At the close of the last chapter, the prophet had announced severe
judgments. In the verses immediately preceding, he had given glorious
promises. In that which follows, he now combines these two elements;
and it is only in chap. v. that the promise again appears, purely, and
by itself. The judgments are thus introduced into the middle of the
proclamation of salvation, in order that the faithful might thus be
preserved from forming any vain hopes, which, if not confirmed by the
result, are apt to be exchanged for much deeper despondency. But this
same circumstance contained within it an indirect consolation; for it
is certain that He who causes future events to be foretold, overrules
them also; and "He who sends them, can also turn them." For the
greatest cause of our despondency under the cross is certainly the
doubt which we entertain as to whether it really comes from God. The
prophet, however, affords _direct_ consolation also. Whensoever he
speaks of any calamity, he immediately subjoins the announcement of
divine deliverance. The intimation of the sufferings, in this section,
differs essentially from the former ones. It is not, like these, in a
threatening, but in an affectionate character; indeed, in vers. 11-13,
the consolation preponderates even outwardly. From this, it is
sufficiently evident, that it must have a different destination. Whilst
the threatening was intended chiefly for the ungodly, it has, just as
much as the preceding pure promise, the truly godly members of the
Theocracy also in view, and aims at strengthening them in the manifold
temptations into which they must fall, in consequence of the sufferings
which [Pg 465] always come upon them also at the same time, on account
of their outward, and therefore also their inward, connection with the
wicked.
A glance at the great catastrophes, which were to precede the
appearance of Christ, was here just in its proper place. In the
preceding context, the prophet had mentioned the restoration of the
former dominion. Here, he describes how the dominion is lost ("There is
no king in thee," ver. 9), and what shall happen during the period of
this loss. He then further details, in v. 1 (2) sq., in what manner the
dominion is to be restored.
It is a threefold suffering, joined with deliverance from it, which
presents itself to the prophet in his inward vision, and which he
describes accordingly. This is evident from the three-fold עתה, compare
vers. 9, 11, 14, which, each time, indicates when a new scene presents
itself to the prophet. This, further, appears from the different
character which each one bears. In the case of the announcement in
vers. 9 and 10, viz., the carrying away to Babylon, it is alone the
Lord's hand which delivers His people. In the calamity described in
vers. 11-13, He grants to Israel courage in war, and victory to his
_arms_. The plans of the enemies to destroy Zion are frustrated, while
in the former calamity they succeeded. In ver. 14, Zion is anew
represented as sorely pressed by enemies, and captured by them.
According to v. 1, which is closely connected with what precedes, the
deliverance is accomplished by the Messiah, in whom the promise of the
restoration of the dominion of the house of David over the daughter of
Zion is fulfilled.
* * * * *
Ver. 9. "_Now why dost thou raise a cry? Is there no king in thee, or
is thy councillor gone? For pangs have seized thee as a woman in
travail._"
Zion, mourning at the time of the carrying away into captivity, stands
before the prophet's spirit, and is addressed by him. This ought never
to have been overlooked. But since, nevertheless, it has been so, we
quote from the multitude of analogous instances, at least one which is
altogether incontrovertible, and where the writer likewise transfers
himself into the time of the [Pg 466] captivity, viz., the passage in
Hos. xiii. 9-11, which, in other respects also, shows a great
resemblance to the one under consideration: "This has destroyed thee, O
Israel, that thou wast against Me, against thine help. Where is now thy
king? Let him deliver thee in all thy cities. And where are thy judges?
Surely thou didst say: Give me kings and princes. And I gave thee a
king in Mine anger, and took him away in My wrath." It is quite
impossible to entertain, even for a moment, the thought that, in this
passage, Hosea speaks of the real past and present, inasmuch as he
prophesied before the destruction of the kingdom of the ten tribes.
Micah opens his representation just with the moment that Jerusalem is
captured by the enemies; and he announces to her that her sufferings
are not yet at an end,--that she must wander into exile. The progress
of the thought in the verse under consideration is this:--The prophet
sees Zion dissolved in grief and lamentation. Full of sympathy, he asks
of her the cause of this mourning,--whether, it may be, it was caused
by the loss of her king; and he himself answers this question in the
affirmative, because such a cause could alone account for such a grief.
Now, in order fully to realize the mourning of Zion over her king, we
must bear in mind that the visible head was a representative of the
invisible one,--the mediator of His mercies: that hence, his removal
was a token of divine anger, and an extinction of every hope of
salvation. Every other king is, indeed, likewise an anointed of the
Lord; but the king of Israel was so in a totally different sense. How
deeply, from this point of view, the loss of the king was felt, at the
time when that which is here merely the _ideal_ present became the
_real_ present, is seen from Lam. iv. 20: "The breath of our life, the
anointed of the Lord, is taken a prisoner in their pits, he of whom we
said. Under his shadow we shall live among the heathen." In Zech. iv.
the civil magistrates, along with the ecclesiastical authorities,
appear as the greatest gift of God's grace; henceforth these two shall
again be the medium through which the Lord communicates His gracious
gifts to the Congregation, just as they had been before the captivity.
It must further be borne in mind, that all the promises for the future
were bound up with the regal institution. With its extinction,
therefore, everything seemed to be lost; every prospect of a better
future seemed to have disappeared. The reference in [Pg 467] Jer. viii.
19, where the king is the Lord Himself, to the passage before us, is
very beautiful, and full of deep meaning. It points out the truth, that
the loss of the earthly king is a consequence of their having forced
the heavenly King to withdraw from the midst of them.--The "councillor"
is preeminently the king himself; compare Is. ix. 5, where Christ, in
whom the Davidic dynasty is to attain to the full height of its
destination, appears as the councillor in the highest sense. Other
councillors, it is true, are not thereby excluded; they form, however,
only a group around the king as their centre; compare Is. iii. 3.
Ver. 10. "_Travail and break forth, O daughter of Zion, like a woman
who bringeth forth; for now shalt thou go forth out of the city, and
thou dwellest in the field, and comest till to Babylon: there shalt
thou be delivered, there the Lord shall redeem thee out of the hand of
thine enemies._"
The consolation begins with the words שם תנצלי only; the whole
remaining part of the verse is of a mournful character. In the words,
"Travail and break forth," one aspect only of the figure of the
parturient woman is brought into view, viz., the pain; but not the joy
following upon the pain; compare remarks on v. 2. The Imperative is
thus not, as some interpreters erroneously assume, an _Imper.
consolationis_, but an intimation that the pain would reach its height,
put into the form of an exhortation to submit to it. Much more
satisfactorily than by many of the later expositors, the sense of this
verse has been thus fixed by _Calvin_: "The sum and substance is, that
although God would, according to His promise, take care of the people,
the faithful should have no reason from this to indulge in joy, as if
they were to be exempt from all troubles; on the contrary, the prophet
exhorts them that they should rather prepare themselves to undergo all
kinds of misery, so that, when driven out of their own land, they
should not only, like straying people, wander about in the fields, but
should be driven to Babylon as into a grave. But while he thus prepares
the faithful to bear the cross, he subjoins the hope of salvation,
viz., that God would deliver them, and redeem them from thence out of
the hands of their enemies."--The חולי resumes the preceding, where the
prophet had, at the point of time where he had taken his stand, viz.,
the capture of the city, represented that calamity of this [Pg 468]
people, under the image of the pains of child-bearing. It thus becomes
equivalent to--Thou shalt be obliged to bear, not only the pains which
precede the birth, but also the highest of all pains, viz., the pains
of the birth itself. What the latter are in relation to the former,
that, in the view of the prophet, is the carrying away out of the Holy
Land,--the expulsion from the face of God (an expulsion similar to that
of Cain when he was obliged to flee from Eden), when compared to the
mere capture. Hence the close connexion with what follows, by means of
כי. The word וגחי (the _o_ is, for the sake of euphony, employed
instead of _u_; just as in ver. 13 דושי) is, by most interpreters,
translated, "And lead out." But we must object to this, on the ground
that גוח has always an intransitive signification only, viz., "to break
forth;" and this signification is here quite suitable, more so even
than the transitive; for it marks more emphatically the _pain_ during
the birth, which is here the only point: Jer. iv. 31. It is, as it
were, a dissolution of the whole nature, a violent breaking of it into
pieces. The "now," just as the "now" at the commencement of the
description of the scene, belongs to the _ideal_ standing-point, where
the carrying away is just at hand; for this is the period of the future
into which the prophet has been carried. The "dwelling in the field" is
the intervening station between the "going forth" and "the coming to
Babylon." In the open air, exposed to all the inclemencies of the
weather (compare the expression, "Under the dew of heaven," in Dan. iv.
22, 30 [25, 33]), the prisoners were collected for the purpose of being
afterwards carried away. The word עד, as well as the twofold שם, are
emphatic. Irresistibly, the divine _judgment_ advances to its last
goal; but as irresistibly does divine _mercy_ wrest from the enemies
the prey which seemed to have been given to them even for ever.--The
futility of all attempts to explain away the distinct prophecy of
the Babylonish captivity in this passage has been shown in the
_Dissertations on the Genuineness of Daniel_, p. 151 sqq. How even
_Caspari_ could join in these attempts, it is difficult to explain.
Even he is of opinion that the prophet had expected the catastrophe to
come from Asshur. Chap. v. 4, 5 (5, 6) cannot be decisive _for_ the
reference to Asshur. For the circumstance that Asshur appears there as
the type of the future enemies of the kingdom of God, implies, indeed,
that he occupied the first place among the enemies [Pg 469] at the time
of the prophet; but it by no means Implies that he must occupy a place
in the outline of the future catastrophes of the people of God. Such a
catastrophe was not to proceed from him, but rather from an enemy who
had not yet at that time appeared on the scene, although his power was
already germinating, as is shown by Is. xxxix. and other passages. The
oppression of Judah by Asshur was indeed a heavy one; but it was
transitory, and did not by any means constitute an era. From the
relation in which vers. 9-14 (iv. 9-v. 1) stands to ver. 8, it
sufficiently appears that the oppression by the Chaldeans must here
form the commencement, although the Assyrian oppression must be added
to it as an introduction and a prelude. According to this relation, the
point at issue here can be only the cessation of the dominion of the
Davidic family. From. Jer. xxvi. 18, 19, _Caspari_ endeavours to prove
that Micah had in view, in the first instance, the Assyrians only. But
that passage of Jeremiah refers to Mic. iii. 12, where the prophecy has
a general character, and where the instruments of the divine judgment
are not expressly mentioned, as is the case here. On the other hand,
the following arguments are opposed to the reference to the Assyrians.
1. The prophet does not mention Asshur, but Babylon. Nothing is,
certainly, proved by the circumstance that, at the time of the prophet,
Babylon was still under the Assyrian dominion; for Babylon comes here
into consideration, not so much as a place, but as a hostile power. The
place, as such, was of no consequence, and the mention of it was not
required by the character of the prophecy. 2. If the announcement
referred to Asshur, the result would contradict the prophecy. _Caspari_
says, that by the repentance and conversion of the people, the
fulfilment had been averted. But with such a view of prophecy, the
position of the prophetic institution becomes untenable, and
historically incomprehensible. The Mosaic regulation, that whosoever
prophesied anything that did not take place should be punished with
death, would in that case lose all practical significance; for there
would always have been at hand the excuse, that by the repentance the
execution of that sentence of punishment had been repealed. From the
nature of the case, and from that Mosaic regulation, it follows that
special announcements expressed absolutely must be fulfilled
absolutely; and not a single fact in the history of prophetism [Pg 470]
stands in contradiction to this truth. Jonah's announcement to Nineveh,
indeed, has been appealed to; but, in reply, we remark simply, that the
words of that announcement have not been communicated to us, while we
see from the result that it was conditional only. Such a decided
repentance would scarcely have been called forth by it among the
inhabitants of Nineveh, had repentance not been expressly declared in
it as a means of deliverance. 3. Micah everywhere goes hand in hand
with his contemporary Isaiah. But the latter always opposes
energetically the despondency of Judah in the face of Asshur, and
declares that his proud power would be broken at Jerusalem (as had been
already prophesied by Hosea in i. 4-7), and that, while the kingdom of
the ten tribes would be destroyed, Judah would experience the
protecting hand of the Lord. _Caspari_ contradicts himself in thus
making these two men of God to differ in so essential a point. For a
man like _Hitzig_, it may be quite befitting to say, "Micah did not
possess the firm, courageous faith which was displayed by Isaiah." 4.
It is quite impossible to get rid of the obvious parallelism of the
passage under consideration with Is. xxxix. 6, 7, where the rising of
the Babylonish empire, the destruction of the Davidic kingdom by it,
and the carrying away of Judah to Babylon, are clearly and distinctly
predicted. And in a number of other prophecies, Isaiah likewise
declares or supposes, that that which the Assyrians threatened in vain,
would at some future period, when the iniquity of the people had become
full, be carried out by Babylon with her Chaldeans. It is scarcely
conceivable how _Caspari_, acknowledging as he does the genuineness of
these prophecies of Isaiah, could think of dissevering from them the
prophecy now under consideration.--Declarations like that before us,
where, in clear and distinct outlines, a future event is foretold one
hundred and fifty years before it takes place, inflict a death-blow
upon the naturalistic view of the prophetic institution, as is
sufficiently evident from _Hitzig's_ embarrassment, and from his
efforts to free himself from the bands of this troublesome fact.
Ver. 11. "_And now many nations assemble themselves against thee, that
say: Let her be profaned, and let our eyes look upon Zion._"
Israel, with its claim of being alone the people of the only true God,
was a thorn in the eyes of the nations. These here [Pg 471] burn with
eager desire to prove, actually and by deeds, that this presumptuous
claim was unfounded, and, by the destruction of the city, to take from
it its fancied holiness, and the glory of holiness. Destruction and
profanation are, in their view, inseparably connected. The contrast to
the verse under review is formed by vii. 10: "And mine enemy shall see
it, and shame shall come upon her who said. Where is the Lord thy God?
Mine eyes shall behold her, now shall she be trodden down as the mire
of the streets." The words, "Where is the Lord thy God?" entirely agree
in substance with, "Let her be profaned!" But the desire of profaning
Jerusalem must be conceived of as the human motive only. According to
the view of Scripture generally, and of Micah particularly, all the
distress of the people of God has its foundation in _sin_; and from the
whole context, and especially from v. 2 (3), where this event also is
comprehended within the time when God's people are given up, it clearly
appears that, notwithstanding the happy issue, we have here before us a
heavy calamity. By a new phase of sin, a new phase of judgment is
brought about; and by a new phase of worldliness, a new phase of
aggression by the world's power.--It is owing to a striving after
variety, that the word "and" here stands before "now," while it is
omitted in the third scene. It may stand, or it may be omitted, because
the various catastrophes are independent of each other, and yet, at the
same time, form a connected whole, as is evident from the words, "He
will give them up," in v. 2 (3), by which they are connected together.
The heavy oppression of Judah appears here under the form of a siege of
its centre, in accordance with the scope of prophecy, which,
everywhere, seeks to impart vividness and animation to the scene, by
uniting into one picture that which is separated by time and space. The
historical reference of the prophecy is thus very accurately stated by
_Calvin_: "Although the Babylonish captivity has come to an end, and
Israel has been restored from it, the promised kingdom shall not
immediately come. Before that takes place, the neighbouring nations
shall assemble themselves against Jerusalem, with the desire of
profaning it, and of enjoying a pleasant spectacle. This took place
under Antiochus." That to which the prophet here simply alludes, but
yet in such a way that the right reference cannot possibly be mistaken
(since a great hostile aggression is here described, which should
happen [Pg 472] after the people have returned from Babylon, and which
is removed by the piety and courage of the people themselves; and
since, after this second oppression, there follows a third, which is
described in ver. 14, there certainly remains no other alternative: the
times of the Maccabees are those which can alone be thought of),
is further detailed by Zechariah in ix. 11 ff. At his time, the
deliverance from the first calamity had already taken place; and he
expressly states the names of the enemies; just as, in the prophecy
under review, the authors of the first calamity are expressly named.
That which is especially characteristic, and which points to the time
of the Maccabees, is, moreover, the special mention of many nations,
which are united in their decided hatred against Jerusalem as a city,
and against Judah as the people of the Lord, taken in connection
with the character of the war as a _religious war_ in the strictest
sense,--it being an attempt of heathenism to destroy the Congregation
of the Lord as such. _These features are found in no other catastrophe
during the time between Micah and Christ._ And that the aggression
belongs to the period before the appearing of the Saviour, is evident
from the whole context, as well as from v. 2 (3). In the time of the
Maccabees, it was not with Syria alone that Judah had to do; but all
the heathen nations without exception, with which Judah had any
connection at that time, united themselves for a decisive stroke
against the kingdom of God. Their purpose was to extirpate the whole
race of Jacob, 1 Macc. v. 2. Striking remarks upon the real nature of
the struggle at that period, as a struggle of faithful Judaism against
Heathenism, the latter of which had gained a considerable party
among the people themselves, are made by Stark, in "_Gaza und die
Philistäische Küste_," _Jena_, 52, S. 481 ff. Among other things, he
says: "The national distinctions in the boundaries of Palestine had by
no means ceased, but continued under the general cover of the Egyptian
and Syrian administration in a varied, unyielding, and hostile manner.
There were the Idumeans in the whole of the south of Palestine to near
Jerusalem; then, the Philistines, or when called by their cities, the
Gazeans and Ashdodians; the Phœnicians, the Samaritans or Chutteans,
the mixed population of Galilee, the Arabs of Perea.... As soon as the
Jewish people, who, up to that time, had been altogether insignificant
in a political point of view, rose against [Pg 473] the Syrian empire,
at first for their religious peculiarities, then, for their political
independence, and, finally, even for the recovery of the _ideal_
possession of their country--an idea which had been kept alive by
tradition,--it could not but be that those who were naturally the
supports and centres of the Syrian operations, became the objects of
the hostile Jewish operations; and that the whole national portion of
the population, although not Greeks, were anew inflamed by their old
hatred of, and opposition to, Judaism; so that they considered that
Hellenic struggle as also a national one. This period thus produced at
the same time a revival of the old national struggle of the inhabitants
of Palestine, modified and increased by the struggle of Hellenism with
the national reaction which served as a superstructure for it." The
objection, raised even by _Caspari_, that a prophecy of the victorious
struggles in the time of the Maccabees must be strange and surprising
in a prophet of the Assyrian period, will not startle those who look at
the analogies--such as the prophecy in Is. vi. In the latter prophecy,
first the Chaldean, and then the Roman catastrophes, are described in
sharp outlines, but without any mention of the names of the instruments
of punishment. It is only in reference to the executors of the first of
these judgments that more distinct disclosures were given to the
prophet himself at a subsequent period. The announcement in Zech. ix.,
where the Greeks are expressly mentioned, is, in reality, not less
miraculous. According to all prophetical analogies, it is _a priori_
probable that this detailed prophecy of the Maccabean period, and the
similar one in Daniel, should have been preceded by some older prophecy
which refers to the same facts, but only in general outlines, such as
we have in the passage under consideration. If any doubt should
still remain, it would be removed by a glance at the conflicting
interpretations. _Ewald_ and _Hitzig_ think of the Assyrian invasion,
to which vers. 9, 10, are likewise referred by them, although
such a reference is in opposition to the express words of these
verses,--which, for a Naturalistic tendency, are rather inconvenient.
The contradiction in these two prophecies _Ewald_ endeavours to
reconcile by the evidently erroneous supposition, that the carrying
away in ver. 10 must be conceived of as only a partial one,--a
supposition which is invalidated by a simple comparison of iii. 12.
According to _Hitzig_, the prophet has, in vers. 11-13, [Pg
474]overcome the despondency expressed in vers. 9, 10, and has raised
himself to confidence in God. He thus makes the prophet distinctly
contradict himself in one breath,--a supposition which does not even
deserve a refutation. Even if we were entirely to separate this passage
from its connection, how ill does the activity here ascribed to Judah
agree with the oppression by the Assyrians! This activity of Judah
supposes that it has to do with many small nations. Against the great
Asiatic empires, a direct and immediate interposition of the Lord is
_everywhere_ referred to. The salvation, however, which is here
announced to Judah, can be only an imperfect one, and cannot go beyond
what they really received at the time of the Maccabees. This is
sufficiently evident from the circumstance, that it belongs to a time
in which Judah has no king of the Davidic house; for him they have
already lost in ver. 9, and receive again only in v. 1 (2), in Christ;
and it is certain that the Davidic house was the channel through which
all the true and great mercies of the Lord were bestowed upon His
people.
Ver. 12. "_And they know not the thoughts of the Lord, neither
understand they His counsel; for He gathereth them as the sheaf for the
threshing-floor._"
The particle "and" is here used, where we, for the sake of a closer
connection, would employ "but." The thoughts of the Lord are
these,--that the sufferings, after having served their purpose as
regards Zion, shall pass over to the enemies, so that they shall
themselves be destroyed by Zion, while they so confidently thought to
inflict destruction upon Zion. The כי introduces the reason of their
not knowing the way of the Lord. If they knew it, they would not
express such desire and hope; _for it is they themselves_ whom the Lord
gives over to destruction.
Ver. 13. "_Arise and thresh, O daughter of Zion, for I make thine horn
iron, and thy claws brass; and thou crushest in pieces many people, and
I consecrate their gain unto the Lord, and their strength to the Ruler
of the whole earth._"
The figure is based upon the Eastern mode of threshing; compare
_Paulsen vom Ackerbau der Morgenl._ § 40-42; _Niebuhr_, _Reise_ i. S.
151; and likewise Is. xxi. 10, xli. 15; Hab. iii. 12. Strictly
speaking, one characteristic only of the threshing oxen is here
considered, viz., the crushing power of their hoofs. The prophet,
however, extends the comparison to that also in which [Pg 475] the
bullock is formidable, even when it is not engaged in the work of
threshing, viz., to its horns. On this point 1 Kings xxii. 11 may be
compared, where the pseudo-prophet Zedekiah makes to himself iron
horns, and thus states the import of this symbolical action: "Thus
saith the Lord, With these shalt thou push Aram until it is destroyed."
The first person in החרמתי has perplexed several ancient translators
(_Syr._, _Jerome_), as well as many modern interpreters, who,
therefore, substitute the second person for it. But it is quite
appropriate. As at the beginning, where the Lord gathers the sheaf on
the threshing-floor, so at the close also, the prophet declares that
the victory is the work of God. It is He Himself, the true God, the
Lord of the whole earth, who reminds His rebellious subjects of their
true relation to Him, by vindicating to Himself a part of the good
things which He bestowed upon them; just as He once did in Egypt. This
thought contains the reason why, instead of the pronoun of the first
person, the noun is employed; so that it is equivalent to: To Me the
only God, the Lord of the whole earth. But it is altogether distorted,
if the first person here be changed into the second. With respect to
the import of the word, we must by no means think only of the gifts of
consecration which were brought to the temple. Such a view would
be necessary, only if the goods of the Covenant-people, or the
Covenant-people themselves, were introduced as that which is to be
consecrated. In that case we could understand, by that which is
consecrated, that only which is the exclusive property of the Lord,
which has been dedicated to Him exclusively, and for ever withdrawn
from the use of His subjects, and which, as far as they are concerned,
is as good as annihilated; compare Lev. xxvii. 28: "Everything
consecrated, which any one consecrates to the Lord, of man and of
beast, and of the field of his possession, shall not be sold nor
redeemed; every consecrated thing is most holy to the Lord." But here,
where He who consecrates is the Lord, while the goods are those of the
heathen, the latter only are to be considered as being excluded from
the possession, and as those in reference to whom the goods are
consecrated goods; while the people of God must, on the other hand, be
considered as partaking in what He has acquired. The community of goods
between these two is rendered prominent in other passages also where
the object required it. Thus, _e.g._, [Pg 476] Joel iv. (iii.) 5, where
the Phœnicians and Philistines are charged: "My silver and My gold ye
have taken, and My precious things, the goodly ones, ye have carried
into your palaces." That we cannot here think of the temple-treasure is
evident, not only from a comparison of ver. 4, where the attempts of
these nations to avenge themselves on Israel on account of former
injuries, are expressly represented as attempts to take vengeance upon
God, but also from history, which knows nothing of the plunder of the
temple by Phœnicians and Philistines. The mention of the _gain_ points
to the _male parta_,--and this is the more strictly applicable, the
nearer the relation is in which he who is robbed stands to the Lord of
the earth. With the _gain_, the substance in general is lost.--The
fundamental thought of the verse, which is here expressed only with
an application to a special case, is that of the victory of the
Congregation of the Lord over the world. This was perceived by
_Calvin_, who strikingly demonstrates how this declaration is ever anew
realized, and how its complete fulfilment is reserved only for
the second coming of Christ. He has erred, however, in this, that
looking only to the eternal import of the thought, he overlooked the
circumstance that it is here expressed with reference to a definite
event in which it was to be realized.
Ver. 14. "_Who thou gatherest thyself in troops, O daughter of troops.
They lay siege against us, they smite the judge of Israel with the rod
upon the cheek._"
A new scene presents itself to the prophet. Zion, victorious on the
preceding occasion, appears here as powerless, and locked up within her
walls. She is captured; and ignominious abuse is cast upon the leaders
of the deeply abased people.--We need not here dwell for any length of
time upon the numerous expositions of תתגדדי. There is only one, viz.,
"thou shalt press thyself together," which affords an appropriate
contrast; while this contrast is lost when it is translated, as
_Hofmann_ does, by: "thou shalt lacerate thyself" (compare what
_Caspari_ has advanced against it). "Thou shalt press thyself together"
does not, moreover, destroy the import of Hithpael, and has especially
the use of the Hithp. of גדד, in Jer. v. 7, in its favour. The Hithpael
in this signification is probably a Denominative of גדוד. The person
addressed, the בת־גדוד, can be none other than the בת־ציון in ver. 13.
For it is she who is addressed by the prophet [Pg 477] in each of the
new scenes announced by עתה, and she is, generally, the only one to
whom the discourse is, throughout the whole section, addressed. The
intentional paronomasia occasioned by the designation "daughter of
troops," _i.e._, who appeared in warlike array, evidently alludes to
בת־ציון, and refers to the description of Zion as a brave victorious
hero, in the preceding verses. The _enemy_ is immediately afterwards
spoken of in the third person. The words, "Siege (not by any means 'a
wall,' as _De Wette_ maintains) they lay, or direct against us,"
clearly indicate that the pressing of themselves together, which forms
a contrast with the former courageous excursions indicated by גדוד, is
the consequence of fear, weakness, and hostile oppression. The words
are therefore strikingly paraphrased by _Justi_, thus: "But now, why
dost thou thus press thyself together, thou who wast accustomed to
press others?" This, however, only must be kept in mind, that בת־גדוד
implies an allusion to the fact that the warlike disposition continues
even in the present, notwithstanding the feebleness forced upon her,--a
very characteristic feature. In saying, "They lay siege against _us_,"
instead of "against _thee_," the prophet is carried away by his
emotions to show himself as one of the people whom he sees to be
oppressed by so heavy sufferings. As indicated by the word "now" also,
he is, in spirit, in the midst of them. The ignominious treatment of
the judge of Israel supposes that the prophet sees, in his inward
vision, the capture of the city as having already taken place; for it
is impossible to conceive of the judge, the soul of the city, as being
outside of it. This judge of Israel is an _ideal_ person, formed by the
prophet in order that he might be able to contrast him with the Ruler
of Israel in v. 1 (2), who represents all the theocratic authorities;
compare, _e.g._. Is. iii. 12, where the corrupted leaders of the
Theocracy present themselves to the prophet in the person of a large
child. To speak, in such a case, of a collective noun, as is usually
done, is out of place. But it may be observed that it is not a king who
is here spoken of, but, very significantly, a judge of Israel only,
probably with reference to the times before Saul, when Israel was
governed by judges. The royal dominion which, according to the
announcement in ver. 9, shall be destroyed by Babylon, shall be
restored by the Messiah only (compare v. 1 [2], iv. 8), who is not שפט
ישראל, but, like His great ancestor [Pg 478] David, מושל בישראל;
compare 2 Sam. xxiii. 3. There can be no doubt that, in this
connection, the _Judge_ is spoken of as distinguished from, and
contrasted with, the _King_. But even by itself, the mention of the
_Judge_ cannot but be startling. It would have been against the object
of the prophet to have mentioned any inferior persons, when there
existed a superior one; and if the _King_ was thereby denoted, why
should he have been designated thus?--It is on purpose that ישראל,
which is the _nomen dignitatis_ of the people, is here chosen. It more
emphatically points out the unworthiness of the treatment, as well as
the contrast between the reality and the idea in the destinies of the
nation,--a contrast, it is true, which Israel has called forth by the
preceding contrast between the reality and the idea with regard to his
conduct. Since Israel has inwardly profaned himself by his own guilt,
he is now, as a just punishment, profaned outwardly also.--With
respect, now, to the historical reference of this disastrous
announcement, its fulfilment cannot be sought for in any other event
than the invasion by the Romans. Among the sufferings of the people,
which are here described in general outlines, this is the only one
recorded in history, with the exception of those already mentioned.
Isaiah, the contemporary of Micah, likewise announced, as early as in
chap. vi., that upon those who should return from the captivity a
second judgment would be inflicted, by which the national independence
should be destroyed. This judgment is described with remarkable
clearness and distinctness by the post-exilic prophets, inasmuch as, to
them, it appeared already more in the foreground; compare the remarks
on Zech. v. and xi.; Dan. ix. The only plausible argument against this
reference is this,--that the capture of the city by the Romans was
subsequent to the appearance of the Messiah, and that it is, after all,
the latter which forms the subject of the announcement of salvation in
v. 1 (2), which, again, refers to the sufferings described in the verse
before us. This argument, however, is set aside by the following
considerations. 1. The prophet, indeed, designates the misery which was
inflicted by those enemies upon the Covenant-people only according to
its acme, viz., the siege and capture of the city; but he,
nevertheless, views it in, and understands it of, its whole extent, and
from its first beginnings. These, then, in so far as the Romans are
concerned, fall in the time before Christ, for the Jewish [Pg 479]
people were already subjected to the Roman dominion by Pompey. 2. This
alone, however, is not sufficient. If, with _Vershuir_ (_de celebri
oraculo Mic._ iv. 14, in the _Dissert. Philol. exeg._ Leuw. 1775), we
confine ourselves to the capture by Pompey, we cannot, by any means,
get rid of the feeling that that fulfilment does not exhaust the
prophecy. But we are, on the other hand, quite entitled to add that
highest point, viz., the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, along
with all its still existing consequences, if only we consider, that the
announcement of salvation in chap. v.--as is shown by its contents, and
by its accordance with the analogy of all the Messianic prophecies--is
not limited to the short period of the first appearance of Christ. That
comes into consideration rather as the grain of seed only from which
the tree grew up, under which all the fowls of heaven were to dwell.
Hence it is, that the salvation, no less than the punishment, is a
continuous one, until, at the end of the days, it appears in its
glorious consummation. But if it be established that Christ is
presented as the only Saviour from the calamity here described, then
that calamity must still continue for those who reject Him, yea, it
must still be increased. It is only by giving up their opposition that
they can be delivered from the yoke which presses upon them. The
election, on the other hand, is, from the very beginning, received into
the communion of His kingdom, which extends over the whole world.
Here, however, that which has been already remarked in reference to
vers. 11-13 finds its application. The siege and capture of Zion
are pre-eminently the means of representing the idea of the heavy
oppression and deep abasement of Israel, and of the cessation of its
political independence, although it must not upon any account be
overlooked, that the natural form of the representation is, at the same
time, the natural form of the realization of the idea that Judah could
not be destroyed without the siege and capture of Jerusalem, its
centre.
Footnote 1: We must not by any means suppose, as has been done last of
all by _Caspari_, that the mountains are here regarded as places of
worship.
Footnote 2: Thus does _Calvin_, who says: "He speaks after the manner
of the prophets, who under the term 'law' used to comprehend the whole
doctrine of God."
Footnote 3: _Caspari_, indeed, is of opinion, that the walking in the
name of the Lord is not to be considered as a merit, on account of
which the salvation is granted, but as a mercy which has been bestowed
upon Israel, and which forms the ground of the salvation. But this
feature is not at all intimated; and we are the less at liberty to
introduce it, as the walking in the name of the gods is parallel to the
walking in the name of the Lord.
Footnote 4: _Caspari_ very properly refers here to v. 3 (4), where the
Messiah, in whom the former dominion is to come to the Tower of the
flock, is represented as a shepherd.
Footnote 5: Micah's references to the Pentateuch are made the subject
of a most thorough disquisition by _Caspari_, S. 419 ff.