The Remnant of Jacob Among the Nations: Like Dew and Like a Lion

How should Israel act among the nations? How does YHWH express Himself in history? Micah’s deliberately ambiguous images of שְׁאֵרִית יַעֲקֹב, “the remnant of Jacob,” as both dew and a lion (5:6–8) place the burden of interpretation on readers themselves, who must decide how divine action, human agency, and the remnant’s relationship with the nations are to be understood.

Dr.

Yisca Zimran

Dr.

Yisca Zimran

Categories:

Chukat

The Remnant of Jacob Among the Nations: Like Dew and Like a Lion

The remnant of Jacob^[1] is compared to dew in the book of Micah, an image often interpreted as representing the refreshing influence of Israel on the nations:

^{מיכה ה:ו} וְהָיָה שְׁאֵרִית יַעֲקֹב בְּקֶרֶב עַמִּים רַבִּים כְּטַל מֵאֵת יְ־הֹוָה כִּרְבִיבִים עֲלֵי עֵשֶׂב אֲשֶׁר לֹא יְקַוֶּה לְאִישׁ וְלֹא יְיַחֵל לִבְנֵי אָדָם.

^{Mic 5:6} The remnant of Jacob shall be, in the midst of the many peoples, like dew from YHWH, like droplets on grass—which does not wait for any man, nor places hope in mortals.^[2]

The very next verse, however, describes the remnant as like a powerful lion, threatening those same nations:^[3]

^{מיכה ה:ז} וְהָיָה שְׁאֵרִית יַעֲקֹב בַּגּוֹיִם בְּקֶרֶב עַמִּים רַבִּים כְּאַרְיֵה בְּבַהֲמוֹת יַעַר כִּכְפִיר בְּעֶדְרֵי צֹאן אֲשֶׁר אִם עָבַר וְרָמַס וְטָרַף וְאֵין מַצִּיל.

^{Mic 5:7} The remnant of Jacob shall be among the nations, in the midst of the many peoples, like a lion in the midst of the wild beasts, like a fierce lion among flocks of sheep, which goes and tramples and rends and with no one saved.

The placement of the two seemingly discordant images alongside one another and their similar structure and phrasing (shown in bold) enhance the tension between them. Is this tension real—do both images depict the remnant’s relations with the nations?^[4]

Salvation through Divine Agency

The dew simile could be understood as highlighting the remnant’s direct association with YHWH. Dew is a phenomenon of nature that, in light of its consistent but not obviously explicable appearance, the Bible and ancient Near Eastern literature treat as a divine gift.^[5]

Understood this way, the first simile in the first half of the verse, כְּטַל מֵאֵת יְ־הֹוָה, “like dew from YHWH,” elaborates the remnant’s nature, oriented upwards towards the dew’s source:

^{מיכה ה:ו} וְהָיָה שְׁאֵרִית יַעֲקֹב בְּקֶרֶב עַמִּים רַבִּים כְּטַל מֵאֵת יְ־הֹוָה כִּרְבִיבִים עֲלֵי עֵשֶׂב...

^{Mic 5:6a} The remnant of Jacob shall be, in the midst of the many peoples, like dew from YHWH, like droplets on grass...

The second simile,^[6] כִּרְבִיבִים עֲלֵי עֵשֶׂב, “like droplets on grass,” is oriented downwards (עֲלֵי) towards the destination. Like the dew, the droplets are assumed to be a function of divine agency.^[7] The lack of a verb in either clause heightens the impression that the focus lies on their spatial aspect—lying between heaven and earth, between YHWH and his creation—rather than their activity or the relations they conduct with the peoples among whom they reside.

The second half of the verse is ambiguous:

^{מיכה ה:ו} ...אֲשֶׁר לֹא יְקַוֶּה לְאִישׁ וְלֹא יְיַחֵל לִבְנֵי אָדָם.

^{Mic 5:6b} —which does not wait for any man, nor places hope in mortals.

If the relative pronoun, אֲשֶׁר, refers to the remnant, then the clause describes a future turn to and dependence upon YHWH:^[8] the remnant is like dew, “which does not wait for any man, nor places hope in mortals.”

The relative pronoun, however, may also be understood as referring to YHWH, thus presenting YHWH as acting alone, without any human assistance: “Who does not wait for any man, nor places hope in mortals.”^[9] Both readings adduce YHWH’s presence and bond with the remnant, not its ties with the surrounding nations.

Since the comparison to dew is focused entirely on the remnant, the opening phrase of the verse may be read as a depiction of the remnant’s situation or place: וְהָיָה שְׁאֵרִית יַעֲקֹב בְּקֶרֶב עַמִּים רַבִּים, “when/while the remnant of Jacob will be in the midst of many nations....”

Human Activity Juxtaposed with Divine Action

The addition of the phrase בַּגּוֹיִם, “among the nations,” in verse 7 indicates that its focus is the remnant’s relationship with the surrounding peoples:^[10]

^{מיכה ה:ז} וְהָיָה שְׁאֵרִית יַעֲקֹב בַּגּוֹיִם בְּקֶרֶב עַמִּים רַבִּים כְּאַרְיֵה בְּבַהֲמוֹת יַעַר כִּכְפִיר בְּעֶדְרֵי צֹאן אֲשֶׁר אִם עָבַר וְרָמַס וְטָרַף וְאֵין מַצִּיל.

^{Mic 5:7} The remnant of Jacob shall be among the nations, in the midst of the many peoples, like a lion in the midst of the wild beasts, like a fierce lion among flocks of sheep, which goes and tramples and rends with no one saved.

Just as the first part of the verse offers two expressions elucidating that relationship—בַּגּוֹיִם בְּקֶרֶב עַמִּים רַבִּים, “among the nations, in the midst of the many peoples”—so the second part twice presents the remnant as a lion and the nations as a group of animals amongst which it resides: כְּאַרְיֵה בְּבַהֲמוֹת יַעַר כִּכְפִיר בְּעֶדְרֵי צֹאן , “like a lion in the midst of the wild beasts,^[11] like a fierce lion among flocks of sheep.”^[12] The use of the singular remnant/lion and plural nations/animals in both clauses strengthens the parallelism.^[13]

The concluding relative clause in this verse describes the situation in which the lion acts: the remnant is like a lion among the animals, אֲשֶׁר אִם עָבַר וְרָמַס וְטָרַף וְאֵין מַצִּיל, “which, when it goes and tramples and rends with no one saved....”

The opening phrase, אֲשֶׁר אִם, indicates that the clause serves as a protasis (an “if/when” clause).^[14] The verbs that follow אֲשֶׁר אִם, however, are each linked by the same conjunction, ו (waw), making it difficult to determine which of them belong to the protasis and which to the apodosis—the “then” clause that completes the thought.^[15]

One option, that fits well with the way verse 6 was interpreted above, is to view the entire relative clause as the protasis, with the next verse containing the apodosis:

^{מיכה ה:ח} תָּרֹם יָדְךָ עַל צָרֶיךָ וְכׇל אֹיְבֶיךָ יִכָּרֵתוּ.

^{Mic 5:8} [Then] may Your hand prevail over Your foes, and may all Your enemies be cut down![16]

The addressee is not identified,^[17] but the context of the earlier expression of YHWH’s bond with the remnant (v. 6) suggests that the speaker here has turned to YHWH and is expressing the hope that YHWH will respond and intervene.^[18] The jussive verb in תָּרֹם יָדְךָ, “may Your hand prevail,” conveys this entreaty or prayer.^[19]

The description of YHWH’s hand prevailing, signifying His superior might, corresponds to the earlier emphasis on divine rather than human action (אֲשֶׁר לֹא יְקַוֶּה לְאִישׁ וְלֹא יְיַחֵל לִבְנֵי אָדָם, “which/Who does not wait for any man, nor places hope in mortals”; v. 6). In this reading, צָרֶיךָ, “Your foes,” and אֹיְבֶיךָ, “Your enemies” (v. 8), are not only those who attack the remnant but also those who oppose YHWH.

Taken together, these three verses address a future state in which YHWH is involved with the remnant, helping it cope with the challenges it faces. When the remnant engages upon a series of violent acts, the passage expresses the hope that then YHWH will respond and intervene to ensure the remnant’s victory.^[20]

Yet this is not the only way to read this pericope. While verse 8 may be read as an appeal for divine intervention, it does not explicitly identify the addressee. In similar fashion, verse 6 may denote dependence upon YHWH, but the text does not specify precisely what it means to not wait for or place hope in mortals.

A different understanding of the passage can emerge if we begin our reading with the human activity depicted in the lion simile (in verse 7) and pay attention to the violent impression the actions included in verses 7 and 8 create (more on this later).^[21]

Independent Destructive Human Agency

Just as the remnant resides at the center of the scene, with the nations surrounding it, so the lion sits amidst the animals:[22]

^{מיכה ה:ז} וְהָיָה שְׁאֵרִית יַעֲקֹב בַּגּוֹיִם בְּקֶרֶב עַמִּים רַבִּים כְּאַרְיֵה בְּבַהֲמוֹת יַעַר כִּכְפִיר בְּעֶדְרֵי צֹאן אֲשֶׁר אִם עָבַר וְרָמַס וְטָרַף וְאֵין מַצִּיל.

^{Mic 5:7} The remnant of Jacob shall be among the nations, in the midst of the many peoples, like a lion in the midst of the wild beasts, like a fierce lion among flocks of sheep, which when it goes and tramples, and rends, then no one can save.

The scene depicts a violent clash that leads to wrack and ruin.^[23] The contrast between the single, powerful lion^[24] and the multiple, weaker animals enhances the lion’s destructiveness in the image and highlights the clash between the two groups.

Based on this impression, the relative clause at the end of the verse may include both protasis and apodosis: The remnant is like a lion, אֲשֶׁר אִם עָבַר וְרָמַס וְטָרַף וְאֵין מַצִּיל, “which, when it goes and tramples and rends, then no one can save.”^[25] The imagery reflects the future behavior that the remnant will adopt amidst the nations.^[26]

A Call to Action

The violence is not presented as one-sided, however. In the next verse, the terms צרים, “foes,” and אויבים, “enemies,” define the surrounding nations as adversaries, completing the image of distinct, opposing groups in conflict:

^{מיכה ה:ח} תָּרֹם יָדְךָ עַל צָרֶיךָ וְכׇל אֹיְבֶיךָ יִכָּרֵתוּ.

^{Mic 5:8} May your hand prevail over your foes, and may all your enemies be cut down!

In this context, verse 8 can also be understood as focused on human activity—calling on Israel to act, addressing the remnant itself or those in Israel listening to or reading the prophecy.^[27]

The phrase תָּרֹם יָדְךָ עַל צָרֶיךָ, “your hand shall prevail over your foes,” parallels the image of the lion overwhelming the other animals, reflecting the attacker’s power in relation to his adversary. This parallel strengthens the plausibility that the two verses refer to the same entities.

Reconsidering the Dew

Reading verses 7 and 8 in this way should also lead us to reconsider our understanding of the image of the remnant as dew and droplets (v. 6).^[28] The dew and droplets are light and fine, only lasting a fleeting moment,^[29] a fitting image for the remnant—i.e. a minority of the group.

Dew also occurs elsewhere as an aggressive image, as when Absalom’s men plot to overthrow his father, David:

^{שמואל ב יז:יב} וּבָאנוּ אֵלָיו [באחת] בְּאַחַד הַמְּקוֹמֹת אֲשֶׁר נִמְצָא שָׁם וְנַחְנוּ עָלָיו כַּאֲשֶׁר יִפֹּל הַטַּל עַל הָאֲדָמָה וְלֹא נוֹתַר בּוֹ וּבְכׇל הָאֲנָשִׁים אֲשֶׁר אִתּוֹ גַּם אֶחָד.

^{2 Sam 17:12} When we come upon him in whatever place he may be, we’ll descend on him as dew falling on the ground; and no one will survive, neither he nor any of the men with him.^[30]

In Proverbs, dew appears in parallel with כְּפִיר, “lion,” embodying a king’s anger-driven human agency:

^{משלי יט:יב} נַהַם כַּכְּפִיר זַעַף מֶלֶךְ וּכְטַל עַל עֵשֶׂב רְצוֹנוֹ.

^{Prov 19:12} The rage of a king is like the roar of a lion; his will is like dew upon the grass.^[31]

If the simile of the dew and droplets can bear an aggressive meaning, then its appearance (in v. 6) would correspond to the image of the remnant as a lion (v. 7).

In light of the interpretation of verses 7–8 as reflecting human activity, it is possible to interpret the attribute כְּטַל מֵאֵת יְ־הֹוָה, “like dew from YHWH” (v. 6), as simple imagery—depicting YHWH is the source of dew in general, but not expressing any specific relationship between the remnant and YHWH.^[32] The parallel image of droplets, which is not directly associated with YHWH, and the fact that YHWH is not explicitly adduced again in the unit reinforces this interpretive option.^[33]

The dew coming from YHWH and the droplets falling on grass are thus depicted as natural, predictable, and autonomous—not confined to any particular season, nor brought about by any divine act.^[34] Likewise, the remnant and the way in which it behaves are natural and independent.^[35]

This reading of the imagery continues in the ambiguous relative clause that ends the verse: אֲשֶׁר לֹא יְקַוֶּה לְאִישׁ וְלֹא יְיַחֵל לִבְנֵי אָדָם, “which does not wait for any man, nor place its hope in mortals.”^[36] The clause now expresses the remnant’s autonomy: rather than waiting for someone to move on its behalf, it takes the initiative into its own hands.^[37]

The general picture the unit paints in this interpretation addresses the human capacity to resolve difficulties. Read in this context, this pericope presents violent human activity in a positive light—i.e. as taking the initiative to provide relief from the threat posed by the remnant’s enemies.^[38]

Deliberate Ambiguity

Micah 5:6–8 contains numerous and varied ambiguities, multivalent components, and unanswered questions:^[39]

The terms “dew” (v. 6) and “remnant” (vv. 6, 7) represent both positive and negative realities.^[40]
The antecedent of the relative אשר (v. 6) is unclear: who does not wait or hope for human action?^[41]
Likewise, the relationship between the verbs that describe the lion—עבר ורמס וטרף ואין מציל—is unclear. Is one of the verbs an apodosis—or is that still to come in verse 8?
Does the phrase ואין מציל (v. 7) mean “no one can save,”^[42] a comparison of power? Or does it mean “with no one saved,” describing the degree of destruction?
Is the addressee in verse 8 YHWH or the people?^[43]

These features allow us to develop parallel themes, with all of the verses bearing fully alternative interpretations. The unit is deliberately ambiguous, its diverse parts existing side by side, with none invalidating another.^[44] As the readings presented here show, the central tension is not whether the two images are discordant—peace with the surrounding nations vs. war—but whether the remnant’s violent action is autonomous or dependent on divine activity.^[45]

The following two translations reflect these different understandings:

Salvation through Divine Agency:

^{מיכה ה:ו} וְהָיָה שְׁאֵרִית יַעֲקֹב בְּקֶרֶב עַמִּים רַבִּים כְּטַל מֵאֵת יְ־הֹוָה כִּרְבִיבִים עֲלֵי עֵשֶׂב אֲשֶׁר לֹא יְקַוֶּה לְאִישׁ וְלֹא יְיַחֵל לִבְנֵי אָדָם. ^ה:ז וְהָיָה שְׁאֵרִית יַעֲקֹב בַּגּוֹיִם בְּקֶרֶב עַמִּים רַבִּים כְּאַרְיֵה בְּבַהֲמוֹת יַעַר כִּכְפִיר בְּעֶדְרֵי צֹאן אֲשֶׁר אִם עָבַר וְרָמַס וְטָרַף וְאֵין מַצִּיל. ^ה:ח תָּרֹם יָדְךָ עַל צָרֶיךָ וְכׇל אֹיְבֶיךָ יִכָּרֵתוּ.

^{Mic 5:6} When/while the remnant of Jacob will be in the midst of many nations, [it will be] like dew from YHWH, like droplets on grass—which/Who does not wait for any man, nor places hope in mortals. ^5:7 The remnant of Jacob shall be among the nations, in the midst of the many peoples, like a lion in the midst of the wild beasts, like a fierce lion among flocks of sheep, which when it goes and tramples and rends with no one saved, ^5:8 [then] let Your [YHWH’s] hand prevail over Your foes, and let all Your enemies be cut down!

Independent Destructive Human Agency:

^{מיכה ה:ו} וְהָיָה שְׁאֵרִית יַעֲקֹב בְּקֶרֶב עַמִּים רַבִּים כְּטַל מֵאֵת יְ־הֹוָה כִּרְבִיבִים עֲלֵי עֵשֶׂב אֲשֶׁר לֹא יְקַוֶּה לְאִישׁ וְלֹא יְיַחֵל לִבְנֵי אָדָם. ^ה:ז וְהָיָה שְׁאֵרִית יַעֲקֹב בַּגּוֹיִם בְּקֶרֶב עַמִּים רַבִּים כְּאַרְיֵה בְּבַהֲמוֹת יַעַר כִּכְפִיר בְּעֶדְרֵי צֹאן אֲשֶׁר אִם עָבַר וְרָמַס וְטָרַף וְאֵין מַצִּיל. ^ה:ח תָּרֹם יָדְךָ עַל צָרֶיךָ וְכׇל אֹיְבֶיךָ יִכָּרֵתוּ.

^{Mic 5:6} When/while the remnant of Jacob will be in the midst of many nations, [it will be] like dew from YHWH, like droplets on grass—which does not wait for any man, nor places hope in mortals. ^5:7 The remnant of Jacob shall be among the nations, in the midst of the many peoples, like a lion in the midst of the wild beasts, like a fierce lion among flocks of sheep, which when it goes and tramples and rends, then no one can save. ^5:8 May your hand prevail over your foes, and may all your enemies be cut down!

Micah’s dual images of the remnant of Israel attest to the circumstances in which the prophecy was delivered. Though we do not have enough information to identify the remnant with a specific historical and geographical context,^[46] the content reflects a state wherein the remnant was not the superior force.^[47] The pericope also holds out hope for listeners mired in a situation that defines them as a small, weak minority amongst many nations.

In effect, the verses present two alternatives that listeners or readers must compare and contrast in order to determine the most appropriate reality: How does YHWH express Himself in history? What is demanded of us? What are the hoped-for relations between the remnant and the nations?^[48]

The ambiguity in Micah also places the power to decide among these alternatives in the readers’ own hands. They must not only decode the text and determine which exegetical path they will follow, but also interpret the reality in which they find themselves. These interpretive moves will directly affect their future.^[49]

In this sense, the readers are the lead actors—whether as independent agents or acting on YHWH’s behalf. The hermeneutical sovereignty they possess corresponds to the future independence that the verses attribute to the remnant. Autonomy thus lies at the heart of the hope Micah holds out.

TheTorah.com is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization.
We rely on the support of readers like you. Please support us.

Published

June 25, 2026

Last Updated

June 26, 2026

Previous in the Series

Next in the Series

Before you continue...

Thank you to all our readers who offered their year-end support.
Please help TheTorah.com get off to a strong start in 2025.

Donate Today

Footnotes

View Footnotes

Published

June 25, 2026

Last Updated

June 26, 2026

[1] “While originally ‘remnant’ represented the idea of a small group of survivors who witness to complete defeat in a battle, in the exilic-postexilic period the notion of a remnant became the firm basis for a new beginning” (Burkard M. Zapff, Micah, IECOT [Kohlhammer, 2022], 166). But cf. Johannes C. de Moor, Micah, HCOT (Leuven, 2020), 232.

[2] Biblical translations follow the NJPS, with modifications.

[3] J. M. Powis Smith et al., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Micah, Zephaniah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Obadiah and Joel (Scribner, 1911), 110. Juan Cruz, “Who is like Yahweh?”: A Study of Divine Metaphors in the Book of Micah, FRLANT 263 (Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2016), 69–70, relates to this tension from the perspective of metaphors. Yair Hoffman, Micah, Mikra LeYisra’el (Magnes, 2017), 213 (Hebrew), denies any disparity between the images, however, both sets relating to nature. Kenneth Wayne Shoemaker, “Speaker and Audience Participants in Micah: Aspects of Prophetic Discourse,” (Ph.D. diss. Graduate Theological Union and University of California, Berkeley, 1992), 181, maintains that both portray an “irrepressible presence and force”; see also Gershon Brin, Studies in the Prophetic Literature (Mosad Bialik, 2006), 141 (Hebrew).

[4] For example, some scholars account for it by ascribing the verses to disparate speakers—Micah in verse 6 and his opponents in verse 7. See Shmuel Vargon, The Book of Micah: A Study and Commentary (Bar Ilan University Press, 1994), 153–156 (Hebrew); Wilhelm J. Wessels, “Micah 4 and 5: A Battle of Words and Perceptions,” OTE 12 (1999): 623–641, 636–637. Others believe that the verses were spoken by figures belonging to different time frames, the prophecy and resistance thereto thus not arising at the same time (e.g., Claus Westermann, Prophetic Oracles of Salvation in the Old Testament [Westminster John Knox, 1991], 207). Others (Hoffman, Micah, 214) explain the ideological tension as deriving from the fact that the verses depict the relations between the nations and two separate Israelite groups—the Babylonian exiles (v. 6) and those who returned to Zion (v. 7)

[5] Hans Walter Wolff, Micah the Prophet (Fortress, 1981), 95; Hoffman, Micah, 217; Bob Becking, Micah, Anchor Yale Bible (Yale University Press, 2023), 192. See e.g. Job 38:28; cf. Isaiah 26:19.

[6] See, for example, Wilhelm Rudolph, Micha – Nahum – Habakuk – Zephanja, KAT 13 III (Gerd Mohn, 1975), 102. For the textual differences between the MT and LXX in v. 6, see William McKane, The Book of Micah (Bloomsbury, 1998), 164–165.

[7] See Jeremiah 14:22, for example. For an inverse expression of divine control of the dew, see Haggai 1:10. Dew and droplets also appear together in Deuteronomy 32:1–2, symbolizing the words that come out of a speaker’s mouth.

[8] Vargon Micah, 154; McKane Book of Micah, 165; Brin, Studies in the Prophetic Literature, 139; Zapff Micah, 168. The LXX derives the verb יקווה from the rootק.ו.ה/י in the sense of “collection, gathering,” dividing the verse differently so that it suggests that no one will be gathered (Zapff Micah, 165). While this heightens the emphasis on divine rather than human action, it does not correspond to the MT.

[9] This exegesis, which accentuates His involvement in the events, is strengthened by the fact that the “remnant of Jacob” is feminine, the “dew” and “droplets” plural, and the verbs in 6c in the singular.

[10] Cf. Brin, Studies in the Prophetic Literature, 140. Adducing the textual witnesses, numerous scholars argue that v. 6 should be augmented in line with v. 7 in order to create a full parallelism. Others propose deleting בגויים in v. 7. For a survey of the amendments to the openings of both verses, see McKane, Book of Micah, 164.

[11] The phrase בהמות יער (see 3:12: במות יער) may refer to wild beasts (as suggested here), predators, or herbivores (Hoffman, Micah, 218). Zapff (Micah, 168) suggests that the two groups serve as a merismus designating all animals.

[12] The power relations are clear and prominent—as is the relation between the imagery and the group it describes. Here, the lion represents the remnant of Jacob, the emphasis lying on its destructive strength (Zapff, Micah, 169; see also Num 23:24, 24:8–9).

[13] A power disparity also exists between the lion and young lion, possibly explaining that between the wild animals and flocks; see McKane, Book of Micah, 165.

[14] For אשר אם when opening a protasis/apodosis, see Gen 13:16 (in a negative sense: because/so it is impossible); Job 9:15; cf. עד אשר אם as a “conditional” temporal notation (until it is fulfilled): Gen 28:15; Num 32:17; Isa 6:11. אשר אם can also introduce a temporal clause. See Steven E. Fassberg, An Introduction to the Syntax of Biblical Hebrew (Bialik Institute, 2019), 159 (Hebrew). Whatever the case may be in this regard, the text demands determination of what will happen at the point adduced at the beginning of the sentence.

[15] “What is announced in v. 7 can accordingly, so v. 8, only become reality through YHWH’s initiative” (Zapff, Micah, 166). Although the verse’s structure and the imagery that lies at its heart make it difficult to read v. 7 itself as depicting human action under divine aegis, cf. Leslie C. Allen, The Books of Joel, Obadiah, Jonah and Micah, NICOT (Eerdmans, 1976), 354.

[16] The facts that the phraseר.ו.מ+יד occurs elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible in relation to divine agency and that in following verses the root כ.ר.ת refers to YHWH (vv. 9, 10, 11, 12) reinforce the likelihood that the line speaks of divine power, see: Zapff, Micah, 166, 169. For other biblical occurrences, see Isa 26:11; and also Ps 89:14(13). For ר.ו.מ+יד as signifying the connection between human and divine action, see Gen 14:22; Exod 17:11; (de Moor, Micah, 262); for its connotation of the failure to recognize divine agency, see Deut 32:27.

[17] The possibility that the subject is the remnant adduced in the two previous verses is syntactically implausible. See Becking (Micah, 193), however, who, while not seeking to amend the MT, in actuality reads it as a future (תָּרֻם) rather than imperative.

[18] In this case, the verse is best understood as an entreaty or prayer, these forms being inherent in the jussive mood (Rudolph, Micha, 102; McKane, Book of Micah, 166).

[19] Fassberg, Introduction to the Syntax of Biblical Hebrew, 76.

[20] Mays, Micah, 121–122. “The two strs. [vv. 6, 7] thus interpreted fit together excellently, the second taking up the description where the first drops it” (Smith et al., Micah, 112). The unit as a whole resembles the action characterizing Micah 4:11–13 (Becking, Micah, 180). This resemblance buttresses the argument that Micah 5:6–8 relates to the remnant in the Land rather than in exile.

[21] For the uniformity, see, for example, Wolff, Micah the Prophet, 95. Cf. de Moor’s contention that “The opposite imagery of Micah 5:6–7 reflects two opposite aspects of kingship” (Micah, 232). According to Ehud Ben-Zvi (Micah, FOTL XXI-B [Eerdmans, 2000], 133, 134), the unit’s multivalency heightens the sense of salvation within the passage. Even without reading the pericope in its extant textual context, however, it is clearly multivalent—to a degree greater than even Ben-Zvi acknowledges.

[22] This contrast also appears in v. 6.

[23] Wessels (“Micah 4 and 5,” 636) identifies several terms in verses 7–8 that contribute to this theme: רמס, טרף, אין מציל,כרת . In this context, the root ע.ב.ר (v. 7), and the phrase ר.ו.מ+יד (v. 8), which bears various connotations, join the list of terms that highlight the violent associations. For ע.ב.ר in combative and military contexts, see, for example, Exod 12:12; Deut 24:5; Judg 6:33; 1 Sam 29:2; Isa 8:8; 10:28–29; Jer 15:15; Ezek 14:17; Nah 1:8. For ר.ו.מ+יד as signifying violence, see Num 20:11; as denoting rebellion, see 1 Kgs 11:26–27. For ר.ו.מ+יד as signifying superior power, see Erin Runions, Changing Subjects: Gender, Nation and Future in Micah (Bloomsbury, 2001), 216; Becking, Micah, 193.

[24] The species is generally portrayed in the Bible as authoritative and destructive. See, for example, Yisca Zimran, “The Notion of God Reflected in the Lion Imagery of the Book of Hosea,” VT 68 (2018): 149–167 (esp. 152). The fact that the lion is a symbol of royalty in the ancient Near East reinforces its human-like power (ibid., 163–65; Becking, Micah, 193).

[25] The participle form often occurs in an apodosis (Fassberg, Introduction to the Syntax of Biblical Hebrew, 173), this fact supporting identification of אין מציל as the apodosis. As noted above (n. 14), אשר אם can introduce a protasis.

[26] Cf. Hosea 5:14.

[27] See, for example, James L. Mays, Micah, OTL (Westminster, 1976), 123; Shoemaker, “Speaker and Audience Participants in Micah,” 182; Vargon, Micah, 155; and Wessels, “Micah 4 and 5,” 637. Zapff (Micah, 169) suggests that while the appeal is to Israel, it expects that the nations will be recognized or destroyed by YHWH (thus being formulated in the passive). Since the remnant is feminine, Becking (Micah, 193) contends that the call is to the “inhabitants of Jerusalem, who are the audience of the speaker.” Francis I. Andersen and David Noel Freedman (Micah, AB [Doubleday, 2000], 483), in contrast, appeal to 2:12–13, wherein the singular relates to the “Jacob” in the phrase “remnant of Jacob” (see also Amos 1:8). They thus hold that the referent is Israel on the basis of the possessive declension that recurs throughout vv. 9–13 (cf. Zapff, Micah, 166, 169, who identifies the addressee as YHWH in light of the same verses, which employ the root כ.ר.ת). De Moor (Micah, 232) maintains that the “remnant of Jacob” designates the Davidic descendant, this fact explaining, inter alia, the masculine case in the verses.

[28] Dew carries various connotations that are broader than the positive sense I have briefly adduced above. The way in which the precipitation falls upon the earth and its other features affect the question of whether it serves as a blessing or curse. (See, for example, Gen 7:11–12; Ezek 13:11, 13; 38:22.)

[29] See, e.g., Hosea 6:4, 13:3. Mignon R. Jacobs, The Conceptual Coherence of the Book of Micah (A&C Black, 2001), 155, contends that the dew and droplets symbolize ephemerality, thus regarding v. 6 as relating to a preliminary, temporary phase that develops into v. 7.

[30] See, for example, Delbert R. Hillers, Micah, Hermeneia (Fortress, 1984), 71. For a critique, see Hoffman, Micah, 214.

[31] Some scholars regard this as antithetical parallelism (as might be the relationship between Mic 5:6 and 7), with the dew expressing blessing: see Victor Hurovitz, Proverbs, Mikra LeYisra'el (Magnes, 2012), 400 (Hebrew).

[32] The LXX expression, ὡς δρόσος παρὰ κυρίου πίπτουσα, “like dew falling from the Lord” (e.g. Zapff, Micah, 165) makes it clear that the מֵאֵת יְ־הֹוָה forms part of the image rather than associating the remnant with YHWH; cf. Hillers (Micah, 70), who argues that it is a function of Greek syntax—in accordance with the insertions in the English translations.

[33] Becking (Micah, 194), for example, reads v. 6 as describing Israel’s rejuvenation and v. 7 as depicting her destruction of the nations. He thus takes the imagery as collectively portraying Israel’s enemies’ annihilation that leads to her salvation. Allen (Micah, 355) inverts the order, arguing that the combat described in vv. 8, 7 occurs first, this being followed by the peace and quiet depicted in v. 6. This argument rests on the tension between the verses and the logic of their development, finding no linguistic support.

[34] According to Ben-Zvi (Micah, 133), 6c refers to the dew and droplets, thus making their appearance inevitable. Zapff (Micah, 166) suggests that the lion and dew are royal symbols that portray the remnant as princely. This reading accentuates the human agency adduced in the two verses, thereby linking them together.

[35] As in Job 38:26.

[36] Mays, Micah, 123; Ben Zvi, Micah, 133; Becking Micah, 192.

[37] Runions, Changing Subject, 216. Exodus 2:12—which describes Moses acting on the basis of his recognition that there is “no one”—strengthens this interpretation of the relative clause.

[38] This exegesis recalls Micah 3:9–12, 5:4–5, and 4:9, all of which stress the call for human action in the present and future. For 3:9–12, see Yisca Zimran, “‘What Does the Lord Require of You’: The Attitude towards Zion and the Social Situation in the Book of Micah,” SJOT 35 (2021): 1–18; for 4:9, see Benjamin Uffenheimer, “History and Eschatology in the Book of Micah,” Beit Mikra 7 (1963): 48–65, esp. 62 (Hebrew); Charles S. Shaw, The Speeches of Micah: A Rhetorical-Historical Analysis (A&C Black, 1993), 135.

[39] Here, “ambiguous” signifies the inability to determine between several possible defined options (following Benjamin D. Sommer, “Is it Good for the Jews: Ambiguity and the Rhetoric of Turning in Isaiah,” in Birkat Shalom, ed. C. Cohen et al. [Eisenbrauns, 2008], 1:321–345, 321, for example).

[40] With respect to “dew,” see, for example, Smith et al., Micah, 111; but cf. Zapff (Micah, 167), who holds that both nouns always carry a favorable connotation. Regarding the “remnant,” see, for example, Mays’ comment that it “conveys both tragedy and hope” (Mays, Micah, 122); Cruz, “Who is like Yahweh?,” 185.

[41] The antecedent may be the remnant, since the relative clause is in the third person (Fassberg, Introduction to the Syntax of Biblical Hebrew, 153). According to Smith et al. (Micah, 113), if the subject is the remnant, this must be an explanatory rather than relative clause because it elucidates the way in which the remnant will become like dew and droplets. Proposing that the antecedent of the relative clause may also be the grass, Smith et al. (Micah, 112) argues that the sentence stresses unconditional dependence upon YHWH. Andersen and Freedman (Micah, 485) believe that just as the remnant is compared to grass in v. 7 it is likened to the flock (rather than the lion) in v. 7. Hoffman (Micah, 217) draws attention to the inverse imagery, the remnant previously compared to dew and droplets now being likened to grass; for objections to this view, see McKane, Book of Micah, 165. Andersen and Freedman (Micah, 484) suggest that the antecedent may be the dew, the subject of 6b.

[42] Becking, Micah, 193.

[43] Ben-Zvi, Micah, 134. But cf. Wolff, for example, who completes and changes the verb form, thereby cancelling the multivocality: “Lift up your hand, O Lord, against your adversary, so that all your enemies be destroyed” (Micah the Prophet, 96).

[44] Menakhem Perry, “Literary Dynamics: How the Order of a Text Creates its Meanings,” Poetics Today 1 (1979): 35–64, 311–361 (esp. 58–61); Yisca Zimran, “Ambiguity and Multivalence in Micah 2,12–13,” Biblica 105 (2024): 521–542 (esp. 522–523).

[45] The verses’ features preclude any understanding of a contrived linking of conflicting independent verses and reinforce the possibility of an interpretation that tolerates the ambiguity.

[46] The suggested historical background of the pericope ranges from the 8^th century B.C.E. (Vargon, Micah, 153; de Moor, Micah, 258), through the Persian period (Smith et al., Micah, 111), to the Hellenistic period (Zapff, Micah, 170).

[47] Uffenheimer, “History and Eschatology in the Book of Micah,” 62.

[48] The uncertainties and analysis of the alternatives lead to a deeper understanding of the content. “By this association of opposites he [the author] gathers up the heritage of past thinking concerning the significance of the people of God for the life and death of the world. He flings this ideological package at his hearers to ponder and so enrich their understanding”) Allen, Micah, 354–355).

[49] “Once again the prophet depicts possible outcomes in Israel’s future, depending on the choices made in the present”) Shoemaker Speaker, 181, with respect to the tension he reads between vv. 6, 7).

[2] Biblical translations follow the NJPS, with modifications.

[13] A power disparity also exists between the lion and young lion, possibly explaining that between the wild animals and flocks; see McKane, Book of Micah, 165.

[18] In this case, the verse is best understood as an entreaty or prayer, these forms being inherent in the jussive mood (Rudolph, Micha, 102; McKane, Book of Micah, 166).

[19] Fassberg, Introduction to the Syntax of Biblical Hebrew, 76.

[22] This contrast also appears in v. 6.

[26] Cf. Hosea 5:14.

[30] See, for example, Delbert R. Hillers, Micah, Hermeneia (Fortress, 1984), 71. For a critique, see Hoffman, Micah, 214.

[35] As in Job 38:26.

[36] Mays, Micah, 123; Ben Zvi, Micah, 133; Becking Micah, 192.

[37] Runions, Changing Subject, 216. Exodus 2:12—which describes Moses acting on the basis of his recognition that there is “no one”—strengthens this interpretation of the relative clause.

[42] Becking, Micah, 193.

[45] The verses’ features preclude any understanding of a contrived linking of conflicting independent verses and reinforce the possibility of an interpretation that tolerates the ambiguity.

[47] Uffenheimer, “History and Eschatology in the Book of Micah,” 62.

Dr. Yisca Zimran is a senior lecturer in the Department of Biblical Studies at Bar Ilan University, Israel, where she completed her Ph.D. Her research fields are Biblical Narrative, with an emphasis on family narratives, and Biblical Prophecy, with a focus on the books attributed to the 8th century B.C.E. In both fields, she analyzes biblical texts from literary, rhetorical, and theological angles, with specific attention to the mutual reciprocity between the text and the readers and the potential dynamic interpretation of the texts.

Essays on Related Topics:

Symposium:More Responses

Please check your email

Please check your email

The Remnant of Jacob Among the Nations: Like Dew and Like a Lion

Salvation through Divine Agency

Human Activity Juxtaposed with Divine Action

Independent Destructive Human Agency

A Call to Action

Reconsidering the Dew

Deliberate Ambiguity

Salvation through Divine Agency:

Independent Destructive Human Agency:

Before you continue...