The confident expectation rises in vers. 11 sqq. into an assurance of the promise 5. the words of the prophet in the name of the church rising into an address to Zion, to confirm its hope by the promise oh the restoration of Zion, and the entrance of crowds of people into the city of God. Ver. 11. “ A day to build thy walls (cometh); in that day will the ordinance be faraway. Ver. 12. In that day will they come to thee from Asshur and the cities of Egypt, and from Lgypt to the river, and (to) sea from sea, and (from) mountain to mountain. Ver. 13. And the earth will become a desert because of its wmhabitants, for the fruit of their doings.” Ver. 11 consists of two clauses; for we may easily supply to yom “is” or “ will be” = come. The daughter Zion is addressed (cf. ch. iv. 8) not as a church, but as a city, as the centre and representative of the kingdom of God. As such, she is compared to a vineyard, as in Isa. v. 1-7, xxvii. 2-4, Ps. Ixxx. 9,10. The word gadér, which is generally used for the hedge or wall around a vineyard, points to this (see Isa. v.5; Num. xxii. 24; Heccles.
x. 8). 8370 bY is an adverbial accusative; in that day will ph be far away. The meaning of this word is very difficult to find, and can hardly be settled with any certainty. The explanation of chdg, as signifying the law imposed upon Israel by the heathen oppressors (Chald., Hengstenberg, etc.), cannot be sustained, as this meaning cannot be established from Ps. civ. 20, and is not suggested by the context. So, again, the explanation, “ On that day will the goal set (for Israel), or the boundary fixed (for it), be a far distant one (ze. then will the boundaries of the land of Israel lie in the far distance, or be advanced to the remotest distance:” Hitzig, Caspari, and others), introduces a meaning into the words which they do not possess. Even if chdg does denote a fixed point or a limit of either space or time, it never signifies the boundary of a nation; and rdchaq, to be far off, is not equivalent to being advanced to a great distance. Chdq is apparently used here for the ordinance or limit which God has appointed to separate Israel from the nations; not a land-boundary, but the law of Israel’s separation from the nations. This law will be far away, <.e. will be removed or set aside (yirchag is only chosen for the sake of the assonance with chéq), inasmuch as numerous crowds, as is added in ver. 12 by way of explanation, will then stream to Zion, or come to the people of God, out of all lands (cf. ch. iv. 1,2). For this is what ver. 12 refers to, and not the return to Zion of the Israelites who have been scattered in the heathen lands. ia) (impersonal), one comes, they come: not “return,” 3%, which must have been the expression used if the return of the Israelites out of their captivity had been meant. The heathen who cherish a desire for the God of Zion and His law (ch. iv. 2) will come to Israel; not to Israel as still living in their midst (Caspari), but to the Israel that has already returned, and whose walls have been rebuilt (ver. 11). The building of the walls of Zion involves the gathering together of the dispersed nation, or rather presupposes it. Heathen will come “from Asshur and the cities of Egypt,” ze. from the two mightiest empires in the time of the prophet. M/datsor, the poetical name of Keypt, as in Isa. xix. 6, xxxvil. 25; and “cities of Egypt,” because that land or kingdom was especially rich in cities. The further definitions individualize the idea of the totality of the lands and provinces, the correlative members being transposed and incomplete in the last two sentences, so that the preposition 79 must be supplied to 0%, and the preposition #2 to 747, From Egypt to the river (Euphrates) includes the lands lying between these two terminal points; and in the expressions, “ sea from sea, and mountain to mountain,” seas and mountains are mentioned in the most general manner, as the boundaries of lands and nations; so that we have not to think of any particular seas and mountains, say the Western (or Mediterranean) Sea, and the Eastern (the Dead or the Galilean) Sea, as being the western and eastern boundaries of Palestine, and of Lebanon and Sinai as the northern and southern boundaries, but must adhere firmly to the general character of the expression: “ from one sea and one mountain to another sea and mountain,” i.e. from every land situated between seas and mountains, that is to say, from all the lands and provinces of the earth. The coming out of all lands is not to be understood as denoting simply passing visits to Canaan or Zion, but as coming to connect themselves with the people of God, to be received into fellowship with them. There is a parallel to this promise in the promise contained in Isa. xix. 18-25, that in the Messianic times Egypt and Asshur will turn to Jehovah. This takes place because the earth will become a desert, on account of the evil deeds of its inhabitants. Whilst Zion is rebuilt, and the people of God are multiplied, by the addition of the godly Gentiles out of all the countries of the earth, the judgment falls upon the sinful world. This statement at ver. 13 is simply attached to what precedes it by "D1}, in order to complete the promise of the restoration of Zion, i adding the fate which will befal the earth (¢.e. the earth sene Canaan); but it actually contains the motive for the coming of the crowds to Zion. 28 cannot be the land of Israel (Canaan) here, in support of which appeal has been made to Lev. xxvi. 33 and Isa. i. 7; for the context neither leads to.any such limitation as that 787 could be taken in the sense of BISON (in Leviticus and Isaiah), nor allows of, our thinking of the devastation of Canaan. When the day shall have come for the building of the walls of Zion, the land of Israel will not become a desert then; but, on the contrary, the devastation will cease. If the devastation of Canaan were intended here, we should have either to take nnn as a pluperfect, in violation of the rules of the language, or arbitrarily to interpolate “ previously,” as Hitzig proposes. 2u by is defined more precisely by pmoy "52 The doings are of course evil ones, and the deeds themselves are the fr uit (cf. Isa. iii. 10).
Vers. 14-17. The promise of salvation impels the congregation to pray that it may be granted (ver. 14); whereupon the Lord assures it that His covenant mercies shall be renewed, and promises the thorough humiliation of the hostile nations of the world (vers. 15-17). Ver. 14. “ Feed thy people with thy staff, the sheep of thine inheritance, dwelling apart, in the wood, in the midst of Carmel: let them feed in Bashan and Gilead, as in the days of the olden time.” 'The question in dispute among commentators, whether this prayer is addressed to the Lord by the prophet on behalf of the nation, or whether the prophet is still speaking in the name of the believing church, is decided in favour of the latter by the answer addressed to the church in ver. 15. The Lord is addressed as the shepherd of Israel, the title by which Jacob addressed Him in Gen. xlix. 24 (cf. Ps. Ixxx. 2, xxiii. 1 sqq.). The prayer is related to the promise in ch. v. 3 sqq., viz. that the ruler coming forth out of Bethlehem will feed in the strength of Jehovah, and involves the prayer for the sending of this ruler. “ With this staff,” a.é. the shepherd’s staff (cf. Lev. xxvii. 32; Ps. xxiii. 4), is added pictorially; and as a support to the prayer, it designates the people as the sheep of Jehovah’s inheritance. 2M jN¥, instead of noma BY, which occurs more frequently, is occasioned by the figure of the shepherd. As the sheep need the protection of the shepherd, lest they should perish, so Israel needs the guidance of its God, that it may not be destroyed by its foes. The following apposition 712) 23 determines the manner of the feeding more precisely; so that we may resolve it into the clause, “so that thy people may dwell apart.’ The words contain an allusion to Num. xxill. 9, where Balaam describes Israel as a people separated from the rest of the nations; and to Deut. xxxiii. 28, where Moses congratulates it, because it dwells in safety and alone (baddd, separate), under the protection of its God, in a land full of corn, new wine, etc. The church asks for the fulfilment of this blessing from Jehovah its shepherd, that it may dwell separate from the nations of the world, so that they may not be able to do it any harm; and that “in the wood in the midst of Carmel,” that promontory abounding in wood and pasture land (letis pascuis abundat: Jerome on Amos i. 2). The wood is thought of here as shutting off the flock from the world without, withdrawing it from its sight, and affording it security; and the fact that dangerous a pea have their home in the forest (Jer. v. 6; Ps. Ixxx. 14) is overlooked here, because Israel is protected from them by its own shepherd. wt, which follows, is not future, but optative, corresponding to the imperative 99. Gilead and Bashan are also named as portions of the land that were rich in pasture (cf. Num. xxxii. 1 sqq.), namely, of the land to the east of the Jordan, Carmel belonging to the western portion of Canaan. ‘These three portions individualize the whole of the territory which Israel received for its inheritance, and not merely the territory of the kingdom of the ten tribes. The simple reason why no districts in the kingdom of Judah are mentioned, is that Judah possessed no woody districts abounding in grass and pasture resembling those named. Moreover, the prayer refers to the whole of Israel, or rather to the remnant of the whole nation that has been feveael from the judgment, and which will form an undivided flock under the Messiah (cf. ch. v. 2; Isa. xi. 13; Ezek. xxxvii. 15 sqq.). poiy 0, “the days of old,” are the times of Moses and Joshua, when the Lord brought Israel with His mighty arm into the possession of the promised land.
The Lord answers this prayer, by promising, according to His abundant goodness, more than the church has asked. Ver. 15. “As in the days of thy going out of the land of Kgypt will I cause it to see wonders. Ver. 16. Nations will see tt, and be ashamed of all their strength: they will lay the hand upon the mouth, their ears will become deaf. Ver. 17. They will lick dust like the snake, like the reptiles of the earth they come trembling out of their castles: they will go trembling to Jehovah our God, and before thee will they fear.” The wonders (niphia’oth; cf. Ex. ill. 20, xv. 11; Ps. lxxviii. 11) with which the Lord formerly smote Egypt, to redeem His people out of the bondage of that kingdom of the world, will the Lord renew for His people. In "ONY the nation is addressed, whilst the suffix of the third pers. attached to 288 points back to WY in ver. 14. The miraculous deeds will make such an impression, that the heathen nations who see them will stand ashamed, dumb and deaf with alarm and horror. Ashamed of all their strength, z.e. because all their strength becomes impotence before the mighty acts of the Almighty God. Laying the hand upon the mouth is a gesture expressive of reverential silence from astonishment and admiration (cf. Judg. xviii. 19; Job xxi. 5, etc.). Their ears shall become deaf “ from the thunder of His mighty acts, Job xxvi. 14, the gol hamon of Isa. xxxiii. 8” (Hitzig). With this description of the impression made by the wonderful works of God, the words of God pass imperceptibly into words of the prophet, who carries out the divine answer still further in an explanatory form, as we may see from ver. 17d. ‘The heathen will submit themselves to Jehovah in the humblest fear. This is stated in ver.17. Licking the dust like the serpent contains an allusion to Gen. ili. 14 (cf. Ps. lxxii. 9 and Isa. xlix. 23). ys “oni, earth-creepers, 7.¢. snakes, recals the 75 “oni of Deut. xxxil. 24. Like snakes, when they are driven out of their hiding-place, or when charmers make them come out of their holes, so will the nations come trembling out of their castles (misg*rdth as in Ps. xviii. 46), and tremble to Jehovah, i.e. flee to Him with trembling, as alone able to grant help (see Hos. iii. 5), and fear before thee. With 4 the prayer passes into an address to Jehovah, to attach to this the praise of God with which he closes his book.
Ver. 18. “ Who is a God like Thee? removing guilt and passing over iniquity to the remnant of His inheritance. He retaineth not His anger for ever, for He delighteth in mercy. Ver. 19. He will have compassion upon us again, tread down our transgressions; and Thou wilt cast all their sins into the depths of the sea. Ver. 20. Mayest Thou show truth to Jacob, mercy to Abraham, which Thou hast sworn to our fathers from the days of old.” 03 bys 2 looks back to Ex. xv. 11; but whether Micah also plays upon his own name is doubtful. Like the first redemp-. tion of Israel out of Egypt, the second or still more glorious redemption of the people of God furnishes an occasion for praising the incomparable nature of the Lord. But whereas in the former Jehovah merely revealed Himself in His incomparable exaltation above all gods, in the restoration of the nation which had been cast out among the heathen because of its sins, and its exaltation among the nations, He now reveals
His incomparable nature in grace and compassion. The words 3) iY NI are formed after Ex. xxxiv. 6, 7, where the Lord, after the falling away of Israel from Him by the worship of the golden calf, reveals Himself to Moses asa gracious and merciful God, who forgives guilt and sin. But this grace and compassion are only fully revealed in the restoration and blessing of the remnant of His nation by Jesus Christ. (For ver. 180, see Ps. ciii. 9.) As One who delighteth in mercy, He will have compassion upon Israel again (ydshabh used adverbially, as in | Hos. xiv. 8, etc.), will tread down its sins, 7.e. conquer their power and tyranny by His compassion, and cast them into the depths of the sea, as He once conquered the tyrant Pharaoh and drowned him in the depths of the sea (Ex. xv. 5, 10). This believing assurance then closes with the prayer (tittén is optative) that the Lord will give His rescued nation truth and mercy (émeth and chesed, after Ezek. xxxiv. 6), i.e. give them to enjoy, or bestow upon them, what He had sworn to the patriarchs (Gen. xxii. 16). Abraham and Jacob are mentioned instead of their family (cf. Isa. xli. 8).
With this lofty praise of the Lord, Micah closes not only the last words, but his whole book. The New Testament parallel, as Hengstenberg has correctly observed, is Rom. xi. 33-36; and the puorypiov made known by the apostle in Rom. xi. 25 sqq. gives us a view of the object and end of the ways of the Lord with His people.
ALERSON or THE PropHet.—aAll that we know wy} of Nahum (Nachum, t.e. consolation or comforter, consolator, Gr. Naovp) is, that he sprang from the place called Elkosh; since the epithet 1a’ elgoshi, in the heading to his book, is not a patronymic, but the place of his birth. Llkosh is not to be sought for in Assyria, however, viz. in the Christian village of Alkush, which is situated on the eastern side of the Tigris, to the north-west of Khorsabad, two days’ journey from Mosul, where the tomb of the prophet Nahum is shown in the form of a simple plaster box of modern ‘style, and which is held in great reverence, as a holy place, by the Christians and Mohammedans of that neighbourhood (see Layard, Nineveh and its Remains, 1. 233), as Michaelis, Eichhorn, Ewald, and others suppose. For this village, with its pretended tomb of the prophet, has not the smallest trace of antiquity about it, and is mentioned for the first time by a monk of the sixteenth century, in a letter to Assemani (Biblioth. or. i. 525, ili. 1, p. 352). Now, as a tomb of the prophet Jonah is also shown in the neighbourhood of Nineveh, the assumption is a very natural one, that the name Llkush did not come from the village into the book, but passed from the book to the village (Hitzig). The statement of Jerome is older, and much more credible,—namely, that “ Elkosh was situated in Galilee, since there is to the present day a village in Galilee called Helceszei (others Helcesei, Elcesi), a very small one indeed, and containing in its ruins hardly any traces of ancient buildings, but one which is well known to the Jews, and was also pointed out to me by my guide,’—inasmuch as he does not simply base his statement upon the word of his guide, but describes the place as well known to the Jews. This Jewish tradition of the VOL, IL A
_birth of Nahum in the Galilean Elkosh, or ’E)xecé, is also supported by Cyril of Alex., Ps. Epiphanius, and Ps. Dorotheus, although the more precise accounts of the situation of the place are confused and erroneous in the two last named. We have indeed no further evidence that Nahum sprang out of Galilee. The name of the Elkesaites furnishes just as little proof of the existence of a place called Elkosh, as the name Capernaum, i.e. village of Nahum, of the fact that our prophet lived there. Whether the sect of the Elkesaites really derived their name from a founder named Elxai or Elkesai, is just as questionable as the connection between this Elxai and the place called Elkosh; and the conjecture that Capernaum received its name from our prophet is altogether visionary. But Jerome’s statement is quite sufficient, since it is confirmed by the contents of Nahum’s prophecy. Ewald indeed imagines that he can see very clearly, from the general colouring of the little book, that Nahum did not live in Palestine, but in Assyria, and must have seen with his own eyes the danger which threatened Nineveh, from an invasion by powerful foes, as being one of the descendants of the Israelites who had formerly been transported to Assyria. “ It moves,” he says, “ for example,
round about Nineveh only, and that with a fulness such as we do not find in any other prophecy relating to a foreign nation; and it is quite in a casual manner that it glances at Judah in ch. i. 13-11, 3. There is not a single trace of its having been written by Nahum in Judah; on the contrary, it follows most decidedly, from the form given to the words in ch. ii. 1 (ch. i. 15), as compared with Isa. lii. 7, that he was prophesying at a great distance from Jerusalem and Judah.” But why should
not an earlier prophet, who lived in the kingdom of Israel or that of Judah, have been able to utter a special pr ophecy concerning Nineveh, in consequence of a special commission from God? Moreover, it is not merely in a casual manner that Nahum glances at Judah; on the contrary, his whole prophecy is meant for Judah; and his glance at Judah, notwithstanding its brevity, assumes, as Umbreit has correctly observed, a very important and central position. And the assertion, that there is not a single trace in the whole prophecy of Nahum’s having been in Judah, has been contested with good reason by Maurer, Hitzig, and others, who appeal to ch. i. 4 and i. 13-ii. 3, where such traces are to be found. On the other hand, if the book had been written by a prophet living in exile, there would surely be some allusions to the situation and circumstances of the exiles; whereas we look in vain for any such allusions in Nahum. Again, the acquaintance with Assyrian affairs, to which Ewald still further appeals, is no greater than that which might have been possessed by any prophet, or even by any inhabitant of Judah in the time of Hezekiah, after the repeated invasions of Israel and Judah by the Assyrians, “ The liveliness of the description runs through the whole book. Chap. i. 2-14 is not less lively than ch. ii.; and yet no one would infer from the former that Nahum must have seen with his own eyes all that he sets before our eyes in so magnificent a picture in ch. i. 2 sqq.” (Niagelsbach; Herzog’s Cycl.) It is no more a fact that “ch. ii. 6 contains such special acquaintance with the locality of Nineveh, as could only be derived from actual inspection,” than that “ch. ii. 7 contains the name of the Assyrian queen (Huzzab).” Moreover, of the words that are peculiar to our prophet, taphsar (ch. iii. 17) is the only one that is even probably Assyrian; and this is a military term, which the Judzans in Palestine may have heard from Assyrians, living there. The rest of the supposed Arameisms, such as the suffixes in 37°33 (ch. ii. 4) and na 2Nop (ch. 11. 14), and the words 373, to sigh = 737 (ch. i. 8), 175 (ch. iil. 2), and nispe (ch. ii. 4), may be accounted for from the Galilean origin of the prophet. Consequently there is no tenable ground whatever for the assumption that Nahum lived in exile, and uttered his prophecy in the neighbourhood of Nineveh. ‘There is much greater reason for inferring, from the many points of coincidence between Nahum and Isaiah (see pp. 6, 7), that he was born in Galilee during the Assyrian invasions, and that he emigrated to Judea, where he lived and prophesied. Nothing whatever is known of the circumstances of his life. The notices in Ps. Epiphan. concerning his miracles and his death (see O. Strauss, Nahumi de Nino vaticin. expl. p. xii. sq.) can lay no claim to truth. Even the period of his life is so much a matter of dispute, that some suppose him to have prophesied under Jehu and Jehoahaz, whilst others believe that he did not prophesy till the time of Zedekiah; at the same time it is possible to decide this with tolerable certainty from the contents of the book.
2. Tur Boox or Nauum contains one extended prophecy concerning Nineveh, in which the ruin of that city and of the Assyrian world-power is predicted in three strophes, answering to the division into chapters; viz. in ch. i. the divine purpose to inflict judgment upon this oppressor of Israel; in ch. ii. the joyful news of the conquest, plundering, and destruction of Nineveh; and in ch. iii. its guilt and its inevitable ruin. These are all depicted with pictorial liveliness and perspicuity. Now, although this prophecy neither closes with a Messianic prospect, nor enters more minutely into the circumstances of the Israelitish kingdom of God in general, it is rounded off within itself, and stands in such close relation to Judah, that it may be called a prophecy of consolation for that kingdom. The fall of the mighty capital of the Assyrian empire, that representative of the godless and God-opposing power of the world, which sought to destroy the Israelitish kingdom of God, was not only closely connected with the continuance and development of the kingdom of God in Judah, but the connection is very obvious in Nahum’s prophecy. Even in the introduction (ch. i. 2 sqq.) the destruction of Nineveh is announced as a judgment, which Jehovah, the zealous God and avenger of evil, executes, and in which He proves Himself a refuge to those who trust in Him (ch. 1.7). But “ those who trust in Him” are not godly Gentiles here; they are rather the citizens of His kingdom, viz. the Judzans, upon whom Asshur had laid the ‘yoke of bondage, which Jehovah would break (ch. i. 13), so that Judah could keep feasts and pay its vows to Him (ch. i.15). On the destruction of Nineveh the Lord returns to the eminence of Israel, which the Assyrians have overthrown (ch. ii. 2), Consequently Nineveh is to fall, and an end is to be put to the rule and tyranny of Asshur, that the glory of Israel may be restored.
The unity and integrity of the prophecy are not open to any well-founded objection. It is true that Eichhorn, Ewald, and De Wette, have questioned the genuineness of the first part of the heading (the Mass@ of Nineveh), but without sufficient reason, as even Hitzig observes. For there is nothing that can possibly astonish us in the fact that the object of the prophecy is mentioned first, and then the author. Moreover, the words m3) SYM cannot possibly have been added at a later period, because the whole of the first half of the prophecy would be unintelligible without them; since Nineveh is not mentioned by name till ch. ii. 8, and yet the suffix attached to MDP in ch. i. 8 refers to N ineveh, and requires the introduction of the name of that city in the heading. There is just as little force in the arguments with which Hive seeks to prove that the allusion to the conquest of No-Amon in ch. iii. 8-10 is a later addition. For the assertion that, if an Assyrian army had penetrated to Upper Egypt and taken that city, Nahum, when addressing Nineveh, could not have related to the Assyrians what had emanated from themselves, without at least intimating this, would obviously be well founded only on the supposition that the words “ Art thou better than No- Amon,” etc., could be taken quite prosaically as news told to the city of Nineveh, and loses all its force, when we see that this address is simply a practical turn, with which Nahum describes the fate of No-Amon not to the Ninevites, but to the Judeans, as a practical proof that even the mightiest and most strongly fortified city could be conquered and fall, when God had decreed its ruin. From the lively description of this occurrence, we may also explain the change from the third person to the second in ch, iil. 9), at which Hitzig still takes offence. His other arguments are so subjective and unimportant, that they require no special refutation.