Revelation 17.11 vs. Micah 5.5-6

In listening to Micah the other day, I heard something familiar:

This One will be our peace.
When the Assyrian invades our land,
When he tramples on our citadels,
Then we will raise against him
Seven shepherds and eight leaders of men.

They will shepherd the land of Assyria with the sword,
The land of Nimrod at its entrances;
And He will deliver us from the Assyrian
When he attacks our land
And when he tramples our territory. (Micah 5.5-6 NASB)

The LXX references Nimrod as well.

This brought to mind Revelation 17.11:

“The beast which was and is not, is himself also an eighth and is one of the seven, and he goes to destruction.

First, Nimrod:

The mention of Babylon, Erech/Uruk, and Akkad/Agade points, on the one hand, to Babylonia. More specifically, the fact that Nimrod is based in Babylonia, from which he then extends his rule over Assyria (construing ʾaššûr in Gen 10:11 as the land, in the directional case, viz., “he went out to Assyria”), reflects, at the least, the long-standing cultural superiority of Babylonia over Assyria.1

The Hebrew Scriptures provides for a great deal of connection between Nimrod and Babylon. In Revelation 17, John speaks to the downfall of that city (Rome, by the way, and not the Catholic Church). What is missing in many — I haven’t checked all — commentaries is the connection between these two verses. Rather, I see a connection here I cannot find mentioned in many if not all commentaries. The connection, of course, is centered not just on the mention of seven and eight and neither is it just on the opposition between shepherds and men (beasts and kings), but also on the opposition between the Good Shepherd and Nimrod, or YHWH’s agent and Babylon.

Anyway, what are your thoughts on the literary connection, if any, between these two passages?

Seriously, they must have hated Nero to write these things about him… (psst… not convinced Nero is in view here, but a Roman emperor surely is).

Enhanced by Zemanta
  1. Peter Machinist, “Nimrod (Person)”, in , vol. 4, The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary ( ed. David Noel Freedman; New York: Doubleday, 1992), 1117.

Post By Joel L. Watts (10,125 Posts)

Joel L. Watts holds a Masters of Arts from United Theological Seminary with a focus in literary and rhetorical criticism of the New Testament. He is currently a Ph.D. student at the University of the Free State, analyzing Paul’s model of atonement in Galatians. He is the author of Mimetic Criticism of the Gospel of Mark: Introduction and Commentary (Wipf and Stock, 2013), a co-editor and contributor to From Fear to Faith: Stories of Hitting Spiritual Walls (Energion, 2013), and Praying in God's Theater, Meditations on the Book of Revelation (Wipf and Stock, 2014).

Website: → Unsettled Christianity

Connect

3 thoughts on “Revelation 17.11 vs. Micah 5.5-6

  1. Mic 5.5 has a greater link with Dan 8: v8-9, and Dan 8: 22-23 because it identifies where the man of sin will come from. Grecian Empire split into 4 and Dan 8 tells us that out of their kingdom (one of the 4) will come the Antichrist, not the Pope. After all he is called the Assyrian and not the Romanian. Rev17:11 is more about the Beast Empire rather than the person Antichrist. 5 fallen being Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Persia, Greece – one is Rome. One yet to come Ottomans/Turkey. So now were are looking for the 8th which i feel may come from Turkey or the old Assyrian Empire because of Eze 38 39 and because of Noah”s descendant Japheth. As a side issue Russian is not Gog or Magog. Eze 38 39 says the war machine will come from the northern flank or quarter not as most teach the uttermost parts of the north.

    And these 10 kings need to be alive in the future and not past 10 kings because they hate the Whore – and you have to be alive to hate anything.

    Rev 17:12 And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast.

    But in saying all this i like to keep the door open so i may learn more in the future. We cant all be right.

    • Hans,

      Several things. First, there is not singular Antichrist. Second, the Assyrian is transformed into Roman in some works among the Dead Sea Scrolls.

      I’m not sure, but you seem to suggest that Daniel, Revelation, etc… still needs to be fulfilled?

      Further, I think you miss my overall point about the author of Revelation’s use of Micah. It’s about intertextuality.

Leave a Reply, Please!