It’s a bit about how God uses calamity to reconcile or sinful natures with his promises.
It alternates condemnation of how utterly self serving and corrupt Judah has become with promises of future blessing.
Bad leaders, corrupt prophets who tell lies for reward rather than truth. Compared to the remnant, the ignored but sincere few on whom the future will be built.
The empty religious practices compared to lives that display actual justice, humility and mercy.
The city of Jerusalem, which will be destroyed, compared to the new Jerusalem, to which all peoples will be invited.
God, speaking through Micah, links this series of contrasts, saying one is needed for the other. He puts himself on trial to argue why he must bring destruction on the corrupt society in order that the promise of the covenant to Abraham, of a vast outpouring of blessing, could be kept.
It’s an argument about God needing to be cruel to be kind… Or is it using the cruelty to bring about kindness? Strongly messianic, rather like a mini Isaiah. Though the scene of God arguing his own case seems rather unique to this book.
I thought a lot about the siege mentality of the modern church, responding to losing its influence by trying to wrest the power and prestige back, rather than accepting that from the remnant comes the blessing, Jerusalem has to be destroyed to be rebuilt, in a paradigm we won’t recognise. From tiny Bethlehem comes the King.