The prophet begins with the words: "_Hear, all ye people, hearken, O
earth and the fulness thereof, and let the Lord God be witness against
you, the Lord from His holy temple. For, behold, the Lord cometh forth
out of His place, and cometh down, and treadeth upon the high places of
the earth. And the mountains are melted under Him, and the valleys are
cleft, as wax before the fire, as waters poured down a steep place. For
the transgression of Jacob is all this, and for the sins of the house
of Israel._" Vers. 2-5.
This majestic exordium has been misunderstood in various ways: _First_,
by those who, like _Hitzig_, would understand by the people, צמים in
ver. 2, the tribes of Israel. We shall show, when commenting on Zech.
xi. 10, that this is altogether inadmissible. But in the present case
especially, this interpretation must be rejected; partly on account of
the reference to the words of the elder Micah, and partly on account of
the parallel terms, "O earth and the fulness thereof," which, according
to the constant _usus loquendi_, lead us far beyond the narrow limits
of Palestine. On the other hand, they who by the צמים rightly
understand the nations of the whole earth, are mistaken in this, that
they consider them as mere witnesses, whom the Lord calls [Pg 425] up
against His unthankful people, instead of considering them as the very
same against whom the Lord bears witness; and that they come into
consideration from this point of view, clearly appears from the words,
"The Lord be witness against you." As regards צד with ב following,
compare, _e.g._, Mal. iii. 5.--Another mistake is committed in the
definition of the way and manner of the divine witness. The greater
number of interpreters suppose it to be the subsequent admonitory,
reproving, and threatening discourse of the prophet. Thus, _e.g._,
_Michaelis_, who explains: "Do not despise and lightly esteem such a
witness, who by me earnestly and publicly testifies to you His will."
But in opposition to this view, it appears from ver. 3, that here, as
well as in Mal. iii. 5, "And I will come near to you in judgment, and I
am a swift witness against the sorcerers, and against the adulterers,
and against those that swear to a lie," the witness is a real
one,--that it consists in the actual attestation of the guilt by the
punishment, viz., by the divine judgment described in vers. 3, 4. The
words, "The Lord cometh forth out of His place, and cometh down," there
correspond to, "From His holy temple,"--from which it is evident, at
the same time, that by the temple, the heavenly temple must be
understood.
We have thus, in vers. 2-4, before us the description of a sublime
theophany, not for a partial judgment upon Judah, but for a judgment
upon the whole world, the people of which are called upon to gather
around their judge--whom the prophet beholds as already approaching,
descending from His glorious habitation in heaven, accompanied by the
insignia of His power, the precursors of the judgment--and silently to
wait for His judicial and penal sentence.[1]
But how is it to be explained that with the words, "For the
transgression of Jacob is all this," etc., there is a sudden transition
to the judgments upon Israel, yea, that the prophet [Pg 426] goes on as
if Israel alone had been spoken of? Only from the relation in which
these two judgments stand to one another. For they are perfectly one in
substance. They are separated only by space, time, and unessential
circumstances; so that we may say that the general judgment appears in
every partial judgment upon Israel. In order to give expression to the
thought, that it is the _judge of the world_ who is to judge Israel,
the prophets not unfrequently represent the Lord appearing to judge the
whole world; and in Israel, the _Microcosmos_, it was indeed judged. We
have a perfectly analogous case, _e.g._, in Is. chap. ii.-iv. It is
only by means of a very forced explanation, that it can be denied that
after the prophet has, by a few bold touches, from ii. 6-9, described
the moral debasement of the Covenant-people, and marked out pride as
its last source, the last judgment upon the whole earth forms the
subject of discourse. In that judgment there will be a most clear
revelation of the vanity of all which is created--a vanity which, in
the present course of the world, is so frequently concealed--and that
the Lord alone is exalted, and that those who now shut their eyes will
then be compelled to acknowledge these truths. That Isaiah has this
general judgment in view, is too clearly proved by the sublimity of the
whole description, by the express mention of the whole earth, _e.g._,
ii. 19, and by not limiting, in the individualized description in ver.
12 sqq., the high and lofty which is to be brought low to Judah alone,
but by extending it to the whole world. But in iii. 1 ff. the prophet
suddenly passes over to the typical, penal judgment upon Judah; and the
כי, at the commencement, shows that he does not consider this subject
as one altogether new, but as being substantially identical with the
preceding subject. This reminds us forcibly of the mode in which, in
the prophecies of our Lord, the references to the destruction of
Jerusalem, and to the last judgment, are connected with one another. In
the "burden of Babylon" in chap. xiii. likewise, the judgment of the
Lord upon the whole earth is first described. Nor is it only on the
territory of prophecy that this close connection of the general
judgment with the inferior judgments upon the Covenant-people appears.
In Ps. lxxxii. 8, _e.g._, after the unrighteousness prevailing among
the Covenant-people has been described, the Lord is called upon to come
to judge, not them [Pg 427] alone, but the whole earth; compare my
Commentary on Ps. vii. 8, lvi. 8, lix. 6.
The prophet thus passes over, in ver. 5, from the general manifestation
of divine justice to its special manifestation among the
Covenant-people, and mentions here, as the most prominent points upon
which it will be inflicted, Samaria and Jerusalem, the two capitals,
from which the apostasy from the Lord spread over the rest of the
country. He mentions Samaria first, and then, in vers. 6, 7, he
describes its destruction which was brought about by the Assyrians,
before he makes mention of that of Jerusalem, because the apostasy took
place first in Samaria, and hence the punishment also was hastened on.
The latter circumstance, which is merely a consequence of the former,
is in an one-sided manner made prominent by the greater number of
interpreters, who therein follow the example of _Jerome_. It was at the
same time, however, probably the intention of the prophet to be done
with Samaria, in order that he might be at liberty to take up
exclusively the case of Judah and Jerusalem--the main objects of his
prophetic ministry.
He makes the transition to this in ver. 8, by means of the words: "_On
that account I will wail and howl, I will go stripped and naked; I will
make a wailing like the jackals, and a mourning like the ostriches._"
"_On that account_"--_i.e._, on account of the judgment upon Judah, to
be announced in the subsequent verses. It is commonly supposed that the
prophet here speaks in his own person; thus, _e.g._, _Rosenmüller_:
"The prophet mourns in a bitter lamentation for the number and
magnitude of the calamities impending over the Israelitish people." But
the correct view rather is, that the prophet, when, in his inward
vision, he sees the divine judgments not remaining and stopping at
Samaria, but poured out like a desolating torrent over Judah and
Jerusalem, suddenly sinks his own consciousness in that of his
suffering people. We have thus here before us an imperfect symbolical
action, similar to that more finished one which occurs in Is. xx. 3, 4,
and which can be explained only by a deeper insight into the nature of
prophecy, according to which the dramatic character is inseparable from
it. The transition from the mere description of what is present in the
inward vision only, to the prophet's own action, is, according to this
view, very easy. If we confine ourselves to the passage before us, the
following [Pg 428] arguments are in favour of our view. 1. The
predicates שילל and ערום cannot be explained upon the supposition that
the prophet describes only his own painful feelings on account of the
condition of his people. Even if ערום stood alone, the explanation by
"naked," in the sense of "deprived of the usual and decent dress, and,
on the contrary, clothed in dirt and rags," would be destitute of all
proof and authority. No instance whatsoever is found of the outward
habit of a mourner being designated as nakedness. But it is still more
arbitrary thus to deal with שילל, whether it be explained by "deprived
of his mental faculties on account of the unbounded grief of his
soul,"--as is done by several Jewish expositors (who, in the
explanation of this passage, would have done much better, had they
followed the Chaldee, in whom the correct view is found; only that he,
giving up the figurative representation, substitutes the third person
for the first, paraphrasing it thus: "On that account they shall wail
and howl, they shall go stripped and naked," etc.),--or by "badly
clothed," as is done by the greater number of Christian expositors. The
signification "robbed," "plundered," is the only established one;
compare שולל in Job xii. 17-19. The parallel passages, in which
nakedness appears as the characteristic feature of the captives taken
in war, show how little we are entitled to depart from the most obvious
signification, in these two words. Thus we find immediately afterwards,
in ver. 11: "Pass ye away, ye inhabitants of Saphir, having your shame
naked;" on which _Michaelis_ remarks: "With naked bodies, as is the
case with those who are led into captivity after having been stripped
of their clothes." Thus Is. xx. 3, 4: "And the Lord said. Like as My
servant Isaiah walketh _naked_ and _barefoot_ three years, for a sign
and wonder upon Egypt and Ethiopia, so shall the king of Assyria lead
away the prisoners of Egypt, and the prisoners of Ethiopia, young men
and old men, _naked_ and _barefoot_;" compare Is. xlvii. 3.--2. The
term התפלשתי, in ver. 10, is in favour of the supposition, that
the prophet here appears as the representative of the future condition
of his people. The _Imperat. fem. _התפלשי of the marginal reading
is evidently, as is commonly the case, only the result of the
embarrassment of the Mazorets. The reading of the text can be
pointed as the first person of the Preterite only; for the view of
_Rosenmüller_, who takes it as the [Pg 429] second person of the
Preterite, which here is to have an optative signification, is,
grammatically, inadmissible. _Rückert's_ explanation, "In the house of
_dust_ (_zu Staubheim_), I have strewed dust upon me," is quite
correct. But if _here_ we must suppose that the prophet suddenly passes
over from the address to his unfortunate people, to himself as their
representative, why should not this supposition be the natural one in
ver. 8 also?
The correctness of the view which we have given is further
strengthened, if we compare the similar lamentations of the prophets in
other passages, in all of which the same results will be found. In Jer.
xlviii. 31, _e.g._, "Therefore will I howl over Moab, and cry out over
all Moab, over the men of Kir-heres shall _he_ groan," the "he" in the
last clause sufficiently shows how the "I" in the two preceding
clauses, is to be understood,--especially if Is. xvi. 7, "Therefore
Moab howleth over Moab," be compared. But if this interpretation be
correct in Jeremiah, it must certainly be correct in Is. xv. 5 also:
"My heart crieth out over Moab,"--a passage which Jeremiah had in view;
and this so much the more, that in Is. xvi. 9-11--where a similar
lamentation for Moab occurs: "Therefore do I bewail as for Jazer for
the vine of Sibmah; I water thee with my tears, O Heshbon and
Elealeh.... Therefore my bowels sound like a harp for Moab, mine
inward parts for Kirhareseth"--it is quite unsuitable to think of a
lamentation of the prophet, which is expressive of his own grief. This
was seen by the Chaldee, who renders "_my_ bowels" by "bowels of the
Moabites,"--a view the correctness of which has been strikingly
demonstrated by _Vitringa_: "Although," he says, "the emotion of
compassion be by no means unsuitable in the prophet, yet no one will be
readily convinced that the prophet was so much concerned for the vines
of Sibmah and Jazer, and for the crops of the summer-fruits of a nation
hostile and opposed to the people of God, that it should have been for
him a cause for lamentation and wailing." In Is. xxi., in the prophecy
against Babylon, and in the lamentation in vers. 3, 4, "Therefore are
my loins filled with pain, pangs take hold upon me as the pangs of a
woman that travaileth, etc., the night of my pleasure has been turned
into terror," it is clearly shown in what sense such lamentations are
to be understood. By "the night of pleasure," we can, especially by a
comparison of Jeremiah, understand only the night of the capture of
Babylon, [Pg 430] in which the whole city was given up to drunkenness
and riot. But it is impossible that the prophet should say that this
night--the precursor of the long-desired day for Israel--had been
turned for him into terror. Either the whole lamentation is without any
meaning, or the prophet speaks in the name of Babylon, and that, not of
the Babylon of the present, but of the Babylon of the future. This must
be granted, even by those who assert that this portion was composed at
a later period; so that, even from this quarter, the soundness of our
view cannot be assailed.
In ver. 9, the prophet returns to quiet description, from the
symbolical action to which he had been carried away by his emotions.
The subject of this description he states in the words: "_It cometh
unto Judah; it cometh unto the gate of my people, unto Jerusalem._" By
individualizing, he endeavours to give a lively view of the thought,
and to impress it. He begins with an allusion to the lamentation of
David over Saul and Jonathan in 2 Sam. i. 17 ff., which is so much the
more significant, that in this impending catastrophe, Israel also was
to lose his king (compare iv. 9), and that in it David was to
experience the fate of Saul. He then indicates the stations by which
the hostile army advances towards Jerusalem, and describes how, from
thence, it spreads over the whole country, even to its southern
boundary, and carries away the inhabitants into exile. But, in doing
so, he always chooses places, whose names might, in some way, be
brought into connection with what they were now suffering; so that the
whole passage forms a chain of _paronomasias_. These, however, are not
by any means idle plays. They have, throughout, a practical design. The
threatening is thereby to be, as it were, localized. The thought of a
divine judgment could not but be called forth in every one who should
think of one of the places mentioned. Jerusalem is first spoken of in
ver. 9 as the centre of the life of Judah: "The gate of my people,"
etc., being tantamount to "_the_ city or metropolis of it." Then, it
appears a second time in ver. 12, in the middle between five Judean
places preceding and five following it,--the number ten, which is the
symbolical signification of completeness, indicating that the judgment
is to be altogether comprehensive. The five places mentioned after
Jerusalem are all of them situated to the south of it. That the [Pg
431] five places, the mention of which precedes that of Jerusalem, are
all to be sought to the north of it, and that, hence, the judgment
advances from the north in geographical order, as is the case in Is. x.
28 ff. also, is evident from the fact that Beth-Leaphrah, which is
identical with Ophrah, is situated in the territory of Benjamin, and
that Beth-Haezel, which is identical with Azal in Zech. xiv. 5, was
situated in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem. Hence, we cannot suppose
that Zaanan here is identical with Zenan, which is situated in the
south of Jerusalem, Josh. xv. 37, nor Saphir with Samir.
The question still arises, In what event did the threatening of
punishment, contained in chap. i., find its fulfilment? _Theodoret_,
_Cyril_, _Tarnovius_, _Marckius_, _Jahn_, and others, refer it to the
Assyrian invasion. _Jerome_ referred it to the Babylonish captivity:
"The same sin," he says, "yea, the same punishment of sin which shall
overturn Samaria, is to extend to Judah, yea, even unto the gates of my
city of Jerusalem. For, as Samaria was overturned by the Assyrians, so
Judah and Jerusalem shall be overturned by the Chaldeans." This opinion
was adopted by _Michaelis_ and others.
At first sight, it would appear as if the circumstance, that the
judgment upon Judah is brought into immediate connection with that upon
Israel, favoured the first view. But this argument loses its weight
when we remark, that the events appear to the prophet in inward vision,
and, therefore, quite irrespective of their relation in time; that the
continuity of the punitive judgment upon Israel and Judah only, points
out distinctly the truth, that both proceed from the same cause, viz.,
the relation of divine justice to the sin of the Covenant-people. It is
this truth alone which forms the essence and soul of the prophetic
threatenings; and with reference to that, the difference in point of
time, which is merely accidental, is altogether kept out of view.
Another argument in favour of the Assyrian invasion might be derived
from the expression, "_to_ Jerusalem," in ver. 9, inasmuch as the
Chaldean invasion visited Jerusalem itself. But, because the calamity
was not by any means to stop at Judah, but to overflow even it, it is
shown by the preceding expression, "unto Judah," that עַד (compare on
this word, _Dissertations on the Genuineness of Daniel_, p. 55 seq.)
must, in both cases, be explained from a tacit antithesis with the
expectation, [Pg 432] that the judgment would either stop at the
boundary of Judah, or, although this should not be the case, would at
least spare the metropolis. The prophet contents himself with
representing that this opinion was erroneous. Although this passage
itself asserts nothing upon the point as to whether Jerusalem itself is
to be thought of as the object of the divine punishment, or whether it
will be spared, the following reasons show that the former will be the
case. Even ver. 5 does not admit of our expecting anything else.
Jerusalem is there marked out as the chief seat and source of
corruption in the kingdom of Judah, just as is Samaria in the kingdom
of Israel. The declaration which is there made forms the foundation of
the subsequent threatening. How is it possible, then, that, while in
the kingdom of Israel it is concentrated upon Samaria, in the kingdom
of Judah the seducer should be altogether passed over, and punishment
announced to the seduced only? That such is not the intention of the
prophet, is clearly seen from ver. 12: "_For evil cometh down from the
Lord upon the gate of Jerusalem._" The כי alone is sufficient to
prevent our limiting the sense of these words, so that they mean only
that evil will come no farther than to the gate of Jerusalem, and will
stop there. The _Particula causalis_ proves that they are the ground of
the declaration in ver. 11, and that the mourning will not cease at
Beth-Haezel, "the house of stopping;" compare the remarks on Zech. xiv.
5. But, altogether apart from this connection, the words themselves
furnish a proof. They contain a verbal reference to the description of
the judgment upon Sodom and Gomorrha, Gen. xix. 24. Jerusalem is marked
out by them as a second Sodom (compare Is. i. 10), upon which the
divine judgments would discharge themselves. As a second mark of this
extension to Jerusalem, the carrying away of the people into captivity
is added (compare vers. 11, 15, 16), which, in the promise in chap. ii.
12, 13, is supposed to have taken place. It is not Israel alone, but
the whole Covenant-people, who are in a state of dispersion, and are
gathered from it by the Lord.
Now, both of these marks are not applicable to the Assyrian invasion;
and if once we suppose the divine illumination of the prophet, it
cannot be regarded as the real object of his threatenings. This, too,
is equally inadmissible, if we consider the matter from a merely human
point of view. The predictions [Pg 433] of the prophets with regard to
Assyria are, from the very outset, rather encouraging. It is true that
they are to be, in the hand of the Lord, a rod of chastisement for
His people, but these are never to be altogether given up to them
for destruction. By an immediate divine interference, their plan
of capturing Jerusalem is frustrated. Thus the matter is constantly
represented in Isaiah; thus also in Hosea i. 7. We can, moreover,
adduce proofs from Micah himself, that his spiritual eye was not
pre-eminently, or exclusively, directed to the Assyrians. In the
prophecy from chap. iii. to v., where he describes the judgment upon
Judah in a manner altogether similar to that in which he mentions it
here, he passes over the Assyrians altogether in silence. Babylon is,
in iv. 10, mentioned as the place to which Judah is to be led into
captivity.
Yet here, as well as everywhere else in the threatenings and promises
of the prophets, we must beware, lest, in referring them to some
particular historical event, we lose sight of the animating idea. If
this, on the other hand, be rightly understood, it will be seen that a
particular historical event may indeed be pre-eminently referred to,
but that it can never exhaust the prophecy. Although, therefore, the
main reference here be to the destruction by the Chaldeans, we must not
on that account exclude anything in which the same law of retaliation
was manifested, either before, as in the invasion of the Syrians and
Assyrians; or afterwards, as in the destruction by the Romans. The
prophet himself points, in iv. 11-14 (iv. 11-v. 1), to two other phases
of the divine judgment which are to follow upon that by the Chaldeans.
After the prophet has thus hitherto described the impending divine
judgment in great general outlines, he passes on, in chap. ii., to
chastise particular vices, which, however, must always be at the same
time, yea, prominently, considered as indications of the wholly
depraved condition of the nation, and of the punishments to follow upon
it. One feature upon which he here chiefly dwells, and which must,
therefore, have been a peculiarly prominent manifestation of the sinful
corruption, consists in the acts of injustice and oppression committed
by the great, the description of which presents striking resemblances
to that in Is. v. 8 ff. The prophet interrupts this description only in
order [Pg 434] to rebuke the false prophets, who reproved him for the
severity of his discourses, and asserted that they were unworthy of the
merciful God. Such severity, answered the prophet, was true mildness,
because it alone could be the means of warding off the approaching
punitive judgment; that his God did not punish from want of
forbearance--from want of mercy; but that the fault was altogether that
of the transgressors, who drew down upon themselves, by force. His
judgments.[2]
The prophecy closes with the promise in vers. 12, 13. It is introduced
quite abruptly, in order to place it in more striking contrast with the
threatening; just as, in iv. 1, there is a similar abrupt and
unconnected contrast between the promise and the threatening.[3] It is
only brief; far more so than in the subsequent discourses, and far less
detailed than it is in them. The prophet desires first of all to
terrify sinners from their security; and for this reason, he causes
only a very feeble glimmering of hope to fall upon the dark future.
Ver. 12. "_I will assemble, surely I will assemble, O Jacob, thee
wholly: I will gather the remnant of Israel. I will bring_ [Pg 435]
_them together as the sheep of Bozrah; as a flock on their pasture,
they shall make a noise by reason of men._ Ver. 13. _The breaker goeth
up before them; they break through, pass through the gate and go out,
and their King marches before them, and the Lord is on the head of
them._"
The remark, that almost all the features of this description are
borrowed from the deliverance out of Egypt, will throw much light upon
the whole description. In the midst of oppression and misery, Israel,
while there, increased by means of the blessing of the Lord, hidden
under the cross, to greater and greater numbers; compare Exod. i. 12.
When the time of deliverance had arrived, the Lord, who had for a long
time concealed Himself, manifested Himself again as their God. First,
the people were gathered together, and then, the Lord went before
them,--in a pillar of cloud by day, and in a pillar of fire by night:
Exod. xiii. 21. He led them out of Egypt, the house of bondage: Exod.
xx. 2. So it is here also. Ver. 12 describes the increase and
gathering, and ver. 13 the deliverance. In both passages, Israel's
misery is represented under the figure of an abode in the house of
bondage, or in prison, the gates of which the Lord opens--the walls of
which He breaks down. In this allusion to, and connection with, the
former deliverance, Micah agrees with his contemporaries, Hosea and
Isaiah. The deeper reason of this lies in the typical import of the
former deliverance, which forms a prophecy by deeds of all future
deliverances, and contains within itself completely their germ and
pledge; compare Hosea ii. 1, 2 (i. 10, 11); Is. xi. 11 ff.: "And the
Lord shall stretch forth His hand a _second time_ to redeem the remnant
of His people.... And He sets up an ensign for the nations, and gathers
together the dispersed of Israel, and assembles the scattered of Judah
from the four corners of the earth.... And the Lord smites with a curse
the tongue of the Egyptian sea, and shakes His hand over the river, in
the violence of His wind, and smites it to seven rivers, so that one
may wade through in shoes. And there shall be a highway to the remnant
of His people, ... like as it was to Israel in the day when he came up
out of the land of Egypt." This reference to the typical deliverance
clearly shows, that in the description we have carefully to separate
between the thought and the language in which it is clothed.
[Pg 436]
Ver. 12. The _Infin. absol._, which in both the clauses precedes the
_tempus finitum_, expresses the emphasis which is to be placed on the
_gathering_, as opposed to the carrying away, and the scattering
formerly announced; for the latter, according to the view of man, and
apart from God's mercy and omnipotence, did not seem to admit of any
favourable turn. By "Jacob" and "Israel," several interpreters
understand Judah alone; others, the ten tribes alone; others, both
together. The last view is alone the correct one. This appears from i.
5, where, by Jacob and Israel, the whole nation is designated. The
promise in the passage before us stands closely related to the
threatening uttered there. All Israel shall be given up to destruction
on account of their sins; all Israel shall be saved by the grace of
God. This assumption is confirmed by a comparison of the parallel
passages in Hosea and Isaiah, where the whole is designated by the two
parts, Judah and Israel. Micah does not notice this division, because
that visible separation, which even in the present was overbalanced by
an invisible unity, shall disappear altogether in that future,
when there shall be only one flock, as there is only one Shepherd.
The expression, "remnant of Israel," in the second clause, which
corresponds to, "O Jacob, thee wholly," in the first, indicates,
that the fulfilment of the promise, so far from doing away with
the threatening, rather rests on its preceding realization. The
Congregation of God, purified by the divine judgments, shall be
_wholly_ gathered. Divine mercy has in itself no limits; and those
which in the present are assigned to it by the objects of mercy, shall
then be removed.--The words, "I will bring them together," etc.,
indicate equally the faithfulness of the great Shepherd, who gathers
His dispersed flock from all parts of the world, and the unexpected and
wonderful increase of the flock; compare Jer. xxiii. 3: "And I will
gather the remnant of My flock out of all countries whither I have
driven them, and lead them back to their pasture-ground, and they are
fruitful and increase;" and xxxi. 10: "He that scattereth Israel will
gather him and keep him as a shepherd does his flock."--Bozrah we
consider to be the name of a capital of the Idumeans in Auranitis, four
days' journey from Damascus. The great wealth of this town in flocks
appears from Is. xxxiv. 6 (although a slaughter of men is spoken of in
that passage, yet evidently the wealth of Bozrah in natural [Pg 437]
flocks is there supposed), and can with perfect ease be accounted for
from its situation. For, in its neighbourhood, there begins the
immeasurable plain of Arabia, which, on one side, continues without
interruption as far as _Dshof_, into the heart of Arabia, while,
towards the North, it extends to Bagdad, under the name of _El Hamad_.
Its length and breadth are calculated to amount to eight days' journey.
It contains many shrubs and blooming plants; compare _Burkhardt_ and
_Ritter_.[4] Several interpreters consider בצרה to be an appellative,
and assign to it the signification "sheepfold," "cote." But there is no
reason whatsoever in favour of such a meaning of Bozrah, while there is
this argument against it, that the probable signification of בצרה as
the name of a town is "_locus munitus_" = מִבְצָר or בִּצָּרוֹן. It can hardly
be supposed that the word should at the same time have had the
significations of "fortress" and "fold." It is, moreover, more in
harmony with the prophetical character to particularize, than to use a
general term. As is shown, however, by the last member (with which,
according to the accents, the words, "As [Pg 438] a flock on their
pasture," must be connected), the point of comparison is not the
assembling and gathering, but the multitude, the crowd,--"As the sheep
of Bozrah" being thus tantamount to, "So that in multitude they are
like the sheep of Bozrah." הַדָּבְרוֹ, from דֹּבֶר, is, contrary to the
general rule, doubly qualified, both by the article and by the suffix.
This has been accounted for on the ground that the little suffix had
gradually lost its power. But it is perhaps more natural to suppose
that the article sometimes lost its power, and coalesced with the noun.
The frequent use of the _Status emphaticus_ in undefined nouns, in the
Syriac language (compare _Hofmann_, _Gram. Syr._, p. 290), presents an
analogy in favour of this opinion.--The last words graphically describe
the noise produced by a numerous, closely compacted flock. The plur. of
the Fem. refers to the sheep.--מן denotes the _causa efficiens_. They
make a noise; and this noise proceeds from the numerous assembled
people. The same connection of figure and thing occurs in Ezek. xxxiv.
31: "And ye (ואתן) are My flock, the flock of My pasture are ye men;"
compare Ezek. xxxvi. 38.
Ver. 13. The whole verse must be explained by the figure of a prison,
which lies at the foundation. The people of God are shut up in it, but
are now delivered by God's powerful hand. By the "breaker," many
interpreters understand the Lord Himself. But if we consider, that in a
double clause, at the end of the verse, the Lord is mentioned as the
leader of the expedition if we look to the type of the deliverance from
Egypt, where Moses, as the breaker, marches in front of Israel; and if,
further, we look to the parallel passage in Hosea, where, with an
evident allusion to that type, the children of Israel and of Judah
appoint themselves one head; we shall rather be disposed to understand
by the "breaker" the _dux et antesignanus_ raised up by God. With the
raising up and equipping of such a leader every divine deliverance
commences; and that which, in the inferior deliverance, the typical
leaders, Moses and Zerubbabel, were, Christ was in the highest and last
deliverance. To Him the "breaker" has been referred by several Jewish
interpreters (compare _Schöttgen_, _Horæ_ ii. p. 212); and if we
compare chap. v., where that which is here indicated by general
outlines only is further expanded and detailed, we shall have to urge
against this interpretation this objection only, viz., that it excludes
the [Pg 439] typical breakers,--that, in the place of the _ideal_
person of the breaker, which presents itself to the internal vision of
the prophet, it puts the individual in whom this idea is most fully
realized.--The words ויעברו שער are, by several interpreters, referred
to the forcing and entering of hostile gates. Thus _Michaelis_, whom
_Rosenmüller_ follows: "No gate shall be so fortified as to prevent
them from forcing it." But this interpretation destroys the whole
figure, and violates the type of the deliverance from Egypt which lies
at the foundation. For the gate through which they break is certainly
the gate of the prison.--The three verbs--"They break through, they
pass through, they go out"--graphically describe their progress, which
is not to be stopped by any human power.--The last words open up the
view to the highest leader of the expedition; compare besides, Exod.
xiii. 21; Is. lii. 12: "For ye shall not go out in trembling, nor shall
ye go out by flight. For the Lord goeth before you, and the God of
Israel closeth your rear;" Is. xl. 11; Ps. lxxx. 3. In the exodus from
Egypt, a visible symbol of the presence of God marched before the host,
besides Moses, the breaker. On the return from Babylon, the Angel of
the Lord was visible to the eye of faith only, as formerly when
Abraham's servant journeyed to Mesopotamia, Gen. xxiv. 7. At the last
and highest deliverance, the breaker was at once the King and God of
the people.
As this prophecy has no limitation at all in itself, we are fully
entitled to refer it to the whole sum of the deliverances and salvation
which are destined for the Covenant-people; and to seek for its
fulfilment in every event, either past or future, in the same degree as
the fundamental idea--God's mercy upon His people--is manifested in it.
Every limitation to any particular event is evidently inadmissible;
but, most of all, a limitation to the deliverance from the Babylonish
captivity, which, especially with regard to Israel, can be considered
as only a faint prelude of the fulfilment. They, however, have
come nearest to the truth who assume an exclusive reference to
Christ,--provided they acknowledge, that the conversion of the first
fruits of Israel, at the time when Christ appeared in His humiliation,
is not the end of His dealings with this people.
Footnote 1: The reference to the general judgment would indeed
disappear, if we suppose בכם in ver. 2 to be addressed to _Israel_. It
seems, indeed, to be in favour of this supposition, that, in 1 Kings
xxii. 28, the people alone are called upon as witnesses, and that in
Deut. xxxi. 28, xxxii. 1, and Is. i. 2, heaven and earth, and in Hos.
vi. 1, the mountains also, are called upon only in order to make the
scene more solemn. But the reference of בכם to the nations mentioned
immediately before, is too evident.
Footnote 2: Ver. 6 must be translated thus: _Not shall ye drop_
(prophesy),--_they_ (the false prophets) _drop; if they_ (the
individuals addressed, the true prophets) _do not drop to these_ (the
rapacious great), _the ignominy will not cease_, _i.e._, the
ignominious destruction breaks in irresistibly. The fundamental passage
in Deut. xxxii. 2, and ver. 11 of the chapter before us, show that הטיף
has not the signification, "to talk," which is assigned to it by
_Caspari_. The false prophets must be considered as the accomplices of
the corrupted great, especially as to the bulwark which they opposed to
the true prophets, and their influence on the nation, and on their own
consciences,--as indeed material power everywhere seeks for such a
spiritual ally. If this be kept in view, the censure and threatening
acquire a still greater unity.
Footnote 3: To a certain extent, however, verse 11 forms the
transition: "If one were to come, a wind, and lie falsely: I will
prophesy to thee of wine and of strong drink,--he would be the prophet
of this people." Such a prophet Micah, indeed, is not; but although he
neither can nor dare announce salvation _without_ judgment, he has, in
the name of the Lord, to announce salvation _after_ the judgment. The
very singular opinion, that in vers. 12, 13, the false prophets are
introduced as speaking, is refuted by the single circumstance that, in
ver. 12, the gathering of the _remnant_ of Israel only is promised, and
hence the judgment is supposed to have preceded. It is no less
erroneous if, instead of considering ver. 11 as introductory to vers.
12, 13, the latter be made to depend upon ver. 11, and be therefore
considered as, to a certain extent, accidental.
Footnote 4: After the example of _v. Raumer_, _Robinson_, _Ritter_
(_Erdk._ 14, 101), it has now become customary to distinguish between
two Bozrahs,--one in Auranitis, and the other in Edom. But the
arguments adduced for this distinction are not of very great weight.
Nowhere is a "high situation" in reality ascribed to the Bozrah in
Edom. The assertion, that Edom was always limited to the territory
between the Dead Sea and the Red Sea, is opposed to Gen. xxxvi. 35,
according to which passage, even in the time before Moses, the Edomitic
king, Hadad, smote Midian in the field of Moab; and further, to Lam.
iv. 21, according to which Edom dwells in the land of Uz, which can be
sought for only in _Arabia Deserta_. We need to think only of that
branch of the Midianites who had gone over to _Arabia Deserta_, whilst
their chief settlement continued in _Arabia Petræa_. But the following
arguments may be adduced _against_ the distinction. 1. Bozrah is
constantly and simply spoken of, without any further distinctive
designation. 2. The Edomitic Bozrah must have been a great and powerful
city, which agrees well with the "mighty ruins" in _Hauran_, but not
with the much more insignificant ruins near _Busseireh_ in _Dshebal_.
3. It is improbable that so important a city as that of Bozrah in
Auranitis should never have been mentioned in Scripture.--But not
satisfied with a double Bozrah, even a third, in Moab, has been assumed
on the ground of Jer. xlviii. 24. But it is certainly strange that
Bozrah, in that passage, is mentioned as the last of all the Moabitish
towns, and that, immediately after its mention, there follow the words,
"Upon all the cities of the land of Moab, far and near." It may be that
Bozrah was conquered by the Edomites and Moabites in common, or that,
in later times, the latter obtained a kind of possession of the town in
common with the former.
[Pg 440]