The discourse opens with new reproofs and threatenings. It is _first_,
in vers. 1-4, directed against the rapacious great, who in ver. 2 are
described as murderers of men (compare Sirach xxxi. 21: "He who taketh
from his neighbour his livelihood, _killeth_ him"), and in ver. 3, as
eaters of men, because they turn to their own advantage the necessaries
of life of which they have robbed the poor. The discourse _then_ passes
over to the false prophets, vers. 5-7. Their character is described as
hypocritical, weak, and selfish, and is incidentally contrasted with
the character of the true prophet, as represented by himself, whose
strength is always renewed by the Spirit of the Lord, and who, in this
strength, serves only truth and righteousness, and holds up their sins
to the people deluded by the false prophets, ver. 8. This the
prophet continues to do in vers. 9-12. The three orders of divinely
called rulers, upon whom the life or death of the Congregation was
depending,--the princes, the priests, and the prophets (compare remarks
on Zech. x. 1),--have become so degenerate, that they are not at all
concerned for the glory of God, but only for their own interest. And
while they have thus inwardly apostatized from Jehovah, they are
strengthened in their false security by the promises which God has
given to His people, and which they, altogether overlooking the fact
that these are conditional, referred, in hypocritical blindness, to
themselves. But God will, in a fearful manner, punish them for this
apostasy, and frighten them from their security. The Congregation of
the Lord, which has been desecrated inwardly, shall be so outwardly
also. Zion shall become a corn-field; Jerusalem, the city of God, shall
sink into rubbish and ruins; the Temple-hill shall again become what it
was previous to its being the residence of God, viz., a thickly wooded
hill, which shall then appear in all its natural lowness, and be
considered as insignificant when compared with the neighbouring
mountains.--In the whole section, the twelve verses of which are
equally divided into three portions of four verses each, the prophet
views chiefly the great, and the civil rulers. The false prophets, whom
he takes up in the second of these subdivisions (vers. 5-8), come under
consideration as their helpers only. In the third subdivision, [Pg 441]
the discourse is again directed to the great alone, in vers. 9, 10. The
two other orders are added to them in vers. 11, 12 only; and the
charges raised against them refer to their relation to the great. The
_priests_ are not by any means reproved because they made teaching a
profession, from which they derived their livelihood, but because, for
bribes, they interpreted the law in a manner favourable to the
rapacious lusts of the great, and thereby, no less than the false
prophets, assisted them in their wickedness.--The charge raised in ver.
10 against the great,--"Building up Zion with blood, and Jerusalem with
iniquity,"--has been frequently misunderstood. The words must not be
explained from Hab. ii. 12, but from Ps. li. 20, where David prays to
the Lord, "Build Thou the walls of Jerusalem," which he had destroyed
by his blood, ver. 16. The word "building" is used ironically by Micah,
and is tantamount to: "Ye who are destroying Jerusalem by blood and
iniquity (compare ver. 12: 'For your sakes Zion shall be ploughed as a
field'), instead of building it up by righteousness." Righteousness
builds up, because it draws down God's blessing and protection; but
unrighteousness destroys, because it calls down the curse of God.
The unfaithfulness of the Covenant-people can nevertheless not make
void the faithfulness of God. The prophet, therefore, passes suddenly
from threatening to promise. _Calvin_ thus expresses the relation of
these two: "But I must now come to the little remnant. Hitherto I have
spoken about the judgment of God, which is near at hand, upon the
king's councillors, upon the priests and prophets, upon the whole
people in short, because they are all wicked and ungodly, because the
whole body is pervaded by contempt of God, and by desperate obstinacy.
Let them receive, then, that which they all have deserved. But I now
gather the children of God apart, for to them too I have a message to
deliver."
The intimate relation of the first part of the promise to the preceding
threatening has been already demonstrated, p. 420. The Mount of Zion,
which forms the subject of vers. 1-7, shall, in future, not only be
restored to its former dignity, but it shall be exalted above all the
mountains of the earth. The kingdom of God, which is represented by it,
shall, by the glory imparted to it by a new revelation of the Lord
(compare ver. 7: "And [Pg 442] the Lord shall be King over them on
Mount Zion"), outshine all the kingdoms of the world, and exercise an
attractive power upon their citizens; so that they flow to Zion, there
to receive the commands of the Lord, vers. 1, 2. By the sway which the
Lord exercises from Zion, peace shall have its dwelling in the heathen
world, ver. 3, and, consequently, the Congregation of the Lord ceases
to be a prey to injury from the world's power, ver. 4^a. How incredible
soever it may appear, this promise shall surely be fulfilled; for
omnipotent faithfulness has given it, ver. 4^b, and has given it indeed
for this very purpose; for it is altogether natural, and to be
expected, that the glory of the Lord should in all eternity display
itself in His dealings with His people, ver. 5. In vers. 6, 7, the
promise receives a new impetus, by which it connects itself with ver.
4^a. In that time of mercy, the Lord will put an end to all the misery
of His people.
Ver. 1. "_And it shall come to pass at the end of the days, that the
mountain of the house of the Lord shall be firmly established on the
top of the mountains, and exalted above the hills, and people flow unto
it._"
The words, "And it shall come to pass," excite the attention to the
great and unexpected turn which things are to take. The expression,
באחרית הימים, is explained by many as meaning: "In times to come,"
"in future." But we have already proved, in our work on _Balaam_, p.
465 seq., that the right explanation is: "At the end of the days."
This is the explanation given by the LXX. also, who commonly render it
by ἐν ταῖς ἐσχάταισ ἡμέραις; and by the Chaldee Paraphrast, who
translates it by בסוף יומיא. The reasons which seem, at first sight, to
favour the signification "in future," are invalidated by these two
considerations:--_first_, that it is not at all necessary that the end
be just absolutely the last, but only the end of those events which the
speaker is reviewing; and, _second_, that it altogether depends upon
the will of the speaker, what extent he is to assign to the beginning
and to the end. The expression is used by the prophets in a manner
different from that of the Pentateuch. The prophets use it almost
exclusively with a reference to the Messianic times,--an _usus
loquendi_ which originated in Deut. iv. 30. They divide the whole
duration of the kingdom of God into two parts, the beginning and the
end,--the state of humiliation, and [Pg 443] the state of
glorification. The line of demarcation is formed by the birth of the
Messiah, according to v. 2 (3): "He will give them up until she who is
bearing brings forth."--"The mountain of the house of the Lord" is,
according to the common _usus loquendi_, not Moriah, but the whole
mountain of Zion, of which Moriah was considered as a part; compare Ps.
lxxvi. 3, lxxviii. 68. In ver. 8, the prophet speaks of two parts only,
Zion and Jerusalem. In iii. 12, Zion only, as the better part, is first
spoken of; and then, in the second clause, Jerusalem and the mountain
of the house, the latter corresponding to Zion, are contrasted with
each other, or Jerusalem and Mount Zion considered in its highest
quality as the temple-mountain.--נכון, "fixed," "firmly established,"
implies more than, simply, "placed." It shows that the change is not
merely momentary, but that the temple-mountain shall be exalted for
ever, and that no earthly power shall be able to abase it. It thus goes
hand in hand with the declaration in ver. 7: "The Lord shall be king
over them from now _until eternity_." The same word נכון is used in 1
Kings ii. 45 of the immutable firmness of the throne of David: "The
throne of David shall be firmly established before the Lord for ever;"
compare 2 Sam. vii. 12, 13. The commentary on נכון is given by Dan. ii.
44: "And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a
kingdom which shall not be destroyed in all eternity ... it shall break
in pieces and destroy all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever."
That בראש ההרים does not mean, "at the head of the mountains," _i.e._,
standing at the head, as the first among them (as _Hitzig_ and others
think), but "on the summit of the mountains" (the ב is used in a
similar manner in Judg. ix. 7, compared with 1 Sam. xxvi, 13), is
evident from the fact that בראש, in connection with הר, is constantly
used of the summit of the mountains, and, hence, cannot be used in a
figurative sense, in this connection. The sense can therefore be this
only: "Zion, in future, so pre-eminently stands out from among
the other mountains, that these serve, as it were, only for its
foundation." Now, the elevation of the temple-mountain is considered,
by several interpreters, as a _physical_ one. Passages from Jewish
commentaries, in which the expectation is expressed that, in the days
of the Messiah, Jehovah would bring near Mount Carmel and Tabor, and
place Jerusalem on [Pg 444] the summit of them, will be found in
_Galatinus_, _de Arcanis Catholicæ Veritatis_, L. v. c. 3. The literal
explanation has, in recent times, been defended by _Hofmann_ and
_Drechsler_. But _Caspari_, by pointing out the exact correspondence
between the words, "The mountain of the house of the Lord shall be
firmly established on the top of the mountains," and the words in ver.
2, "The law shall go forth of Zion, and the word of the Lord from
Jerusalem," has proved in a very striking manner that the elevation is
a moral one. "As 1^b corresponds to 2^a, so does 1^a to 2^b; ver. 1^a
is the ground of ver. 1^b; ver. 2^a, by which ver. 1^b is further
expanded, is the consequence of 2^b. Hence 2^b must be substantially
identical with ver. 1^a; but 2^b speaks of something that points to the
moral height of Mount Zion, and states something upon which it is
based." To this it may be added, that height, in a moral sense,
is often ascribed to the temple-mountain, even with reference to the
ante-Messianic time, and that the passage under consideration could be
disjoined from these by force only. It is upon such a view of it,
indeed, that the use of עלה in reference to the journeys to Jerusalem
rests, just as it is here used in ver. 2. We may, moreover, compare Ps.
xlviii. 3; Ezek. xvii. 22, 33: "And I plant upon a mountain high and
elevated. On the high mountains of Israel I will plant it;" but
especially Ps. lxviii. 16: "Mountain of God is the mountain of Bashan,
the top of mountains is the mountain of Bashan." Ver. 17. "Why do ye
tops of mountains insidiously observe the mountain which God desireth
for His residence? Yea, the Lord will dwell in it for ever." The
mountain of God is, in these verses, an emblem of the kingdoms of the
world, which are powerful through God's grace. In ver. 16, the Psalmist
declares what the mountain of Bashan is. In ver. 17, he rejects the
unfounded claims which it raises on account of its real advantages.
Although it be great, yet Mount Zion is infinitely greater, and vain
are all its efforts to overturn this relation. This passage, then,
leads to another argument against the literal interpretation. We find
in it the kingdoms represented under the figure of mountains,[1]--a
mode of representation which is of very frequent occurrence in
Scripture; compare my Commentary on [Pg 445] Ps. lxv. 7, lxxvi. 5; Rev.
viii. 8, xvii. 9. The more difficult it was to separate, according to
the Israelitish conception, _mountain_ and _kingdom_, the more natural
it was to find, in the passage before us, expression given to the
thought, that the kingdom of God would, in future, be exalted above all
the kingdoms of the world. If we take into account the common practice
of employing "mountain" in a figurative sense, it is natural to suppose
that not the exaltation alone is to be understood figuratively, but
that the mountain itself also is to be regarded chiefly in its
symbolical signification,--as the symbol of the kingdom of God in
Israel; although, in this aspect, we should expect, at least in the
beginning of the relation, that the thing itself should still be
connected with the symbol; afterwards they may be disjoined without any
hesitation. The deep grief which must, of necessity, have been called
forth by the announcement in iii. 12, did not regard the mountain as
such. It had, for its real object, the condition of the kingdom of God
which was prefigured by the condition of the mountain; and it is just
this to which the consolation has respect.--But by what means is the
exaltation of the temple-mountain to be effected? _Cocceius_ has
already directed attention to the circumstance, that it must not be
supposed to consist in the flowing of the people unto it; for that is
not the _cause_, but the _effect_. We find the correct answer in ver.
2: "The law goeth forth of Zion, and the word of the Lord from
Jerusalem;" and in ver. 7: "And the Lord will be king over them on
Mount Zion." The exaltation will, accordingly, be effected by a
glorious manifestation of the Lord within His congregation; in
consequence of which, Zion becomes the centre of the whole earth. That
this manifestation is to take place in Christ, is brought out only
subsequently; compare especially, v. 1, 3 (2-4). A parallel passage is
also Ezek. xl. 2, where Mount Zion is likewise seen exalted in the
Messianic time.
Ver. 2. "_And many nations go and say, Come and let us go up to the
mountain of the Lord, and to the house of the God of Jacob, that He may
teach us His ways, and that we may walk in His path; for from Zion the
law shall go forth, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem._"
From the words, "And many nations go," to "paths," we have an expansion
of--"People flow unto it." Zech. viii. 20-23 are founded upon, and
serve as a commentary on the passage before [Pg 446] us. The people go
to one another, and send messengers to one another; a powerful
commotion pervades the heathen world, which causes them to seek Zion,
that had formerly been despised by them. It makes no substantial
difference whether the going is to be understood physically or
spiritually,--whether the people flow to the literal Mount Zion, or to
the Church, which is thereby prefigured. All that is requisite is, that
the commencement of their going and flowing must belong to a time in
which the symbol and the thing symbolized were still connected,--when
the literal Zion was still the seat of the Church. The _plurality_
of nations forms a contrast with the _unity_, but not with the
_universality_, as is shown by a comparison of the parallel passage in
Isaiah, where the "many people" are preceded by the mention of "all the
heathens (כל־הגוים, _i.e._, the whole heathen world) flow unto it,"
instead of--"People flow unto it," as in Micah. Formerly, _one_ people
only went to Zion, in order there to offer to the Lord their worship,
and to be taught His ways, Exod. xxiii. 17, xxxiv. 23; Deut. xxxi. 10
sqq.; now, many people flow thither. In the anticipation of this future
glory of Mount Zion, which will infinitely outshine that of the
present, the sad interval described in iii. 12, during which the
mountain of the house is altogether forsaken, may be more easily borne.
The connection of הורה with מן, which is rather uncommon, may be most
simply explained by viewing the instruction as proceeding from its
object. "The ways of the Lord" are the ways in which He would have men
to walk,--that mode of life which is well-pleasing to Him. The contrast
of it is walking in one's own ways. Is. liii. 6,--regulating of one's
life according to the desires of one's own corrupt heart.--The last
words, "For from Zion, etc.," are not to be conceived of as spoken by
the people, stirring up and encouraging one another, but by the
prophet. They state the reason why the people are so anxious to go to
Zion; and this accounts also for the circumstance that Zion is so
emphatically placed at the beginning. Zion shall, at that time, be the
residence of the true God, and proved to be such by glorious
revelations; and from it His commands go forth over the whole earth.
יצא, "to go out," stands here, as in ver. 1, in the sense of "to go
forth." As the sphere for the going forth of the law from Zion is not
limited, it must be considered in as wide an extent as possible; in
harmony with the preceding words, [Pg 447] according to which we must
think of "people," "many nations," as being comprehended within this
sphere.--We must not overlook the fact that the article is awanting
before תורה, and that the law is not more strictly defined as the law
of God. It is intended, in the first place, only to indicate that
despised and desolate Zion is to be the seat of legislation for the
whole earth. The law itself is then more strictly defined as the word
of God. Many interpreters understand תורה here as meaning religion in
general;[2] the going forth is explained by them of its spreading
itself. From Zion, true religion is to extend over all the nations; and
hence it is that to Zion the eyes of all of them are directed. Thus,
_e.g._, _Theodoret_, who remarks: "This is the preaching of the Gospel,
which began at Jerusalem, and from thence, as from its source, flowed
over all the earth, offering drink to those who came to it in faith."
But תורה never signifies "doctrine," "religion," any more than does
משפט: it is always used as meaning "law;" and this sense of it can with
the less propriety be departed from here, as the people, according to
what precedes, flow to Zion not in order to seek religion in general,
but laws for their conduct in life. But even if we were to follow
_Caspari_, and to modify the explanation thus, "The law, which was
formerly confined to Zion, and hence to a narrow circle, shall go forth
from thence into the wide world,"--weighty objections to it would still
remain. If "to go forth" were to be understood as meaning "to spread,"
the sphere of the going forth would have been more closely determined;
as, _e.g._, in Is. xlii. 1: "He shall bring forth judgment _to
the Gentiles_." In Is. li. 4, "Law shall _go out_ from Me, and My
judgment I will make for a light of the people," _to go out_ is
tantamount to, _to go forth_. "Mine arms shall judge the people," in
li. 5, is parallel to it. יצא in itself does not mean "to go forth."
_Further_--The circumstance that the law spreads from Zion, does not
account sufficiently for the zeal with which the nations flow to Zion.
If it _goes out_, there is then no need for their seeking for it at its
home. In Zech. viii. 20-23, also, the thronging of the people to Zion,
in order to enter there into a closer relation to the Lord, forms the
subject of discourse. Zion, as the place where the Lord of [Pg 448] the
whole earth issues His orders, as if from His residence (Is. xi. 10),
forms an appropriate contrast to "Zion shall be ploughed as a
field,"--a suitable parallel to the exaltation of the temple-mountain
above all the mountains of the earth, to which the prophet here
returns, after having, in the first part of the verse, expanded the
thought: "People flow unto it;" and to vers. 7, 8 also, where Zion
appears likewise as the seat of dominion.
Ver. 3. "_And He judges among many people, and rebukes strong nations,
even unto a distance. And they heat their swords into ploughshares, and
their spears into pruning-knives; nation shall not lift up a sword,
against nation, neither shall they learn war any more._"
It appears strange to us that here we see ourselves transferred all at
once to the sphere of the general description of the Messianic time;
for, according to the whole context, and to the contrast with chap.
iii., we expect such predictions as will serve especially for the
consolation of the daughter of Zion, whose heart had been pierced by
the announcement that the mountain of the house should become a wooded
hill, and that she herself should be given into the power of the
Gentiles. But this difficulty is removed by remarking that this verse
only prepares the way for ver. 4, where there is a representation of
the advantage which accrues to the daughter of Zion from the spirit of
peace, which, through the powerful influence of Zion's God, has become
prevalent in the heathen world. It is from failing to perceive the
connection of the two verses, that the remark of _Hitzig_ has arisen:
"It is very probable that Micah, if he had been the (original) author,
would rather have mentioned the change and restoration of Jerusalem,
than the change of the arms."--The subject is the Lord. That it was
through _Christ_, who as early as in the Song of Solomon appears as the
true Solomon, that the Lord would carry out what is here announced, the
prophet could, according to his plan, detail only afterwards. In chap.
iv. 1-7, he describes how Zion is glorified by what the Lord does from
thence; in ver. 8, by the restoration of the dominion of the Davidic
race; and in v. 1 ff., by the appearance of the Messiah. It is
especially from v. 3 (4), according to which the Messiah stands and
feeds in the strength of the Lord, in the majesty of the name of the
Lord His God,--and from v. 4 (5), according [Pg 449] to which He is the
Peace, that we infer with certainty that the judging also shall be done
by His mediation. In Isaiah we meet the person of the Messiah in the
prophecy of chap. iv., which, along with that in chap. ii., belongs to
one discourse, and supplements it. The judging and rebuking (הוכיח with
ל, "to rebuke," "to reprove") refer to the strifes among the nations
which hitherto could not be allayed, because there was wanting the
counterpoise to selfishness which was productive of wrong. But such a
counterpoise is now given in the word of God, which, carried home by
His Spirit, penetrates deeply into the heart.--"_Strong_ nations," who
were hitherto most ready to seize the sword. The words, "And they
beat," etc., refer to Joel iv. (iii.) 10, where the heathen beat their
ploughshares into swords, their pruning-knives into spears; and they do
so to the prejudice of the people of God, which the prophet, although
apparently he speaks in general terms, has specially in view. By this
allusion Micah indicates that, with reference to the disposition of the
heathen world, Joel has spoken a word, true, indeed, but giving
only a partial view. The words of _Justinus_ in the _Dialogus cum
Tryphone_--For, having learned the fear and worship of God from the Law
and Gospel which came to us through the Apostles from Jerusalem, we
have fled for refuge to the God of Jacob, and the God of Israel; and
we, who formerly were filled with war and murder, and every wickedness,
have put away the instruments of war from the whole earth, and have,
every one of us, changed the swords into ploughshares, and the spears
into agricultural implements, and cultivate the fear of God, justice,
brotherly love, faith, hope," etc.,--show that, even soon after the
appearance of Christ, it was held that the fulfilment of this prophecy
had commenced. But it was acknowledged by the prophet also, that even
after the appearance of the salvation, this description would, in the
meantime, give only a partial exhibition of the truth; inasmuch as not
every one will submit to the judging activity of the Lord, how powerful
soever may be the effect of the new principle which entered into the
life of the nations; for in v. 4, 5 (5, 6) he speaks of the nations
which, in the Messianic time, attack the people of God; in ver. 8 (9),
of their adversaries and enemies; and in ver. 14 (15), of such as do
not hear. But the [Pg 450] imperfect fulfilment is a pledge and
guarantee for that which is perfect, as it will take place when, by the
last judgment, they have been removed who have obstinately preserved
within themselves the spirit of strife and hatred. According to the
predictions of the prophets--compare especially Is. xi. 6, 7--peace
shall, at some future period, be extended even to the irrational
creation, and the strife which has come upon earth by the fall, shall
entirely cease from it.
Ver. 4. "_And they sit every man under his vine, and under his
fig-tree, and none maketh them afraid; for the mouth of the Lord of
hosts hath spoken it._"
This verse contains a description of the happy consequences which the
peaceful influence which goes forth from the Lord to the heathen world,
shall have upon Israel. For Israel is the subject in ישבו, and the
verse does not at all pretend to give a description of "a Solomonic
time for all the nations." This is shown by what is stated, in the
following verse, as to the ground of this happy change, as well as by a
comparison of the fundamental passages. Lev. xxvi. 6: "And I give peace
in the land, and ye lie down, and none maketh you afraid;" and 1 Kings
v. 5 (iv. 25): "And Judah and Israel dwelt safely every man under his
vine and fig-tree, from Dan to Beersheba, all the days of Solomon;" and
of the parallel passages, Micah v. 4 (5); Zech. iii. 10. It is
_further_ shown by the connection with what precedes, where great
calamity, and the devastation of their whole country had been predicted
to Israel,--and by the mention of the vine and fig-tree, which are
characteristic of the land of Israel. The words, "For the mouth of the
Lord," etc., point out the pledge, which the person of Him who promises
affords for the fulfilment of the promise, which appears incredible.
Ver. 5. "_For all the nations shall walk, every one in the name of
their God; and we will walk in the name of the Lord our God for ever
and ever._"
The causal particle כי states the ground of the fact that the Lord of
hosts has spoken this, and given the promise of the final safety of
Israel, and of his enjoying peace after the strife, in consequence of
God's exercising dominion from Zion over the whole heathen world; while
this peace after the strife is then more fully described in vers. 6, 7.
The lot of every people corresponds to the nature of their God. And
now, how [Pg 451] could it be otherwise, than that all other nations
should be humbled, because their gods are idols, while Israel, on the
other hand, is exalted and endowed with everlasting salvation and
prosperity, because his God is the only true God? Is. xlv. 16, 17 is
parallel: "They shall be ashamed, and also confounded, all of them;
they shall go to confusion, the makers of idols. Israel is saved by the
Lord, with an everlasting salvation; ye shall not be ashamed nor
confounded in all eternity."--"The name of the Lord" is the complex
whole of His excellency which is revealed, and proved by deeds; compare
Prov. xviii. 10: "The name of the Lord is a strong tower; the righteous
runneth into it and is exalted." Inasmuch as the name of the Lord is to
manifest itself in His dealings with His people, it represents itself
as the way in which they are to walk: the prayer of the Psalmist in Ps.
xxv. 5, that the Lord would lead him in His _truth_, forms a parallel
to this; and so does also what he says in ver. 9 of the same Psalm,
that "He guides the meek in _judgment_." But exactly corresponding is
Zech. x. 12: "And I strengthen them in the Lord, and _in His name shall
they walk_" = in the path of His name, so that the latter manifests
itself in His dealings with them; compare the remarks on that passage.
In favour of our exposition, moreover, is the comparison of the passage
Is. ii. 5, the evidently requisite harmony of which with the passage
under consideration is obtained, only if the latter be understood as we
have explained it. The _light_, _i.e._, the salvation of the Lord
spoken of there, corresponds with the name of the Lord in the passage
under review. Several interpreters explain: "They may walk, they may
worship their gods. Although all nations should be idolaters, yet we,
inhabitants of Judah, shall faithfully worship Jehovah." Against this
explanation _Caspari_ remarks, "An exhortation, or a resolution which
implies an exhortation, is here not easily justified, because it would
stand in the midst of promises." Moreover, the כי cannot be explained
according to this interpretation, as appears with sufficient clearness
from the remark of _Justi_: "This verse does not seem to be so closely
connected with the preceding one." The connection is more firmly
established by the explanation of _Tarnovius_, _Michaelis_, and others:
"Surely so brilliant a lot must fall to us; for we are faithful
worshippers of the true God, while all other nations walk after their
idols." [Pg 452] But the objections to tins explanation are: (1) the
circumstance that it is rather unusual to found the salvation of the
people upon their Covenant-faithfulness (of which, from the preceding
reproof, we cannot entertain very high notions), instead of founding it
upon God's grace and faithfulness, compare vii. 18-20;[3] (2) the
repeated use of the Future, while, according to it, we should have
expected the Preterite, at least in the first member; and (3), and most
decisive of all, the expression, "For ever and ever;" compare the
expression, "From henceforth, even for ever," in ver. 7.
Ver. 6. "_In that day, saith the Lord, I will assemble that which
halteth, and that which hath been driven out I will gather, and that
which I have afflicted._ Ver. 7. _And I make that which is halting a
remnant, and that which is far off a strong nation, and the Lord
reigneth over them in Mount Zion from henceforth, even for ever._"
The expression "in that day" does not refer to "at the end of the
days," in ver. 1, but is connected with, and resumes ver. 4^a That the
verb אסף has here the signification "to assemble," and not that "to
receive," is shown by ii. 12, and especially by Ezek. xi. 17. The word
refers to the announcement of Israel's being carried away, which was
formerly made, and with which the scattering is connected. They are
assembled for their return to the Holy Land. Such an assembling,
however, is meant, as is connected with the full enjoyment of
salvation, and in which the Congregation truly manifests itself in a
close unity, as a kingdom of priests. In the passage, Zeph. iii. 19,
which is founded upon the one under review, we find "I save" instead of
"I assemble." Of such a description, the assembling under Zerubbabel
was not; compare Nehem. ix. 36, 37. It can therefore come into notice
only as a prelude to the true assembling.--"The Fem. sing, of the
Partic.," says _Hitzig_, "must be understood collectively; and it is
not several subjects, but predicates of the same subject, viz., of the
whole of Israel, [Pg 453] which are thereby designated." The "halting,"
which is a condition of bodily helplessness and weakness, occurs also
in Ps. xxxv. 15, and xxxviii. 18, as a designation of adversity and
misery.--The expression, "to make a remnant," forms the contrast to
total annihilation. While these words show that a limit will be put to
the _diminution_, the following words predict a vast _increase_. In the
words, "In Mount Zion," the contrast with iii. 12 appears once more at
the close of the section. As regards מלך יהוה, compare Ps. xciii. 1. It
does not refer to the constant government of the Lord, but to a new and
glorious manifestation of it--as it were to a new ascension to the
throne. The expression, "From henceforth," refers to the _ideal_
present. In spirit, the prophet is in that time when the Lord is just
entering upon His government. The words, "The Lord reigneth ... for
ever," are thus beautifully illustrated by _Calvin_: "Micah does not
here mention the descendants of David, but Jehovah Himself; not as if
he wished thereby to exclude that dominion of David, but in order to
show that God would make it manifest that He was the author of that
dominion, yea, that He Himself held all the power. For, although God
governed the ancient people by the hand of David, and by the hand of
Josiah and Hezekiah, _yet there was, as it were, a shadow placed
between, so that God's government was then perceived darkly only._ The
prophet, therefore, here expresses, that there would be some difference
betwixt that shadowy government, and the future new dominion which He
was openly to set up by the advent of the Messiah. And this was truly
and solidly fulfilled in Christ's person. For although Christ was the
true seed of David, yet He was also, at the same time, Jehovah, viz.,
God made manifest in the flesh." With respect to this promise, however,
it must also be kept in mind that it will be finally fulfilled only in
the future, when the kingdom and throne of glory (compare Matt. xix.
28) shall be set up.
The prophet had hitherto described the kingdom which was to be
established anew, as a kingdom of God, without mentioning the channel
through which His mercy was to be poured out upon the Congregation--the
mediator who was to represent Him among them. His representation,
therefore, was still defective; it still wanted the connection with the
promise given to David, and so frequently celebrated by him, and by
other [Pg 454] holy Psalmists and Prophets--the promise of the eternal
dominion of David's house. According to this promise, every new, great
manifestation of grace, must be through some descendant of this family
as a mediator. This house must ever form the substratum on which the
divine power and the divine nature, in its most complete manifestation,
showed themselves. This blank is supplied in ver. 8.
"_And thou tower of the flock, hill of the daughter of Zion, unto thee
it will come; and to thee cometh the former dominion, the kingdom of
the daughter of Zion._"
In the words immediately preceding it is said: "And the Lord reigneth
over them from henceforth, even for ever." We have here, then, a
prediction of the dominion of the house of David, by whose mediation
the Lord is to reign; compare v. 3 (4), where it is said of Him in whom
the Davidic race is to centre, "And He stands, and feeds in the
strength of the Lord, in the majesty of the name of the Lord His God."
All interpreters agree that the Davidic race is designated by the
"Tower of the flock," and by "the hill of the daughter of Zion;" but,
with respect to the ground of this designation, they are very much at
variance. A great number of them (_Grotius_, and among the recent
interpreters, _Rosenmüller_, _Winer_, _Gesenius_, _De Wette_) think of
that Tower of the flock, in the neighbourhood of which Jacob, according
to Gen. xxxv. 21, took up his abode for a time. They say that,
according to _Jerome_, this Tower of the flock was situated in the
immediate neighbourhood of Bethlehem; that it is used here only by way
of a _metalepsis_ for Bethlehem, and that Bethlehem again designates
the Davidic race; so that the passage agrees altogether with v. 1 (2).
But, upon a closer examination, this interpretation appears to be
objectionable, for the following reasons. 1. It is anything but fixed
that that Tower of the flock was situated in the immediate
neighbourhood of Bethlehem. It cannot be inferred from the passage in
Genesis, and as little can it be proved from _Jerome_. In the _Quest.
ad Genes. Opp._ iii. p. 145, Frcf., he first mentions the opinion of
the Jews, according to which, by the "Tower of the flock" is to be
understood the place on which the temple was afterwards built, and then
says: "But if we follow the direction of the road, we find, by
Bethlehem, a 'place of the shepherds,' which was so called, either
because it was there [Pg 455] that, at the birth of the Lord, the
angels sang their hymn of praise; or because Jacob fed his flock there,
and gave this name to the place; or, which is more likely, because even
then the future mystery was, by a revelation, shown to him." According
to this, _Jerome_ does not know anything of a "Tower of the flock" near
Bethlehem. From the direction of the road which Jacob took, he only _
surmises_ that it was situated thereabouts; and since there was, in the
neighbourhood of Bethlehem, a place called "the place of the
shepherds," he, from a mere combination, declares this to be identical
with the Tower of the flock; while, after all, he is so cautious as not
at once to reject the only true derivation of this name from the
shepherds at the birth of Christ. By this, the other passage in the
book _de locis Hebr._ must be judged, where _Jerome_ expressly delivers
his supposition as if it were historical truth: "Bethlehem, the city of
David ... and about a thousand paces (_passus_) distant is the tower
_Ader_, which is called 'the Tower of the flock,' indicating that, by
some vision, the shepherds had, beforehand, been made conscious of the
birth of the Lord." That tradition knew but little of any "Tower of the
flock" in the neighbourhood of Bethlehem, appears also from _Eusebius
Onom._ s. v. _Gader._ p. 79, ed. _Cleric_: "The tower Gader ... While
Jacob dwelt there, Reuben went in to Bilhah." _Eusebius_ evidently knew
nothing more regarding the "Tower of the flock" than what we also may
learn from the passage in Genesis. He does not venture to offer even a
conjecture as to its position. The same ignorance is shown by the Jews,
mentioned by _Jerome_, who certainly would not have thought of a
reference to the temple, if a place called "Tower of the flock" had
existed in the neighbourhood of Bethlehem. 2. But even assuming the
existence of the Tower of the flock in the neighbourhood of Bethlehem,
is it anything else than the assumption of a pure _quid pro quo_, to
assert, without assigning any reason, that the "Tower of the flock"
stands for Bethlehem? _Rosenmüller_, at least, has felt this. He makes
the attempt to assign a reason: "In substituting, however, an unknown
hamlet in the neighbourhood of Bethlehem, for Bethlehem itself, he
intended to indicate that the dominion of David would be altogether
weakened and brought low." But this reason is certainly not by any
means sufficient; Bethlehem was, in itself, so small, that no further
[Pg 456] diminution was required; compare v. 1 (2). It had, moreover,
been always small, and had not by any means sunk down in the course of
time from former greatness. Hence, such a designation, in contrast with
its former glory, would be entirely out of place; and even supposing
that it were not, the mode of this designation would always be
inexplicable, unless we could assume a closer reference of the "Tower
of the flock" to the Davidic family. It is only by establishing such a
reference, that the whole explanation can be saved and confirmed. For
this purpose, it would be necessary to suppose that Bethlehem, and the
district belonging to it, were the general designation of the native
place of the Davidic family, while the "Tower of the flock" was the
special one. But there is not the slightest ground on which to support
this hypothesis. Everywhere, Bethlehem itself appears as the residence
of Jesse, the father of David (compare 1 Sam. xvi. 1, 18, 19, xvii.
12), and likewise of Boaz, Ruth ii. 4.
The incorrectness of another explanation is still more evident.
According to it, we are, by the "Tower of the flock," to understand
a tower which is alleged to have stood at Jerusalem, near to the
Sheep-gate. But the existence of such a tower is supported by no
evidence whatsoever, and does not become even probable by the existence
of a sheep-gate; for a Tower of the flock is not a tower which stands
near the Sheep-gate, but a tower which is erected for the protection of
the flock, as is clearly seen from _Migdal Eder_ in Genesis. But, even
supposing that such a tower existed, is there anything which could
somehow make it a suitable designation of the Davidic family?
Let us now proceed to the establishment of our own opinion, by which
the arguments advanced against the other explanations will be
considerably strengthened. Concerning the situation of Jerusalem,
_Josephus_, _de B. J._ i. 6, c. 13, remarks as follows: "It was built
on two hills fronting each other, separated by a chasm running between,
down to which the houses were situated. One of the hills, on which the
upper part of the city lay, was much higher and longer than the other.
And, because it was fortified, it was called the Citadel of King
David," etc. These two hills are Akra and Zion. The city situated upon
the latter, is, in other passages also, described by Josephus to be
very high and steep; _e.g._, vi. 40: τὴν ἄνω πόλιν περίκρημνον [Pg
457]οὖσαν. The sight afforded by the towers in this steep height is, by
him, compared with that of the beacon at Alexandria from the sea (_B.
J._ vi. c. 6: "It resembled in shape the lighthouse as seen by people
sailing up to Alexandria"). Compare the similar representation of
_Tacitus_, _Lib._ 5. _Histor._ c. 11 (_Reland_ ii. p. 848 sqq.).
On the summit of this high and steep hill, in the upper town, was
situated the royal castle, called the "upper house of the king," Neh.
iii. 25. Its situation could not fail to afford to it extraordinary
security. This is sufficiently shown by the ridicule of the Jebusites,
when David, who did not build, but only enlarged it, was about to
besiege it. They were of opinion that the lame and the blind would be
sufficient for its defence, 2 Sam. v. 7-9; compare _Faber's Archæol._
p. 191.
Far above this royal castle, which David first selected for his
residence (compare 2 Sam. v. 9: "And David dwelt in the castle and
called it the City of David, and built it round about"), a tower jutted
prominently out, and afforded a majestic sight. It is frequently
mentioned in Scripture. The principal passage is Neh. iii. 25:
"Opposite the tower which standeth out from the upper house of the king
(appositely the Vulgate: _quæ eminet de domo regis excelsa_) in the
court of the prison;" compare ver. 26, where the tower standing out,
and elevated far above the king's castle, is likewise spoken of.
Concerning the words, "In the court of the prison," we obtain some
information from Jer. xxxii. 2: "Jeremiah the prophet was shut up in
the court of the prison, בחצר המטרה, which is in the house of the king
of Judah;" compare Jer. xxxviii. 6, according to which the pit into
which the prophet was let down, was in the court of the prison.
According to these passages, the court of the prison formed, agreeably
to the customs of the East, part of the royal castle on Zion; and it
was in this court that the tower rose. The other principal passage is
in the Song of Solomon iv. 4: "Thy neck is like the tower of David
built for arms; a thousand bucklers are hanging on it, all arms of
heroes." According to this passage, the majestic appearance which the
tower afforded was still further increased by the glittering arms which
covered it. _Döpke_ and others think of the armour of conquered heroes;
but that we must rather think of the armour of David's own heroes,
appears from Ezek. xxvii. 10, 11, where it is said of [Pg 458] the
hired troops of the Tyrians, "Shield and helmet they hanged up in
thee," and is confirmed by the constant designation of David's faithful
ones, as _his heroes_; compare Song of Sol. iii. 7: "Threescore heroes
stand around the bed of the king, of the heroes of Israel;" and 1
Chron. xii. 1: "These were among the heroes, helpers in the war." The
expression in the Song of Solomon iv. 4, "All shields of the heroes,"
indicates that the armour of all those who were received into the
number of the heroes, was hung up on that tower, as an outward sign of
this reception, as a kind of diploma of it. The circumstance that this
tower, which is certainly quite identical with the tower mentioned by
Nehemiah, is called the tower of David, refutes the supposition of
_Clericus_, on Nehemiah, _l.c._, according to which, it is not the
castle of David or Zion which is spoken of in that passage, but another
castle and its tower in the lower town, supposed to have been built by
Solomon. This hypothesis is refuted, moreover, by that passage itself,
inasmuch as the castle is there designated as the upper, or high one.
Now, it is this tower which Micah considers as the symbol of the
Davidic house; and in so doing, he follows the example of the Song of
Solomon, where it is the symbol of the lofty elevation of Israel, the
centre and life-blood of which was the Davidic family. It scarcely
needs any lengthened demonstration to show how well suited it was for
this signification, how very naturally it represented the thing
signified. It was indeed the most elevated part of the castle, the
main-mast, as it were, of the ship, which, since the elevation of the
Davidic family to the royal dignity, had been for centuries, and was
still to be, the seat of the Davidic race. Its height was a symbol of
the royal dignity and authority. Its relation to the whole of the rest
of the city, which it overlooked and commanded, and which looked up to
it with astonishment, symbolized the relation of the subjects to their
king.
Micah calls this tower the "Tower of the flock." The main reason for
this appellation must be sought in what immediately precedes, in vers.
6 and 7. As in chap. ii. 12, 13, so here also, Micah represented the
Covenant-people under the figure of a flock that was to be gathered
from its dispersion and estrangement, and protected against every
hostile attack. Could anything then be more natural than that,
continuing the image [Pg 459] which he had begun, he should call the
tower, which, to him, symbolized the family by whom, under the guidance
of the Lord, that gathering should be accomplished, the "Tower of the
flock?"[4] It is just this close connection with what precedes which
furnishes an important proof for the correctness of our explanation,
for which the way was prepared by all those expositors who, like
_Jerome_, _Theodoret_, _Cyril_, _Cocceius_, and _Paulus_ (_über die
Evang._ i. p. 189), understand מגדל עדר as an appellative, and regard,
as the ground of the appellation, the protection and the refuge. In the
East, they look out from the towers of the flock, whether beasts of
prey or hostile bands be approaching. It is into these that the flocks
are driven, in those regions where there are no towns and villages, as
soon as danger appears; compare the proofs in _Faber_, l.c., p. 192 ff.
There was so much the stronger reason for Micah's choosing this
figurative mode of representation, as he had the type immediately
before his eyes. According to 2 Chron. xxvi. 10, xxvii. 4, Uzziah and
Jotham erected, in the woods and pasture grounds, castles and towers
for the protection and refuge of the flocks. But, besides this main
reason, there seems to have existed a secondary one for choosing this
appellation. They who adhere so firmly to the "Tower of the flock,"
mentioned in Genesis, are not altogether wrong. Except in that passage,
מגדל עדר nowhere occurs in precisely the same manner as it stands here.
If, then, we consider that, besides this reference, there occur in
Micah other plain references to the Pentateuch (and very numerous they
are, compared with the extent of his prophecies; compare, _e.g._, ii.
12, 13. [vide supra], vi. 4, 5, vii. 14, where the words שכני לבדד
receive light from Num. xxiii. 9 only[5]); and still more, if we
consider that, in v. 1 (2), the appellation Bethlehem Ephratah is
likewise taken from Gen. xxxv. 19, and that it is in ver. 21 of the
same chapter that the "Tower of the flock" is mentioned,--we shall
certainly not be guilty of trifling, if we assert that there is a
suspicion of error and unsoundness against all those interpretations
which cannot connect the "Tower of the flock" [Pg 460] in Micah with
that which is spoken of in Genesis. But the explanation which we have
given is not liable to this charge. For why should not Jacob, and the
tower which he built for the protection of his literal flocks, serve
the prophet as a type and substratum for the relation of a spiritual
Shepherd? We must not overlook the truth, that the main and secondary
reasons which we have adduced, do not stand beside each other, but run
into each other,--are related to each other as the general and
particular. For the reason why the prophet had specially in view the
"Tower of the flock" which had been built by Jacob was certainly this
only: that it partook of the nature of all such towers of the flocks.
The _tertium comparationis_ is not thereby changed; the figure is only
more individualized, and, therefore, more striking and impressive. A
reference to the pastoral life of the Patriarchs is certainly one of
the reasons of the frequent use of images taken from pastoral life. In
a different way, _Hitzig_ endeavours to come to the same result. He
supposes that the "Tower of the flock" mentioned in Genesis was not
situated in the neighbourhood of Bethlehem, but is identical with the
tower of the castle on Zion, and of the castle of Millo which David
already found existing, and which was only more strongly fortified by
him and by Solomon, 2 Sam. v. 9; 1 Kings ix. 15, 24, xi. 27. The figure
of the "Tower of the flock" was so much the more appropriate in the
passage under consideration, as the founder of the royal dynasty had
been, for a long time, a shepherd of the lambs, before he was elected
to be a shepherd of the people, and had thus himself prefigured his
future relation--a circumstance to which allusion is frequently made in
Scripture itself; compare 2 Sam. v. 2, vii. 8; 1 Chron. xi. 2; Ps.
lxxviii. 70-72.
After having thus ascertained what is to be understood by the "Tower
of the flock," there can be no great difficulty in explaining the
"hill of the daughter of Zion." The daughter of Zion is Zion itself,
personified, and represented as a virgin; and if her hill be spoken
of, what else can be meant, than Mount Zion in the more restricted
sense--the Mount κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν, before which Akra and Moriah are changed
into plains? We have thus a most appropriate relation of the two
appellations to each other,--the tower of the flock being the
particular, and the hill of the daughter of Zion, the general. [Pg 461]
_Further_,--We obtain the most perfect harmony and agreement with the
last words of the verse. The hill which, morally and physically,
commands the daughter of Zion, is the same which obtains dominion over
the daughter of Jerusalem. _Finally_,--We see the most striking
contrast with iii. 12, and the most admirable connection with iv. 1-7,
in which, everywhere, Mount Zion is spoken of, and the exaltation is
described which, after its deep abasement, it shall obtain in the
future, by the flowing of the heathens to it, and by the dominion of
the Lord to be there exercised.
It is only in appearance that our explanation is contradicted by
passages of the Old Testament, and of _Josephus_, where _Ophel_ is
mentioned as a particular place; compare _Bachiene_ 2. 1, § 76;
_Hamelsveld_ 2, S. 35 ff. The supposition of several interpreters, that
this _Ophel_ is some particular hill (compare, _e.g._, _Vitringa de
Templo Ezech._ L. i. c. iii. p. 159, and his _Commentary on Isaiah_
xxxii. 13), has already been invalidated by _Reland_ (p. 855), and
_Faber_ l.c., p. 347, who rightly remark, that _Josephus_, in
enumerating the hills of Jerusalem, makes no mention of _Ophel_, but
speaks always only of the place _Ophel_. All the difficulties, however,
which stand in the way of the other assumptions, are removed by the
following view of the matter. Mount Zion was called העפל, the Hill κατ᾽
ἐξοχήν, and this word became, by and by, a _nomen proprium_, and, in
this state, as well as in its transition to the _nomen proprium_, was
used without the Article. From this it followed--and numerous analogies
everywhere occur--that the foot of the mountain, the place where it was
connected with the lower part of the temple-mountain by means of a deep
valley, acquired this name in preference, and received it, as it were,
as a _nomen proprium_. At this foot of Zion--and hence over against the
temple, and near it--dwelt the Nethinim, the temple servants, Neh. iii.
26; and _Josephus_ says, that the wall surrounding Mount Zion extended
on the east side to the place which was called _Ophel_, and ended at
the eastern porch of the temple (_de Bell. Jud._ vi. 6).
The view which we have taken, not only of _Ophel_, but of this whole
passage, receives an important confirmation by Is. xxxii. 13, 14: "Upon
the land of My people come up thorns and briars, for they shoot up in
all the houses of joy, in the joyous city. For palaces are forsaken,
tumult of the city is [Pg 462] forsaken, _hill_ and _tower_ are around
caves (_i.e._, it is only this which they have to protect) for ever, a
joy of wild asses, a pasture of flocks." In this threatening of
punishment, _hill_, עפל, and _tower_, בחן (properly "a watch-tower,"
corresponding to מגדל), are joined, just as in Micah's promise; and
this is a certain proof of the unsoundness of all those explanations
which would sever the two in Micah. Perhaps there is, in that passage
of Isaiah, the addition of a third object, standing in the middle
between the two, viz., the castle of the king which was situated on
Zion, and of which the highest and strongest part was formed by the
tower. There seems, at least, to be better ground for understanding
this by ארמון than the temple, as is done by _Vitringa_. It will,
nevertheless, be better to understand the palace collectively, and to
view it as being parallel to the houses of joy in ver. 13. So much is,
at all events, evident, that here also, _Ophel_ cannot be understood of
the lowest part of Mount Zion, inasmuch as it had nothing distinguished
about it that could account for its being mentioned in this context;
and to this, the circumstance of its being connected with the tower,
must, moreover, be added. _Faber_, l.c., has convincingly proved, that
_Ophel_, in the stricter sense, neither had, nor could have, any
fortifications.
עדיך, "unto thee," seems here to have that emphasis which originally
belongs to עד. It indicates that the object in motion really reaches
its goal, while אל originally expresses only its direction towards the
goal. It points to all the obstacles which seem to render it impossible
for the dominion to reach its goal, and represents them as such as
shall be overcome by divine omnipotence. This is quite in accordance
with the scope of the whole representation, which _Calvin_ thus
appositely points out: "The prophet endeavours to confirm the faith and
hope of the godly, that they might look forward to the distant future,
and not dwell only upon the present destruction; that they might rather
believe that the matter was in the hands of God, who had promised, that
He who raised the dead, would also restore the kingdom of David, which
had been destroyed."
Several interpreters, _e.g._, _Rosenmüller_, connect תאתה immediately
with what follows: "The kingdom shall come and attain." But, in
opposition to this, there are not only the _accents_ (_Michaelis_; "The
_Athnach_ is intended to keep the mind [Pg 463] of the reader in
suspense for some time, and to direct his attention to what follows"),
but also the change of the tenses, which is intended just to prevent
this connection, and the weak sense which would be the result, inasmuch
as one of the verbs would be a pleonasm. It must rather be supposed,
therefore, that the subject in תאתה is indefinite. The remark which
_Hävernick_, in his _Commentary on Daniel_, S. 386, makes on the
omission of the indefinite subject, is here fully applicable, although
he himself makes a wrong application of it to that passage: "The
indefinite subject," he says, "has a special emphasis. By the omission
of the definite idea, it is, as it were, left to the reader to supply
everything possible (in the passage under consideration, the compass of
all that is glorious), for which the writer cannot find language."
The "first," _i.e._, former, or ancient "dominion," refers to the
splendid times under David and Solomon; but, at the same time, it
supposes a period when the dominion is altogether taken away from the
dynasty of David. Such a period had already been announced by the
prophet, in his first discourse, inasmuch as it is implied in the
carrying away of all Judah into captivity; and still more distinctly in
iii. 12, according to which, Zion, the seat of the Davidic dominion, is
to be ploughed as a field. This announcement, with the express mention
of the king, returns in ver. 9, and, contrasted with It, the
announcement of the restoration of the Davidic dominion in v. 1 (2).
The last words of the verse are, by many expositors (_Calvin_,
_Michaelis_, and _Rosenmüller_), translated thus: "And the kingdom, I
say, shall belong to the daughter of Jerusalem;" so that Jerusalem
would here be, not the _object_, but the _subject_ of dominion. The
sense, according to this explanation, is best brought out by _Calvin_:
"The prophet here distinctly mentions the daughter of Jerusalem,
because the kingdom of Israel had obscured the glory of the true
kingdom. The prophet hence testifies, that God was not unmindful of His
promise, and would so arrange it that Jerusalem should recover its lost
dignity, and the whole people be gathered unto one body." But this
explanation must be rejected on philological grounds. ממלכת is _status
constr._; the ל serves, therefore, only as a circumlocution of the
genitive; and it is not admissible to supply the Verb Substant. To
this, moreover, there must be added the reference [Pg 464] to what
precedes. The dominion over the daughter of Jerusalem is to come to the
tower which commands the daughter of Zion, not, by any means, to the
daughter of Zion herself. The prophet makes Jerusalem to represent the
kingdom of God; and, in so doing, he probably has regard to the
relation of Zion and of the king's castle to the town, by which was
symbolized the relation which the Davidic dynasty occupied to the
kingdom of God.
* * * * *