Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament

This contradiction, with the consequence to which it would inevitably lead,—namely, that if one of the prophets predicted the destruction of Jerusalem by the Assyrians, whereas the other prophesied that it would not be destroyed by them, the two contemporary prophets would necessarily lead the people astray, and render both the truth of their contradictory utterances and their own divine mission doubtful,—cannot be removed by the assumption that Isaiah uttered the prophecies in ch. Xxviiil.—xxxil, at a somewhat later period, after Micah had published his book, and the terribly severe words of Micah in ch. ii. 12 had produced repentance. For Isaiah had predicted that the Assyrian would not conquer Jerusalem, but that his army would be destroyed under its walls, not only in ch. xxviii.— XXxiL., at the time when the Assyrians are approaching with threatening aspect under Shalmaneser or Sennacherib, but much earlier than that,—namely, in the time of Ahaz, in ch. x. 5-xu1. 6. Moreover, in Isa. xxviii.-xxxii. there is not a single trace that Micah’s terrible threatening had produced such repentance, that the Lord was able to withdraw His threat in consequence, and predict through Isaiah the rescue of Jerusalem from the Assyrian. On the contrary, Isaiah scourges the evil judges and false prophets quite as severely in ch. xxviii. 7 sqq. and xxix. 9-12 as Micah does in ch. iii. 1-3 and

5-8. And lastly, although the distinction between conditional prophecies and those uttered unconditionally is, generally speaking, correct enough, and is placed beyond all doubt by Jer. xviil. 7-10; there is nothing in the addresses and threatenings of the two prophets to indicate that Micah uttered his threats conditionally, ¢.e. in case there should be no repentance, whereas Isaiah uttered his unconditionally. Moreover, such an explanation is proved to be untenable by the fact, that in Micah the threat of the destruction of Jerusalem and of the desolation of the temple mountain (ch. iii. 12) stands in the closest connection with the promise, that at the end of the days the mountain of God’s house will be exalted above all mountains, and Jehovah reign on Zion as king for ever (ch. iv. 1-3 and 7). If this threat were only conditional, the promise. would also have only a conditional validity; and the final glorification of the kingdom of God would be dependent upon the penitence of the great mass of the people of Israel,—a view which is diametrically opposed to the real nature of the prophecies of both, yea, of all the prophets. The only difference between Isaiah and Micah in this respect consists in the fact that Isaiah, in his elaborate addresses, brings out more distinctly the attitude of the imperial power of Assyria towards the kingdom of God in Israel, and predicts not only that Israel will be hard pressed by the Assyrians, but also that the latter will not overcome the people of God, but will be wrecked upon the foundation-stone laid by Jehovah in Zion; whereas Micah simply threatens the sinners with judgment, and after the judgment predicts the glorification of Zion in grand general terms, without entering more minutely into the attitude of the Assyrians towards Israel. In the main, however, Micah goes hand in hand with his contemporary Isaiah. In Isa. xxxii. 14, Isaiah also foretels the devastation, or rather the destruction, of Jerusalem, notwithstanding the fact that he has more than once announced the deliverance of the city of God from Asshur, and that without getting into contradiction with himself. For this double announcement may be very simply explained from the fact that the judgments which Israel had yet to endure, and the period of glory to follow, lay, like a long, deep diorama, before the prophet’s mental eye; and that in his threatenings he plunged sometimes more, sometimes less, deeply into those judgments which lay in perspective before him (see Delitzsch on Isaiah, ii. p. 58). The same thing applies to Micah, who goes toa great depth both in his threats and promises, not only predicting the judgment in all its extremity,—namely, the utter destruction of Jerusalem, and the carrying away of the people to Babel,—but also the salvation in its ultimate perfection, viz. the glorification of Zion. We must therefore not restrict his threats in ch. ili. 12 and iv. 10 even to the Chaldzean catastrophe, nor the promise of Israel’s deliverance in Babel out of the hands of its foes to the liberation of the Jews from Babylon, which was effected by Cyrus, and their return to Palestine under Zerubbabel and Ezra; but must also extend the threat of punishment to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans and the attendant dispersion of the Jews over all the world, and the redemption out of Babel promised in ch. iv. 10 to that deliverance of Israel which, in the main, is in the future still. These two judgments and these two deliverances are comprehended in an undivided unity in the words of the prophet, Babel being regarded not only in its historical character, but also in its typical significance, as the beginning and the hearth of the kingdom of the world. Babel has this double significance in the Scriptures from the very commencement. ven the building of the city with a tower intended to reach to heaven was a work of human pride, and an ungodly display of power (Gen. xi. 4 sqq.); and after its erection Babel was made by Nimrod the beginning of the empire of the world (Gen. x. 10). It was from these two facts that Babel became the type of the imperial power, and not because the division of the human race into nations with different languages, and their dispersion over the whole earth, had their origin there (see A. Ch. Limmert, Babel, das Thier und der falsche Prophet. Goth. 1862, p. 36 sqq.); and it is in this typical significance of Babel that we have to seek not only for the reason for the divine purpose to banish the people of God to Babel, when they were given up to the power of the kingdom of the world, but also for a point of connection for the prophetic announcement when this purpose had been communicated to the prophet’s mind. Micah accordingly predicts the carrying away of the daughter Zion to Babel, and her deliverance there out of the power of her enemies, not because Babel along with Nineveh was the metropolis of the world-empire of his time, or a chief city of that empire, but because Babel, from its very origin, was a type and symbol of the imperial power. That the words of Micah, in their deepest sense, should be so interpreted, is not only warranted, but necessitated, by the announcement which follows in vers. 11-13 of the victorious conflict of Zion with many nations, which points far beyond the conflicts of the Jews in the times succeeding the captivity. Vers. 11-13. The daughter Zion, when rescued from Babel, overcomes all hostile powers in the strength of her God. Ver. 11. “ And now many nations have assembled together against thee, who say, Let her be profaned, and let our eyes look upon Zion. Ver. 12. But they know not the thoughts of Jehovah, and understand not His counsel; for He has gathered them together like sheaves for the threshing-jloor. Ver. 13. Rise up and thresh, O daughter Zion: for I make thy horn iron, and I make thy hoofs brass; and thou wilt crush many nations: and I ban their gain to Jehovah, and their substance to the Lord of the whole earth.” With As, corresponding to TAY in ver. 9, there commences a new scene, which opens to the prophet’s mental eye. Many nations have assembled together against the daughter Zion carey pointing back to fi'¥ n3 in ver. 10), with the intention of profaning her, and feasting their eyes upon the profaned one. It is the holiness of Zion, therefore, which drives the nations to attack her. 429", let her be or become profaned: not by the sins or bl oodguil tiness of her inhabitants (Jer. ili. 2; Isa. xxiv. 5), for this is not appropriate in the mouths of heathen; but through devastation or destruction let her holiness be taken from her. They want to show that there is nothing in her holiness, and to feast their eyes upon the city thus profaned. mm with 3, to look upon a thing with interest, here with malicious siees On the singular tachaz, followed by the subject in the plural, see Ewald § 317, a. ‘To this design on the part of the heathen, the prophet (ver. 12) opposes the counsel of the Lord. Whilst the heathen assemble together against Zion, with the intention of profaning her by devastation, the Lord has resolved to destroy them in front of Zion. The destruction which they would prepare for Zion will fall upon themselves, for the Lord gathers them together like sheaves upon the threshing-floor, to thresh, ze. destroy, them. ‘3 does not mean “that,” but “for.” The sentence explains the assertion that they do not understand the counsel of the Lord. 2y3, with the generic article, equivalent to “like sheaves.” This judgment Zion is to execute upon the heathen. The figurative expression, “Rise up, and thresh,” etc., rests upon the oriental custom of threshing out corn with oxen, 7.e. of having it trodden out with their hoofs (see Paulsen, Ackerbau der Morgenldnder, § 41). In this, of course, only the strength of the hoofs was considered. But as the horn of the ox is a figure frequently used for destructive power (see Deut. xxxili. 17, 1 Kings xxii. 11, Amos vi. 13, ete.), the prophet combines ches figure, to ties the idea of crushing power, and express the thought that We Lord will equip Zion Bevtectly with the strength requisite to destroy the nations. ‘Fl2INN is the first person, and must not be altered into or regarded as the second, as it has been in the LX X. and Syriac, and by Jerome. The prophet does not speak in the name of the theocratic nation, as Jerome supposes, but continues to represent Jehovah as speaking, as in Dws, with which, however, instead of?, the noun nim is used, to give greater clearness to the thought that it is Jehovah, the God and Lord of the whole earth, who will destroy the nations that have rebelled against Him and His kingdom, wresting their possessions from them, and taking them back to Himself, For everything laid under the ban belonged to the Lord, as being most holy (Lev. xxvii. 28). bn, property, wealth, the sum and substance of the possessions. Israel is not to enrich itself by plundering the defeated foe, but Jehovah will sanctify the possessions of the heathen to Himself, to whom they belong as Lord of the whole earth, by laying them under the ban: that is to say, He will apply them to the glorification of His kingdom.

There has been a diversity of opinion as to the historical allusion, or the fulfilment of these verses. So much, however, is obvious at the very outset, namely, that they cannot be made to refer to the same event as ver. 9, that is to say, to the siege of Jerusalem by the Assyrians, without bringing the prophet into the most striking contradiction to himself. For, since ver. 10 predicts not a partial deportation, but the complete carrying away of Israel to Babel, and ver. 13 the perfect deliverance of Jerusalem, the people wandering out of Jerusalem into captivity (ver. 10) cannot possibly be the enemies who lead it away, beating it utterly before Jerusalem, and banning their possessions to the Lord. There is more to favour the allusion to the victorious conflicts of the Maccabees with the Syrians, for which Theodoret, Calvin, Hengstenberg, and others decide, since these conflicts occurred in the period intervening between the return of the Jews from the Babylonian captivity (ver. 10) and the coming of the Messiah (ch. v. 1). But even this allusion corresponds far too little to the words of the promise for us to be able to regard it as correct. Although, for example, the war of the Maccabees was a religious war in the strict sense of the word, since the Syrians, and with them the small neighbouring nations of the Jews, set themselves to attack Judah as the nation of God, and to exterminate Judaism, the gdyim rabbim, who have assembled against Zion, and whom the Lord gathers together thither (vers. 11, 12), point to a much greater event than the attacks made by the Syrians and the surrounding tribes upon Jerusalem in the time of the Maccabees. Goyim rablim (many nations) points back to goyim rabbim and ‘ammim rabbim in vers. 2 and 3, so that, both here and there, all the nations of the world that are hostile to God are included. Again, the defeat which they suffer before Jerusalem is much greater than the victory which the Maccabees achieved over their enemies. On the other hand, the circumstance that the Babylonian captivity is predicted in ver. 10, and the birth of the Messiah in ch. v. 1, 2, and that the victorious conflicts of the Maccabees with the Syrians and the heathen neighbours of the Jews lie in the interim between these events, furnishes no sufficient proof that these conflicts must be referred to in vers. 11-13, simply because the assumption that, in vers. 9-14, the attacks of the Chaldzeans, the Greeco-Syrians, and the Romans upon Zion are foretold in the order in which they followed one another in history, has no firm basis in the threefold recurrence of ‘attdh (now) in vers. 9, 11,and 14. As an event is introduced with ‘atidh in ver. 9, which does not follow the one predicted in ver. 8 in chronological sequence, but, on the contrary, the prophet comes back in v’‘attdh from the more remote to the more immediate future, it cannot be inferred from the ‘attdh in ver. 14 that the oppression mentioned there must follow the victory over many nations predicted in vers. 11-13 in chronological order, or that the siege and capture of Jerusalem by the

Romans are referred to in ver. 14. Moreover, the proclamation in ver. 10 already goes beyond the Chaldean catastrophe, and the liberation of the Jews from the Chaldzean exile, so that if the vattdh in ver. 12 announces a conflict with Zion which will follow the events predicted in vers. 9 and 10, we must not restrict the conflict to the wars of the Maccabees. We must therefore understand these verses as referring to the events already predicted by Joel (ch. iii.), and afterwards by Ezekiel (xxxviii. 39) and Zechariah (xii.), and in Rev. xx. 8 sqq.: 2.2. to the last great attack which the nations of the world will make upon the church of the Lord, that has been redeemed from Babel and sanctified, with the design of exterminating the holy city of God from the face of the earth, and to which the attacks of the Syrians, and the rest of the nations surrounding Judah, upon the covenant nation in the times of the Maccabees, furnished but a feeble prelude. This view is favoured by the unmistakeable similarity between our verses and both Joel and Ezekiel. The 0°27 da poy NDDN] in ver. 11, compared with DYaP in ver. 12, points clearly back to pYan-Pans ‘M82 in Joel ii. 2! compared with 382?3) in ver. 11; and the figure in ver. 12, of the gathering together of the nations like sheaves for the threshing-floor, to the similar figures of the ripening of the harvest and the treading of the full wine-press in Joel iii. 13. And the use of gdyim rabbim in Micah is no reason for supposing that it differs in meaning from the kol-haggoyim of Joel, since Micah uses goyim rabbim in vers. 2 and 3 for the totality of the nations of the world. Ezekiel, also, simply speaks of goyim rabbim as assembling together with Gog to attack the mountains of Israel (ch. xxxviii. 6, 9, 15); and in his case also, this attack of the nations upon Jerusalem is appended to the redemption of Israel effected at Babel. Avain, the issue of this attack is the same in Micah as in Joel, Ezekiel, and Zechariah, —namely, the complete overthrow of the hostile nations by the people of Israel, who fight in the strength of the Lord, by which Jehovah manifests Himself to all nations as Lord of the whole earth, and proves Himself to be the Holy One (compare ver. 13 with Joel ii. 12,13, and Ezek. xxxviiil. 16, xxxix. 3 sqq.). Lastly, a decisive proof of the correctness of this allusion is to be found in the circumstance, that the attack of the nations is directed against Zion, which has now become holy, that it proceeds from hatred and enmity to His holiness, and has for its object the desecration of the city of God. This feature is by no means applicable to Jerusalem and Judah in the time of the Maccabees, but can only apply to the time when Israel, redeemed from Babel, forms a holy church of God, 2.e. to the last period of the development of the kingdom of God, which began with Christ, but has not yet reached its fullest manifestation.

“From the fact, however, that Zion, when sanctified, is to be delivered out of much greater danger than that from which it will not be delivered in the immediate future, and also that the refined and sanctified Zion will conquer and destroy an incomparably greater hostile force than that to which it will now soon succumb, it follows, in the clearest and most conclusive way, that in the nearest future it must be given up to the power of the world, because it is now unholy” (Caspari). This thought

prepares the way for the transition to ch. v. 1, where the prophecy returns to the oppression foretold in vers. 9 and 10. Ch. v. 1 (Heb. Bib. iv. 14). “ Now wilt thou gather in troops, thou daughter of troops; they lay siege against us; with the staff they smite the judge of Israel upon the cheek.” With ‘attah (now) the prophet’s address turns once more to the object introduced with ‘attdh in ch. iv. 9. For we may see clearly enough from the omission of the cop. Vay, which could not be left out if it were intended to link on ch. v. 1 to ch. iv. 11-13, that this “attdh points back to iv. 9, and is not attached to the v“attah in iv. 11, for the purpose of introducing a fresh occurrence to follow the event mentioned in iv. 11-13. “The prophecy in ch. iv. 11-13 explains the ground of that in vers. 9, 10, and the one in ch. v. 1 sounds like a conclusion drawn from this explanation. The explanation in vers. 11-13 is enclosed on both sides by that which it explains. By returning in ch. v. 1 to the thoughts expressed in ch. iv. 9, the prophet rounds off the strophe in iv. 9-v. 1” (Caspari). The words are addressed to the daughter Zion, who alone is addressed with every ‘attah, and generally throughout the entire section. Bath-g’dad, daughter of the troop, might mean: thou nation accustomed or trained to form troops, thou warlike Zion. But this does not apply to what follows, in which a siege alone is mentioned. ‘This turn is given to the expression, rather “for the purpose of suggesting the thought of a crowd of people pressing anxiously together, as distinguished from g'dad, an invading troop.” The verb hithgodéd does not mean here to scratch one’s self or make incisions (Deut. xiv. 1, etc.), but, as in Jer. v. 7, to press or crowd together; and the thought is this: Now crowd together with fear in a troop, for he (sc. the enemy) sets, or prepares, a siege against us. In %2'2Y the prophet includes himself in the nation as being a member of it. He finds himself in spirit along with the people in besieged Zion. The siege leads to conquest; for it is only in consequence of this that the judge of Israel can be smitten with the rod upon the cheek, i.e. be shamefully ill treated (compare 1 Kings xxii. 24; Ps. iii. 8; Job xvi. 10). The judge of Israel, whether the king or the Israelitish judges comprehended in one, cannot be thought of as outside the city at the time when the city is besieged. Of all the different effects of the siege of the city the prophet singles out only this one, viz. the ill-treatment of the judge, because “nothing shows more clearly how much misery and shame Israel will have to endure for its present sins” (Caspari). ‘The judge of Israel” is the person holding the highest office in Israel. This might be the king, as in Amos il. 3 (cf. 1 Sam. viil. 5, 6, 20), since the Israelitish king was the supreme judge in Israel, or the true possessor of the judicial authority and dignity. But the expression is hardly to be restricted to the king, still less is it meant in distinction from the king, as pointing back to the time when Israel had no king, and was only governed.by judges; but the judge stands for the king here, on the one hand with reference to the threat in ch. ui. 1, 9, 11, where the heads and princes of Israel are described as unjust and ungodly judges, and on the other hand as an antithesis to mdshél in ver. 2. As the Messiah is not called king there, but mdshél, ruler, as the possessor of supreme authority; so here the possessor of judicial authority is called shophét, to indicate the reproach which would fall upon the king and the leaders of the nation on account of their unrighteousness. The threat in this verse does not refer, however, to the Roman invasion. Such an idea can only be connected with the assumption already refuted, that ch. iv. 11-13 point to the times of the Maccabees, and no valid argument can be adduced to support it. In the verse before us the prophet reverts to the oppression predicted in ch. iv. 9 and 10, so that the remarks already made in iv. 10 apply to the fulfilment of what is predicted here. The principal fulfilment occurred in the Chaldean period; but the fulfilment was repeated in every succeeding siege of Jerusalem until the destruction of the city by the Romans. For, according to ver. 3, Israel will be given up to the power of the empire of the world until the coming of the Messiah; that is to say, not merely till His birth or public appearance, but till the nation shall accept the Messiah, who has appeared as its own Redeemer.

BIRTH OF THE RULER IN ISRAEL, AND HIS PEACEFUL RULE. —CHAP. V. 2-15 (HEB. BIB. 1-14).

At the time of Zion’s deepest degradation the ruler in Israel will arise out of Bethlehem, who will not only secure for His people deliverance from their foes, but raise them into a beneficent and yet dreaded power to all nations, founding a kingdom of peace, and glorifying Israel into a holy nation.

Vers. 2-4. The previous announcement of the glory to which Zion is eventually to attain, is now completed by the announcement of the birth of the great Ruler, who through His government will lead Israel to this, the goal of its divine calling. Ver. 2. “ And thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, too small to be among the thousands of Judah, out of thee will He come forth to me who will be Ruler over Israel; and His goings forth are from the olden time, from the days of eternity.” The 778), with which this new section of the proclamation of salvation opens, corresponds to the 178) in ch. iv. 8. Its former government is to return to Zion (ch. iv. 8), and out of little Bethlehem is the possessor of this government to proceed, viz. the Ruler of Israel, who has sprung from eternity. ‘This thought is so attached to ver. 1, that the divine exaltation of the future Ruler of Israel is contrasted with the deepest degradation of the judge. The names Bethlehem Hphratah (Ephrath and ’Ephrathah, i.e. the fertile ones, or the fruit-fields, being the earlier name; by the side of which Béth-lechem, bread-house, had arisen even in the patriarchal times: see Gen. xxxv. 19, xviii. 7; Ruth iv. 11) are connected together to give greater solemnity to the address, and not to distinguish the Judzean Bethlehem from the one in Zebulun (Josh. xix. 15), since the following words, “among the thousands of Judah,” provide sufficiently for this. In the little town the inhabitants are addressed; and this explains the masculines MAN, VYS, and 719, as the prophet had them in his mind when describing the smallness of the little town, which is called xéun in John vil. 42. nie Vy, literally “small with regard to the being among the "Gldphim of Judah,” ze. too small to have a place among them. Instead of the more exact nim, nim? is probably chosen, simply because of the following nina. ’ Aldphim, thousands—an epithet used as early as Num. i. 16, x. 4, to denote the families, mishpachoth, i.e. larger sections into which the twelve tribes of Israel were divided (see the comm. on Num. i. 16 and Ex. xviii. 25)—does not stand for sdré ’aldphim, the princes of the families; since the thought is simply this, that Bethlehem is too small for its population to form an independent’ eleph. We must not infer from this, however, that it had not a thousand inhabitants, as Caspari does; since the families were called ’alaphim, not because the number of individuals in them numbered a thousand, but because the number of their families or heads of families was generally somewhere about a thousand (see my biblische Archdologie, § 140). Notwithstanding this smallness, the Ruler over Israel is to come forth out of Bethlehem. /9 83° does not denote descent here, as in Gen. xvii. 6 for example, so that Bethlehem would be regarded as the father of the Messiah, as Hofmann supposes, but is to be explained in accordance with Jer. xxx. 21, “A Ruler will go forth out of the midst of it” (cf. Zech. x. 4); and the thought is simply this, “ Out of the population of the little Bethlehem there will proceed and arise.” ” (to me) refers to Jehovah, in whose name the prophet speaks, and expresses the thought that this coming forth is subservient to the plan of the Lord, or connected with the promotion of His kingdom, just as in the words of God to Samuel in 1 Sam.

The omission of the article before VPS, and the use of nid instead of nin, do not warrant the alteration in the text which Hitzig proposes, viz. to strike out nivnd aS erroneous, and to separate the 7 from ANID and connect it with wy = VPS MIDS 5 for the assertion that yy, if used in apposition, must have the article, is just as unfounded as the still further remark, that ‘‘ to say that Bethlehem was too small to be among the ’ddphim of Judah is incorrect and at variance with 1 Sam. xx. 6, 29,” since these passages by no means prove that Bethlehem formed an ’eleph by itself.

xvi. 1, “I have provided me a King among his sons,” to which Micah most probably alluded for the purpose of showing the typical relation of David to the Messiah. Syn nine is really the subject to NS, the infinitive nino being used as a relative clause, like MiP3? in Hos. ii. 11, in the sense of “who is destined to be ruler.” But instead of simply saying Palas SyiiD NY, Micah gives the sentence the turn he does, for the purpose of bringing sharply out the contrast between the natural smallness of Bethlehem and the exalted dignity to which it would rise, through the fact that the Messiah would issue from it. stn, not in, but over Israel, according to the general meaning of 3 2viD, The article is omitted before mdshél, because the only thing of primary importance was to give prominence to the idea of ruling; and the more precise definition follows immediately afterwards in °3 YnXsi, The meaning of this clause of the verse depends upon our obtaining a correct view not only of Nissi, but also of the references to time which follow. Mi, the fem. of N¥iD, may denote the place, the time, the mode, or the act of going out. The last meaning, which Hengstenberg disputes, is placed beyond all doubt by Hos. vi. 3,1 Kings x. 28, Ezek. xii. 4, and 2 Sam. iii. 25. The first of these senses, in which 8312 occurs most frequently, and in which even the form Missi is used in the keri in 2 Kings x. 27, which is the only other passage in which this form occurs, does not suit the predicate Deiy 2") here, since the days of eternity cannot be called places of departure; nor is it required by the correlate 72, i.e. out of Bethlehem, because the idea which predominates in Bethlehem is that of the population, and not that of the town or locality; and in general, the antithesis between hemistich a and b does not lie in the idea cf place, but in the insignificance of Bethlehem as a place of exit for Him whose beginnings are in the days of eternity. We take nixyi in the sense of goings forth, exits, as the meaning “times of going forth” cannot be supported by a single passage. Goth D7? and Doiy "2" are used to denote hoary antiquity; for example in ch. vii. 14 and 20, where it is used of the patriarchal age. Kven the two together are so used in Isa. li. 9, where they are combined for the sake of emphasis. But both words are also used in Prov. vill. 22 and 23 to denote the eternity preceding the creation of the world, because man, who lives in time, and is bound to time in his mode of thought, can only picture eternity to himself as time without end. Which of these two senses is the one predominating here, depends upon the precise meaning to be given to the whole verse.

It is now generally admitted that the Ruler proceeding from Bethlehem is the Messiah, since the idea that the words refer to Zerubbabel, which was cherished by certain Jews, according to the assertion of Chrysostom, Theodoret, and others, is too arbitrary to have met with any acceptance. Coming forth out of Bethlehem involves the idea of descent. Consequently we must, not restrict YN (His goings forth) to the appearance of the predicted future Ruler in the olden time, or to the revelations of the Messiah as the Angel of Jehovah even in the patriarchal age, but must so interpret it that it at least affirms His origin as well. Now the origin of the Angel of the Lord, who is equal to God, was not in the olden time in which He first of all appeared to the patriarchs, but before the creation of the world—in eternity. Consequently we must not restrict peiy yD O73 (from of old, from the days of eternity) to the olden time, or exclude the idea of eternity in the stricter sense. Nevertheless Micah does not announce here the eternal proceeding of the Son from the Father, or of the Logos from God, the generatio fila eterna, as the earlier orthodox commentators supposed. ‘This is precluded by the plural ynxyi, which cannot be taken either as the plu. majestatis, or as denoting the abstract, or as an indefinite expression, but points to a repeated going out, and forces us to the assumption that the words affirm both the origin of the Messiah before ail worlds and His appearances in the olden time, and do not merely express the thought, that “from an inconceivably remote and lengthened period the Ruler has gone forth, and has been engaged in coming, who will eventually issue from Bethlehem” (Hofmann, Schriftbeweis, ii. 1, p. 9) The announcement of the origin of

1 We must reject in the most unqualified manner the attempts that have been made by the Rabbins in a polemical interest, and by rationalistie commentators from a dread of miracles, to deprive the words of their deeper meaning, so as to avoid admitting that we have any supernatural prediction here, whether by paraphrasing ‘“‘ His goings forth” into “the going forth of His name” (we have this even in the Chaldee), or the eternal origin into an eternal predestination (Caly.), or by understanding the going forth out of Bethlehem as referring to His springing out of the family of this Ruler as being before all worlds unquestionably presupposes His divine nature; but this thought was not strange to the prophetic mind in Micah’s time, but is expressed without ambiguity by Isaiah, when he gives the Messiah the name of “ the Mighty God” (Isa. ix. 5; see Delitzsch’s comm. in loc.). We must not seek, however, in this affirmation of the divine nature of the Messiah for the full knowledge of the Deity, as first revealed in the New Testament by the fact of the incarnation of God in Christ, and developed, for example, in the prologue to the Gospel of John. Nor can we refer the “ goings forth” to the eternal proceeding of the Logos from God, as showing the inward relation of the Trinity within itself, because this word corresponds to the 3° of the first hemistich. As this expresses primarily and directly nothing more than His issuing from Bethlehem, and leaves His descent indefinite, "ny can only affirm the going forth from God at the creation of the world, and in the revelations of the olden and primeval times. The future Ruler of Israel, whose goings forth reach back into eternity, is to spring from the insignificant Bethlehem, like His ancestor, king David. The descent of David from Bethlehem forms the substratum not only for the prophetic announcement of the fact that the Messiah would come forth out of this small town, but also for the divine appointment that Christ was born in Bethlehem, the city of David. He was. thereby to be made known to the people from His very birth as the great promised descendant of David, who would take possession of the throne of His father David for ever. As the coming forth from Bethlehem implies birth in Bethlehem, so do we see from Matt. ii. 5, 6, and John vii. 42, that the old Jewish synagogue unanimously regarded this passage as containing a prophecy of the birth of the Messiah in Bethlehem.

David, which belonged to Bethlehem (Kimchi, Abarb., and all the later Rabbins and more modern Rationalists). According to this view, the olden time and the days of eternity would stand for the primeval family; and even if such a quid pro quo were generally admissible, the words would contain a very unmeaning thought, since David’s family was not older than any of the other families of Israel and Judah, whose origin also dated as far back as the patriarchal times, since the whole nation was descended from the twelve sons of Jacob, and through them from Abraham. (Sce the more elaborate refutation of these views in Hengstenberg’s Christology, i. p. 486 sqq. translation, and Caspari’s Micha, p. 216 sqq.)

The correctness of this view is also confirmed by the account in Matt. ii. 1-11; for Matthew simply relates the arrival of the Magi from the East to worship the new-born King in accordance with the whole arrangement of his Gospel, because he saw in this event a fulfilment of Old Testament prophecies.’ Ver. 3. “ Therefore will He give them up until the time when a travailing woman hath brought forth, and the remnant of Lis brethren will return, together with the sons of Israel. Ver. 4. And He will stand and feed in the strength of Jehovah, in the majesty of the name of Jehovah His God, and they will dwell, for now will He be great to the ends of the earth.” “Therefore” (lakhén): i.e. “because the great divine Ruler of Israel, from whom alone its redemption can proceed, will spring from the little Bethlehem, and therefore from the degraded family of

1 In the quotation of this verse in Matt. ii. 6, the substance is given freely from memory: Kei od Bebaseu, yy “lovdu, ovdamas trauylorn ei ev cols hysworw “lovde 2% cov yop eZeacvosrae jryovmecvos, Ootis molmovel Tov Aaoyv yoov, tov Iopana. The deviations from the original text may be accounted for from the endeavour to give the sense clearly, and bring out into more distinct prominence the allusion in the words to David. The y% "Tovd«, in the place of the Zphrata of the original, has sprung from 1 Sam. xvii. 12, where Bethlehem is distinguished from the town of the same name in Zebulun in the account of the anoimting of David as king, as it frequently isin the Old Testament, by the addition of the word Judah; and yn lovdx, ‘land of Judah,” is attached loosely in apposition to the name Bethlehem, in the place of the more precise definition, ‘tin the land of Judah.” The alteration of the expression, ‘‘too small to be among the thousands of Judah,” into odaeuas traylorn, x.7.A., does not constitute a discrepancy, but simply alters the thought with an allusion to the glorification which Bethlehem would receive through the fact of the Messiah’s springing from it. ‘* Micah, looking at its outward condition, calls it little; but Matthew, looking at the nativity of Christ, by which this town had been most wondrously honoured and rendered illustrious, calls it very little indeed” (C. B. Mich.). The interpretation of ‘aSya (among the thousands) by v roils ayevcow (among the princes) was very naturally suggested by the personification of Bethlehem, and still more by the thought of the gyovjsevos about to follow; and it does not alter the idea, since the families Calaphim) had their heads, who represented and led them. The last clause, Corks Toiwevel, x.7-A., is simply a paraphrase of Siva, probably taken from ver. 3, and resting upon 2 Sam. v. 2, and pointing to the typical relation existing between the David born in Bethlehem and the second David, viz. the Messiah. The second hemistich of the verse is omitted, because it appeared superfluous so far as the immediate object of the quotation was concerned.

David” (Caspari). This is the correct explanation; for the reason why Israel is to be given up to the power of the nations of the world, and not to be rescued earlier, does not lie in the appearance of the Messiah as such, but in His springing from little Bethlehem. The birth of the Messiah in Bethlehem, and not in Jerusalem the city of David, presupposes that the family of David, out of which it is to spring, will have lost the throne, and have fallen into poverty. This could only arise from the giving up of Israel into the power of its enemies. Micah had already stated clearly enough in what precedes, that this fate would fall upon the nation and the royal house of David, on account of its apostasy from the Lord; so that he could overlook this here, and give prominence to the other side alone, namely to the fact that, according to the counsel of God, the future Deliverer and Ruler of Israel would also resemble His royal ancestor David in the fact that He was not to spring from Zion the royal city built on high, but from the insignificant country town of Bethlehem, and that for this very reason Israel was to remain so long under the power of the nations of the world. The suffix attached to DM) points to ose in ver. 1; and {3 is applied, as in 1 Kings xiv. 16, to the surrender of Israel into the power of its enemies as a punishment for its sins. This surrender is not the last of many oppressions, which are to take place in the period before the birth of the Messiah (the Roman oppression), but a calamity lasting from the present time, or the coming of the judgment threatened in ch. iii, until the time of the Messiah’s coming; and 53M. points back not merely to ver. 1, but also to ch. iv. 9,10. The travailing woman (ydl@dah) is not the community of Israel (Theodoret, Calvin, Vitringa, and others), but the mother of the Messiah (Cyril, and most of the Christian expositors, including even Ewald and Hitzig). The supposition that the congregation is personified here, is precluded not only by the fact that in the very same sentence the sons of Jsrael are spoken of in the plural, but still more by the circumstance that in that case the bringing forth would be only a figurative representation of the joy following the pain, in which the obvious allusion in the words to the Messiah, which is required by the context, and especially by the suffix to "98, which refers to the Messiah, and presupposes that His birth is referred to in mio? mei, would entirely fall away. But Micah had all the more ground for speaking of this, inasmuch as Isaiah had already predicted the birth of the Messiah (Isa. vii. 14). 721 has no article, and the travailing woman is thereby left indefinite, because the thought, “till He is born,” or “ till a mother shall bring Him forth,” upon which alone the whole turns, did not require any more precise definition.

In the second clause of the verse there commences the description of the blessing, which the birth of the Messiah will bring to Israel. The first blessing will be the return of those that remain of Israel to the Lord their God. 38, the brethren of the Ruler born at Bethlehem, are the Judzeans as the members of the Messiah’s own tribe; just as, in 2 Sam. xix. 13, David calls the Judzans his brethren, his flesh and bone, in contrast with the rest of the Israelites. 18 10, the remnant of his brethren, are those who are rescued from the judgment that has fallen upon Judah; yether, as in Zeph. ii. 9 and Zech. xiv. 2, denoting the remnant, in distinction from those who have perished (= NM NY, ch. ii. 12, iv. 7, etc.). paw, to return, not from exile to Canta but to Jehovah, 1.e. to be congenteds i) sandy, not “to the sons of Israel;’ for although 21, construed with oY, is met with in the sense of eae: return (¢.g. Prov. xxvi. 11) as well as in that of spiritual return to the Lord (2 Chron, xxx. 9), the former explanation would not give any suitable meaning here, not only because “the sons of Israel,” as distinguished from the brethren of the Messiah, could not possibly denote the true members of the nation of God, but also because the thought that the Judzeans are to return, or be converted, to the Israelites of the ten tribes, is altogether unheard of, and quite at variance with the idea which runs through all the prophetic Scriptures of the Old Testament,—namely, that after the division of the kingdom, Judah formed the kernel of the covenant nation, with which the rebellious Israelites were to be united once more. 5Y signifies here together with, at the same time as (Hofmann, Caspari), as in a i. 18 at the verb 120, and in Ex. xxxv. 22 with sia; and “the sons of Israel” are the Israelites of the ten tribes, and, in this connection, those that are left of the ten tribes. There is no ground for the objection offered by Hengstenberg to this explanation, namely, that “it is absurd that the ten tribes should appear to be the principal persons redeemed;” for this is not implied in the words. The meaning “ together with,” for OY, is not derived from the primary meaning, thereupon, in addition to, insuper, as Ewald supposes (§ 217, 7), nor from the idea of accompanyMig, as Ges. and Dietrich maintain. The persons introduced with 5Y are never the principal objects, as the two passages quoted sufficiently prove. The women in Ex. xxxv. 22 (pwn DY) are not the principal persons, taking precedence of the men; nor is the house of Israel placed above the house of Judah in Jer. ili. 18. The use of >Y in the sense of together with has been developed rather from the idea of protecting, shielding, as in Gen. xxxii. 12, slaying the mothers upon, ¢.e. together with, the children, the mothers being thought of as screening the children, as Hos. x. 14 and other passages clearly show. Consequently the person screening the other is the principal person, and not the one covered or screened. And so here, the brethren of the Messiah, like the sons of Judah in Jer. iii. 18, which passage is generally so like the one before us that it might be regarded as an exposition of it, are those who first receive the blessing coming from the Messiah; and the sons of Israel are associated with them as those to whom this blessing only comes in fellowship with them. In ver. 3 there follows what the Messiah will do for Israel when it has returned to God. He will feed it (12 simply belongs to the pictorial description, as in Isa. ]xi. 5) in the strength of Jehovah. The feeding, as a frequent figure for governing, reminds of David, whom the Lord had called from the flock to be the shepherd of His people (2 Sam. v. 2). This is done in the strength of Jehovah, with which He is invested, to defend His flock against wolves and robbers (see John x. 11, 12)." This strength is not merely the divine authority with which earthly rulers are usually endowed (1 Sam. ii. 10), but }83, i.e. the exaltation or majesty of the name of Jehovah, the majesty in which Jehovah

1 The word ‘‘ feed” expresses what Christ is towards His people, the flock committed to His care. He does not rule over the church like a formidable tyrant, who oppresses his people by fear; but He is a shepherd, and leads His sheep with all the gentleness to be desired. And inasmuch as we are surrounded on all sides by enemies, the prophet adds, ‘‘ He willfeed in the strength,” ete.; 7.¢., as much power as there is in God, so much protection will there be in Christ, whenever it shall be necessary to defend the church, and guard it against its foes (Calvin).

manifests His deity on earth. The Messiah is El gibbor (the Mighty God, Isa. ix. 5), and equipped with the spirit of might (radch o*bhurah, Isa. xi. 2). “Of His God;” for Jehovah is — the God of this Shepherd or Ruler, ze. He manifests Himself as God to Him more than to any other; so that tlte majesty of Jehovah is revealed in what He does. In consequence of this feeding, they (the sons of Israel) sit (ydshabha), without being disturbed (cf. ch. iv. 45 Lev. xxvi. 5, 6; 2 Sam. vii. 10), we. will live in perfect undisturbed peace under His pastoral care. For He (the Messiah) will now (AMY, now, referring to the time when He feeds Israel, in contrast with the former oppression) be great (auctoritate et potentia valebit: Maurer) to the ends of the earth, z.e. His authority will extend over the whole earth. Compare the expression in Luke i. 32, odtos éorat péyas, which has sprung from the passage before us, and the parallel in Mal. i. 14.

Vers. 5 and 6. Under His rule Israel will attain to perfect peace. Ver. 5. “And He will be peace. When Asshur shall come into our land,and when he shall tread in our palaces, we set up against him seven shepherds and eight princes of men. Ver. 6. And they feed the land of Asshur with the sword, and the land of Nimrod in his gates; and He rescues from Asshur when he comes into our land and enters into our border.” M (this man), viz. He who feeds His people in the majesty of God, will be peace, z.e. not merely pacis auctor, but He who carries peace within Himself, and gives it to His people. Compare Eph. ii. 14, “ He is our peace,” which points back to this passage. In this relation the Messiah is called the Prince of peace in Isa. ix. 5, as securing peace for Israel in a higher and more perfect sense than Solomon. But in what manner? This is explained more fully in what follows: viz. (1) by defending Israel against the attacks of the imperial power (vers. 58, 6); (2) by exalting it into a power able to overcome the nations (vers. 7-9); and (8) by exterminating all the materials of war, and everything of an idolatrous nature, and so preventing the possibility of war (vers. 10-15). Asshur is a type of the nations of the world by which the people of the Lord are attacked, because in the time of the prophet this power was the imperial power by which Israel was endangered. Against this enemy Israel will set up seven, yea eight princes, who, under the chief command of the Messiah, ze. as His subordinates, will drive it back, and press victoriously into its land. (On the combination of the numbers seven and eight, see the discussions at Amos i. 3.) Seven is mentioned as the number of the works proceeding from God, so that seven shepherds, i.e. princes, would be quite sufficient; and this number is surpassed by the eight, to express the thought that there might be even more ‘hang were required. DIS ‘31D3, not anointed of men, but installed and invested, from nasakh, td pour out, to form, to appoint; hence Josh. xiii. 21, vassals, here the under-shepherds appointed by the Messiah as the upper-shepherd. The meaning “anointed,” which is derived from sakh, neither suits Josh. xiii. 21 nor Prov. viii. 23 (see Delitzsch on Ps, ii. 6). On the figurative expression “feed with the sword,” for rule, see Ps. ii. 9 and Rev. ii. 27; 39 from nyt, not from yy. The land of Asshur is called the land of Nimrod, after the founder of the first empire (Gen. x. 9sqq.), to indicate the character of the imperial power with its hostility to the kingdom of God. innba, in his gates, z.e. cities and fortresses; gates for cities, as in Isa. iii. 26, xill. 2, etc.: not at his gates = on his borders, where the Assyrians stream together for defence (Hitzig, Caspari, etc.). The borders of a land are never called gates; nor could a land be devastated or governed from the border, to say nothing of the fact that m’nnbA corresponds to “in thy palaces” in ver. 4, and leads to the thought that Asshur is to be fully repaid fo what it has done to the kingdom of God. The thought is rounded off with ‘1 WD bos, and so He saves from Asshur, etc., not merely by the fact that Asshur is driven back to his own under, and watched there, but by the fact that he is fed in his own territory with the sword. This victorious conflict with the imperial power must not be restricted to the spiritual victory of the kingdom of God over the kingdoms of the world, as Hengstenberg supposes, appealing to vers. 10 sqq., according to which the Lord will make His people outwardly defenceless before it becomes fully victorious in Christ (Hengstenberg). or the extermination of the instruments of war announced in ver. 10 refers not to the period of the exaltation of the people of God into the world-conquering power, but to the time of consummation, when the hostile powers shall be overcome. Before the people of God reach this goal, they have not only to carry on spiritual conflicts, but to fight for existence and recognition even with the force of arms. The prediction of this conflict and victory is not at variance with the announcement in ch. iv. 2, 3, that in the Messianic times all nations will go on pilgrimage to Zion, and seek for adoption into the kingdom of God. Both of these will proceed side by side. Many nations, #.c. great crowds out of all nations, will seek the Lord and His gospel, and enter into His kingdom; but a great multitude out of all nations will also persist in their enmity to the Lord and His kingdom and people, and summon all their power to attack and crush it. The more the gospel spreads among the nations, the more will the enmity of unbelief and ungodliness grow, and a conflict be kindled, which will increase till the Lord shall come to the last judgment, and scatter all His foes.

Vers. 7-9. But the Messiah will prove Himself to be peace to His people, not only by the fact that He protects and saves it from the attacks of the imperial power represented by Asshur, but also by the fact that He endows His rescuing people with the power to overcome their enemies, both spiritually and bodily also. Ver. 7. “ And the remnant of Jacob will be in the midst of many nations like dew from Jehovah, like drops of rain upon grass, which tarrieth not for man, nor waiteth for children of men. Ver.8. And the remnant of Jacob will be among the nations, in the midst of many nations, like the lion among the beasts of the forest, like the young lion among the flocks of sheep; which, when it goes through, treads down, and tears in pieces, without deliverer. Ver. 9. High be thy hand above thine oppressors, and may all thine enemies be rooted out.” Two things are predicted here. In the first place (ver. 7), Israel will come upon many nations, like a refreshing dew from Jehovah, which falls plentifully in drops upon the grass, and will produce and promote new and vigorous life among them. Dew is here, as indeed everywhere else, a figurative expression for refreshing, stimulating, enlivening (cf. Ps. cx. 3, exxsili. 3, and Isxiis Guietlos. xiv. 6; Deut. xxxiil. 2). The spiritual dew, which Jacob will bring to the nations, comes from Jehovah, and falls in rich abundance without the co-operation of men. Without the spiritual dew from above, the nations are grass (cf. Isa. xl. 6-8). Ws before Mp. x5 does not refer to ay, but to the principal idea of the preceding clause, viz. to 2), to which the explanatory 3) 0°33 is subordinate. As the falling of the dew in rain-drops upon the grass does not depend upon the waiting of men, but proceeds from Jehovah; so will the spiritual blessing, which will flow over from Israel upon the nations, not depend upon the waiting of the nations, but will flow to them against and beyond their expectation. This does not deny the fact that the heathen wait for the salvation of Jehovah, but simply expresses the thought that the blessings will not be measured by their expectation. Secondly (vers. 8, 9), the rescued Israel will prove itself a terrible power among the nations, and one to which they will be obliged to succumb. No proof is needed that vers. 8, 9 do not state in what way Israel will refresh the heathen, as Hitzig supposes. The refreshing dew and the rending lion cannot possibly be synony+ mous figures. The similarity of the introduction to vers. 7 and 8 points of itself to something new. ‘To the nations Christ is set for the rising and falling of many (compare Luke ii. 34, Rom. ix. 33, with Isa. vill. 14 and xxviii. 16). The people of God shows itself like a lion, trampling and rending the sheep among the nations of the world which oppose its beneficent work. And over these may it triumph. This wish (térom is optative) closes the promise of the attitude which Israel will assume among the nations of the world. For téram ydéd (high be the hand), compare Isa. xxvi. 11. High is the hand which accomplishes mighty deeds, which smites and destroys the foe. Vers. 10-15. But if Israel conquer the nations in such a way as this, then will Jehovah fulfil the peace of His people by the destruction of all the instruments of war, and the extermination of everything of an idolatrous nature, as well as by the judgment of wrath upon all resisting nations. Ver. 10. “ And it comes to pass in that day, is the saying of Jehovah, that I will destroy thy horses out of the midst of thee, and annihilate thy chariots. Ver. 11. And I shall destroy the cities of thy land, and throw down all thy fortresses. Ver. 12. And I shali destroy the witcherafts out of thy hand; and cloudinterpreters shall not be left to thee. Ver. 138. And TI shall destroy thy graven images and thy statutes out of the midst of thee; and thou wilt no more worship the work of thy hands. Ver. 14. And I shall root out thine idol-groves out of the midst of thee, and destroy thy cities. Wer. 15. And I shall eaecute vengeance in wrath and fury upon the nations which have not heard.” These verses do not explain ver. 8d, or state how the extermination of the enemy is to take place, or how Israel is made into a lion destroying the nations that are hostile to it, namely, by the fact that the Lord eradicates from its heart all confidence in horses, chariots, and fortifications, in witchcraft and idolatry (Caspari). This assumption is at variance with the words themselves, and with the strophic arrangement of the chapter. There is nothing about trust in horses, etc., but simply about the extermination of the horses, and everything else in which the idolatrous nation had sought its strength. Moreover, the expression S177 D2 7°, when compared with mm in vers. 4 and 6, shows at once that these verses are intended to depict the last and greatest effect produced by the coming of the Prince of peace in Israel, and overthrows Hengstenberg’s assumption, that the prophet here foretels the destructive work of the Lord in Israel, which will precede the destruction of the enemy predicted in ver. 10. In that case si OD would mean “before that day,” a meaning which it can never have. The prophet passes rather from the attitude of Israel among the nations, to the description of the internal perfection of the kingdom of God, which does indeed stand in a reciprocal relation to the former and proceed simultaneously with it, but which will not be completed till after the victorious suppression of the foe. Only when the people of God shall have gained the supremacy over all their enemies, will the time have arrived for all the instruments of war to be destroyed. When the world shall be overcome, then will all war cease. The ancient Israel did indeed put its trust in war-horses, and war-chariots, and fortifications (cf. Isa. ii. 7); but the Messianic Israel, or the true people of the Lord, will only put its trust in such things so far as it is not yet pervaded by the power of the peace brought by the Messiah. And the more it appropriates the spiritual power of the Prince of peace, the more will the trust in horses and chariots disappear; so that they will be destroyed, because all war comes to an end (compare Isa. ix. 4-6). And the extermination of everything of an idolatrous nature wiil go hand in hand with this. Two kinds are mentioned in vers. 12 and 18, viz. witchcraft and the worship of idols of their own making. As objects of witchcraft there are mentioned Kshdphim, lit. witchcrafts of differents kinds, but the expression 77" limits them to such as are performed with the hand, and m*‘on‘ntm (= ‘on’nim in Isa. ii. 6), lit. cloud-interpreters, or cloud, 7.e. storm makers, from ‘adnan, a kind of witchcraft which cannot be more precisely defined (see Delitzsch on Isaiah, l.c.). Of the objects of the idolatrous worship there are mentioned (after Lev. xxvi. 1) p*st/im, idols made of wood or metal; and nia¥!2, stone-images, or stones dedicated’ to idols (see at 1 Kings xiv. 23). For ver. 120, compare Isa. ii. 8.—Ver. 14 sums up the objects enumerated in vers. 10-13, which are to be exterminated, for the purpose of rounding off the description; the only objects of idolatrous worship mentioned being the ’dshérim, and the only materials of war, the cities as means of defence. OWS, written with seriptio plena, as in Deut. vii. 5 and 2 Kings xvii. 16, lit. stems of trees or posts standing upright or set up as ae which were dedicated to the Canaanitish goddess of nature (see at Ex. xxxiv. 13). OMY, cities with walls, gates, and bolts. These two rather subordinate objects are mentioned instar omnium, to express the entire abolition of war and idolatry. We must not infer from this, however, that the nation of God will still have images made by human hands and worship them, during the stage of its development described in vers. 10-14; but must disie between the thought and its formal dress. The gross heathen idolatry, to aoe Israel was addicted under the Old ‘Testament, is a figure denoting that more refined idolatry which will exist even in the pies of Christ so long as sin and unbelief endure. The extermination of every kind of heathen idolatry is simply the Old Testament expression for the purification of the church of the Lord from everything of an idolatrous and ungodly nature. To this there is appended in ver. 15 a promise that the Lord will take vengeance, and wrath, and fury upon the nations which have not heard or ware not observed the words and acts of the Lord, i.e. have not yielded themselves up to conversion. In other words, He will exterminate every ungodly power by a fierce judgment, so that nothing will ever be able to disturb the peace of His people and kingdom again.

Micah having declared to the people of Israel not only the judgment that will burst upon Zion on account of its sins, but also the salvation awaiting in the future the remnant saved and purified through the judgment, now proceeds, in the third and last address, to point out the way to salvation, by showing that they bring punishment upon themselves by their ingratitude and resistance to the commandments of God, and that it is only through sincere repentance that they can participate in the promised covenant mercies.

In the form of a judicial contest between the Lord and His people, the prophet holds up before the Israelites their ingratitude for the great blessings which they have received from God (vers. 1-5), and teaches them that the Lord does not require outward sacrifices to appease His wrath, but righteousness, love, and humble walk with God (vers. 6-8), and that He must inflict severe punishment, because the people practise violence, lying, and deceit instead (vers. 9-14).

Vers. 1 and 2. Introduction.—Announcement of the lawsuit which the Lord will have with His people.—Ver. 1. “ Fear ye, then, what Jehovah saith; Rise up, contend with the mountains, and let the hills hear thy voice! Ver. 2. Hear ye, O mountains, Jehovah's contest; and ye immutable ones, ye foundations of the earth! For Jehovah has a contest with His people; and with Israel will He contend.” In ver. 1 the nation of Israel is addressed in its several members. They are to hear what the Lord says to the prophet,—namely, the summons addressed to the mountains and hills to hear Jehoval’s contest with His people. The words “ strive with the mountains” cannot be understood here as signifying that the mountains are the objects of the accusation, notwithstanding the fact that ‘ans 3” signifies to strive or quarrel with a person (Judg. viii. 1; Isa. Tb 8; Jer. ii. 9); for, according to ver. 2, they are to hear the contest of Jehovah with [sree and ehererors are to be merely witnesses on the occasion. Consequently M8 can only express the idea of fellowship here, and nN 34 must be distinguished from Dy 2% in ver. 2 and Hos. iv. 1, ete. The mountains and hills are to hearken to the contest (as in Deut. xxxil. 1 and Isa. i. 2), as witnesses, “ who have seen what the Lord has done for Israel throughout the course of ages, and how Israel has rewarded Him for it all’? (Caspari), to bear witness on behalf of the Lord, and against Israel. Accordingly the mountains are called D°30N7, the constantly enduring, immutable ones, which have been spectators from time immemorial, and })8 “Did, foundations of the earth, as being subject to no change on account of their strength and firmness. In this respect they are often called “ the everlasting mountains” (e.g. Gen. xlix. 26; Deut. xxxiii. 15; Ps. xc. 2; Hab. iii. 6). Israel is called ‘ammi (Jehovah’s people) with intentional emphasis, not only to indicate the right of Jehovah to contend with it, but to sharpen its own conscience, by pointing to its calling. Hithvakkach, like hivvdkhach in the niphal in Isa. i. 18.

Vers. 3-5 open the suit. Ver. 3. “ My people! what have I done unto thee, and with what have I wearied thee? Answer me. Ver. 4. Yea, I have brought thee up out of the land of Egypt, redeemed thee out of the slave-house, and sent before thee Moses, Aaron, and Miriam. Ver. 5. My people! remember now what Balak the king of Moab consulted, and what Balaam the son of Beor answered him from Shittim to Gilgal; that thow mayest discern the righteous acts of Jehovah.” 'The Lord opens the contest with the question, what He has done to the nation, that it has become tired of Him. The question is founded upon the fact that Israel has fallen away from its God, or broken the covenant. This is not distinctly stated, indeed; but it is clearly implied in the expression TaN m2, What have I done, that thou hast become weary of me? nN?, in the hiphil, to make a person weary, more particularly to weary the patience of a person, either by demands of too great severity (Isa. xlii. 23), or by failing to perform one’s promises (Jer. ii. 31). °2 72Y, answer against me, ze. accuse me. (God has done His people no harm, but has only conferred benefits upon them. Of these He mentions in ver. 4 the bringing up out of Egypt and the guidance through the Arabian desert, as being the greatest manifestations of divine grace, to which Israel owes its exaltation into a free and independent nation (cf. Amos ii. 10 and Jer. ii. 6). The 4@ (for) may be explained from the unexpressed answer to the questions in ver.3: “ Nothing that could cause dissatisfaction with me;” for I have done nothing but confer benefits upon thee. To set forth the leading up out of Eeypt as such a benefit, it is described as redemption out of the house of bondage, after Ex. xx. 2. Moreover, the Lord had, given His people prophets, men entrusted with His counsels and enlightened by His Spirit, as leaders into the promised land: viz. Moses, with whom He talked mouth to mouth, as a friend to his friend (Num. xii. 8); and Aaron, who was not only able as high priest to ascertain the counsel and will of the Lord for the sake of the congregation, by means of the “lioht and right,” but who also, along with Moses, represented the nation before God (Num. sii. 6, xiv. 5, 26, xvi. 20, xx. 7 sqq-, and 29). Miriam, the sister of the two, is also mentioned along with them, inasmuch as she too was a prophetess (Ex. xv. 20). In ver. 5 God also reminds them of the other great display of grace, viz. the frustration of the plan formed by the Moabitish king Balak to destroy Israel by means of the curses of Balaam (Num. xxii—xxiv.). / refers to the plan which Balak concocted with the elders of Midian (Num. xxii. 3 sqq.); and 72¥, Balaam’s answering, to the sayings which this soothsayer was compelled by divine constraint to utter against his will, whereby, as Moses says in Deut. xxiii. 5, 6, the Lord turned the intended curse into a blessing. The words “ from Shittim (Israel’s last place of encampment beyond Jordan, in the steppes of Moab; see at Num. xxii. 1 and xxv. 1) to Gilgal” (the first place of encampment in the land of Canaan; see at Josh. iv. 19, 20, and v. 9) do not depend upon 827731, adding a new feature to what has been mentioned already, in the sense of “think of all that took place from Shittim to Gilgal,” in which case 82-73% would have to be repeated in ihowant but they are really attached to the clause MY 713, a indicate the result, or the confirmation of Balaam’s answer. The period of Teal journeying from Shittim to Gilgal embraces not only Balak’s advice and Balaam’s answer, by which the plan invented for the destruction of Israel was frustrated, but also the defeat of the Midianites, who attempted to destroy Israel by seducing it to idolatry, the miraculous crossing of the

Jordan, the entrance into the promised land, and the circumcision at Gilgal, by which the generation that had grown up in the desert was received into the covenant with Jehovah, and the whole nation reinstated in its normal relation to its God. Through these acts the Lord had actually put to shame the counsel of Balak, and confirmed the fact that Balaam’s answer was inspired by God.’ By these divine acts Israel was to discern the tsidgoth Y*hovah; t.e. not the mercies of Jehovah, for tsdaqgah does not mean mercy, but “the righteous acts of Jehovah,” as in Judg. v. 11 and 1 Sam. xii. 7. This term is applied to those miraculous displays of divine omnipotence in and upon Israel, for the fulfilment of His counsel of salvation, which, as being emanations of the divine covenant faithfulness, attested the righteousness of Jehovah.

Vers. 6-8. Israel cannot deny these gracious acts of its God. The remembrance of them calls to mind the base ingratitude with which it has repaid its God by rebelling against Him; so that it inquires, in vers. 6, 7, with what it can appease the Lord, ze. appease His wrath. Ver. 6. “ Wherewith shall I come to meet Jehovah, bow myself before the God of the high place? Shall I come to meet Him with burnt-offerings, with yearling calves? Ver. 7. Will Jehovah take pleasure in thousands of rams, in ten thousands of rivers of oil? Shall I give up my first-born for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?” As Micah has spoken in vers. 3-5 in the name of Jehovah, he now proceeds, in vers. 6, 7, to let the congregation speak; not, however, by turning directly to God, since it recognises itself as guilty before Him, but by asking the prophet, as the interpreter of the divine will, what it is to do to repair the bond of fellowship which has been rent in pieces by its guilt. O1P does not here mean to anticipate, or come before, but to come to meet, as in Deut. xxiii. 5. Coming to meet, however, can only signify humble prostration (Adphaph) before the divine majesty. The God of the high place is the God dwelling in the high place (Isa, xxxiil. 5, lvil. 15), or enthroned in heaven (Ps. cxv. 8). It is only with sacrifices, the means

1 With this view, which has already been suggested by Hengstenberg, the objections offered by Ewald, Hitzig, and others, to the genuineness of the words ‘‘ from Shittim to Gilgal,” the worthlessness of which has been demonstrated by Caspari, fall to the ground.

496 MICAH,, appointed by God Himself for the maintenance of fellowship with Him, that any man can come to meet Him These the people offer to bring; and, indeed, burnt-offerings. There is no reference here to sin-offerings, through which disturbed or interrupted fellowship could be restored, by means of the expiation of their sins; because the people had as yet no true knowledge of sin, but were still living under the delusion that they were standing firmly in the covenant with the Lord, which they themselves had practically dissolved. As burnt-offerings, they would bring calves and rams, not because they formed the only material, but because they were the material most usually employed; and, indeed, calves of a year old, because they were regarded as the best, not because no others were allowed to be offered, as Hitzig erroneously maintains; for, according to the law, calves and lambs could be offered in sacrifice even when ee were eight days old (Lev. xxii. 27; Ex. xxii. 29). Inthe case of the eines the value is heightened by the quality, in that of the rams by the quantity: thousand: of rams; and also myriads of rivers of oil (for this expression, compare Job xx. 17). Oil not only formed part of the daily minchah, but of the minchah generally, which could not be omitted from any burntoffering (compare Num. xv. 1-16 with ch. xxviii. and xxix.), so that it was offered in very large quantities. Nevertheless, in the consciousness that these sacrifices might not be sufficient, the people would offer the dearest thing of all, viz. the firstborn son, as an expiation for their sin. This offer is founded, no doubt, upon the true idea that sacrifice shadows forth the self-surrender of man to God, and that an animal is not a sufhcient substitute for a man; but this true idea was not realized by literal (bodily) human sacrifices: on the contrary, it was turned into an ungodly abomination, because the surrender which God desires is that of the spirit, not of the flesh. Israel could and should have learned this, not only from the sacrifice of Isaac required by God (Gen. xxii.), but also from the law concerning the consecration or sanctification of the first-born (Ex. xiii. 12, 13). Hence this offer of the nation shows that it has no true knowledge of the will of its God, that it is still entangled in the heathen delusion, that the wrath of God can be expiated by human sacrifices (cf. 2 Kings iii. 27, xvi. 3). The prophet therefore proceeds in ver. 8 to overthrow these outward means of reconciliation with God, and reminds the people of the moral demands of the law. Ver. 8. “ They have told thee, O man, what is good, and what Jehovah requires of thee, simply to do right, and love good, and walk humbly with thy God.” 3, impersonal, “ one has told,” or they have told thee, namely Moses in the law. The opinion that Jehovah should be supplied as the subject is a very improbable one, for the simple reason that Jehovah is expressly mentioned in the second dependent clause. The use of DN ‘3, nisi, as in the similar connection of thought in Deut. x. 12, may be accounted for from the retrospective allusion to the gifts mentioned by the people: not outward sacrifices of any kind, but only the fulfilment of the three following duties: namely, above all things, doing righteousness and exercising love. These two embrace all the commandments of the second table, of whose fulfilment Israel thought so little, that it was addicted to the very opposite, —namely, injustice, oppression, and want of affection (vid. ch. ii. 1, 2, 8, ili. 2, 3, 9 sqq., vi. 10 sqq.). There is also a third: humble walk with God, é.e. in fellowship with God, as Israel, being a holy priestly nation, ought to walk. Without these moral virtues, sacrificial worship was a spiritless opus operatum, in which God had no pleasure (see at 1 Sam. xv. 22 and Hos. vi. 6).

Vers. 9-16. But because Israel is altogether wanting in these virtues, the Lord must threaten and punish. Ver. 9. “ The voice of Jehovah, to the city it cries, and wisdom has thy name in its eye; hear ye the vod, and who appoints it!” With these words Micah introduces the threatening and reproachful words of the Lord. mim Sip is not to be taken by itself, as an exclamation, “ Hark! voice of the Lord!” as in Isa. xiii. 4, x]. 6, etc. (Umbreit), but must be connected with what follows, in accordance with the accents. Whilst the prophet tells the people in ver. 8 what Jehovah requires, he introduces the following threat with “ voice of Jehovah,” etc., to give the greater emphasis to the reproof, by intimating that it is not his own veice, but Jehovah’s, which is speaking now. “To the city,” ¢.e. to the chief city of the kingdom, viz. Jerusalem. ‘The sentence which follows, and which has been explained in very different ways, has the same object. mvan, a word borrowed from the Chokmah-literature (Proverbs and Job), both here and Isa. xxviii. 29, formed from & or the root ‘WY (MY), in the sense of subsistentia, substantia, then mostly bora ob reais sapientia (see Delitzsch on Job xxvi. 3). WY ANT is taken Pye many as a relative clause, ‘ Blessed is he who sees Thy name,” é.e. gives heed to Thy revelation, Thy government of the universe; butif this were the sense, the relative could not have been omitted, or the infinitive N87 must have been used. mvAR is rather to e taken as the object, ‘and WY as the subject:

Thy name sees wisdom, i.e. has the true wisdom of life in sight (A871 as in Gen. xx. 10 and Ps. Ixvi. 18). There is no necessity for the conjecture 181 for 787 (Ewald and Hitzig); and notwithstanding the fact that x? is adopted in all the ancient versions, it is unsuitable, since ‘the thought “ wisdom is to fear Thy name” would be a very strange one in this connection, unless we could paraphrase the name into “word of the person speaking.” For other explanations, see Caspari. Hear ye, i.e. observe, the rod, viz. the judgment threatened by the Lord, and appointed for His rebellious nation. The reference is to the imperial power of Assyria, which Isaiah also describes in Isa. x. 5, 24, as the matteh and shébhet by which Israel is smitten. The suffix to 773" refers to DAY, which is construed here as a feminine; 79° denotes the appointment of an instrument of punishment, as in Jer. xlvii. 7.

The threatening words commence in ver. 10; vers. 10-12 containing a condemnation of the prevailing sins. Ver. 10. “Are there yet in the house of the unjust treasures of injustice, and the ephah of consumption, the cursed one? Ver. 11. Can I be clean with the scale of injustice, and with a purse with stones of deceit? Ver. 12. That their rich men are full of wickedness, and their inhabitants speak deceit, and their tongue is falseness in their mouth.” The reproof is dressed up in the form of a question. ‘In the question in ver. 10 the emphasis is laid upon the “iy, which stands for that very reason before the interrogative particle, as in Gen. xix. 12, the only other place in which this occurs. Wk, a softened form for &, as in 2 Sam. xiv. 19. Treasures of wickedness are treasures acquired through wickedness or acts of injustice. The meaning of the question is not, Are the unjust treasures not yet removed out of the house, not yet distributed again? but, as vers. 10) and 11 require, Does the wicked man still bring such treasures into the house? does he still heap up such treasures in his house?

The question is affirmative, and the form of a question is chosen to sharpen the conscience, as the unjust men to whom it is addressed cannot deny it. N58, ephah of consumption or hungriness, analogous to the German expression “a hungry purse,” is too small an ephah (cf. Deut. xxv. 14; Amos viii. 5) the opposite of mb S (Deut. xxv. 15) or PTY NS (Lev. xix. 36), which the law prescribed. Hence Micah calls it MOY? = nin) Dyin Prov. xxii. 14, that which is smitten by the wrath of God ‘(equivalent to ened ef. Num. xxiii. 7, Prov. xxiv. 24). Whoever has not a full ephah is, according to Deut. xxv. 16, an abomination to the Lord. If these questions show the people that they do not answer to the demands made by the Lord in ver. 8, the questions in ver. 11 also teach that, with this state of things, they cannot hold themselves guiltless. The speaker inquires, from the standpoint of his own moral consciousness, whether he can be pure, i.e. guiltless, if he uses deceitful scales and weights,—a question to which every one must answer No. It is difficult, however, to decide who the questioner is. As ver. 9 announces words of God, and in ver. 10 God is speaking, and also in vers. 12, 13, it appears as though Jehovah eat be the questioner hee But 731% does not tally with this. Jerome therefore adopts the rendering numquid justificabo stateram impiam; but 731 in the kal has only the meaning to be pure, and even in the piel it is not used in the sense of niggdh, to acquit. This latter fact is sufficient to overthrow the proposal to alter the reading into piel. Moreover, “the context requires the thought that the rich men fancy they can be pure with deceitful weights, and a refutation of this delusive idea” (Caspari). Consequently the prophet only can raise this question, namely as the representative of the moral consciousness; and we must interpret this transition, which is so sudden and abrupt to our ears, by supplying the thought, “Let every one ask himself,” Can I, ete. Instead of yu we have the more definite mirmdh in the aaretiel clause. Scales and a bag with stones belong together; ’abhdnim are the stone weights (cf. Lev. xix. 836; Deut. xxv. 13) which were carried in a bag (Prov. xvi. 11). In ver. 12 the condemnation of injustice is widened still further. Whereas in the first clause the rich men of the capital (the suffix pointing back to TY in ver. 9), who are also to be thought of in ver. 10, are expressly mentioned, in the second clause the inhabitants generally are referred to. And whilst the rich are not only charged with injustice or fraud in trade, but with chdmds, violence of every kind, the inhabitants are charged with lying and deceit of the tongue. L’shondm (their tongue) is not placed at the head absolutely, in the sense of “ As for their tongue, deceit is,” etc. Such an emphasis as this is precluded by the fact that the preceding clause, “ speaking lies,” involves the use of the tongue. L’shondm is the simple subject: Their tongue is deceit or falsehood in their mouth; 2.e. their tongue is so full of deceit, that it is, so to speak, resolved into it. Both clauses express the thought, that “the inhabitants of Jerusalem are a population of liars and cheats” (Hitzig). The connection in which the verse stands, or the true explanation of WW, has been a matter of dispute. We must reject both the combination of vers. 12 and 13 (“Because their rich men, etc., therefore I also,” etc.), and also the assumption that ver. 12 contains the answer to the question in ver. 10, and that WS precedes the direct question (Hitzig): the former, because ver. 12 obviously forms the conclusion to the reproof, and must be separated from what precedes it; the latter, because the question in ver. 11 stands between vers. 10 and 12, which is closely connected with ver. 10, and ver. 12 also contains no answer to ver. 10, so far as the thought is concerned, even if the latter actually required an answer. We must rather take WW as a relative, as Caspari does, and understand the verse as an exclamation, which the Lord utters in anger over the city: “ She, whose rich men are full,” etc. “Angry persons generally prefer to speak of those who have excited their wrath, instead of addressing their words to them.”

The threat of punishment follows in vers.13-16. Ver. 13. “ So also now do I smite thee incurably, laying waste because of thy sins. Ver. 14. Thou wilt eat, and not be satisfied;. and thine emptiness remains in thee; and thou wilt remove, and not save; and what thou savest I will give to the sword. Ver. 15. Thow wilt sow, and not reap; thou wilt tread olives, and not anoint thyself with oil; new wine, and not drink wine.” With NBN the threatened punishment is represented as the consequence of, or retribution for, the sins of the people. ‘37 ‘monn: literally, I have made the smiting thee sick, 2.e. smitten thee presses the certainty of the future. The suffix refers to the people, not of the capital only, but, as we may see from ver. 16, of the whole of the kingdom of Judah. Hashmém (an uncontracted form; see Ges. § 67, Anm. 10), devastnndo, is attached to the preceding verb in an adverbial sense, as a practical exemplification, like the Y2¥ in Lev. xxvi. 18, 24, 28, which Micah had in his eye at the time. For the individualizing of the punishment, which follows, rests upon Lev. xxvi. 25, 26, and Deut. xxviii. 39, 40. The land is threatened with devastation by the foe, from which the people flee into fortresses, the besieging of which occasions starvation. For the fulfilment of this, see Jer. lii. 6 (cf. 2 Kings vi. 25). MW, dar. Aey., hollowness, or emptiness of stomach. 45D), thou mayest remove, 7.e. carry off thy goods and family, yet wilt thou not save; but even if thou shouldst save anything, it will fall into the hands of the enemy, and be destroyed by his sword (vid. Jer. |. 37). The enemy will also partly consume and partly destroy the corn and field-fruit, as well as the stores of oil and wine (vid. Amos v.11), OU spon N) is taken verbatim from Deut. xxviii. 40.

This trouble the people bring upon themselves by their ungodly conduct. With this thought the divine threatening is rounded off and closed. Ver. 16. “ And they observe the statutes of Omri, and all the doings of the house of Ahab, and so ye walk in their counsels; that I may make thee a horror, and her inhabitants a hissing, and the reproach of my people shall ye bear.” The verse is attached loosely to what precedes by Vav. The first half corresponds to vers. 10-12, the second to vers. 13-15, and each has three clauses.. VSAWI, as an intensive form of the piel, is the strongest expression for WY, and is not to be taken as a passive, as Ewald and others suppose, but in a reflective sense: “It (or one) carefully observes for itself the statutes of Omri instead of the statutes of the Lord” (Lev. xx. 23; Jer. x. 8). All that is related of Omri, is that he was worse than all his predecessors (1 Kings xvi. 25). His statutes are the Baal-worship which his son and successor Ahab raised into the ruling national religion (1 Kings xvi. 31, 32), and the introduction of which is attributed to Omri as the founder of the dynasty. In the same sense is Athaliah, who was a daughter of Jezebel, called a daughter of Omri in 2 Chron. xxii. 2. All the doing of the house of Ahab: ie. not only its Baal-worship, but also its persecution of the Lord’s prophets (1 Kings xviii. 4, xxii. 27), and the rest of its sins, e.g. the robbery and murder committed upon Naboth (1 Kings xxi). With 120M) the description passes over into a direct address; not into the preterite, however, for the imperfect with Vav rel. does not express here what has been the custom in both the past and present, but is simply the logical deduction from what precedes, “ that which continually occurs.” The suffix attached to Onisyia refers to Ahab and Omri. By iynd the punishment is represented as intentionally brought about by the sinners themselves, to give prominence to the daring with which men lived on in godlessness and unrighteousness. In qn’ the whole nation is addressed: in the second clause, the inhabitants of the capital as the principal sinners; and in the third, the nation again in its individual members. 13¥ does not mean devastation here; but in parallelism with API, horror, or the object of horror, as in Deut. xxviii. 37, Jer. xxv. 9, li. 87, and 2 Chron. xxix. 8. Cherpath ‘ammi: the shame which the nation of God, as such, have to bear from the heathen, when they are given up into their power (see Ezek. xxxvl. 20). This shame will have to be borne by the several citizens, the present supporters of ‘the idea of the nation of God.

The prophet responds to the threatening of the Lord (ch. vi. 9-16) in the name of the believing church with a penitential prayer, in which it sorrowfully confesses the universality of the deep moral corruption, and painfully bemoans the necessity for the visitation of God (vers. 1-6); after which it rises, through belief in the fidelity of God, to the confidential hope that the Lord will cause the light of His grace to rise again upon the church, which is bearing the merited punishment, and will not let its enemies triumph over it, but will procure it justice, and deeply humble the foe (vers. 7-13); and to this it appends a prayer for the renewal of the former manifestations of grace

(ver. 14). The Lord answers this prayer with the promise that He will renew for His people the wonders of the olden time (vers. 15-17); whereupon the prophet closes by praising the mercy and grace of the Lord (vers. 18-20).

Vers. 1-6. That the prophet is speaking in vers. 1 sqq. not in his own name, but in the name of the church, which confesses and bemoans its rebellion against the Lord, is indisputably evident from vers. 7 sqq., where, as all the expositors admit, the church speaks of itself in the first person, and that not “the existing corrupt Israelitish church,” as Caspari supposes, but the penitential, believing church of the future, which discerns in the judgment the chastising hand of its God, and expresses the hope that the Lord will conduct its conflict with its foe, etc. The contents of vers. 1-6, also, do not point to the prophet in distinction from the congregation, but may be understood throughout as the confession of sin on the part of the latter. Ver. 1. “ Woe to me! for Ihave become like a gathering of fruit, like a gleaning of the vintage: Not a grape to eat! an early fig, which my soul desired.” DDN, which only occurs again in Job x. 15, differs from ‘in, and is “vow dolentis, gementis, et ululantis magis quam minantis” (Marck); and °3 is not “that,” but “ for,” giving the reason for ‘Ss. The meaning of ‘DN2 ‘N27 is not, “it has happened to me as it generally happens to those who still seek for early figs at the fruit gathering, or for bunches of grapes at the gleaning of the vintage” (Caspari and others); for /"P ‘BOND does not mean as at the fruit-gathering, but like the fruit-gathering. The nation or the church resembles the fruitgathering and gleaning of the vineyard, namely, in this fact, that the fruit-gathering yields no more early figs, and the gleaning of the vintage yields no more grapes to eat; that is to say, its condition resembles that 6f an orchard in the time of the fruit-gathering, when you may find fruit enough indeed, but not a single early fig, since the early figs ripen as early as June, whereas the fruit-gathering does not take place till August (see at Isa. xxviii. 4). The second simile is a still simpler one, and is very easily explained. ‘SON is not a participle, but a noun— HDS the gathering (Isa. xxxil. 10); and the plural is probably used simply because of ridoiy, the gleaning, and not with any allusion to the fact that the gleaning lasts several days, as Hitzig supposes, but because what is stated applies to all gatherings of fruit. JP, fruit; see at Amos viii. 1, M8 is to be taken in a relative sense, and the force of }S still Picade to M3332 (compare Gen. xxx. 33). The figure is explained in vers. 2 sqq. Ver. 2. “ The godly man has disappeared from the earth, and there isno more a righteous man among men. All lie in wait for blood, they hunt every man his brother with the net. Ver. 3. Their hands are after evil, to make it good. The prince asks, and the judge is for reward; and the great man, he speaks the evil of his soul: and they twist it together.” The grape and the early fig signify the good and the righteous man. DM is not the God-fearing man, but, according to the context, the man who cherishes love and fidelity. 72%, not “to have perished,” but to be lost, to have disappeared. 87 1, not “out of the land,” but, as the parallel D783 shows, from the earth, out of the world. For the fact itself, compare Ps. xii. 2 and Isa. lvii. 1. They all lie in wait for blood, 7.e. not that they all go about committing murder, but simply that they set their minds upon quarrels, cheating, and treachery, that they may rob their neighbour of his means of existence, so that he must perish (cf. ch. ii. 2, 3, ii. 1, 2); at the same time, even murderous thoughts are not excluded. ‘The same thing is implied in the hunting with the net. M8, the brother, is the fellow-countryman (for this figure, compare (Pee. 9, xxxv. 7, 8, etc.). In ver. 3 the words from yin Oy to ney are not to be joined to what follows so as to form one sentence. Such a combination is not only opposed to the accents, but is at variance with the structure of the whole verse, which consists of several short clauses, and it does not even nel a natural thought; consequently Ewald proposes to alter the text Oni), al is Hardly the inf. hiph. “to do evil,” but most likely a noun with the article, “the evil;” and the thought is therefore either “both hands are (sc. busy) with evil,” or “ both hands are stretched out to evil,” to make it good, i.e. to carry out the evil well (WD as in Jer. ii. 33), or to give evil such a form that it shall appear to be good, or right. This thought is then made special: the prince, the judge, and the great man, 7.e. the rich man and mighty man (Lev. xix. 15; 1 Sam. xxv. 2), weave a thing to make evil good. Nay, to weave, to twist together, after MNi2Y, twist or string. The subject to mnay is to be found in the three classes dread, named, and not merely i in the judge and the great man. There is just as little reason for this limitation as for the assumption that the great man and the prince are one person. The way in which the three twist the thing or the evil plan together is indicated in the statements of the three previous clauses. The prince asks, sc. for the condemnation of a righteous or innocent man; and the judge grants this for recompense against compensation; and the rich man co-operates by speaking havvath naphsho. Havvah in most passages is universally allowed to signify hurt, mischief, destruction; and the only question is, whether this meaning is to be traced to MA =x, to breathe (Hupfeld on Ps. v. 10), or to mM, to occur, an occurrence, then specially an evil occurrence (Hengstenberg, Diss. on the Pentateuch, vol. 1. p. 252). Only in Proy. x. 3 and the passage before us is havvah said to signify desire in a bad sense, or evil lust. But, as Caspari has shown, the meaning is neither necessary nor established in either of these two passages. In Prov. x. 3 the meaning erumna activa aliisque inferenda is quite sufficient; and C. B. Michaelis has adopted it for the present passage: “The great man speaks the mischief of his soul,” z.e. the injury or destruction of another, for which he cherishes a desire. Nephesh, the soul as the seat of desire. Ni is not introduced to strengthen the suffix attached to iW53, “of his, yea of his soul” (Ewald, Hitzig, Umbreit); for not only are the accents against this, but also the thought, which requires no such strengthening. It is an emphatic repetition of the subject haggddol. ‘The great man weaves evil with the king and judge, by desiring it, and expressing the desire in the most open manner, and thereby giving to the thing an appearance of right.

And even the best men form no exception to the rule. Ver. 4. “ Their best man is like a briar; the upright man more than a hedge: the day of thy spies, thy visitation cometh, then will their confusion follow. Ver. 5. Trust not in the neighbour, rely not upon the intimate one; keep the doors of thy mouth before her that is thy bosom friend. Ver. 6. For the son despiseth the father, the daughter rises wp against her mother, the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; a man’s enemies are the people of his own house.” 0319, the good man among them, i.e. the best man, resembles the thorn-bush, which only pricks, hurts, andinjures. In 1% the force of the suffix still continues: the most righteous man among them; and }) before 12:01) is used in a comparative sense: “is more, i.e. worse, than a thorn-hedge.” The corruption of the nation has reached such a terrible height, that the judgment must burst in upon them. This thought comes before the prophet’s mind, so that he interrupts the description of the corrupt condition of things by pointing to the day of judgment. The “ day of thy watchmen,” i.e. of thy prophets (Jer. vi. 17; Ezek. i. 17, xxxiii. 7), is explained in the apposition p‘qdiddath*kha (thy visitation). The perfect M83 is prophetic of the future, which is as certain as if it were already there. MAY, now, te. when this day has come (really therefore = “ then”), will their confusion be, z.e. then will the wildest confusion come upon them, as the evil, which now envelopes itself in the appearance of good, will then burst forth without shame and without restraint, and everything will be turned upside down. In the same sense as this Isaiah also calls the day of divine judgment a day of confusion (Isa. xxii. 5). In the allusion to the day of judgment the speaker addresses the people, whereas in the description of the corruption he speaks of them. ‘This distinction thus made between the person speaking and the people is not at variance with the assumption that the prophet speaks in the name of the congregation, any more than the words “ thy watchmen, thy visitation,” furnish an objection to the assumption that the prophet was one of the watchmen himself. ‘This distinction simply proves that the penitential community is not identical with the mass of the people, but to be distinguished from them. In ver. 5 the description of the moral corruption is continued, and that in the form of a warning not to trust one another any more, neither the companion (27) with whom one has intercourse in life, nor the confidential friend (allaph), nor the most intimate friend of all, viz. the wife lying on the husband’s bosom. Even before her the husband was to beware of letting the secrets of his heart cross his lips, because she would betray them. The reason for this is assigned in ver. 6, in the fact that even the holiest relations of the moral order of the world, the deepest ties of blood-relationship, are trodden under foot, and all the bonds of reverence, love, and chastity are loosened. The son treats his father as a fool (nibdél, as in Deut. xxx. 15). “The men of his house” (the subject of the last clause) are servants dwelling in the house, not relations

(cf Gens xvi 2esn2 G xxxix. 143 2-Sam. i217, 18). This verse is applied by Christ to the period of the xpious which will attend His coming, in His instruction to the apostles in Matt. x. 35, 36 (cf. Luke xii. 53). It follows from this, that we have not to regard vers. 5 and 6 as a simple continuation of the description in vers. 2—4a, but that these verses contain the explanation of ON322 71N ANY, in this sense, that at the outbreak of the judgment and of the visitation the faithlessness will reach the height of treachery to the nearest friends, yea, even of the dissolution of every family tie (cf. Matt. xxiv. 10, 12).

Vers. 7-13. “This confession of sin is followed by a confession of faith on the part of the humiliated people of God” (Schlier.). Ver. 7. “But J, for Jehovah will I look out; I will wait for the God of my salvation; my God will hear me. Ver. 8. Rejoice not over me, O mine enemy! for an I fallen, I rise again; for do I sit in darkness, Jehovah is light to me.” By 281 what follows is attached adversatively to the preceding words. Even though all love and faithfulness should have vanished from among men, and the day of visitation should have come, the church of the faithful would not be driven from her confidence in the Lord, but would look to Him and His help, and console itself with the assurance that its God would hear it, i.e. rescue it from destruction. As the looking out (tséphah) for the Lord, whether He would not come, i.e. interpose to judge and aid, involves in itself a prayer for help, though it is not exhausted by it, but also embraces patient waiting, or the manifestation of faith in the life; so the hearing of God is a practical hearing, in other words, a coming to help and to save. The God of my salvation, i.e. from whom all my salvation comes (cf. Ps. xxvii. 9; Isa. xvii. 10). Her enemy, ae. the heathen power of the world, represented in Micah’s time by Asshur, and personified in thought as daughter Asshur, is not to rejoice over Zion. °3, for, not “if:” the verb ndphalti is rather to be taken conditionally, “for have I fallen;” ndéphal being used, as in Amos v. 2, to denote the destruction of the power and of the kingdom. The church is here supposed to be praying out of the midst of the period when the judgment has fallen upon it for its sins, and the power of the world is triumphing over it. The prophet could let her speak thus, because he had already predicted the destruction of the kingdom and the carrying away of the people into exile as a judgment that was inevitable (ch. ili. 12, vi. 16). Sitting in darkness, 7.e. being in distress and poverty (cf. Isa. ix 1, xli. 7; Ps. cvii. 10). In this darkness the Lord is light to the faithful, 7.e. He is their salvation, as He who does indeed chasten His own people, but who even in wrath does not violate His grace, or break the promises which He has given to His people.

Ver. 9. “ The wrath of Jehovah shall I bear, for I have sinned against Him, till He shall fight my fight, and secure my right. He will bring me forth to the light; I shall behold His righteousness. Ver. 10. And may my enemy see it, and shame cover her, who hath said to me, Where is Jehovah thy God? Mine eyes will see it; now will she be for a treading down, like mire of the streets.’ Confidence in the help of the Lord flows from the consciousness, that the wretchedness and sufferings are a merited punishment for the sins. This consciousness and feeling generate patience and hope: patience to bear the wrath of God manifesting itself in the sufferings; hope that the sufferings, as inflicted by the righteous God, will cease as soon as the divine justice has been satisfied. Za'aph: lit. the foaming up of wrath (Isa. xxx. 30); hence strong wrath. This the church will bear, till the Lord conducts its conflict and secures its rights. ‘2 is the judicial conflict between Israel and the heathen power of the world. Although, for example, God had given up His nation to the power of its enemies, the nations of the world, on account of its sins, so that they accomplished the will of God, by destroying the kingdoms of Israel and Judah, and carrying away the people into exile; yet they grew proud of their own might in so doing, and did not recognise themselves as instruments of punishment in the hand of the Lord, but attributed their victories to the power of their own arm, and even aimed at the destruction of Israel, with scornful defiance of the living God (cf. Isa. x. 5-15; Hab. i. 11). Thus they violated the rights of Israel, so that the Lord was obliged to conduct the contest of His people with the heathen, and secure the rights of Israel by the overthrow of the heathen power of the world. For ‘2% 2", see Ps. xliii. 1; for baw NYY, Ps. ix. 4, 5; and for the fact itself, Isa. xlix. 25, li. 22. Mishpat is Israel’s right, in opposition to the powers of the world, who would destroy it. The following word *38'¥\ is not capac by WW JY, as the absence of the copula Vav shows. With these words the hoe takes the form of the certain assurance that the Lord will remove the distress, and let Israel see His righteousness. 7s°ddqah is the righteousness of God revealing itself in the forgiveness and restoration of Israel to favour; like ts°ddéqoth in ch. vi. 5: in actual fact, the salvation of Israel about to be secured, regarded as an emanation of the righteousness of the covenant God; hence parallel to “ix. ms with 3, to look at, so that one penetrates, as it were, into an ape seeing mith feasting of the eyes (so also in ver.10). This exaltation of Israel to new salvation it is hoped that the enemy will see (81M), opt.), and be covered with shame; for the power of the world is overthrown, in order that Israel may be redeemed out of its power. This desire is a just one, because the enemy has despised the Lord God. For the expression, “ Where is Jehovah thy God?” compare Joel ii. 17. And Israel will see its fulfilment (73°87A with Nun doubled after a sharpened ¢ é; see Ewald, § 198, a). ‘Atidh, now (seeing the future in spirit, as having already come), the enemy will be trodden down like mire of tlie streets (for this figure, see Isa. x. 6).