Volume I Part 27 (1/2)

Israel, with its claim of being alone the people of the only true G.o.d, 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 G.o.d?

Mine eyes shall behold her, now shall she be trodden down as the mire of the streets.” The words, ”Where is the Lord thy G.o.d?” 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 G.o.d 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 G.o.d'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 s.p.a.ce. The historical reference of the prophecy is thus very accurately stated by _Calvin_: ”Although the Babylonish captivity has come to an end, and Israel has been restored from it, the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 a.s.semble 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 G.o.d. 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 Philistaische Kuste_,” _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 Phnicians, 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 h.e.l.lenic 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 h.e.l.lenism 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 a.s.syrian period, will not startle those who look at the a.n.a.logies--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 a.n.a.logies, 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 pa.s.sage 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 a.s.syrian 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 G.o.d. 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 pa.s.sage from its connection, how ill does the activity here ascribed to Judah agree with the oppression by the a.s.syrians! 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 circ.u.mstance, 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 thres.h.i.+ng-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 pa.s.s over to the enemies, so that they shall themselves be destroyed by Zion, while they so confidently thought to inflict destruction upon Zion. The ?? 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 bra.s.s; 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 thres.h.i.+ng; 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 thres.h.i.+ng oxen is here considered, viz., the crus.h.i.+ng 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 thres.h.i.+ng, 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 ?????? has perplexed several ancient translators (_Syr._, _Jerome_), as well as many modern interpreters, who, therefore, subst.i.tute the second person for it. But it is quite appropriate. As at the beginning, where the Lord gathers the sheaf on the thres.h.i.+ng-floor, so at the close also, the prophet declares that the victory is the work of G.o.d. It is He Himself, the true G.o.d, 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 p.r.o.noun of the first person, the noun is employed; so that it is equivalent to: To Me the only G.o.d, 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 G.o.d 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 pa.s.sages also where the object required it. Thus, _e.g._, [Pg 476] Joel iv. (iii.) 5, where the Phnicians 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 G.o.d, but also from history, which knows nothing of the plunder of the temple by Phnicians 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 circ.u.mstance 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 ??????. 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 ???, in Jer. v. 7, in its favour. The Hithpael in this signification is probably a Denominative of ????. The person addressed, the ???????, can be none other than the ??????? in ver. 13.

For it is she who is addressed by the prophet [Pg 477] in each of the new scenes announced by ???, 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 ???????, 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 ????, 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 ???????

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 ???

?????, but, like His great ancestor [Pg 478] David, ???? ??????; 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 ?????, 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 ent.i.tled 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 a.n.a.logy 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 abas.e.m.e.nt 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 wors.h.i.+p.

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 G.o.d.”

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 G.o.ds 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.

CHAP. V. 1.

”_And thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, too little to be among the thousands of Judah, out of thee shall come forth unto Me_ (one) [Pg 480] _to be Ruler in Israel; and His goings forth are the times of old, the days of eternity._”

The close connection of this verse with what immediately precedes (_Caspari_ is wrong in considering iv. 9-14 as an episode) is evident, not only from the ? copulative, and from the a.n.a.logy of the near relation of the announcement of salvation to the prophecy of disaster in the preceding verse (for if the connection with ver. 14 be overlooked, the announcement of disaster contained in it remains without a corresponding consolation,--and this would be against the a.n.a.logy of vers. 9, 10, 11-13); but more strikingly so from the contrast of the ?????? ???? with the ??? ?????. The _Judge_ of Israel in his deepest abas.e.m.e.nt, is here contrasted with the _Ruler_ of Israel in His highest divine glory. The connection is seen also in the indication of Bethlehem's natural littleness, as contrasted with the greatness to be bestowed upon it by G.o.d. What could have induced the prophet thus strongly to point out this circ.u.mstance, had it not been that he considered Bethlehem as the type of the Jewish people in their misery, described in the preceding verse, and the miraculous elevation of the former, to be accomplished by divine omnipotence, as the pledge of a like result for the whole people? There is, moreover, a reference to the _beginning_ of the pretended episode. In iv. 9, it was said: ”There is no king in thee;” here, it is announced that from Bethlehem there comes forth a glorious Ruler in Israel. But, on the other hand, there is also a close connection with ver. 8, as has been rightly perceived by Caspari. This connection and reference are sufficiently indicated by the like form. The address to Bethlehem here corresponds with the address to ”the Tower of the flock” there,--the ”Ruler,” ????, here, with the ”dominion,” ?????, there. There, the dominion returns to the house of David; here, the august person is described by whom this return is effected, after the events, described iv. 9-14, have come upon the Covenant-people. That the Ruler here comes forth out of Bethlehem, corresponds with iv. 8 in so far as there the dominion _returns_ to the Tower of the flock, to the hill of the daughter of Zion, which implies the overthrow of the Davidic kingdom, and the return of the family of David to the condition in which it lived at Bethlehem before the time of David,--which must necessarily precede its final glory.--According to _Bachiene_ [Pg 481] ii. 2, S. 7 ff., Bethlehem and Ephratah are to be distinguished, so that the former designates the town alone, and the latter at the same time its whole environs,--so that Bethlehem Ephratah would be equivalent to Bethlehem situated in Ephratah. But even if we were to agree with this opinion, we must not, by any means, consider the two words as standing in the _stat. constr._, any more than the corresponding ??????? ????? in Judges xvii. 9, xix. 1, 2, 18. For as a _Nomen proprium_ is equivalent to a noun with the article, it can never stand in the _stat. constr._ with another noun. We should thus be obliged to a.s.sume that, by way of brevity, common in geographical designations, both appellations were placed unconnectedly beside each other, without any indication of their relation, just as in addressing a letter, we would simply write Berlin, Prussia. But if we compare Gen. x.x.xv. 19, where Ephratah is simply declared to be identical with Bethlehem (????? ??? ??? ???);--and if we consider that the prophet had already alluded to the contents of that chapter (compare remarks on iv. 8), and that he regards the events which formerly happened in the neighbourhood of Bethlehem as a type of those which were to take place in future;--that in ver. 2 (3) he brings the new birth which is there to happen in parallelism with one which had formerly occurred in its nearest neighbourhood, and that it is just in the account of the latter that the designation occurs,--we shall have the strongest reason for understanding here also the two names as a designation of the town, without deciding whether the above-mentioned difference, as regards other pa.s.sages, be well founded or not.

Interpreters commonly a.s.sert that the sole ground of the twofold designation of the place is the intention of distinguis.h.i.+ng it from another Bethlehem in the tribe of Zebulun; compare Josh. xix. 15. But in that case, we should rather have expected the common Bethlehem Judah, instead of Bethlehem Ephratah. There can be no doubt, that the prophet, in choosing this designation, was guided by a regard to that pa.s.sage in Genesis. One might also suppose that the prophet wished to allude, at the same time, to the appellative significations of these nouns, viz., ”house of bread,” and ”field of fruit,” and to lay stress upon their typical import: the place, the blessing of which, as regards temporal things, is indicated by its name, shall, at some [Pg 482]

future time, be blessed and fruitful in a higher sense. It is just in Micah, who is fond of making significant allusions to names, that such a supposition is very natural, as is shown, not only by chap. i., but also by vii. 18, where he gives an interpretation of his own name. As, however, the two names elsewhere also occur thus connected, without any attention being given to their signification, the prophet would not have omitted giving a hint upon this point. It is not the way of Scripture to make any allusions which cannot be understood with certainty. We shall, therefore, be obliged to suppose that, after the common name, the prophet mentions, in addition, the ancient name rendered sacred by memory from the time of the Patriarch, and by the authority of the most ancient doc.u.ments of revelation (compare, besides Gen. x.x.xv. 19, Gen. xlviii. 7), in order thereby to impart greater solemnity to the discourse, and to intimate what great things he had to say of Bethlehem. In accordance with this designation by two names, is, then, the circ.u.mstance that the address is directed to Bethlehem.--The word ???? forms an apposition to Bethlehem: ”little to be,” instead of, ”who art too little to be.” If the sense were to be, ”thou art little,”

the ??? would not have been omitted after ????. The circ.u.mstance that Bethlehem is addressed as a masculine (comp. ???? ,???, and ???) may be accounted for by the prophet's viewing the town in the image of its _ideal_ representative; compare remarks on Zech. ix. 7. In such a case, the gender may be neglected; compare, _e.g._, Gen. iv. 7, where sin, ????, appears as a masculine noun, on account of the image of a ravenous beast. Such personifications occur very frequently. Thus, nothing is more common in the Mosaic law than that Israel is addressed as one man. This has been frequently misunderstood, and, in consequence, that which refers to the whole people has been applied to the single individual. Thus it is even in the Decalogue. In Is. v. 7, the people of Judah appear as the _man_ Judah.