Exegesis and Theology

The Blog of Brian Collins

Mark Gignilliat, “Eternal Generation and the Old Testament: Micah 5:2 as a Test Case,” in Retrieving Eternal Generation

by

Gignilliat clearly appreciates pre-modern interpretation, especially its emphasis on the theological unity of the canonical books, but he also appreciates the benefits of modern “textual and philological analysis.” He does not present readers with the stark “either/or” found in Emerson’s essay. I found his comments about the biblical grounding of Aquinas’s speculative theology a bit too generous, but the sentiment that constructive theology and exegesis should be mutual, text-grounded endeavors is one I can endorse.

Gignilliat used John Owen as his primary example of a pre-modern reading of the text, and he followed this with a brief account of several other pre-modern interpreters from Cyril of Alexandria to John Calvin. This survey was helpful, but I did find myself wishing that Gignilliat had revealed more of Owen’s exegetical reasoning. In his survey of modern interpretation, Gignilliat does an excellent job of covering in brief compass the key exegetical data. He persuasively argues that  qedem and ‘olam can refer to eternity. He grants that mwts’t [origin? going out?] is a difficult word, occurring only in one other passage. Unfortunately, it is the key word. In the end, Gignilliat reasons that though the passage does not require the eternal generation interpretation it is a fitting interpretation since Scripture is not supposed to be read according to the bare letter in accordance with Christian theology.

If one already has a theology of processions developed from other passages, and if “going out” is a proper translation of מוֹצָאָה in this passage, I can see reading this passage as teaching eternal generation. But if מוֹצָאָה simply means “origin” (see Dictionary of Classical Hebrew, s.v. מוֹצָאָה), then this is more likely a statement about the Son’s eternal pre-existence. In sum, I think Gignilliat successfully argued for the potential of finding eternal generation in this passage, but he wisely did not overstate the case.

For my understanding of Micah 5:2, see this post: Interpretation of Micah 5:2.

Major Theological Themes in Micah

by

The Character of Yhwh is central to Micah. His name means “Who is like Yhwh?” and the book closes with an answer. Yhwh is one who is angry because of sin and thus brings judgment. But he also pardons iniquity and redeems a remnant in faithfulness to his covenant promises.[1]

The book of Micah opens with a summons to the nations to hear. The nations also feature throughout the book. “In the central section there are no less than seven references to the nations (4:2, 3 [3x], 7, 11; 5:7, 15) and six references to peoples (4:1, 3, 5, 13; 5:7, 8); and in the last section the nations are the principal subject of discourse in two major units (7:11–13, 16–17).”[2] God will use the nations to judge Israel. He will also judge the nations for their sins. But ultimately God will bring redemption to the nations. This is rooted in the promises of the Abrahamic covenant.[3]

Covenant is also a central theme for Micah. The oracles that open all three cycles in Micah are covenant lawsuits.[4] These lawsuits, and much of the rest of the book, enumerates Israel’s sin: her “idolatry” (1:7; 6:16), “greed” (2:2-12), false teaching and countenancing false prophets (2:6-9; 3:5-6; 6:2-7),[5] and general injustice, violence, deceit and theft (6:11-16; cf. 2:2-12). Israel’s breach of the Mosaic covenant has brough them under the covenant curses (6:13-14; cf. ch. 1; 2:3-5; 3:4-12; 4:9-10; 5:3). This judgment showed that Yhwh was faithful to the Mosaic covenant. Central to Israel’s sin and judgment was the land.The coveting and theft of the land (2:1-2) would lead to exile from the land (2:4-5; 4:6; 5:3). This fact carried with it hope, for Yhwh would be faithful to the Abrahamic covenant (with its land promises) as well (a fact highlighted in the closing verse of the book), which meant that he would provide redemption for his people. Thus there would be a regathering  to the land (2:12; 4:6; 5:3; 7:11-12) of a remnant (2:12; 4:7; 5:7-8; 7:18) that draws all nations to Zion (2:12; 4:13; 4:1-3).[6] The great hope that stands behind the regathering of the remnant is the Messiah who would be born in Bethlehem. He will be Yhwh who rules over Zion. He will shepherd his people and subdue their enemies—most notably the enemy of sin within their own hearts.

[1] Dempster, THOTC, 2-3, 194.

[2] Dempster, THOTC, 204.

[3] Dempster, THOTC, 205-6.

[4] Hoyt, EEC, 552-53; 565; cf. NIDOTTE 4:937-38.

[5] Kaiser, Toward an Old Testament Theology, 201; cf. NDBT, 249.

[6] Robertson, Christ of the Prophets, 211.

NT Use of Micah

by

In Matthew 2 Herod is seeking to find the birthplace of the Messiah, and the chief priests and scribes correctly identify the birthplace as Bethlehem, citing Micah 5:2, 4.   This reveals that even before Christ this passage was understood as messianic.

However, Jesus will condemn the scribes and Pharisees for not having heeded Micah’s teaching. When Jesus says, “For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness” (Mt 23:23) he may be alluding to Micah 6:8, which elevates justice, steadfast love (often rendered mercy in the LXX), and walking humbly with God over the rituals of the law.[1]

Finally, the great commission in Matthew 28, in which Jesus commissions his disciples to make disciples of the nations anticipates the millennial fulfillment of Micah 4:2 in which the nations stream to Jerusalem to learn the ways of the God of Jacob.

[1] Dempster, THOTC, 211.

OT Use of Micah

by

Jeremiah 26:16-19 refers to Micah by name. In that chapter the priests and prophets seized Jeremiah and sought to have him condemned to death for prophesying the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple. But the officials and the people respond by quoting Micah 3:12, the earliest prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple. They note that Hezekiah did not put Micah to death but instead repented. This quotation is interesting on several counts. First, it reveals that Micah 3:12 was prophesied during the reign of Hezekiah. Second, it reveals that in Jeremiah’s day, Micah was already received as Scripture.[1]

The book of Kings, which was written during the exile (and thus after Micah’s time), uses the phrase “every man under his vine and under his fig tree” to describe life in Israel under the reign of Solomon (2 Kgs 4:25). Its original context in Micah 4:4 is millennial. The author of Kings likely uses this phrase to build anticipation that Solomon is the promised son of David only then to show, by recounting Solomon’s sins, the need for a greater Son of David.

[1] Tully, Reading the Prophets as Christian Scripture, 314; Hoffmeier, The Prophets of Israel, 226.