52. The literature on this word is vast. See especially the following studies:
G.R. Clark, The Word Hesed in the Hebrew Bible (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993). and especially
Katharine D. Sakenfeld, The Meaning of Hesed in the Hebrew Bible: A New Enquiry (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock,
2002).
113
Waltke, A Commentary on Micah, 393.
114
Sakenfeld discussion how the term described an attitude of loyalty between two parties, though a loyalty
which was expected to be put into some sort of action. See Sakenfeld, The Meaning of Hesed in the Hebrew Bible: A
New Enquiry, 16–21.

115
Jan Joosten, “‫חסד‬, ‘Benevolence’, and Λεος, ‘Pity’: Reflections on Their Lexical Equivalence in the
Septuagint,” in Collected Studies on the Septuagint, ed. Jan Joosten, Forschungen Sum Alten Testament 83
(Tübingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck, 2012), 97. See also: Benjamin I. Simpson, “Love,” in The Lexham Bible
Dictionary, ed. John D. Barry (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016).

116
Joosten, “‫חסד‬, ‘Benevolence’, and Λεος, ‘Pity’: Reflections on Their Lexical Equivalence in the
Septuagint,” 98–99. The AV commonly translated this term with “loving-kindness.” Marvin Tate (among many
others) often prefers the translation “loyal love”, See Marvin E. Tate, Psalms 51-100, Word Biblical Commentary
(Dallas, TX: Word Publishing, 1998), 13–14.

30
 J. Guillet (quoted by Bruce Waltke) notes that “It is never a question to feel ḥesed toward

somebody; the word is almost always associated with the verb ‘to do.’”117 However, other

scholars recognize the emotional element should not be divorced from the meaning. G.R. Clark

has defined ‫ ֶחֶסד‬as “an emotion that leads to an activity beneficial to the recipient.”118 Jepsen

observed, ‫“ ֶחֶסד‬always designates not just a human attitude, but also the act that emerges from

this attitude.”119 This dual-focus on emotion and action explains the Greek versions tendency to

translate ‫ ֶחֶסד‬with ἔλεος (‘mercy’, ‘compassion’), as is the case in the Greek of Micah 6:8. In

fact, out of the 245 occurrences of ‫ ֶחֶסד‬in the Old Testament, 213 are translated with this term.120

Like ‫ֶחֶסד‬, the Greek term ἔλεος emphasizes the relational and ethical dimension. The emotion

stirs one to action, and to remove either element bastardizes ‫ֶחֶסד‬/ἔλεος.

Seen in this light, Micah’s linking of ‫ ִמְשָׁפּט‬with ‫ ֶחֶסד‬isn’t unique in the prophets, whose

rebukes were largely centered around the breakdown of human relationships within their social

world. Zobel notes that Hosea 12:7[6] says, “Hold fast to ‫ ֶחֶסד‬and ‫ִמְשָׁפּט‬. Isaiah 16:5 speaks of

the future throne of David being established in ‫ֶחֶסד‬, whose ruler seeks ‫ִמְשָׁפּט‬. In Zechariah 7:9,

the people are expressly commanded to render ‫ ִמְשָׁפּט‬and administer ‫ֶחֶסד‬, then subsequently

punished for their lack of ‫ ֶחֶסד‬and ‫ ִמְשָׁפּט‬to one another (7:10-12). We also see this connection in

Psalm 109:16, where the evil doer “did not remember to show ‫ֶחֶסד‬, which resulted in harm to

117
Waltke, A Commentary on Micah, 393.
118
Clark, The Word Hesed in the Hebrew Bible, 267.

119
Cited in Zobel, “‫ ”ֶחֶסד‬51.

120
Joosten, “‫חסד‬, ‘Benevolence’, and Λεος, ‘Pity’: Reflections on Their Lexical Equivalence in the
Septuagint,” 97.

31
“the poor and needy.”121 Later Talmudic tradition interpretxed this colon (‫ )ַאֲהַבת ֶחֶסד‬as referring

to ‫“( ְגִּמילוּת ֲחָס ִדים‬acts of kindness”).122

The Third Colon: ‫ַהְצ ֵנ ַע ֶלֶכת‬

Finally, Micah’s third colon states ‫ ְוַהְצ ֵנ ַע ֶלֶכת‬. The term ‫ ָהַלך‬refers to one’s lifestyle or

manner of life. There is likely an echo to Genesis 5:22, where Enoch is said to have walked (‫)ָהַלך‬

with God. This is reinforced in the Greek version which renders this with ἕτοιµον εἶναι τοῦ

πορεύεσθαι µετὰ κυρίου θεοῦ σου (“be prepared to walk with the Lord your God”). The focus now

shifts from the horizontal human-to-human relationships back to the human-divine relationship.

However, the traditional rendering, “to walk humbly with your God”, has been called into

question. This is largely due to the uniqueness of ‫ָצ ַנע‬. The verb only occurs here, in the hiphal

stem, though a related noun appears in Proverbs 11:2. There it is set in contrast to ‫( ָזדוֹן‬pride),

lending strong support it should be taken in the sense of ‘humility.’ This is countered by scholars

who believe that meaning is secondary, especially as evidenced by how the cognate languages

understood the meaning. Hillers notes that the Targum has ‫‘( צניע‬chaste, discreet, decorous’),123

which D.W. Thomas believes stems from the more foundational meaning of “to guard, hold

back, reserve.”124 J. Philip Hyatt noted that post-biblical Hebrew and Aramaic usage included

four basic concepts: (1) humility, modesty; (2) purity, chastity; (3) secrecy, privacy; and (4)

121
Zobel, “49 ”,‫ֶחֶסד‬.

122
b. Sukkah 49b.8; b. Makkot 24b.26
123
Hillers, Micah: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Micah, 76.
124
Cited in Waltke, A Commentary on Micah, 364. Also see discussion on the post-Biblical meanings in
Hebrew and Aramaic usage in Philip J. Hyatt, “On the Meaning and Origin of Micah 6:8,” Anglican Theological
Review 34, 4 (1952): 234–39.

32
skillfully, wisely.125 It appears Greek translators also had difficulty with this term. Theodotion

rendered this as ἀσφαλίζου (‘be careful’).126 The LXX simply has ἕτοιµον, bypassing the issue

altogether.127 An added difficulty is that in Prov 11:2 (the only other occurrence of the stem in

the Old Testament) the Greek LXX translates it with ταπεινῶν (‘the humble one’). The failure to

do so in Micah 6:8 is notable.

Hyatt turned to the use of ‫ ָצ ַנע‬in Qumran literature for answers. Several documents

quoted Micah 6:8, especially the Manual of Discipline.128 While these quotations retain the

phrase ‫והצנע לכת‬, they also change the referent from Yahweh to other members of the

community (‫)איש אם רעהו‬. As to the meaning of ‫ ָצ ַנע‬in the Dead Sea Scrolls (and these passages

in particular), Hyatt rules out ‘humility’ based on the use of ‫‘( ָﬠ ָנו‬humble’) elsewhere in the

Manual of Discipline.129 1QS lists “a spirit of humility” (‫ )ורוח ענוה‬as one of the community’s

central attributes.130 Certainly, the term ‫ ָﬠ ָנו‬was well-known among religious Jews due to its

association with Moses in Numbers 12:3. He notes the same objection against the sense of

“purity”, as ‫ טהרת‬also features prominently in the manual, which is of particular importance since

it is immediately followed by ‫והצנע לכת‬.131 He then dismisses the meaning of ‘secrecy’ which,

125
Hyatt, “On the Meaning and Origin of Micah 6:8,” 236.

126
Note the Vulgate’s sollicitum.
127
Glenny suggests the LXX translator was unfamiliar with the Hebrew term. Glenny, Micah: A
Commentary Based on Micah in Codex Vaticanus, 170.
128
1QS 4:5; 5:4; 8:2
129
Hyatt, “On the Meaning and Origin of Micah 6:8,” 237.

130
1QS 4.2
131
1QS 4.5

33
while that could conceivably be in view in Micah 6:8, would make no sense in the Manual of

Discipline where human-to-human relationships are in view. By the process of elimination, he is

left with the fourth view; namely, to walk skillfully and wisely with each other.132

Another proposal comes from Wolff who points to the use of ‫ ָצ ַנע‬in the Wisdom of

Sirach.133 In each occurrence “it characterizes an intellectual endeavor (as does Prov. 11:2).”134

Wolff suggests the idea in view is something like Deuteronomy 10:12. There, Israel is urged to

“walk in all his ways”, to “love him” and to “serve” him. While the language is different, it

shares emotive and intellectual qualities. This usage may also explain Jesus’ use of πίστις in

Matthew 23:23. On this view, Micah 6:8 is referring to one’s faithful and careful (i.e. obedient)

walk with God.

Concluding Observations on the Tricola

While determining the meaning of ‫ ָצ ַנע‬is helpful, its exact implication isn’t necessary to

deduce the overall flow, and overall point, of Micah’s message in 6:8. Doing justice and loving

mercy are manifestations of walking with God.135 It is a summons to live one’s life in complete

alignment with God’s will, as expressed in the covenant. As Mays puts it, “it’s you, not

something, God wants.”136 Waltke suggests the third colon serves as “the horizon of Israel’s

132
Hyatt, “On the Meaning and Origin of Micah 6:8,” 236. Hoyt cautions against accepting these objections
uncritically. She writes, “eliminating an option because the author could have used another word with that meaning
unnecessarily restricts the ancient author, binding him by the inadequate modern understanding of Biblical Hebrew
poetry” (Hoyt, Amos, Jonah, and Micah, 766).
133
16:25; 32:3; 34:22; 42:8
134
Wolff, Micah: A Commentary, 182.
135
Philip Peter Jenson, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah: A Theological Commentary (New York: T&T Clark,
2008), 172.
136
Mays, Micah: A Commentary, 136.

34
covenantal responsibilities toward one another, namely, their walk with the Author of the

covenant.”137 In other words, the way one is faithful before God is by living in obedience with

his expectations that justice and loving-kindness are daily habits of our lives.

We can also see a heightened, or intensifying effect, with each successive colon. First,

Israel is called to practice ‫ ִמְשָׁפּט‬which presumably involves a renewed focus on obedience to the

‫ ִמְּשָׁפִּטים‬as stipulated in the Covenant. These are specific acts of proper and ethical treatment of

others. The second colon broadens the scope. Not only are specific acts of right conduct in view,

but these must be done with an attitude of ‘loving-kindess’ (‫ )ֶחֶסד‬and compassion (ἔλεος).

Finally, such a worldview only makes sense in light of one’s covenantal relationship to Yahweh

(whether Micah is characterizing that relationship as being marked by ‘humility’ or ‘faithfulness’

is somewhat irrelevant, as either meaning gets us to the same place). To be faithful to God means

being just and loving to others, and one can only be just and loving to others when walking in

humble obedience to God’s commands.

The tricola is set in contrast with the false worship depicted in Micah 6:6-7. The prophet

now prescribes what is “good” (‫)טוֹב‬, which is in direct contrast to the implied “bad” of the false

worship in 6:6-7.138 Despite their prostrations (6:6a) and burnt offerings (6:6b-7), their worship

was false precisely because of their failure to practice justice and loving-kindness. The poetic

oracle in 1 Sam 15:22 clinches the point: “To obey is better than sacrifice.” This is not splitting

137
Waltke, A Commentary on Micah, 364.
138
Anderson and Freedman propose that Micah is contrast the ‘good’ (6:6-7) with the ‘better’ (6:8), but this
neither matches the words employed nor Micah’s overall context of rebuke. In 3:2 these leaders are explicitly
accused of being haters of good. See Anderson and Freedman, Micah: A New Translation with Introduction and
Commentary, 528.

35
hairs. Rather, it goes to the heart of biblical faithfulness. The Talmud Yerushalmi repeatedly

emphasized that God desires justice and mercy more than sacrifices.139

Implications for Understanding Matthew 23:23

Like the unfaithful leaders in Micah’s day, Jesus was dealing with an Israelite ruling class

whose appearance was deceptive. On the outside, they appeared faithful and righteous. In

Micah’s day, these leaders openly practiced wickedness (cf Micah 2:1-2, 9; 3:1-3, 9-11) yet feign

worshipful adoration of God (Micah 6:6-7). In Jesus’ day, the scribes and Pharisees exhibited an

outward righteousness (Matt 5:20) but were ultimately exposed as hypocrites (23:3-5, 13, 15). In

both cases, ‘faithfulness’ was merely an external veneer covering a spiritual rebellion.140 In

Isaiah 30:18, the prophet depicts everyone who experiences God’s salvation as having received

‫ִמְשָׁפּט‬. From a biblical perspective, all mankind is oppressed, marginalized, and in need of

deliverance (even if from our own wickedness), which becomes a central theme in the New

Testament. As Deuteronomy 32:4 tells us, “all his ways are ‫ִמְשָׁפּט‬.” To deny ‫ ִמְשָׁפּט‬to others

while depending on God’s ‫ ִמְשָׁפּט‬is the height of hypocrisy.

Furthermore, both groups were actively causing harm to the marginalized (Micah 2:9;

Matt 23:4). Micah depicts Israel’s prophets (i.e. spiritual leaders) as leading Israel astray (Micah

3:5) and Matthew likewise refers to the pharisees as “blind guides” (Matt 23:24). They were

leading people away from covenantal faithfulness to Yahweh, not towards it.

In both passages, the important point being made is that covenantal faithfulness cannot

exist without a horizontal ethic of justice and mercy towards one’s fellow human beings. The

139
y. Berakhot. 2:1; y. Rosh Hasannah. 1:1; y. Moed Katan 3:7; see also b. Sukkah 49b:9
140
See a similar point being made in J Duncan M Derrett, “Receptacles and Tombs (Mt 23:24-30),”
Zeitschrift Für Die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft Und Die Kunde Der Älteren Kirche 77, 3–4 (1986): 255–66.

36
two are inseparably tied together. One is faithful to God, at least in large part, by being just and

merciful towards one another, especially the hurting. Yet, by prioritizing their own greed and

self-righteousness, ostensibly even under the guise of zealous Torah study, these leaders came to

believe that “social-justice concerns and ministries of mercy and faith are so definitely secondary

to spiritual responsibilities that they may with good conscience be “dropped.”141 As such, they

turned the Torah on its very head. Jesus was calling upon the leaders of Israel to reclaim their

role as Israel’s shepherds by prioritizing ethical concerns (however unheeded). More

importantly, Matthew 23:23 is a call to the followers of Jesus to see justice and mercy as central,

not secondary, to the Gospel and the daily ethic which flows from it.

141
Fredrick Dale Bruner, Matthew: A Commentary: The Christbook: Matthew 1-12: Revised and Expanded
Edition (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2004), 447.

37
 BIBLIOGRAPHY OF SECONDARY SOURCES

Alden, Alden, Robert L. “‫אֵָהב‬.” In Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, edited by
Archer, Gleason L., Jr. and Waltke, Bruce K., 14. Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1999.

Allen, Leslie C. The Books of Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, and Micah, The New International
Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1976.

Alter, Robert. The Art of Biblical Poetry. New York: Basic Books, 1985.

———. “The Characteristics of Ancient Hebrew Poetry.” In The Literary Guide to the Bible,
edited by Robert Alter and Frank Kermode, 611–24. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press, 1987.

Anderson, Francis I., and David Noel Freedman. Micah: A New Translation with Introduction
and Commentary, Anchor Yale Bible. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2008.

Anderson, G.W. “A Study of Micah 6:8.” The Scottish Journal of Theology 4 (1951): 191–97.

Balz, Horst Robert, and Gerhard Schneider. Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament. Grand
Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1990.

Basser, Herbert W., and Marsha B.B Cohen. The Gospel of Matthew and Judaic Traditions: A
Relevance-Based Commentary, The Brill Reference Library of Judaism. Leiden
Netherlands: Brill, 2015.

Beaton, Richard. “Messiah and Justice: A Key to Matthew’s Use of Isaiah 42.1-4?” Journal for
the Study of the New Testament 22, 75 (January 2000): 5–23.

Bentzen, Aage. Introduction to the Old Testament, Vol. 1, 2 vols. Copenhagen: Gads Forlag,
1952.

Berkovits, Eliezer. “The Biblical Meaning of Justice.” Judaism 18 (1969): 188–209.

Berlin, Adele. The Dynamics of Biblical Parallelism: Revised and Expanded, Biblical Resource
Series. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2007.

Beuken, W. A. M. “Mišpāt: The First Servant Song and Its Context.” Vetus Testamentum 22, 1
(1972): 1–30.

Blenkinsopp, Joseph. A History of Prophecy in Israel: Revised and Enlarged. Louisville, KY:
Westminster John Knox Press, 1996.

Blomberg, Craig. “Matthew.” In The New Testament Use of the Old Testament, edited by G. K.
Beale and D. A. Carson, 1–110. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007.

ְ ‫ ִמ‬in the Old Testament.” Journal

Booth, Osborne. “The Semantic Development of the Term ‫שָׁפּט‬
of Biblical Literature 61, 2 (1942): 105–10.

38
Bruner, Fredrick Dale. Matthew: A Commentary: The Christbook: Matthew 1-12: Revised and
Expanded Edition. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2004.

———. Matthew: A Commentary: The Churchbook: Matthew 13-28: Revised and Expanded
Edition. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2004.

Burnett, Joel S. Where Is God? Divine Absence in the Hebrew Bible. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress
Press, 2010.

Byargeon, Rick W. “The Relationship of Micah 4:1-3 and Isaiah 2:2-4: Implications for
Understanding the Prophetic Message.” Southwestern Journal of Theology 46, 1 (2003):
6–26.

Carson, D.A. “Matthew.” In The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Matthew, Mark, Luke, edited
by Frank E. Gaebelein, 8:1–599. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984.

Childs, Brevard S. Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress
Press, 1979.

Clark, David J., and Norm Mundhenk. A Translator’s Handbook on the Book of Micah, UBS
Handbook Series. New York: United Bible Societies, 1982.

Clark, G.R. The Word Hesed in the Hebrew Bible. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993.

Clines, David J A. “The Parallelism of Greater Precision: Notes from Isaiah 40 for a Theory of
Hebrew Poetry.” In New Directions in Biblical Hebrew Poetry, edited by Elaine R.
Follis, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 40, F. Sheffield:
JSOT Press, 1987.

Craigie, Peter C. The Old Testament: Its Background, Growth, and Content. Nashville TN:
Abingdon Press, 1986.

Cremer, Hermann. Die Paulinische Rechfertigungslehre Im Zuammenhange Ihrer

Geschichtlichen Voraussetzungen, 2nd ed. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann, 1900.

Daniels, D.R. “Is There a ‘Prophetic Lawsuit’ Genre?”.” Zeitschrift Für Die Alttestamentliche
Wissenschaft 99 (1987): 339–60.

Davies, W. D., and Dale C. Allison Jr. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel
According to Saint Matthew, Vol. III. New York: T&T Clark International, 2004.

———. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew, Vol.
I. New York: T&T Clark International, 2004.

Derrett, J Duncan M. “Receptacles and Tombs (Mt 23:24-30).” Zeitschrift Für Die
Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft Und Die Kunde Der Älteren Kirche 77, 3–4 (1986):
255–66.

39
Dobbs-Allsopp, F.W. “Robert Lowth, Parallelism, and Biblical Poetry.” Journal of Hebrew
Scriptures 21 (2021): 1–35.

Ewald, Heinrich A. von. Die Dichter Des Alten Bundes, Vol. 2. Göttingen: Vanderhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1866.

Fokkelman, J.P. Reading Biblical Poetry: An Introductory Guide. Translated by Ineke Smit.
Louisville, KY: Westminster Press, 2001.

Furstenberg, Yair. “Jesus Against the Laws of the Pharisees: The Legal Woe Sayings and Second
Temple Intersectarian Discourse.” Journal of Biblical Literature 139, 4 (2020): 769–88.

Gerhardsson, Birger. “Sacrificial Service and Atonement in the Gospel of Matthew.” In

Reconciliation and Hope: New Testament Essays on Atonement and Eschatology
Presented to L.L. Morris on His 60th Birthday, edited by R. Banks, 25–35. Exeter:
Paternoster Press, 1974.

Glenny, W. Edward. Micah: A Commentary Based on Micah in Codex Vaticanus. Boston, MA:
Brill, 2015.

Gossai, Hemchand. Social Critique by Israel’s Eighth-Century Prophets: Justice and

Righteousness in Context. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 1993.

Goulder, M.D. Midrash and Lection in Matthew. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 1974.

Hagner, Donald A. Matthew 14–28, Vol. 33B, Word Biblical Commentary. Dallas, TX: Word
Publishing, 1995.

Hagstrom, D.G. The Coherence of the Book of Micah: A Literary Analysis, Society of Biblical
Literature Dissertation Series 89. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1988.

Heschel, Abraham. The Prophets: An Introduction. New York: Harper Collins, 1962.

Hillers, Delbert R. Micah: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Micah. Philadelphia, PA:
Fortress Press, 1984.

Hoyt, Joanna M. Amos, Jonah, and Micah, Evangelical Exegetical Commentary. Bellingham
WA: Lexham Press, 2019.

Huffmon, H.B. “The Covenant Lawsuit in the Prophets.” Journal of Biblical Literature 78
(1959): 285–95.

Hutton, Rodney R. “What Happened from Shittim to Gilgal? Law and Gospel in Micah 6:5.”
Currents in Theology and Mission 26 (1999): 94–103.

Hyatt, Philip J. “On the Meaning and Origin of Micah 6:8.” Anglican Theological Review 34, 4
(1952): 232–39.

40
Jacobs, Mignon R. “Bridging the Times: Trends in Micah Studies since 1985.” Currents in
Biblical Research 4, 3 (2006): 293–329.

———. The Conceptual Coherence of the Book of Micah, Journal for the Study of the Old
Testament Supplement Series 322. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001.

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

Johnson, Luke Timothy. “The New Testament’s Anti-Jewish Slander and the Conventions of
Ancient Polemic.” Journal of Biblical Literature 108, 3 (1989): 419–41.

Joosten, Jan. “‫חסד‬, ‘Benevolence’, and Λεος, ‘Pity’: Reflections on Their Lexical Equivalence
in the Septuagint.” In Collected Studies on the Septuagint, edited by Jan Joosten,
Forschungen Sum Alten Testament 83, 97–111. Tübingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck,
2012.

Kaiser, Walter C., Jr. “The Weightier and Lighter Matters of the Law: Moses, Jesus and Paul.” In
Current Issues in Biblical and Patristic Interpretation: Studies in Honor of Merrill C.
Tenney Presented by His Former Students, 176–92. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1975.

Keener, Craig S. The Gospel of Matthew: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI:
Eerdmans, 2009.

Leclerc, Thomas L. Yahweh Is Exalted in Justice: Solidarity and Conflict in Isaiah. Minneapolis,
MN: Fortress Press, 2001.

Levin, Yigal. “The Search for Moresheth-Gath: A New Proposal.” Palestine Exploration
Quarterly 134, 1 (2002): 28–36.

Luz, Ulrich. Matthew 8-20: A Commentary. Edited by Helmut Koester. Translated by James E.
Crouch, Hermeneia. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2001.

———. Matthew 21-28. Edited by Helmut Koester. Translated by James E. Crouch, Hermeneia.
Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2005.

MacIntosh, A. A. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Hosea, International Critical

Commentary. Edinburgh: T&T Clark International, 1997.

Mafico, Temba L. J. “Just, Justice.” In Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary, edited by David Noel
Freedman. New York: Doubleday, 1992.

Martin, Michael Wade. “The Poetry of the Lord’s Prayer: A Study in Poetic Device.” Journal of
Biblical Literature 134, 2 (2015): 347–72.

Mays, James Luther. Micah: A Commentary, Old Testament Library. Philadelphia, PA:
Westminster Press, 1976.

41
McKnight, Scot. “Justice, Righteousness.” In Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels: A
Compendium of Contemporary Biblical Scholarship, edited by Joel B. Green, Scot
McKnight, and I. Howard Marshall, 411–16. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press,
1992.

Mitchell, Eric A. “Micah: The Man and His Times.” Southwestern Journal of Theology 46, 1
(2003): 57–76.

Moran, William L. “Ancient Near Eastern Background of the Love of God in Deuteronomy.”
The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 25, 1 (January 1963): 77–87.

Morris, Leon. The Gospel According to Matthew, Pillar New Testament Commentary. Grand
Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1992.

Muraoka, T. A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint. Belgium: Peeters, 2009.

Nolland, John. The Gospel of Matthew: A Commentary on the Greek Text, New International
Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2005.

Phillips, Zack C. “Filling Up the Word: The Fulfillment Citations in Matthew’s Gospel.” PhD
diss., Duke University, 2017.

Prybylski, Benno. “The Setting of Matthean Anti-Judaism.” In Anti-Judaism in Early

Christianity: Volume 1: Paul and the Gospels, edited by Peter Richardson and David
Granskou, Studies in Christianity and Judaism, 181–200. Wilfrid, Ontario: Wilfrid
Laurier Press, 1986.

Ridderbos, H.N. Matthew, Bible Student’s Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1987.

Rosenberg, M.S. “The Stem Špt: An Investigation of Biblical and Extra-Biblical Sources.” PhD
diss., 1963.

Ryan, Thomas J. “Matthew 15:19-31: An Overlooked Summary.” Horizons in Biblical Theology

5 (Spring 1978): 31–42.

Sakenfeld, Katharine D. The Meaning of Hesed in the Hebrew Bible: A New Enquiry. Eugene,
OR: Wipf and Stock, 2002.

Sanders, E.P. Jewish Law from Jesus to the Mishnah: Five Studies. Philadelphia, PA: Trinity
Press International, 1990.

Scholnick, Sylvia Huberman. “The Meaning of Mišpāt in the Book of Job.” Journal of Biblical
Literature 101 (1982): 521–29.

Seifrid, M. A. “Righteousness, Justice, and Justification.” In New Dictionary of Biblical

Theology, edited by T. Desmond Alexander and Brian S. Rosner. Downers Grove, IL:
InterVarsity Press, 2000.

42
Simpson, Benjamin I. “Love.” In The Lexham Bible Dictionary, edited by John D. Barry.
Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016.

Sweeney, Marvin A. “Micah’s Debate with Isaiah.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament
93 (2001): 111–24.

Tate, Marvin E. Psalms 51-100, Word Biblical Commentary. Dallas, TX: Word Publishing,
1998.

Thompson, William G. “Reflections on the Composition of Mt 8:1-9:34.” The Catholic Biblical

Quarterly 33, 3 (July 1971): 365–88.

Turner, David L. Matthew, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids,
MI: Baker Academic, 2008.

Waltke, Bruce K. A Commentary on Micah. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2007.

———. “Micah.” In The Minor Prophets: An Exegetical and Expository Commentary: Volume
2: Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, and Habakkuk, edited by Thomas Edward
McComiskey, 591–764. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 1993.

Watson, Wilfred G.E. Classical Hebrew Poetry: A Guide to Its Techniques, Journal for the Study
of the Old Testament Supplement Series 26. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1986.

Weinfeld, Moshe. Social Justice in Ancient Israel and in The Ancient Near East. Jerusalem: The
Magnes Press, 1995.

Wolff, Hans Walter. Micah: A Commentary, Continental Commentaries. Minneapolis, MN:

Augsburg Fortress, 1990.

Würthwein, E. “Der Ursprung Der Prophetischen Gerichtsrede.” Zeitschrift Für Theologie Und
Kirche 48–49 (1952 1951): 1–16.

Ziesler, J.A. The Meaning of Righteousness in Paul: A Linguistic and Theological Enquiry, Vol.
20, Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series. Cambridge University Press,
1972.

Zobel, H.J. “‫ֶחֶסד‬.” In Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, edited by Botterweck, G.
Johannes, Ringgren, Helmer, and Fabry, Heinz-Josef, translated by Willis, John T., Stott,
Douglas W., and Green, David E., 5:44–64. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1977.

43