The prophet Micah prophesied in the reigns of Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah, which is the years 739 – 693 BCE. His description of the end of days is similar to Isaiah but with a very significant difference. This difference I believe is why his message is ignored.
His prophecy is important and its significance has implications for all religions, though only Judaism, Christianity and Islam believe that the Hebrew prophets convey a message from the Divine. I will cite in full the first five verses of chapter Four, I will use the Jewish Publication Society 1917 translation. I suggest that you compare it to your favorite English translation.
1. But in the end of days it shall come to pass,
That the mountain of the Lord’s house shall be established as the top of the mountains,
And it shall be exalted above the hills;
And peoples shall flow unto it.
2. And many nations shall go and say:
‘Come ye, and let us to up to the mountain of the Lord,
And to the house of the God of Jacob;
And He will teach us of His ways,
And we will walk in His paths;
For out of Zion shall go forth the law,
And the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.
3. And He shall judge between many peoples,
And shall decide concerning mighty nations afar off;
And they shall beat their swords into plowshares,
And their spears into pruning-hooks;
Nation shall not lift up sword against nation,
Neither shall they learn war any more.
4. But they shall sit every man under his vine and under his fig-tree;
And none shall make them afraid;
For the mouth of the Lord of hosts hath spoken.
5. For let all the peoples walk each one is the name of its god,
But we will walk in the name of the Lord our God forever and ever.
Micah describes a time when other nations shall go and learn the ways of the Jewish people, when nations shall give up war and turn the implements of war into the implements of peaceful agriculture, when nation will not go to war of study warfare any more, when people will still toil in their vineyard and in their orchards but they will no longer be afraid. How and why does this all come about? What is the key element that will change to transform humanity from a war like existence to one of peace?
Micah answers this question in his fifth verse when he tells that all the peoples shall walk in the name of its god and we, the Hebrews, will walk in the name of the Lord our God for ever and ever.
Throughout the history prior to Micah the land we in the West call the Middle East has always been a place ravaged by war. Wars which were raged by Kings who proclaimed that they were acting in the name of their gods or simply proclaimed that they were gods and thus all shall bow down to them. War and religion were intricately tied together and were the rationale for all the wars and conquests throughout the Middle East and throughout much of the world. Micah and those who heard his prophecies knew of the wars of conquest of Egypt and of Assyria, to name two god inspired conquering nations. To imagine of time of peace would logically mean a time when there would no longer be the proclaimed reason for war – which was that one god needed to dominate all other gods and those who worship other gods. To imagine a time when all nations would respect to each, would acknowledge that it was acceptable to worship and thus walk in the name of differing gods, would be the pre-requisite for removing the reason for going to war.
Micah is describing a world where humanity matured beyond its ancient tribal beginings. A world where we all left behind and matured beyond the ideas of holding onto the tribal notions of 'Only one true God' and 'Only one true religion/faith.'
It is an amazingly logical presentation. An amazingly realistic conception of the End of Days when the world would be with out fear and people would work in their actual equivalent of the metaphoric image of ‘one’s vineyards and orchards’.
ps. I credit Micah's words as a vision that was inspired by Micah's communion with the Divine. I consider them to be his humanly chosen words and not the words from the Divine directly. In case anyone was wondering how this essay connects with other ideas concerning my beleifs on other Gather essays and comments inter-relate.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 52
Can you prove that this was Micah's intention and meaning???
This statement followsthe people coming to the God of Jacob, to be taught His ways. This is after the Lord has judged the people, and I believe it is refering to all people worshiping the one God, "walking in His paths", and learning the "word of the Lord from Jeruselem."
You have to take the Bible in context, and God will never accept his creation worshiping so-called gods. Only God himself is to worshiped. At the end of time as we know it, all will have made their decisions regarding God, not many gods.
Ryre - All the people now walk in the name of their god, but we will walk in the name of the Lord our God forever.
Matthew Henry - Commentary on Micah 4:1-8
The nations have not yet so submitted to the Prince of Peace, as to beat their swords into ploughshares, nor has war ceased. But very precious promises these are, relating to the gospel church, which will be more and more fulfilled, for He is faithful that has promised. There shall be a glorious church for God set up in the world, in the last days, in the days of the Messiah. Christ himself will build it upon a rock. THE GENTILES WORSHIPPED THEIR IDOL gods; BUT IN THE PERIOD SPOKEN OF, THE PEOPLE WILL CLEAVE TO THE LORD WITH FULL PURPOSE OF HEART, AND DELIGHT IN DOING HIS WILL. The word "halteth," describes those who walk not according to the Divine word. The collecting the captives from Babylon was an earnest of healing, purifying, and prospering the church; and the reign of Christ shall continue till succeeded by the everlasting kingdom of heaven. Let us stir up each other to attend the ordinances of God, that we may learn his holy ways, and walk in them, receiving the law from his hands, which being written in our hearts by his Spirit, may show our interest in the Redeemer's righteousness
What on Earth one could interpret as Micah rejecting the God of Abraham here is truly mysterious to me. He clearly speaks of all nations coming to the house of Jacob, and says "we will walk in the name of the Lord our God forever and ever".
I can imagine these verses put forth as proof that Micah foretells the end of false religions, but why one would use it as evidence that Biblical prophesies foretell the end of worshiping the God presented in those books is baffling in the extreme.
Here lies the "proof"!
Just for fun, I go for the KJV (Authorized)...but here is some comparison "translations"
Mic 4:5
(ASV) For all the peoples walk every one in the name of his god; and we will walk in the name of Jehovah our God for ever and ever.
(CEV) Others may follow their gods, but we will always follow the LORD our God.
(DRB) For all people will walk every one in the name of his god: but we will walk in the name of the Lord, our God, for ever and ever.
(ESV) For all the peoples walk each in the name of its god, but we will walk in the name of the LORD our God forever and ever.
(GNB) Each nation worships and obeys its own god, but we will worship and obey the LORD our God forever and ever.
(ISV)
(KJV) For all people will walk every one in the name of his god, and we will walk in the name of the LORD our God for ever and ever.
(KJV+) For3588 all3605 people5971 will walk1980 every one376 in the name8034 of his god,430 and we587 will walk1980 in the name8034 of the LORD3068 our God430 forever5769 and ever.5703
(KJVR) For all people will walk every one in the name of his god, and we will walk in the name of the LORD our God forever and ever.
(LITV) For all the peoples walk, each one in the name of his god; but we will walk in the name of Jehovah our God forever and ever.
(MKJV) For all peoples will walk, each one in the name of his god; and we will walk in the name of Jehovah our God forever and ever.
(YLT) For all the peoples do walk, Each in the name of its god--and we, We do walk in the name of Jehovah our God, To the age and for ever.
Therefore verse 5 speaks of everyone 'walking in the name of their god forever and ever.' must not contradict verse 2 where it says that 'And He will teach us of His ways,
And we will walk in His paths;'.
Thus the Rabbis would say that it is different to walk a certain path after being taught the ways of Judaism and still remaining to walk in the name of their own God. This must mean that you can learn someones teaching but still not convert to that other persons system of beleif. Which is clearly true. I can study Christianity and not become a Christian, for example.
In case anyone want some clarification on those two verses.
But I will read them as they are actually written, forever and ever.
As for Mary's comment about ascertaining what Micah meant - well I could simple say "Truth Is" and walk away from the discussion with no meaningful statement. But, all I am doing is reading the words and drawing reasonable inferences.
More about the idea of reasonable inferences later.
As for John's remark about me beleiving "any fool thing" - I can only conclude he doesn't want to discuss the ideas I offered reasonably. Perhaps the pot is calling the kettle black?
Judaism does beleive that it is not the only true faith. Judaism does beleive that there is no one true faith, that people can and do 'walk in the name of their God'. Judaism does beleive that everyone can get to Heaven. Judaism doesn't beleive in eternal damnation - Judaism beleives that God is just and that the punishment is meant to teach a lesson, balance the scales and that after the person service his/her sentence they then will join everyone else in heaven. Judaism concerns the notion of eternal damnation to be a contradiction to the idea that God is just.
The text and my inferences say no such thing. The text only says that the Jewish people will continue to worship God in accordance to their understand and that other nations/peoples will be free to worship in the name of God according to their ways.
The text is only pointing out the obvious idea that different cultures have different ideas and names for God.
The important thing to do is first ascertain what is the teachings of the Hebrew Scriptures and then check them to see if the New Testament lines up correctly with them.
If I recall correctly, Jesus is supposed to, accroding to Christianity, fulfill the prophecies of the Hebrew Scriptures. So, you first have to analyze what ALL those prophecies are to know what it is Jesus is supposedly fullfilling.
Clearly the idea that there is "Only one True God and his name is X" X being Jesus or Allah is a direct contradiction of the words of God from Micah. I only mention these two faiths because they both contend that they are "The Only True Faith". The other religions on this planet, to my knowledge, do not make this claim and thus they all are in accordance with Micah's vision.
More about this idea later.
The Bible is the word of God, is it not? At least it is if you are a beleiver.
For those that believe that their version of gods or God is God, they will use their G in the upper case, and that of others that see otherwise in the g lower case.
Regardless of the INformed or ILLinFORMED view differentiations, there can only be One God.
"As for John's remark about me beleiving "any fool thing" - I can only conclude he doesn't want to discuss the ideas I offered reasonably"
Ah, I see you did not infer that I was saying your interpretation of those verses was as valid as mine. That is good, for I did not mean to say that. I was obviously saying; that regardless of how you read the verse, I would continue to do otherwise. In saying that, I imitated Micah's phrasing as you presented it, and you read it just as I read Micah's words. Why on Earth would you not allow that Micah meant those words to be understood in a way that you yourself read a sentence constructed in precisely the same form?
Could Micah have meant his words to be read in the way you infer? Well of course one could take the words out of context and arrive at your conclusion, but then one could do any number of silly things. But since you yourself understood a statement made in precisely the same form as Micah's, in precisely the same way I read Micah's, you really have no grounds remaining to contend he could not have meant it that way.
And further, you assumed much more than I wrote. I made a factual statement about my intention, and your freedom to interpret words in any way you wish. Despite all this transpiring in English, one still must "interpret" the words carefully if one is to avoid hasty conclusions of an erroneous nature. Let me try again:
Let Gary Jaron believe any wise thing he wants about these verses,
But I will read them as they are actually written, forever and ever.
"For those that believe that their version of gods or God is God, they will use their G in the upper case, and that of others that see otherwise in the g lower case."
You catch on quick. And I notice you do the same. (gods)
I honestly have no idea what or how you are interpreting Micah's words.
If what you are getting at is when you wrote: "I can imagine these verses put forth as proof that Micah foretells the end of false religions, but why one would use it as evidence that Biblical prophesies foretell the end of worshiping the God presented in those books is baffling in the extreme."
Is this your idea of Micah's words?
Micah does not saything about 'false religions' - what text are you reading?
As for the 'end of worshipping the God presented in those books" - again what text are you reading? Micah said no such thing, and for that matter, neither did I.
I honestly do not understand what it is you are saying.
So far of the two of us, I am clearing explaining an understanding of what the words say and I am offering a consistent presentation utilizing the principle that the 'author' does not contradict "Himself" - I of course am only examing the Hebrew Scriptures. Again on the logical principle of one must first ascertain what the prophecies are before you can claim to be fulfilling them.
Please take the time to explain what it is you are saying. So far I am at a lose.
Please explain what I have taken 'out of context'????
I hope she will get back to this.
I will try.
I am saying it is quite possible that Micah meant his words to be understood exactly in the way you understood mine: That regardless of what others might do, those that worship the God of Abraham will continue to do so. Just as you interpreted my words to mean: That regardless of what Gary might do, I would continue to read the verse as I see it written.
You read my words one way, yet claim Micah could not have meant his words to be read in that same way, despite them being stated virtually identically. That means you are claiming Micah cannot be speaking in a way we all understand is quite possible to be intended.
When Micah says; For the mouth of the Lord of hosts hath spoken,
that becomes the context for the verse that follows, obviously. And just as obviously, he is referring to the God of Abraham. He is therefor not implying that other gods are valid ideas, but that regardless of what other nations worship, the God of Abraham will remain valid forever.
It is difficult for me to imagine you do not know what I meant . . . however, in case that's true, I meant: Yep, so what?
What 'you' were trying to make of it still escapes me.
But because you say "so what ?" ... I will say: your God seems to often be Jesus Christ who I would be more inclined to call a 'god' as His Father is God to me.
What say you ?
You wrote"When Micah says; For the mouth of the Lord of hosts hath spoken,
that becomes the context for the verse that follows, obviously. And just as obviously, he is referring to the God of Abraham. He is therefor not implying that other gods are valid ideas, but that regardless of what other nations worship, the God of Abraham will remain valid forever."
Hmmm...I agree that the text says that the Jewish people will walk in the name of their God forever and ever. Nothing I said about the text implies any disagreement with this idea.
The text clearly also says that For let all the peoples walk each one is the name of its god, " It is a statement in the Hebrew of the author, speaking for God 'letting/allowing' other nations/people to 'walk' in the name of its God. Which I take it to mean that with the acknowledge act of tolerance by the Hebrews to other peoples and other peoples reciprical tolerance of the Hebrews continued worship - then the nations need not learn war any more. No reason for war when there is no reason to force convert. Peace comes through tolerance.
I beleive the Text is stating an underlying truth - that the human cultural names created to describe God are not the samething as the actual beyond human entity that is God. Which implies the idea of tolerance of each people beleiving and walking in their own 'name' for God.
An idea, that the human names for God is different than the actual thing Itself, is also found in China, in the words of a mystic named Lao Tzu.
Your reading of the text seems to ignore the words of the last verse, especially the words 'let' - it implies a willingness to allow tolerance - a reciprication of that tolerance as the vehicle to Peace - a world without war and a world without, at least one thing to fear.
I say Jesus Christ is Lord, and the living Word of God.
What are you?
"speaking for God 'letting/allowing' other nations/people to 'walk' in the name of its God"
And so He does. But that is not a statement that they worship rightly.
Clearly you are playing off the notion that this will always be so, and you know full well that it is put in the present tense. If Micah meant it to mean after "He shall judge between many peoples", he would have said: will let, just as you would. You can ignore the omission, but that is your choice, not a requirement.
You'll forgive me then, no doubt, if I fail to see the resemblance.
You did not answer Mary's question by providing proof (I've read the entire thread here and don't see any proof to back up your interpretation of these scriptures).
I do believe John Knight is correct when he interprets that Micah is clearly talking about a time when people are drawn to the Hebrew God. In fact there are references in Verses 1-2 that are prophetic about Christ. Verse 3 refers to God judging the nations and effectively ending war.
Verse 5 does seem to imply that some people will follow the Hebrew God, while others will worship "false" Gods throughout eternity.
However, I don't see anywhere in these passages where it implies that all people are worshiping the one true God, by worshiping their own Gods. To suggest that this is a hidden meaning in these passages is not consistent with Hebraic theology of the 8th Century BC (let alone at any other time - at least in mainstream Hebraic theology).
Is this the only passage in the Bible that suggests this as well? I'm just curious because if you believe that there are many other passages that suggest this as well - please provide them here for our evaluation.
Gary, you are one with a scientific bent, are you not? How can you say, that you have made a reasonable inference and have that be your "proof" of what Micah actually meant by these scriptures.
I too can and do make a reasonable inference of Micah's prophecy that differs completely with yours. Who would is right?
You speak much of proof and truth. I merely wanted you to prove that what you inferred from Micah's prophecy was actually indeed true. You have not proven this.
I happen to agree with John Knight's statement: "When Micah says; For the mouth of the Lord of hosts hath spoken, that becomes the context for the verse that follows, obviously. And just as obviously, he is referring to the God of Abraham. He is therefor not implying that other gods are valid ideas, but that regardless of what other nations worship, the God of Abraham will remain valid forever."
To me, this prophecy refers to Christ and His Kingdom of the which there will be no end...
The following prophecy in Isaiah 65:17-25 refers, I believe, to the same thing as Micah's prophecy.
It reads:
"Behold, I will create new heavens and a new earth. The former things will not be remembered, nor will they come to mind. But be glad and rejoice forever in what I will create for I will create Jerusalem to be a delight and its people a joy.
I will rejoice over Jerusalem and take delight in my people; the sound of weeping and of crying will be heard in it no more. "Never again will there be in it an infant who lives but a few days, or an old man who does not live out his years; he who dies at a hundred will be thought a mere youth; he who fails to reach a hundred will be considered accursed.
They will build houses and dwell in them; they will plant vineyards and eat their fruit. No longer will they build houses and others live in them, or plant and others eat. For as the days of a tree, so will be the days of my people; my chosen ones will long enjoy the works of their hands. They will not toil in vain or bear children doomed to misfortune; for they will be a people blessed by the LORD, they and their descendants with them. Before they call I will answer; while they are still speaking I will hear. The wolf and the lamb will feed together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox, but dust will be the serpent's food. They will neither harm nor destroy on all my holy mountain," says the LORD.
I, being Jewish: Do not beleive that jesus is the messiah and that Christianity is fullfilling the Jewish prophecies. Jews do not assume that Christianity is truth.
Many of you, being Christian of course read back into the Hebrew Text ideas to prove the Christian theology - which is why the term "Old Testament" was invented. Christianity assumes it is true.
I as all Jews, just know this truth, to refer back to Mary's 'definition of Truth - Truth IS!': Christianity is a true religion but is not the fulfillment of Jewish prophecy. Christianity is an invention of a new theology. It is one of the many other names for God. Just as the Jews will worship in the way of Judaism forever, so too will other people worship, Jesus, Allah, Shakti, Krishna, etc.
We Jews consider Christianity as one of many valid faiths not any different than the multitude of other faiths beleive by people across this globe.
Ahh! The Question! One which your idea of "Truth IS' can not answer. But, I do believe that Objective Truth is what can be tested and verified.
Can this prophecy be tested and verified? An interesting question?
One I will hope to address in another essay - very soon.
Christianity assumes it is valid and it is the only true faith - hence everyone's dilemia at seeing the posibility that this is an error akin to beleiving the sun rotates around the Earth.
ron said, and so did others: "Verse 5 does seem to imply that some people will follow the Hebrew God, while others will worship "false" Gods throughout eternity."
You are all first pre-supposing that there is only one true faith and additionally pre-supposing that it is Christinaity. Hence your inability to even imagine that what Micah is talking about is not true faith vs false faiths, but he is talking about differing names for the same underlying reality. A common idea of the Kabbalah - a tradition that goes back to Biblical times.
For me this passage is the key to understanding the purpose of the Jewish people - the ultimate message that is to be the 'light unto the nations'.
It is a formula for world preace - a very real description of how to come to such a place and time without war and conflict.
When we interpret Verse 5, we are not pre-supposing that there is one true faith, but we are correctly interpreting that in Verse 5, its author (being a Hebrew Prophet) certainly believes that there is one true faith and only one true God. There is no evidence in these scriptures or anywhere else in Micah that Micah believes that by believing in the non-Hebrew God, Yahweh, one is also believing in the Hebrew God – this is actually your own idea (not Micah's).
The rest of us are still waiting for you to give us one scripture in the Septuagint that implies that your doctrine (that it is a common belief among the Ancient Hebrews that their God Yahweh was completely content with them believing any other God – because he felt it was the same as believing him. The number of scriptures that refute this idea of yours are too numerous to list.
If you can't produce one (which is extremely likely), then go ahead and admit that this idea of yours is not actually expressed anywhere in the Septuagint, but that you are simply speculating that the Prophet Micah "really" meant your idea on this topic, even though he does not say so in this passage. We will stop repeatedly asking you to produce scriptural evidence to support your ascertain in this article and move on.
I understand (and share) your desire for world peace. I consider this laudable on your part. However, even if this scripture is prophesying about a time when world peace will be realized, it is not saying that Yahweh will condone worship of other Gods – it seems to be that perhaps you're trying to turn Jews into Hindus.
I (like you, I'm sure) will continue to prayer for world peace.
I find it facinating that an endless debate can go on about something written by "we cannot prove who" in a time "we cannot be exact about" and is translated so many times that "we cannot even be sure of the original content".
Carolyn K. commented Dec 31, 2006 … "
As most know by now, I tend to agree with the above comment. That causes me to want to interject again.
We must all come to see that the earth realm, as the 'fallen' realm that it is, … is this way because we have fallen away from our Spiritual connection to God. Thus we are now primarily nothing but a bunch of separate egos, seeking a concept to latch onto with which to claim our superior grasp or understanding. That is a competitive ego trait, to be on a 'winning' side of things … winning being 'strength' based 'dominance'. … "My opinion is 'better' than yours", type of thing.
Most of those responsible for the writing, rewriting, interpreting, and preaching, of these questioned Books and their contents, are also egos. The readers and commenter also come from an ego perspective for the most part.
Egos are very Dualistic. Everything is about me and you, or me and other. There is no connection other than what the ego chooses to believe. (+/-) [ the slash denotes NO connection]. This is the earth realm condition supported by orthodox thinking.
Unfortunately the bulk of our religions are also based in this same orthodoxy. They often speak of things transcendent, but it is done from a place of 'separation from', a belief that the ego needs to transcend this realm … yet a disbelief that it can actually be done during life here. All instruction is then done Dualistically, requiring but 'Faith' in Spiritual Concepts that are 'separate' from here, but will 'payoff' in some future time, not now, other than your satisfaction of belonging to a common group of like thinkers until then.
True Spirit comes to us from that OTHER realm, IT has the ability to cross that Invisible line between realms to advise those that are open to listening. Our ancient Prophets were evidently such people. Yet those that wrote of and spoke of them were not, thus the Trinity message involving Spirit as "=" the bridger of the gap or void,"/", the real 'connecter' active with this realm through the Prophet in real time, was 'set aside' into a dualistic description of separation by those that have not had that experience and thus not being able to understand it and correctly write explaining it.
I have actually had that personal experience, and thus I write these and other words of attempted explanation to hopefully reconnect Spirit into the minds of the dualistic egos of this realm. I do it by words also, but it is 'first hand', not done through an ego non-understander. I can not expect that all will understand me either, but I can only do my best in the hope that some few just might.
When all such words, mine and those of others, are read, it should be from an Inner Spiritual perspective, not from an ego perspective of literal dualism. Make use of your own 6th sense Inner connection to God/Spirit, your own Intuition. It is via this that Spirit speaks to us all continually, we have but to listen up and recognize such. Once that 'connection' is truly made, it will be much easier to understand and maintain.
There are some though that have made that real connection, but they have so stayed under the sway of religious precepts to see the relationship yet as a dualistic one, as the church would suggest. This keeps them under the 'wing' of the church at the same time it keeps them from questioning the church or openly disagreeing with that 'authority'.
To compare the words in debate and argument as has often been done on Gather, is to stay withIN the defines of Dualism and it's conflicts. If one really wants to understand the essence Intended by those writings, it needs to be done in Trinity fashion (+=-) where Spirit is actually Involved and appreciated between those possible choices of potential meanings.
Once one transcends that Dualism where Spirit is NOT seen as directly Involved, they Know that Spirit is always Intimately Involved directly … then they need not rely solely on word meanings as much as an Inner Essential Wisdom that understands the underlying Essence of the questions and statements.
(+=-) Transcends (+/-)
I beleive this text is the idea of an acceptance of multiple names for God!
As Grateful 1 provided the text clearly reads that the Hebrew will know God by one name and the other nations will know God by another name - how much clearer do you want it? The text is unique vision of a unique prophetic idea.
Mic 4:5
(ASV) For all the peoples walk every one in the name of his god; and we will walk in the name of Jehovah our God for ever and ever.
(CEV) Others may follow their gods, but we will always follow the LORD our God.
(DRB) For all people will walk every one in the name of his god: but we will walk in the name of the Lord, our God, for ever and ever.
(ESV) For all the peoples walk each in the name of its god, but we will walk in the name of the LORD our God forever and ever.
(GNB) Each nation worships and obeys its own god, but we will worship and obey the LORD our God forever and ever.
(ISV)
(KJV) For all people will walk every one in the name of his god, and we will walk in the name of the LORD our God for ever and ever.
(KJV+) For3588 all3605 people5971 will walk1980 every one376 in the name8034 of his god,430 and we587 will walk1980 in the name8034 of the LORD3068 our God430 forever5769 and ever.5703
(KJVR) For all people will walk every one in the name of his god, and we will walk in the name of the LORD our God forever and ever.
(LITV) For all the peoples walk, each one in the name of his god; but we will walk in the name of Jehovah our God forever and ever.
(MKJV) For all peoples will walk, each one in the name of his god; and we will walk in the name of Jehovah our God forever and ever.
(YLT) For all the peoples do walk, Each in the name of its god--and we, We do walk in the name of Jehovah our God, To the age and for ever.
It is a truly humbling and humble idea of a relationship of humanity with each other and with the Divine - the theme of humility is one that Micah uses elsewhere. The text says in simple word that peace will come when no one claims to know God by one single name. The history of this planet bears direct proof of Micah's idea.
The beleif in Only One God has spawned hundreds of wars across the globe.
Such a God would then be designated as large case G God. (I have said this before, but it bares repeating) ... lesser Gods would then be gods using the lower case g ... as was done in the above quotes.
I seek Peace, j.
For this greater God picture then, the upper case G would apply to the Father of Christ ... not to Christ Himself who would still be but a god in comparison !
The Christians are just going to have to eventually get over this idea that Christ is God ... He is but a god !
Jehovah, Yahweh, Allah ... and a whole bunch of 'other' names better represent God. Yet even some of those, based upon misunderstandings, would really only qualify for/as 'god' in many cases.
IMnsHO.
Yet it all really matters not, because all will have an experience commensurate with their shared beliefs ... we create and co-create our realities ... some of those will be much different than others ... to each their own.
I agree that the conception of "mine is the only true faith" is something Christianity, Islam both will have to grow out of - the two major beleivers of that idea.
I disagree with the way you frame things. To use a concept from Jewish Kabbalah and mix it with general msytic ideas from across the globe:
Underneath all is the one unity of the Infinite Divine. The Infinite is before humanity, and beyond human comprehension. Every human culture has tried to grasp it as best they can. Hence all human 'names' & 'ways' are valid cultural conceptualizations of the Divine. They differences in names which point towards the silent truth that is not containable in any single human framework.
I would not use the term "better" to describe one religion or another. And the idea of God and 'god' - some may not appreciate.
I think it best to say like other mystics that there is a term for the underlying truth of the Divine that is pointing at its true nature and then there is the common names used by the average person to describe how the Divine manifests in its most simple and ordinary sense.
I tend to think that each culture and religion has a deeper understand of the Divine - the mystics of each culture and religion point to this. Hence no one culture has the best way to understand the Divine - each culture is pointing at a way of conceptualizing this Infinite. So, I don't regard that anyone, other than a Christian, has to go through Jesus to get to the true nature of the Divine.
I agree that the conception of "mine is the only true faith" is something Christianity, Islam both will have to grow out of - the two major believers of that idea.
I say; As I see it, the Muslims would accept the Christians if they could get over the idea that Jesus is God ... the Muslims see Jesus as just another Brother Prophet to their Mohammad ... which is my view also as I maybe a lesser Brother to both ... and many many others not so well known. It is in fact the Christian view that has caused most of the conflicts due to their 'special' righteousness.
You say:
I disagree with the way you frame things. To use a concept from Jewish Kabbalah and mix it with general msytic ideas from across the globe:
I say: That is what is called the Perennial Wisdom or Philosophy IS the commonality of all esoteric mystical beliefs when one gets down to the essence of them all. All such understand each other in that/this regard.
Better and such are just relative terms, they have their value and meaning in relative truths.
I basically agree with most of what you say Gary (other than where I further elaborate) :-)
I agree with your latest also ... you said: " ... So, I don't regard that anyone, other than a Christian, has to go through Jesus to get to the true nature of the Divine. ..."
What I was trying to say about that, was: ... Jesus the man that had received the Holy Spirit of God withIN himself that has now come to be called the Christ Spirit by Christians in their special belief ... was nothing more than the Spirit of God "=" that is available to any earnest and evolutionary qualified seeker of such higher Truths ... in other words, Jesus was referring to the requirement of others to also receive that SAME Spirit that he had in order to get to the Father.
His whole message was about having Eternal Life when one Realized their inherent Spirituality as he had done. That alone qualifies one to approach the Father as He would soon do.
Religion has venerated Him all out of proportion to what he meant for them to do ... which was to just understand and then follow His message ... not worship Him.
Of course that is just my nsHO.
The text DOES NOT read that the Hebrew will know GOD by one name and the non-Hebrew will know (the same) GOD by a different name. The text clearly states that other nations walk in the name of THEIR God, while the Hebrew walks in the name of THEIR God (the Hebrew God, distinguished from the non-Hebrew gods).
In your ASV version, the text even distinguishes the name of the Hebrew God as Jehovah, but refers to other gods as simply "other gods". The CEV, DRB & ESV versions further make my point by referring to the other gods as "THEIR" gods – distinguished from "OUR" God as Micah refers to the Hebrew God – I'm surprised you don't see this. The GNB version refers to the people obeying their own God, but it states that we (the Hebrews) will worship & obey "our" God – there is clearly a distinction that Micah is making between the Hebrew "true" God and the gods of people of other nations.
The remaining versions that you list further confirm this distinction – if you don't see this, stand on a street corner and read verse 5 to people of all walks of life and take a poll, you will see that either people don't understand bible-speak or that they interpret that Micah is clearly drawing a distinction between the God that the Hebrews worship vs. the gods that other people worship. If the point of your article were that Micah was saying that other people worship gods, that would be accurate, but not that other non-Hebrew people worship the same God as the Hebrews (Micah does not believe this – ask him the next time you are in mystical contact with him).
Gary, I realize that you "wish" (for the sake of world peace) that all people would worship the same God (just use different names for that God); however this is just not so. Primarily because each God is very different from every other God that people worship. In fact you could make a case that many Christians worship very different Gods, even though they call him Jesus OR that many Muslims worship very different Gods, even though they call him Allah.
Wishing that all people are worshiping the same God does not make it so (sorry). I realize that Micah cannot speak out against your misinterpretation of his text, so it falls to the rest of us to do so. I agree with you that we all should only worship the one true God (I believe you are saying this), but this passage in Micah does not prove that Micah believed what you are saying he believed. If you are trying to make Micah fit into the "mystic" mold, you may actually be successful at this, but you cannot unmake Micah as a Hebrew Prophet.
As described in the Hebrew Scriptures the scriptural prophets – those who have left behind a 'book' in their name, were people who not 'professional' prophets. They did not train in the manner probably similar to how the mystics described their own background and training of meditation and prayer. The literary prophets were not seekers after God but were people sought out by God and given a burst of inspiration from that contact with the Divine. Having said that, we can still realize they were humans with physiology like other humans and therefore look to the mystics – those who sought out God, for help in understanding the experience of communion with the Divine and help in understanding the results of that communion – the outpouring that is the book that contains the prophet's vision. In the end I think the difference between a mystic and a prophet is not the experience but the events leading up to the experience. Mystics seek God and the communion, while the prophet got tagged by God.
Now, how did the text, the book we credit to the prophet get written? Did the actual prophet write it down – not all that likely – the average person was not literate in the two differing skills – the one of reading texts and the different skill of writing down or thoughts and ideas , and the skill of the mere mechanics of writing. So, some 'professional' more than likely did the writing down. Was that skilled person himself a mystic? Or was that skilled person just trained in writing – creative or mechanical? All these are interesting questions that could impact the meaning of the text.
This leads me to the question of what the text means. A mystic/trained prophet may have known the concepts of the Kabbalah/the Jewish mystical community? Perhaps? The idea of a universal construct of the Divine underlying the diversity of the outer form was an idea percolating through the world even in this time. But perhaps it is a stretch.
Perhaps you are right that the words of Micah meant that the Hebrews would worship their God and the other peoples would worship their own God – and this is more like two different beings/entities than the 'different name for the same thing' that I described. I could agree that I am projecting back my later idea – which clearly did exist in mystic and philosophic literature but much later than the time of Micah's lifetime, into the meaning of the text.
But even if we posit that the 5th verse is talking about worshiping two different Gods, it still seems to me that it doesn't say that one is superior to the other. It treats them equally and just allows for each people to peacefully live and let live. The 'let each' is a acknowledgment that by living side by side and acknowledging that different people will worship different Gods – just letting each go about their own business, this will result in peaceful co-existence. It is important to note what the text did not say, where as the text could have said that all people must worship the God of the Hebrews and thus clearly assert the "Only one True Faith" party line that so many people want to see in the text. By not saying – everyone must walk in the name of the God of the Hebrews forever and ever – which it could have easily have said, by failing to do that and instead making an effort to describe an acceptance of differing communities of God-walkers, the text is laying down the concept that peace derives from acceptance of differences.
Based upon my first hand experience and all subsequent reading, I have considered myself somewhat related to those two classifications, but based upon your description, I might better fit the Prophet type ... of course that will only be determined by later history ... assuming my 'book' ever caught anyone's attention.
The world has been, and still is, full of many that 'could' fit either category ... but never achieved any notice, so effectively are lost to history ... but all such ARE noted by God. (and THAT is the most important thing).
I also like your idea of each belief having their own god/God ... which really fits my own view ... that would still put another yet higher classification to be sought by all ... that which would be a relative GOD to God/gods ... A TRUE MONOTHEISTIC GOD !
The GOD of the BET (+=-) !!! ... where the God/god's would be the (+/-) !!!
TRUE Trinitary as opposed to Dualism.
Spirit Calls ... ALL of us ...
I've been sick this past week...