???? ???, "Hear, all ye people." These words literally agree with those which were uttered by the prophet"s elder namesake, when, according to 1 Kings xxii. 28, he called upon the whole world to attend to the remarkable struggle betwixt the true and false prophets. It is evidently on purpose that the prophet begins with the same words as those with which the elder Micah had closed his discourse to Ahab, and, it may be, his whole prophetic ministry. By this very circ.u.mstance he gives intimation of what may be expected from him, shows that his activity is to be considered as a continuation of that of his predecessor, who was so jealous for G.o.d, and that he had more in common with him than the mere name. _Rosenmuller_ (_Prol. ad Mich._ p. 8) has a.s.serted, indeed, that these words are only put into the mouth of the elder Micah, and that they are taken from the pa.s.sage under consideration. But the reason which he adduces in support of this a.s.sertion, viz., that it cannot be conceived how it could ever have entered the mind of that elder Micah to call upon all people to be witnesses of an announcement which concerned Ahab only, needs no detailed refutation. Why then is it that in Deut. x.x.xii. 1, Is. i. 2, heaven and earth are called upon to be witnesses of an announcement which concerned the Jewish people only? Who does not see that, to the prophet, Israel appears as too small an audience [Pg 415] for the announcement of the great decision which he has just uttered; in the same manner as the Psalmist (compare, _e.g._, Ps. xcvi. 3) exhorts to proclaim to the Gentiles the great deeds of the Lord, because Palestine is too narrow for them?--But now, if it be established that it was with a distinct object that the prophet employed the words, "Hear ye," does not the circ.u.mstance that they are found at the commencement of the three discourses, which are complete in themselves, afford sufficient ground for the a.s.sumption, that it was the intention of the prophet, not indeed absolutely to limit them to the beginning of a new discourse (compare, on the contrary, iii. 9[1]), but yet, not to commence a new discourse without them; so that the want of them is decisive against the supposition of a new section? 3. As soon as an attempt is made to break up any of these three discourses, many particular circ.u.mstances are at once found, upon a careful examination, to prove a connection of the sections so close, as not to admit of a separation without mutilating them. Thus chap. i. and ii. cannot be separated from each other, for the reason that the promise in ii. 12, 13, refers to the threatening in i. 5. That promise refers to all Israel, just as does the threatening in chap. i.; whilst in the threatening and reproof in chap. ii. the eye of the prophet is directed only to the main object of his ministry, viz., to Judah.
But even these three divisions, which hitherto we have proved to be the only divisions that do exist,[2] can be considered as such, in so far only as in them the discourse takes a fresh start, and enters upon a new sphere. They cannot be considered as complete in themselves, and separated from one another by the [Pg 416] difference of the periods of their composition; for even in them there are found traces of a close connection. Even the uniform beginning by "Hear" may be considered as such. The second discourse in iii. 1 begins with ????; but the _Fut._ with _Vav convers._ always, and without exception, connects a new action with a preceding one, and can never be used where there is an absolutely new commencement. Its significance here, where it is used in the transition from the promise to a new reproof and threatening, has been very strikingly brought out thus, by _Ch. Bened. Michaelis_: "But while we are yet but too far away from those longed-for times, which have just been promised, I _say_ in the meanwhile, viz., in order to complete the list of the iniquities of evil princes and teachers, begun in chap. ii." The words of iii. 1, "Hear, I pray you, ye heads of Jacob, and ye princes of the house of Israel," have an evident reference to ii. 12: "I will a.s.semble Jacob all of thee, I will gather the remnant of Israel." In the new threatening, the prophet chooses quite the same designation as in the preceding promise, in order to prevent the latter from giving support to false security. It is not by any means Samaria alone, but all Israel, which is the object of divine punishment. It is only a remnant of Israel that shall be gathered. But the reference to the preceding discourse is still more obvious in ver.
4: "Then they shall cry unto the Lord, and He will not answer; and may He hide[3] His face from them at this time, as they have behaved themselves ill towards Him in their doings." Now, as in vers. 1-3 divine judgments had not yet been spoken of, the terms "then," and "at this time," can refer only to the threatenings of punishment in ii. 3 ff., which have a special reference to the unG.o.dly n.o.bles.
Thus the result presented at the beginning, is confirmed to us by internal reasons. The inscription[4] announces the oracles [Pg 417] of G.o.d which came to Micah under the reign of three kings; while the examination of the contents proves that the collection forms a connected whole, written _uno tenore_. How, now, can these two facts be reconciled in any other way than by supposing that we have here before us a comprehensive picture of the prophetic ministry of Micah, the single component parts of which are at once contemporaneous, and yet belonging to different periods? This supposition, moreover, affords us the advantage of being allowed to maintain all the historical references in their fullest import, without being led to disregard the one, while we give attention to the other; for nothing is, in this case, more natural, than that the prophet connects with one another different prophecies uttered at different times.
The weight of these internal reasons is increased, however, by external reasons which are equally strong. When Jeremiah was called to account for his prophecy concerning the destruction of the city, the elders, for his justification, appealed to the [Pg 418] entirely similar prophecy of Micah in iii. 12: "Therefore shall Zion for your sake be ploughed as a field, and Jerusalem shall become heaps of ruins, and the mountain of the house as the high places of the forest." In Jer. xxvi.
18, 19, it is said, "Micah prophesied in the days of Hezekiah, king of Judah, and spake to all the people of Judah, etc. Did Hezekiah, king of Judah, and all Judah, put him to death? Did he not fear the Lord, and besought the Lord, and the Lord repented Him of the evil which He had p.r.o.nounced against them?" All interpreters admit that this pa.s.sage forms an authority for the composition of the discourse in iii.-v.
under Hezekiah; but we cannot well limit it in this way, we must extend it to the whole collection. For, even apart from the reasons by which we proved that the entire book forms one closely connected whole, it is most improbable that the elders should have known, by an oral tradition, the exact time of the composition of one single discourse, which has no special date at the head of it. Is it not a far more natural supposition, that they considered the collection as a whole, of which the component parts had, indeed, been delivered by the prophet at a former period, but had been repeated, and united into one description under Hezekiah; and that they mentioned Hezekiah, partly because it could not be determined with certainty whether this special prediction had already been uttered under one of his predecessors, and, if so, under which of them; and partly, because among the three kings mentioned in the inscription, Hezekiah alone formed an ecclesiastical authority?
But just as that quotation in Jeremiah furnishes us with a proof that all the prophecies of Micah, which have been preserved to us, were committed to writing under Hezekiah, so we can, in a similar manner, prove from Isaiah, chap. ii., that they were, at least in part, uttered at a previous period. The problem of the relation of Is. ii. 2-4 to Micah iv. 1-3, cannot be solved in any other way than by supposing, that this portion of a prophecy which, in Jeremiah, is a.s.signed to the reign of Hezekiah, was uttered by Micah as early as under the reign of Jotham, and that soon after it Isaiah, by placing the words of Micah at the head of his own prophecies, expressed that which had come to him also in inward vision; for, being already known to the people, they could not fail to produce their impression. [Pg 419] Every other solution can be proved to be untenable. 1. Least of all is there any refutation needed of the hypothesis which is now generally abandoned, viz., that the pa.s.sage in Isaiah is the original one; compare, against this hypothesis, _Kleinert_, _Aechtheit des Jes._ S. 356; _Caspari_, S.
444. 2. Equally objectionable is another supposition, that both the prophets had made use of some older prophecy--one uttered by Joel, as _Hitzig_ and _Ewald_ have maintained. The connection in which these verses stand in Micah, is by far too close for such a supposition. We could not, indeed, so confidently advance this argument, if the connection consisted only in what is commonly brought forward, viz., that upon the monitory announcement of punishment in chap. iii., there follows, in chap. iv. 1 ff., the _consolatory_ promise of a glorious future for the G.o.dly, and that the ? in ver. 1 evidently connects it with what immediately precedes. But the reference and connection are far more close. The promise in iv. 1, 2, is, throughout, contrasted with the threatening in iii. 12. "The mountain of the house shall become as the high places of the forest,"--hence, despised, solitary, and desolate. In iv. 1, there is opposed to it, "The mountain of the house of the Lord shall be established on the top of the mountains, and it shall be exalted above the hills, and upon it people shall flee together." "Zion shall be ploughed as a field, and Jerusalem become a heap of ruins." Contrasted with this, there is in iv. 2 the declaration: "For the law shall go forth of Zion, and the word of the Lord of Jerusalem." The desolate and despised place now becomes the residence of the Lord, from which He sends His commands over the whole earth, and of which the brilliant centre now is Jerusalem. In order to make this contrast so much the more obvious, the prophet begins, in the promise, with just the mountain of the temple, which, in the threatening, had occupied the last place; so that the opposites are brought into immediate connection. Nor is it certainly merely accidental that, in the threatening, he speaks of the mountain of the house only, while, in the promise, he speaks of the mountain of the house of the Lord; compare Matt. xxiii. 38, where "your house,"
according to _Bengel_, "is the house which, in other pa.s.sages, is called the house of the Lord," just as the Lord, in Exod. x.x.xii. 7, says to Moses, "_Thy people._" The temple must have ceased to be the house of the Lord, before it would be destroyed; for [Pg 420] which reason, as we are told In Ezekiel, the Shechinah removed from it before the Babylonish destruction. And in point of form, the ???? in iv. 1 so much the more corresponds with the ???? in iii. 12, as from the latter ???? must be supplied for the last clause of the verse; compare _Caspari_, S. 445. That ver. 5 must not be separated from the prophecy which Isaiah had before him, is seen from a comparison of Is. ii. 5: "O house of Jacob, come ye and let us walk in the light of the Lord."
According to the true interpretation, "the light of the Lord" signifies His grace, and the blessings which, according to what precedes, are to be bestowed by it; and "to walk in the light of the Lord," means to partic.i.p.ate in the enjoyment of grace. These words, accordingly, are closely related to those in Mic. iv. 5: "For all the people shall walk, every one in the name of his G.o.d, and we will walk in the name of the Lord our G.o.d for ever and ever:" _i.e._, the fate of the people in the heathen world corresponds to the nature of their G.o.ds; because these are nothing, they too shall sink down into nothingness, while Israel shall partake in the glory of his G.o.d. There is the same thought, and in essentially the same dress, both in Isaiah and Micah,--only that the words which in Micah embody a pure promise, are transformed by Isaiah into an exhortation that Israel should not, by their own fault, forfeit this preference over the heathen nations, that they should not wantonly wander away into dark solitudes, from the path of light which the Lord had opened up before them. This transformation in Isaiah, however, may be accounted for by the consideration, that he was anxious to prepare the way for the reproofs which now follow from ver. 6; whilst Micah, who had already premised them, could continue in the promise. It is also in favour of the originality of the pa.s.sage in Micah, that the text which, in Isaiah, appears as a variation, appears as original in Micah; so that both cannot be equally dependent upon a third writer. 3.
There now remains only the view of _Kleinert_, according to which the prophecy of Micah, in chap. iii.-v., was first uttered under the reign of Hezekiah; and, under the reign of the same king, but somewhat later, the prophecy, in chap. ii.-iv. of Isaiah, who avails himself of it.
But, upon a closer examination, this view also proves untenable.
Isaiah"s description of the condition of the people in a moral point of view, the general spread of idolatry [Pg 421] and vice, exclude every other period in the reign of Hezekiah except the first beginning of it, when the effect and influence of the time of Ahaz were still felt; so that even _Kleinert_ (p. 364) is obliged to a.s.sume, that not only the prophecy of Micah, but also that of Isaiah, were uttered in the first months of the reign of this king. But other difficulties--and these altogether insuperable--stand in the way of this a.s.sumption. In the whole section of Isaiah, the nation appears as rich, flourishing, and powerful. This is most strongly expressed in chap. ii. 7: "His land is full of silver and gold, there is no end to his treasure; his land is full of horses, and there is no end to his chariots." To this may be added the description of the consequences of wealth, and of the unbounded luxury, in iii. 16 ff.; and the threatening of the withdrawal of all power, and all riches, as a strong contrast with their present condition, upon which they, in their blindness, rested the hope of their security, and hence imagined that they stood in no need of the a.s.sistance of the Lord, iii. 1 ff. Now this description is so inapplicable to the commencement of Hezekiah"s reign, that the very opposite of it should rather be expected. The invasion by the allied Syrians and Israelites, the oppression by the a.s.syrians, and the tribute which they had to pay to them, the internal administration, which was bad beyond example, and the curse of G.o.d resting on all their enterprises and efforts, had exhausted, during the reign of the unG.o.dly Ahaz, the treasures which had been collected under Uzziah and Jotham, and had dried up the sources of prosperity. He had left the kingdom to his successors in a condition of utter decay. To these, other reasons still may be added, which are in favour of the composition of it under Jotham, while they are against its composition under Hezekiah; especially the circ.u.mstance of their standing at the beginning of the collection of the first twelve chapters (a circ.u.mstance which is of great weight, inasmuch as these chapters are, beyond any doubt, arranged chronologically), but still more, the indefiniteness and generality in the threatening of the divine judgments, which the prophecy of Micah has in common with the nearly contemporaneous chapters i. and v. of Isaiah, whilst the threatenings out of the first period of the reign of Ahaz have at once a far more definite character.
By these considerations we are involuntarily led back to a period when Isaiah still [Pg 422] pre-eminently exercised the office of exhorting and reproving, and had not yet been favoured with special revelations concerning the events of a future which, at that time, was as yet rather distant,--perhaps as far as the time when Jotham administered the government for his father, who was at that time still alive; compare 2 Kings xv. 5. By this hypothesis. Is. iii. 12 is more satisfactorily explained than by any other; and we are no longer under the necessity of a.s.serting, that the chronological order is interrupted by chap. vi.; for this certainly could not have been intended by the collector. The solemn call and consecration of the prophet to his office, accompanied by an increased bestowal of grace, must be carefully distinguished from the ordinary ones which were common to him with all the other prophets. But if the prophecy of Isaiah was uttered as early as under Jotham (which has lately been most satisfactorily proved by _Caspari_ in his _Beitrage zur Einl. in das Buch Jesaias_, S.
234 ff.), that of Micah also must have existed at that time, and must have been in the mouths of the people. And since its composition is a.s.signed to the reign of Hezekiah, it follows that the prophet delivered anew, under the reign of this king, the revelations which he had already received at an earlier period.
It will not be possible to infer with certainty from vers. 6, 7, as _Caspari_ does, that the book was committed to writing before the destruction of Samaria, and hence, before the sixth year of Hezekiah.
Since the book gives the sum and substance of what was prophesied under three kings, all that is implied in vers. 6, 7, is, that the destruction of Samaria was foretold by Micah; but the prophecy itself may have been committed to writing even after the fulfilment had taken place. But, on the other hand, according to the a.n.a.logy of Is. x.x.xix., and xiii. and xiv., we are led by iv. 9, 10, to the time of Sennacherib"s invasion of Judea, in which the prophetic spirit of Isaiah likewise most richly displayed itself, and in which he was privileged with a glance into the far distant future.
The exordium in chap. i. and ii., and the close in vi. and vii., are distinguished by the generality of the threatening and promise which prevails in them. They have this in common with the first five chapters of Isaiah, and thus certainly afford us pre-eminently an image of the prophetic ministry of Micah, in the time previous to the a.s.syrian invasion; whilst the main [Pg 423] body (especially from iv. 8) represents to us particularly the character of the prophecy during the a.s.syrian period.
We shall now attempt to give a survey of the contents of Micah"s prophecy.
Upon Samaria and Jerusalem--the kingdom of the ten tribes, and Judah--a judgment by foreign enemies is to come. Total destruction, and the carrying away of the inhabitants, will be the issue of this judgment, and, as regards Judah more particularly, the total overthrow of the dominion of the Davidic dynasty.
Samaria is first visited by this judgment. This is indicated by the fact that it is first mentioned in the inscription, and that in i. 6, 7, the judgment upon Samaria is, first of all, described; but especially by the circ.u.mstance that Samaria, in i. 5, appears as the chief seat of corruption for the whole people, whence it flowed upon Judah also, i. 14, and particularly, vi. 16. We expect that where the carcases first were, there the eagles would first be gathered together.
As the first, and princ.i.p.al instrument of the destructive judgment upon Judah, Babylon is mentioned in iv. 10.
As the representative of the world"s power, at the time then present, a.s.shur appears in v. 4, 5. If destruction is to fall upon the kingdom of the ten tribes _before_ it falls upon Judah--which is most distinctly foretold by Hosea in i. 4-7--then, nothing was more obvious than to think of a.s.shur as the instrument of the judgment. That to which Micah, on this point, only alludes, is more fully expanded by Isaiah.
Judah is delivered from Babylon, but without a restoration of the kingdom, iv. 10, compared with ver. 14 (v. 1).
But a second catastrophe comes upon Judah, inasmuch as many heathens gather themselves against Jerusalem, with the intention of desecrating it, but yet in such a manner that, by the a.s.sistance of the Lord, it comes forth victoriously from this severe attack, chap. iv. 11-13. Then follows a third catastrophe, in which Judah becomes anew and totally subject to the world"s power, iv. 14 (v. 1).
From the deepest abas.e.m.e.nt, however, the Congregation of the Lord rises to the highest glory, inasmuch as the dominion returns to the old Davidic race, iv. 8. From the little Bethlehem, the native place of David, where his race, sunk back again into [Pg 424] the lowliness of private life, has resumed its seat, a new and glorious Ruler proceeds, born, and at the same time eternal, and clothed with the fulness of the glory of the Lord, v. 1, 3 (2, 4), by whom Jacob obtains truth, and Abraham mercy, vii. 20, compared with John i. 17; by whom the Congregation is placed in the centre of the world, and becomes the object of the longing of all nations, iv. 1-3, delivered from the servitude of the world, and conquering the world, v. 4, 5 (5, 6), vii.
11, 12; and at the same time lowly, and inspiring the nations with fear, v. 6-8 (7-9). To such a height, however, she shall attain after, by means of the judgment preceding the mercy, all that has been taken from her upon which she in the present founded the hope of her salvation, v. 9-14 (10-15).
Footnote 1: It must not, however, be overlooked, that there the term "hear" is only a resumption of "hear" in iii. 1 (and, to a certain extent, even of that in i. 2), intimating, that that which they are about to hear, will concentrate itself in a distinct and powerful expression,--the acme of the whole threatening in iii. 12.
Footnote 2: Besides the division into three sections, there is, to a certain extent, a division also into two. By ???? in iii. 1, the first and second discourses, or the exordium and princ.i.p.al part, are brought into a still closer connection,--a connection founded upon the circ.u.mstance that the reproof and threatening of the first part are to be here resumed, in order that thus a comprehensive representation may be given. It is only in iii. 12 that the threatening reaches its height. But yet the tripart.i.tion remains the prominent one. This cannot be denied without forcing a false sense and a false position upon ii.
12, 13.
Footnote 3: The _Fut. apoc._ forbids us to translate: "He will hide."
In order to express his own delight in the doings of divine justice, the prophet changes the prediction into a wish, just as is the case in Is. ii. 9, where the greater number of interpreters a.s.sume, in opposition to the rules of grammar, that ?? stands for ??.
Footnote 4: Against the genuineness of the inscription, doubts have been raised by many, after the example of _Hartmann_, and last of all by _Ewald_ and _Hitzig_; but it is established by the striking allusions to, and coincidences with it, in the text. With the mention of Micah"s name in the former, the allusion to this name in the _close_ of the book, in chap. vii. 18, corresponds. The circ.u.mstance of Micah being called the Morasthite, accounts for the fact that, in this threatening against the cities of Judah, in i. 14, it is Moresheth alone which is mentioned. In the inscription, Samaria and Jerusalem are pointed out as the objects of the prophet"s predictions; and it is in harmony with this, that in i. 6, 7, the judgment upon Samaria is first described, and then the judgment upon Judah; that the prophet--although, indeed, he has Judah chiefly in view--frequently gives attention to the ten tribes also, and includes them,--as in the promise in ii. 12, 13, v. 1 (2), where the Messiah appears as the Ruler in Israel, and vers. 6, 7 (7, 8), of the same chapter; and that in iii.
8, 9, Judah is represented as a particular part only of the great whole. _Finally_--It is peculiar to Micah, that he thus views so specially the two _capitals_; and this again is in harmony with the inscription, where just these, and not Israel and Judah, appear as the subjects of the prophecy. It is in the capitals that Micah beholds the concentration of the corruption (i. 5); and to them the threatening also is chiefly addressed, i. 6, 7, iii. 12. Of the promise, also, Jerusalem forms the centre.--The statement, too, in the inscription--that Micah uttered the contents of his book under various kings--likewise receives a confirmation from the prophecy. The mention of the high places of Judah in i. 5, and of the walking in the statutes of Omri, and in all the works of the house of Ahab, refers especially to the time of Ahaz; compare 2 Kings xvi. 4; 2 Chron. xxviii. 4, 25; further, 2 Kings xvi. 3; 2 Chron. xxviii. 2; and _Caspari_ on Micah, S. 74. On the other hand, the time of Hezekiah is suggested by v. 4, 6 (5, 6), which implies that already, at that time, a.s.shur had appeared as the enemy of the people of G.o.d,--and so likewise by the prophecy in iv. 9-14.
CHAP. I. AND II.
The prophet begins with the words: "_Hear, all ye people, hearken, O earth and the fulness thereof, and let the Lord G.o.d be witness against you, the Lord from His holy temple. For, behold, the Lord cometh forth out of His place, and cometh down, and treadeth upon the high places of the earth. And the mountains are melted under Him, and the valleys are cleft, as wax before the fire, as waters poured down a steep place. For the transgression of Jacob is all this, and for the sins of the house of Israel._" Vers. 2-5.
This majestic exordium has been misunderstood in various ways: _First_, by those who, like _Hitzig_, would understand by the people, ???? in ver. 2, the tribes of Israel. We shall show, when commenting on Zech.
xi. 10, that this is altogether inadmissible. But in the present case especially, this interpretation must be rejected; partly on account of the reference to the words of the elder Micah, and partly on account of the parallel terms, "O earth and the fulness thereof," which, according to the constant _usus loquendi_, lead us far beyond the narrow limits of Palestine. On the other hand, they who by the ???? rightly understand the nations of the whole earth, are mistaken in this, that they consider them as mere witnesses, whom the Lord calls [Pg 425] up against His unthankful people, instead of considering them as the very same against whom the Lord bears witness; and that they come into consideration from this point of view, clearly appears from the words, "The Lord be witness against you." As regards ?? with ? following, compare, _e.g._, Mal. iii. 5.--Another mistake is committed in the definition of the way and manner of the divine witness. The greater number of interpreters suppose it to be the subsequent admonitory, reproving, and threatening discourse of the prophet. Thus, _e.g._, _Michaelis_, who explains: "Do not despise and lightly esteem such a witness, who by me earnestly and publicly testifies to you His will."
But in opposition to this view, it appears from ver. 3, that here, as well as in Mal. iii. 5, "And I will come near to you in judgment, and I am a swift witness against the sorcerers, and against the adulterers, and against those that swear to a lie," the witness is a real one,--that it consists in the actual attestation of the guilt by the punishment, viz., by the divine judgment described in vers. 3, 4. The words, "The Lord cometh forth out of His place, and cometh down," there correspond to, "From His holy temple,"--from which it is evident, at the same time, that by the temple, the heavenly temple must be understood.
We have thus, in vers. 2-4, before us the description of a sublime theophany, not for a partial judgment upon Judah, but for a judgment upon the whole world, the people of which are called upon to gather around their judge--whom the prophet beholds as already approaching, descending from His glorious habitation in heaven, accompanied by the insignia of His power, the precursors of the judgment--and silently to wait for His judicial and penal sentence.[1]
But how is it to be explained that with the words, "For the transgression of Jacob is all this," etc., there is a sudden transition to the judgments upon Israel, yea, that the prophet [Pg 426] goes on as if Israel alone had been spoken of? Only from the relation in which these two judgments stand to one another. For they are perfectly one in substance. They are separated only by s.p.a.ce, time, and unessential circ.u.mstances; so that we may say that the general judgment appears in every partial judgment upon Israel. In order to give expression to the thought, that it is the _judge of the world_ who is to judge Israel, the prophets not unfrequently represent the Lord appearing to judge the whole world; and in Israel, the _Microcosmos_, it was indeed judged. We have a perfectly a.n.a.logous case, _e.g._, in Is. chap. ii.-iv. It is only by means of a very forced explanation, that it can be denied that after the prophet has, by a few bold touches, from ii. 6-9, described the moral debas.e.m.e.nt of the Covenant-people, and marked out pride as its last source, the last judgment upon the whole earth forms the subject of discourse. In that judgment there will be a most clear revelation of the vanity of all which is created--a vanity which, in the present course of the world, is so frequently concealed--and that the Lord alone is exalted, and that those who now shut their eyes will then be compelled to acknowledge these truths. That Isaiah has this general judgment in view, is too clearly proved by the sublimity of the whole description, by the express mention of the whole earth, _e.g._, ii. 19, and by not limiting, in the individualized description in ver.
12 sqq., the high and lofty which is to be brought low to Judah alone, but by extending it to the whole world. But in iii. 1 ff. the prophet suddenly pa.s.ses over to the typical, penal judgment upon Judah; and the ??, at the commencement, shows that he does not consider this subject as one altogether new, but as being substantially identical with the preceding subject. This reminds us forcibly of the mode in which, in the prophecies of our Lord, the references to the destruction of Jerusalem, and to the last judgment, are connected with one another. In the "burden of Babylon" in chap. xiii. likewise, the judgment of the Lord upon the whole earth is first described. Nor is it only on the territory of prophecy that this close connection of the general judgment with the inferior judgments upon the Covenant-people appears.
In Ps. lx.x.xii. 8, _e.g._, after the unrighteousness prevailing among the Covenant-people has been described, the Lord is called upon to come to judge, not them [Pg 427] alone, but the whole earth; compare my Commentary on Ps. vii. 8, lvi. 8, lix. 6.
The prophet thus pa.s.ses over, in ver. 5, from the general manifestation of divine justice to its special manifestation among the Covenant-people, and mentions here, as the most prominent points upon which it will be inflicted, Samaria and Jerusalem, the two capitals, from which the apostasy from the Lord spread over the rest of the country. He mentions Samaria first, and then, in vers. 6, 7, he describes its destruction which was brought about by the a.s.syrians, before he makes mention of that of Jerusalem, because the apostasy took place first in Samaria, and hence the punishment also was hastened on.
The latter circ.u.mstance, which is merely a consequence of the former, is in an one-sided manner made prominent by the greater number of interpreters, who therein follow the example of _Jerome_. It was at the same time, however, probably the intention of the prophet to be done with Samaria, in order that he might be at liberty to take up exclusively the case of Judah and Jerusalem--the main objects of his prophetic ministry.
He makes the transition to this in ver. 8, by means of the words: "_On that account I will wail and howl, I will go stripped and naked; I will make a wailing like the jackals, and a mourning like the ostriches._"
"_On that account_"--_i.e._, on account of the judgment upon Judah, to be announced in the subsequent verses. It is commonly supposed that the prophet here speaks in his own person; thus, _e.g._, _Rosenmuller_: "The prophet mourns in a bitter lamentation for the number and magnitude of the calamities impending over the Israelitish people." But the correct view rather is, that the prophet, when, in his inward vision, he sees the divine judgments not remaining and stopping at Samaria, but poured out like a desolating torrent over Judah and Jerusalem, suddenly sinks his own consciousness in that of his suffering people. We have thus here before us an imperfect symbolical action, similar to that more finished one which occurs in Is. xx. 3, 4, and which can be explained only by a deeper insight into the nature of prophecy, according to which the dramatic character is inseparable from it. The transition from the mere description of what is present in the inward vision only, to the prophet"s own action, is, according to this view, very easy. If we confine ourselves to the pa.s.sage before us, the following [Pg 428] arguments are in favour of our view. 1. The predicates ???? and ???? cannot be explained upon the supposition that the prophet describes only his own painful feelings on account of the condition of his people. Even if ???? stood alone, the explanation by "naked," in the sense of "deprived of the usual and decent dress, and, on the contrary, clothed in dirt and rags," would be dest.i.tute of all proof and authority. No instance whatsoever is found of the outward habit of a mourner being designated as nakedness. But it is still more arbitrary thus to deal with ????, whether it be explained by "deprived of his mental faculties on account of the unbounded grief of his soul,"--as is done by several Jewish expositors (who, in the explanation of this pa.s.sage, would have done much better, had they followed the Chaldee, in whom the correct view is found; only that he, giving up the figurative representation, subst.i.tutes the third person for the first, paraphrasing it thus: "On that account they shall wail and howl, they shall go stripped and naked," etc.),--or by "badly clothed," as is done by the greater number of Christian expositors. The signification "robbed," "plundered," is the only established one; compare ???? in Job xii. 17-19. The parallel pa.s.sages, in which nakedness appears as the characteristic feature of the captives taken in war, show how little we are ent.i.tled to depart from the most obvious signification, in these two words. Thus we find immediately afterwards, in ver. 11: "Pa.s.s ye away, ye inhabitants of Saphir, having your shame naked;" on which _Michaelis_ remarks: "With naked bodies, as is the case with those who are led into captivity after having been stripped of their clothes." Thus Is. xx. 3, 4: "And the Lord said. Like as My servant Isaiah walketh _naked_ and _barefoot_ three years, for a sign and wonder upon Egypt and Ethiopia, so shall the king of a.s.syria lead away the prisoners of Egypt, and the prisoners of Ethiopia, young men and old men, _naked_ and _barefoot_;" compare Is. xlvii. 3.--2. The term ???????, in ver. 10, is in favour of the supposition, that the prophet here appears as the representative of the future condition of his people. The _Imperat. fem. _?????? of the marginal reading is evidently, as is commonly the case, only the result of the embarra.s.sment of the Mazorets. The reading of the text can be pointed as the first person of the Preterite only; for the view of _Rosenmuller_, who takes it as the [Pg 429] second person of the Preterite, which here is to have an optative signification, is, grammatically, inadmissible. _Ruckert"s_ explanation, "In the house of _dust_ (_zu Staubheim_), I have strewed dust upon me," is quite correct. But if _here_ we must suppose that the prophet suddenly pa.s.ses over from the address to his unfortunate people, to himself as their representative, why should not this supposition be the natural one in ver. 8 also?
The correctness of the view which we have given is further strengthened, if we compare the similar lamentations of the prophets in other pa.s.sages, in all of which the same results will be found. In Jer.
xlviii. 31, _e.g._, "Therefore will I howl over Moab, and cry out over all Moab, over the men of Kir-heres shall _he_ groan," the "he" in the last clause sufficiently shows how the "I" in the two preceding clauses, is to be understood,--especially if Is. xvi. 7, "Therefore Moab howleth over Moab," be compared. But if this interpretation be correct in Jeremiah, it must certainly be correct in Is. xv. 5 also: "My heart crieth out over Moab,"--a pa.s.sage which Jeremiah had in view; and this so much the more, that in Is. xvi. 9-11--where a similar lamentation for Moab occurs: "Therefore do I bewail as for Jazer for the vine of Sibmah; I water thee with my tears, O Heshbon and Elealeh.... Therefore my bowels sound like a harp for Moab, mine inward parts for Kirhareseth"--it is quite unsuitable to think of a lamentation of the prophet, which is expressive of his own grief. This was seen by the Chaldee, who renders "_my_ bowels" by "bowels of the Moabites,"--a view the correctness of which has been strikingly demonstrated by _Vitringa_: "Although," he says, "the emotion of compa.s.sion be by no means unsuitable in the prophet, yet no one will be readily convinced that the prophet was so much concerned for the vines of Sibmah and Jazer, and for the crops of the summer-fruits of a nation hostile and opposed to the people of G.o.d, that it should have been for him a cause for lamentation and wailing." In Is. xxi., in the prophecy against Babylon, and in the lamentation in vers. 3, 4, "Therefore are my loins filled with pain, pangs take hold upon me as the pangs of a woman that travaileth, etc., the night of my pleasure has been turned into terror," it is clearly shown in what sense such lamentations are to be understood. By "the night of pleasure," we can, especially by a comparison of Jeremiah, understand only the night of the capture of Babylon, [Pg 430] in which the whole city was given up to drunkenness and riot. But it is impossible that the prophet should say that this night--the precursor of the long-desired day for Israel--had been turned for him into terror. Either the whole lamentation is without any meaning, or the prophet speaks in the name of Babylon, and that, not of the Babylon of the present, but of the Babylon of the future. This must be granted, even by those who a.s.sert that this portion was composed at a later period; so that, even from this quarter, the soundness of our view cannot be a.s.sailed.
In ver. 9, the prophet returns to quiet description, from the symbolical action to which he had been carried away by his emotions.
The subject of this description he states in the words: "_It cometh unto Judah; it cometh unto the gate of my people, unto Jerusalem._" By individualizing, he endeavours to give a lively view of the thought, and to impress it. He begins with an allusion to the lamentation of David over Saul and Jonathan in 2 Sam. i. 17 ff., which is so much the more significant, that in this impending catastrophe, Israel also was to lose his king (compare iv. 9), and that in it David was to experience the fate of Saul. He then indicates the stations by which the hostile army advances towards Jerusalem, and describes how, from thence, it spreads over the whole country, even to its southern boundary, and carries away the inhabitants into exile. But, in doing so, he always chooses places, whose names might, in some way, be brought into connection with what they were now suffering; so that the whole pa.s.sage forms a chain of _paronomasias_. These, however, are not by any means idle plays. They have, throughout, a practical design. The threatening is thereby to be, as it were, localized. The thought of a divine judgment could not but be called forth in every one who should think of one of the places mentioned. Jerusalem is first spoken of in ver. 9 as the centre of the life of Judah: "The gate of my people,"
etc., being tantamount to "_the_ city or metropolis of it." Then, it appears a second time in ver. 12, in the middle between five Judean places preceding and five following it,--the number ten, which is the symbolical signification of completeness, indicating that the judgment is to be altogether comprehensive. The five places mentioned after Jerusalem are all of them situated to the south of it. That the [Pg 431] five places, the mention of which precedes that of Jerusalem, are all to be sought to the north of it, and that, hence, the judgment advances from the north in geographical order, as is the case in Is. x.
28 ff. also, is evident from the fact that Beth-Leaphrah, which is identical with Ophrah, is situated in the territory of Benjamin, and that Beth-Haezel, which is identical with Azal in Zech. xiv. 5, was situated in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem. Hence, we cannot suppose that Zaanan here is identical with Zenan, which is situated in the south of Jerusalem, Josh. xv. 37, nor Saphir with Samir.
The question still arises, In what event did the threatening of punishment, contained in chap. i., find its fulfilment? _Theodoret_, _Cyril_, _Tarnovius_, _Marckius_, _Jahn_, and others, refer it to the a.s.syrian invasion. _Jerome_ referred it to the Babylonish captivity: "The same sin," he says, "yea, the same punishment of sin which shall overturn Samaria, is to extend to Judah, yea, even unto the gates of my city of Jerusalem. For, as Samaria was overturned by the a.s.syrians, so Judah and Jerusalem shall be overturned by the Chaldeans." This opinion was adopted by _Michaelis_ and others.
At first sight, it would appear as if the circ.u.mstance, that the judgment upon Judah is brought into immediate connection with that upon Israel, favoured the first view. But this argument loses its weight when we remark, that the events appear to the prophet in inward vision, and, therefore, quite irrespective of their relation in time; that the continuity of the punitive judgment upon Israel and Judah only, points out distinctly the truth, that both proceed from the same cause, viz., the relation of divine justice to the sin of the Covenant-people. It is this truth alone which forms the essence and soul of the prophetic threatenings; and with reference to that, the difference in point of time, which is merely accidental, is altogether kept out of view.
Another argument in favour of the a.s.syrian invasion might be derived from the expression, "_to_ Jerusalem," in ver. 9, inasmuch as the Chaldean invasion visited Jerusalem itself. But, because the calamity was not by any means to stop at Judah, but to overflow even it, it is shown by the preceding expression, "unto Judah," that ??? (compare on this word, _Dissertations on the Genuineness of Daniel_, p. 55 seq.) must, in both cases, be explained from a tacit ant.i.thesis with the expectation, [Pg 432] that the judgment would either stop at the boundary of Judah, or, although this should not be the case, would at least spare the metropolis. The prophet contents himself with representing that this opinion was erroneous. Although this pa.s.sage itself a.s.serts nothing upon the point as to whether Jerusalem itself is to be thought of as the object of the divine punishment, or whether it will be spared, the following reasons show that the former will be the case. Even ver. 5 does not admit of our expecting anything else.
Jerusalem is there marked out as the chief seat and source of corruption in the kingdom of Judah, just as is Samaria in the kingdom of Israel. The declaration which is there made forms the foundation of the subsequent threatening. How is it possible, then, that, while in the kingdom of Israel it is concentrated upon Samaria, in the kingdom of Judah the seducer should be altogether pa.s.sed over, and punishment announced to the seduced only? That such is not the intention of the prophet, is clearly seen from ver. 12: "_For evil cometh down from the Lord upon the gate of Jerusalem._" The ?? alone is sufficient to prevent our limiting the sense of these words, so that they mean only that evil will come no farther than to the gate of Jerusalem, and will stop there. The _Particula causalis_ proves that they are the ground of the declaration in ver. 11, and that the mourning will not cease at Beth-Haezel, "the house of stopping;" compare the remarks on Zech. xiv.
5. But, altogether apart from this connection, the words themselves furnish a proof. They contain a verbal reference to the description of the judgment upon Sodom and Gomorrha, Gen. xix. 24. Jerusalem is marked out by them as a second Sodom (compare Is. i. 10), upon which the divine judgments would discharge themselves. As a second mark of this extension to Jerusalem, the carrying away of the people into captivity is added (compare vers. 11, 15, 16), which, in the promise in chap. ii.
12, 13, is supposed to have taken place. It is not Israel alone, but the whole Covenant-people, who are in a state of dispersion, and are gathered from it by the Lord.
Now, both of these marks are not applicable to the a.s.syrian invasion; and if once we suppose the divine illumination of the prophet, it cannot be regarded as the real object of his threatenings. This, too, is equally inadmissible, if we consider the matter from a merely human point of view. The predictions [Pg 433] of the prophets with regard to a.s.syria are, from the very outset, rather encouraging. It is true that they are to be, in the hand of the Lord, a rod of chastis.e.m.e.nt for His people, but these are never to be altogether given up to them for destruction. By an immediate divine interference, their plan of capturing Jerusalem is frustrated. Thus the matter is constantly represented in Isaiah; thus also in Hosea i. 7. We can, moreover, adduce proofs from Micah himself, that his spiritual eye was not pre-eminently, or exclusively, directed to the a.s.syrians. In the prophecy from chap. iii. to v., where he describes the judgment upon Judah in a manner altogether similar to that in which he mentions it here, he pa.s.ses over the a.s.syrians altogether in silence. Babylon is, in iv. 10, mentioned as the place to which Judah is to be led into captivity.
Yet here, as well as everywhere else in the threatenings and promises of the prophets, we must beware, lest, in referring them to some particular historical event, we lose sight of the animating idea. If this, on the other hand, be rightly understood, it will be seen that a particular historical event may indeed be pre-eminently referred to, but that it can never exhaust the prophecy. Although, therefore, the main reference here be to the destruction by the Chaldeans, we must not on that account exclude anything in which the same law of retaliation was manifested, either before, as in the invasion of the Syrians and a.s.syrians; or afterwards, as in the destruction by the Romans. The prophet himself points, in iv. 11-14 (iv. 11-v. 1), to two other phases of the divine judgment which are to follow upon that by the Chaldeans.
After the prophet has thus. .h.i.therto described the impending divine judgment in great general outlines, he pa.s.ses on, in chap. ii., to chastise particular vices, which, however, must always be at the same time, yea, prominently, considered as indications of the wholly depraved condition of the nation, and of the punishments to follow upon it. One feature upon which he here chiefly dwells, and which must, therefore, have been a peculiarly prominent manifestation of the sinful corruption, consists in the acts of injustice and oppression committed by the great, the description of which presents striking resemblances to that in Is. v. 8 ff. The prophet interrupts this description only in order [Pg 434] to rebuke the false prophets, who reproved him for the severity of his discourses, and a.s.serted that they were unworthy of the merciful G.o.d. Such severity, answered the prophet, was true mildness, because it alone could be the means of warding off the approaching punitive judgment; that his G.o.d did not punish from want of forbearance--from want of mercy; but that the fault was altogether that of the transgressors, who drew down upon themselves, by force. His judgments.[2]
The prophecy closes with the promise in vers. 12, 13. It is introduced quite abruptly, in order to place it in more striking contrast with the threatening; just as, in iv. 1, there is a similar abrupt and unconnected contrast between the promise and the threatening.[3] It is only brief; far more so than in the subsequent discourses, and far less detailed than it is in them. The prophet desires first of all to terrify sinners from their security; and for this reason, he causes only a very feeble glimmering of hope to fall upon the dark future.