Volume I Part 25 (1/2)
Ver. 12. ”_I will a.s.semble, surely I will a.s.semble, O Jacob, thee wholly: I will gather the remnant of Israel. I will bring_ [Pg 435]
_them together as the sheep of Bozrah; as a flock on their pasture, they shall make a noise by reason of men._ Ver. 13. _The breaker goeth up before them; they break through, pa.s.s through the gate and go out, and their King marches before them, and the Lord is on the head of them._”
The remark, that almost all the features of this description are borrowed from the deliverance out of Egypt, will throw much light upon the whole description. In the midst of oppression and misery, Israel, while there, increased by means of the blessing of the Lord, hidden under the cross, to greater and greater numbers; compare Exod. i. 12.
When the time of deliverance had arrived, the Lord, who had for a long time concealed Himself, manifested Himself again as their G.o.d. First, the people were gathered together, and then, the Lord went before them,--in a pillar of cloud by day, and in a pillar of fire by night: Exod. xiii. 21. He led them out of Egypt, the house of bondage: Exod.
xx. 2. So it is here also. Ver. 12 describes the increase and gathering, and ver. 13 the deliverance. In both pa.s.sages, Israel's misery is represented under the figure of an abode in the house of bondage, or in prison, the gates of which the Lord opens--the walls of which He breaks down. In this allusion to, and connection with, the former deliverance, Micah agrees with his contemporaries, Hosea and Isaiah. The deeper reason of this lies in the typical import of the former deliverance, which forms a prophecy by deeds of all future deliverances, and contains within itself completely their germ and pledge; compare Hosea ii. 1, 2 (i. 10, 11); Is. xi. 11 ff.: ”And the Lord shall stretch forth His hand a _second time_ to redeem the remnant of His people.... And He sets up an ensign for the nations, and gathers together the dispersed of Israel, and a.s.sembles the scattered of Judah from the four corners of the earth.... And the Lord smites with a curse the tongue of the Egyptian sea, and shakes His hand over the river, in the violence of His wind, and smites it to seven rivers, so that one may wade through in shoes. And there shall be a highway to the remnant of His people, ... like as it was to Israel in the day when he came up out of the land of Egypt.” This reference to the typical deliverance clearly shows, that in the description we have carefully to separate between the thought and the language in which it is clothed.
[Pg 436]
Ver. 12. The _Infin. absol._, which in both the clauses precedes the _tempus finitum_, expresses the emphasis which is to be placed on the _gathering_, as opposed to the carrying away, and the scattering formerly announced; for the latter, according to the view of man, and apart from G.o.d's mercy and omnipotence, did not seem to admit of any favourable turn. By ”Jacob” and ”Israel,” several interpreters understand Judah alone; others, the ten tribes alone; others, both together. The last view is alone the correct one. This appears from i.
5, where, by Jacob and Israel, the whole nation is designated. The promise in the pa.s.sage before us stands closely related to the threatening uttered there. All Israel shall be given up to destruction on account of their sins; all Israel shall be saved by the grace of G.o.d. This a.s.sumption is confirmed by a comparison of the parallel pa.s.sages in Hosea and Isaiah, where the whole is designated by the two parts, Judah and Israel. Micah does not notice this division, because that visible separation, which even in the present was overbalanced by an invisible unity, shall disappear altogether in that future, when there shall be only one flock, as there is only one Shepherd.
The expression, ”remnant of Israel,” in the second clause, which corresponds to, ”O Jacob, thee wholly,” in the first, indicates, that the fulfilment of the promise, so far from doing away with the threatening, rather rests on its preceding realization. The Congregation of G.o.d, purified by the divine judgments, shall be _wholly_ gathered. Divine mercy has in itself no limits; and those which in the present are a.s.signed to it by the objects of mercy, shall then be removed.--The words, ”I will bring them together,” etc., indicate equally the faithfulness of the great Shepherd, who gathers His dispersed flock from all parts of the world, and the unexpected and wonderful increase of the flock; compare Jer. xxiii. 3: ”And I will gather the remnant of My flock out of all countries whither I have driven them, and lead them back to their pasture-ground, and they are fruitful and increase;” and x.x.xi. 10: ”He that scattereth Israel will gather him and keep him as a shepherd does his flock.”--Bozrah we consider to be the name of a capital of the Idumeans in Auranitis, four days' journey from Damascus. The great wealth of this town in flocks appears from Is. x.x.xiv. 6 (although a slaughter of men is spoken of in that pa.s.sage, yet evidently the wealth of Bozrah in natural [Pg 437]
flocks is there supposed), and can with perfect ease be accounted for from its situation. For, in its neighbourhood, there begins the immeasurable plain of Arabia, which, on one side, continues without interruption as far as _Dshof_, into the heart of Arabia, while, towards the North, it extends to Bagdad, under the name of _El Hamad_.
Its length and breadth are calculated to amount to eight days' journey.
It contains many shrubs and blooming plants; compare _Burkhardt_ and _Ritter_.[4] Several interpreters consider ???? to be an appellative, and a.s.sign to it the signification ”sheepfold,” ”cote.” But there is no reason whatsoever in favour of such a meaning of Bozrah, while there is this argument against it, that the probable signification of ???? as the name of a town is ”_locus munitus_” = ??????? or ??????????. It can hardly be supposed that the word should at the same time have had the significations of ”fortress” and ”fold.” It is, moreover, more in harmony with the prophetical character to particularize, than to use a general term. As is shown, however, by the last member (with which, according to the accents, the words, ”As [Pg 438] a flock on their pasture,” must be connected), the point of comparison is not the a.s.sembling and gathering, but the mult.i.tude, the crowd,--”As the sheep of Bozrah” being thus tantamount to, ”So that in mult.i.tude they are like the sheep of Bozrah.” ??????????, from ??????, is, contrary to the general rule, doubly qualified, both by the article and by the suffix.
This has been accounted for on the ground that the little suffix had gradually lost its power. But it is perhaps more natural to suppose that the article sometimes lost its power, and coalesced with the noun.
The frequent use of the _Status emphaticus_ in undefined nouns, in the Syriac language (compare _Hofmann_, _Gram. Syr._, p. 290), presents an a.n.a.logy in favour of this opinion.--The last words graphically describe the noise produced by a numerous, closely compacted flock. The plur. of the Fem. refers to the sheep.--?? denotes the _causa efficiens_. They make a noise; and this noise proceeds from the numerous a.s.sembled people. The same connection of figure and thing occurs in Ezek. x.x.xiv.
31: ”And ye (????) are My flock, the flock of My pasture are ye men;”
compare Ezek. x.x.xvi. 38.
Ver. 13. The whole verse must be explained by the figure of a prison, which lies at the foundation. The people of G.o.d are shut up in it, but are now delivered by G.o.d's powerful hand. By the ”breaker,” many interpreters understand the Lord Himself. But if we consider, that in a double clause, at the end of the verse, the Lord is mentioned as the leader of the expedition if we look to the type of the deliverance from Egypt, where Moses, as the breaker, marches in front of Israel; and if, further, we look to the parallel pa.s.sage in Hosea, where, with an evident allusion to that type, the children of Israel and of Judah appoint themselves one head; we shall rather be disposed to understand by the ”breaker” the _dux et antesigna.n.u.s_ raised up by G.o.d. With the raising up and equipping of such a leader every divine deliverance commences; and that which, in the inferior deliverance, the typical leaders, Moses and Zerubbabel, were, Christ was in the highest and last deliverance. To Him the ”breaker” has been referred by several Jewish interpreters (compare _Schottgen_, _Horae_ ii. p. 212); and if we compare chap. v., where that which is here indicated by general outlines only is further expanded and detailed, we shall have to urge against this interpretation this objection only, viz., that it excludes the [Pg 439] typical breakers,--that, in the place of the _ideal_ person of the breaker, which presents itself to the internal vision of the prophet, it puts the individual in whom this idea is most fully realized.--The words ?????? ??? are, by several interpreters, referred to the forcing and entering of hostile gates. Thus _Michaelis_, whom _Rosenmuller_ follows: ”No gate shall be so fortified as to prevent them from forcing it.” But this interpretation destroys the whole figure, and violates the type of the deliverance from Egypt which lies at the foundation. For the gate through which they break is certainly the gate of the prison.--The three verbs--”They break through, they pa.s.s through, they go out”--graphically describe their progress, which is not to be stopped by any human power.--The last words open up the view to the highest leader of the expedition; compare besides, Exod.
xiii. 21; Is. lii. 12: ”For ye shall not go out in trembling, nor shall ye go out by flight. For the Lord goeth before you, and the G.o.d of Israel closeth your rear;” Is. xl. 11; Ps. lx.x.x. 3. In the exodus from Egypt, a visible symbol of the presence of G.o.d marched before the host, besides Moses, the breaker. On the return from Babylon, the Angel of the Lord was visible to the eye of faith only, as formerly when Abraham's servant journeyed to Mesopotamia, Gen. xxiv. 7. At the last and highest deliverance, the breaker was at once the King and G.o.d of the people.
As this prophecy has no limitation at all in itself, we are fully ent.i.tled to refer it to the whole sum of the deliverances and salvation which are destined for the Covenant-people; and to seek for its fulfilment in every event, either past or future, in the same degree as the fundamental idea--G.o.d's mercy upon His people--is manifested in it.
Every limitation to any particular event is evidently inadmissible; but, most of all, a limitation to the deliverance from the Babylonish captivity, which, especially with regard to Israel, can be considered as only a faint prelude of the fulfilment. They, however, have come nearest to the truth who a.s.sume an exclusive reference to Christ,--provided they acknowledge, that the conversion of the first fruits of Israel, at the time when Christ appeared in His humiliation, is not the end of His dealings with this people.
Footnote 1: The reference to the general judgment would indeed disappear, if we suppose ??? in ver. 2 to be addressed to _Israel_. It seems, indeed, to be in favour of this supposition, that, in 1 Kings xxii. 28, the people alone are called upon as witnesses, and that in Deut. x.x.xi. 28, x.x.xii. 1, and Is. i. 2, heaven and earth, and in Hos.
vi. 1, the mountains also, are called upon only in order to make the scene more solemn. But the reference of ??? to the nations mentioned immediately before, is too evident.
Footnote 2: Ver. 6 must be translated thus: _Not shall ye drop_ (prophesy),--_they_ (the false prophets) _drop; if they_ (the individuals addressed, the true prophets) _do not drop to these_ (the rapacious great), _the ignominy will not cease_, _i.e._, the ignominious destruction breaks in irresistibly. The fundamental pa.s.sage in Deut. x.x.xii. 2, and ver. 11 of the chapter before us, show that ????
has not the signification, ”to talk,” which is a.s.signed to it by _Caspari_. The false prophets must be considered as the accomplices of the corrupted great, especially as to the bulwark which they opposed to the true prophets, and their influence on the nation, and on their own consciences,--as indeed material power everywhere seeks for such a spiritual ally. If this be kept in view, the censure and threatening acquire a still greater unity.
Footnote 3: To a certain extent, however, verse 11 forms the transition: ”If one were to come, a wind, and lie falsely: I will prophesy to thee of wine and of strong drink,--he would be the prophet of this people.” Such a prophet Micah, indeed, is not; but although he neither can nor dare announce salvation _without_ judgment, he has, in the name of the Lord, to announce salvation _after_ the judgment. The very singular opinion, that in vers. 12, 13, the false prophets are introduced as speaking, is refuted by the single circ.u.mstance that, in ver. 12, the gathering of the _remnant_ of Israel only is promised, and hence the judgment is supposed to have preceded. It is no less erroneous if, instead of considering ver. 11 as introductory to vers.
12, 13, the latter be made to depend upon ver. 11, and be therefore considered as, to a certain extent, accidental.
Footnote 4: After the example of _v. Raumer_, _Robinson_, _Ritter_ (_Erdk._ 14, 101), it has now become customary to distinguish between two Bozrahs,--one in Auranitis, and the other in Edom. But the arguments adduced for this distinction are not of very great weight.
Nowhere is a ”high situation” in reality ascribed to the Bozrah in Edom. The a.s.sertion, that Edom was always limited to the territory between the Dead Sea and the Red Sea, is opposed to Gen. x.x.xvi. 35, according to which pa.s.sage, even in the time before Moses, the Edomitic king, Hadad, smote Midian in the field of Moab; and further, to Lam.
iv. 21, according to which Edom dwells in the land of Uz, which can be sought for only in _Arabia Deserta_. We need to think only of that branch of the Midianites who had gone over to _Arabia Deserta_, whilst their chief settlement continued in _Arabia Petraea_. But the following arguments may be adduced _against_ the distinction. 1. Bozrah is constantly and simply spoken of, without any further distinctive designation. 2. The Edomitic Bozrah must have been a great and powerful city, which agrees well with the ”mighty ruins” in _Hauran_, but not with the much more insignificant ruins near _Busseireh_ in _Dshebal_.
3. It is improbable that so important a city as that of Bozrah in Auranitis should never have been mentioned in Scripture.--But not satisfied with a double Bozrah, even a third, in Moab, has been a.s.sumed on the ground of Jer. xlviii. 24. But it is certainly strange that Bozrah, in that pa.s.sage, is mentioned as the last of all the Moabitish towns, and that, immediately after its mention, there follow the words, ”Upon all the cities of the land of Moab, far and near.” It may be that Bozrah was conquered by the Edomites and Moabites in common, or that, in later times, the latter obtained a kind of possession of the town in common with the former.
[Pg 440]
CHAP. III.-V.
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 x.x.xi. 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_ pa.s.ses 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 G.o.d, 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 G.o.d has given to His people, and which they, altogether overlooking the fact that these are conditional, referred, in hypocritical blindness, to themselves. But G.o.d 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 G.o.d, shall sink into rubbish and ruins; the Temple-hill shall again become what it was previous to its being the residence of G.o.d, 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 l.u.s.ts of the great, and thereby, no less than the false prophets, a.s.sisted 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 G.o.d's blessing and protection; but unrighteousness destroys, because it calls down the curse of G.o.d.
The unfaithfulness of the Covenant-people can nevertheless not make void the faithfulness of G.o.d. The prophet, therefore, pa.s.ses 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 G.o.d, 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 unG.o.dly, because the whole body is pervaded by contempt of G.o.d, and by desperate obstinacy.
Let them receive, then, that which they all have deserved. But I now gather the children of G.o.d apart, for to them too I have a message to deliver.”