Christology of the Old Testament: And a Commentary on the Messianic Predictions Volume I Part 26

In favour of our exposition, moreover, is the comparison of the pa.s.sage Is. ii. 5, the evidently requisite harmony of which with the pa.s.sage under consideration is obtained, only if the latter be understood as we have explained it. The _light_, _i.e._, the salvation of the Lord spoken of there, corresponds with the name of the Lord in the pa.s.sage under review. Several interpreters explain: "They may walk, they may wors.h.i.+p their G.o.ds. Although all nations should be idolaters, yet we, inhabitants of Judah, shall faithfully wors.h.i.+p Jehovah." Against this explanation _Caspari_ remarks, "An exhortation, or a resolution which implies an exhortation, is here not easily justified, because it would stand in the midst of promises." Moreover, the ?? cannot be explained according to this interpretation, as appears with sufficient clearness from the remark of _Justi_: "This verse does not seem to be so closely connected with the preceding one." The connection is more firmly established by the explanation of _Tarnovius_, _Michaelis_, and others: "Surely so brilliant a lot must fall to us; for we are faithful wors.h.i.+ppers of the true G.o.d, while all other nations walk after their idols." [Pg 452] But the objections to tins explanation are: (1) the circ.u.mstance that it is rather unusual to found the salvation of the people upon their Covenant-faithfulness (of which, from the preceding reproof, we cannot entertain very high notions), instead of founding it upon G.o.d's grace and faithfulness, compare vii. 18-20;[3] (2) the repeated use of the Future, while, according to it, we should have expected the Preterite, at least in the first member; and (3), and most decisive of all, the expression, "For ever and ever;" compare the expression, "From henceforth, even for ever," in ver. 7.

Ver. 6. "_In that day, saith the Lord, I will a.s.semble that which halteth, and that which hath been driven out I will gather, and that which I have afflicted._ Ver. 7. _And I make that which is halting a remnant, and that which is far off a strong nation, and the Lord reigneth over them in Mount Zion from henceforth, even for ever._"

The expression "in that day" does not refer to "at the end of the days," in ver. 1, but is connected with, and resumes ver. 4^a That the verb ??? has here the signification "to a.s.semble," and not that "to receive," is shown by ii. 12, and especially by Ezek. xi. 17. The word refers to the announcement of Israel's being carried away, which was formerly made, and with which the scattering is connected. They are a.s.sembled for their return to the Holy Land. Such an a.s.sembling, however, is meant, as is connected with the full enjoyment of salvation, and in which the Congregation truly manifests itself in a close unity, as a kingdom of priests. In the pa.s.sage, Zeph. iii. 19, which is founded upon the one under review, we find "I save" instead of "I a.s.semble." Of such a description, the a.s.sembling under Zerubbabel was not; compare Nehem. ix. 36, 37. It can therefore come into notice only as a prelude to the true a.s.sembling.--"The Fem. sing, of the Partic.," says _Hitzig_, "must be understood collectively; and it is not several subjects, but predicates of the same subject, viz., of the whole of Israel, [Pg 453] which are thereby designated." The "halting,"

which is a condition of bodily helplessness and weakness, occurs also in Ps. x.x.xv. 15, and x.x.xviii. 18, as a designation of adversity and misery.--The expression, "to make a remnant," forms the contrast to total annihilation. While these words show that a limit will be put to the _diminution_, the following words predict a vast _increase_. In the words, "In Mount Zion," the contrast with iii. 12 appears once more at the close of the section. As regards ??? ????, compare Ps. xciii. 1. It does not refer to the constant government of the Lord, but to a new and glorious manifestation of it--as it were to a new ascension to the throne. The expression, "From henceforth," refers to the _ideal_ present. In spirit, the prophet is in that time when the Lord is just entering upon His government. The words, "The Lord reigneth ... for ever," are thus beautifully ill.u.s.trated by _Calvin_: "Micah does not here mention the descendants of David, but Jehovah Himself; not as if he wished thereby to exclude that dominion of David, but in order to show that G.o.d would make it manifest that He was the author of that dominion, yea, that He Himself held all the power. For, although G.o.d governed the ancient people by the hand of David, and by the hand of Josiah and Hezekiah, _yet there was, as it were, a shadow placed between, so that G.o.d's government was then perceived darkly only._ The prophet, therefore, here expresses, that there would be some difference betwixt that shadowy government, and the future new dominion which He was openly to set up by the advent of the Messiah. And this was truly and solidly fulfilled in Christ's person. For although Christ was the true seed of David, yet He was also, at the same time, Jehovah, viz., G.o.d made manifest in the flesh." With respect to this promise, however, it must also be kept in mind that it will be finally fulfilled only in the future, when the kingdom and throne of glory (compare Matt. xix.

28) shall be set up.

The prophet had hitherto described the kingdom which was to be established anew, as a kingdom of G.o.d, without mentioning the channel through which His mercy was to be poured out upon the Congregation--the mediator who was to represent Him among them. His representation, therefore, was still defective; it still wanted the connection with the promise given to David, and so frequently celebrated by him, and by other [Pg 454] holy Psalmists and Prophets--the promise of the eternal dominion of David's house. According to this promise, every new, great manifestation of grace, must be through some descendant of this family as a mediator. This house must ever form the substratum on which the divine power and the divine nature, in its most complete manifestation, showed themselves. This blank is supplied in ver. 8.

"_And thou tower of the flock, hill of the daughter of Zion, unto thee it will come; and to thee cometh the former dominion, the kingdom of the daughter of Zion._"

In the words immediately preceding it is said: "And the Lord reigneth over them from henceforth, even for ever." We have here, then, a prediction of the dominion of the house of David, by whose mediation the Lord is to reign; compare v. 3 (4), where it is said of Him in whom the Davidic race is to centre, "And He stands, and feeds in the strength of the Lord, in the majesty of the name of the Lord His G.o.d."

All interpreters agree that the Davidic race is designated by the "Tower of the flock," and by "the hill of the daughter of Zion;" but, with respect to the ground of this designation, they are very much at variance. A great number of them (_Grotius_, and among the recent interpreters, _Rosenmuller_, _Winer_, _Gesenius_, _De Wette_) think of that Tower of the flock, in the neighbourhood of which Jacob, according to Gen. x.x.xv. 21, took up his abode for a time. They say that, according to _Jerome_, this Tower of the flock was situated in the immediate neighbourhood of Bethlehem; that it is used here only by way of a _metalepsis_ for Bethlehem, and that Bethlehem again designates the Davidic race; so that the pa.s.sage agrees altogether with v. 1 (2).

But, upon a closer examination, this interpretation appears to be objectionable, for the following reasons. 1. It is anything but fixed that that Tower of the flock was situated in the immediate neighbourhood of Bethlehem. It cannot be inferred from the pa.s.sage in Genesis, and as little can it be proved from _Jerome_. In the _Quest.

ad Genes. Opp._ iii. p. 145, Frcf., he first mentions the opinion of the Jews, according to which, by the "Tower of the flock" is to be understood the place on which the temple was afterwards built, and then says: "But if we follow the direction of the road, we find, by Bethlehem, a 'place of the shepherds,' which was so called, either because it was there [Pg 455] that, at the birth of the Lord, the angels sang their hymn of praise; or because Jacob fed his flock there, and gave this name to the place; or, which is more likely, because even then the future mystery was, by a revelation, shown to him." According to this, _Jerome_ does not know anything of a "Tower of the flock" near Bethlehem. From the direction of the road which Jacob took, he only _ surmises_ that it was situated thereabouts; and since there was, in the neighbourhood of Bethlehem, a place called "the place of the shepherds," he, from a mere combination, declares this to be identical with the Tower of the flock; while, after all, he is so cautious as not at once to reject the only true derivation of this name from the shepherds at the birth of Christ. By this, the other pa.s.sage in the book _de locis Hebr._ must be judged, where _Jerome_ expressly delivers his supposition as if it were historical truth: "Bethlehem, the city of David ... and about a thousand paces (_pa.s.sus_) distant is the tower _Ader_, which is called 'the Tower of the flock,' indicating that, by some vision, the shepherds had, beforehand, been made conscious of the birth of the Lord." That tradition knew but little of any "Tower of the flock" in the neighbourhood of Bethlehem, appears also from _Eusebius Onom._ s. v. _Gader._ p. 79, ed. _Cleric_: "The tower Gader ... While Jacob dwelt there, Reuben went in to Bilhah." _Eusebius_ evidently knew nothing more regarding the "Tower of the flock" than what we also may learn from the pa.s.sage in Genesis. He does not venture to offer even a conjecture as to its position. The same ignorance is shown by the Jews, mentioned by _Jerome_, who certainly would not have thought of a reference to the temple, if a place called "Tower of the flock" had existed in the neighbourhood of Bethlehem. 2. But even a.s.suming the existence of the Tower of the flock in the neighbourhood of Bethlehem, is it anything else than the a.s.sumption of a pure _quid pro quo_, to a.s.sert, without a.s.signing any reason, that the "Tower of the flock"

stands for Bethlehem? _Rosenmuller_, at least, has felt this. He makes the attempt to a.s.sign a reason: "In subst.i.tuting, however, an unknown hamlet in the neighbourhood of Bethlehem, for Bethlehem itself, he intended to indicate that the dominion of David would be altogether weakened and brought low." But this reason is certainly not by any means sufficient; Bethlehem was, in itself, so small, that no further [Pg 456] diminution was required; compare v. 1 (2). It had, moreover, been always small, and had not by any means sunk down in the course of time from former greatness. Hence, such a designation, in contrast with its former glory, would be entirely out of place; and even supposing that it were not, the mode of this designation would always be inexplicable, unless we could a.s.sume a closer reference of the "Tower of the flock" to the Davidic family. It is only by establis.h.i.+ng such a reference, that the whole explanation can be saved and confirmed. For this purpose, it would be necessary to suppose that Bethlehem, and the district belonging to it, were the general designation of the native place of the Davidic family, while the "Tower of the flock" was the special one. But there is not the slightest ground on which to support this hypothesis. Everywhere, Bethlehem itself appears as the residence of Jesse, the father of David (compare 1 Sam. xvi. 1, 18, 19, xvii.

12), and likewise of Boaz, Ruth ii. 4.

The incorrectness of another explanation is still more evident.

According to it, we are, by the "Tower of the flock," to understand a tower which is alleged to have stood at Jerusalem, near to the Sheep-gate. But the existence of such a tower is supported by no evidence whatsoever, and does not become even probable by the existence of a sheep-gate; for a Tower of the flock is not a tower which stands near the Sheep-gate, but a tower which is erected for the protection of the flock, as is clearly seen from _Migdal Eder_ in Genesis. But, even supposing that such a tower existed, is there anything which could somehow make it a suitable designation of the Davidic family?

Let us now proceed to the establishment of our own opinion, by which the arguments advanced against the other explanations will be considerably strengthened. Concerning the situation of Jerusalem, _Josephus_, _de B. J._ i. 6, c. 13, remarks as follows: "It was built on two hills fronting each other, separated by a chasm running between, down to which the houses were situated. One of the hills, on which the upper part of the city lay, was much higher and longer than the other.

And, because it was fortified, it was called the Citadel of King David," etc. These two hills are Akra and Zion. The city situated upon the latter, is, in other pa.s.sages also, described by Josephus to be very high and steep; _e.g._, vi. 40: t?? ??? p???? pe???????? [Pg 457]??sa?. The sight afforded by the towers in this steep height is, by him, compared with that of the beacon at Alexandria from the sea (_B.

J._ vi. c. 6: "It resembled in shape the lighthouse as seen by people sailing up to Alexandria"). Compare the similar representation of _Tacitus_, _Lib._ 5. _Histor._ c. 11 (_Reland_ ii. p. 848 sqq.).

On the summit of this high and steep hill, in the upper town, was situated the royal castle, called the "upper house of the king," Neh.

iii. 25. Its situation could not fail to afford to it extraordinary security. This is sufficiently shown by the ridicule of the Jebusites, when David, who did not build, but only enlarged it, was about to besiege it. They were of opinion that the lame and the blind would be sufficient for its defence, 2 Sam. v. 7-9; compare _Faber's Archaeol._ p. 191.

Far above this royal castle, which David first selected for his residence (compare 2 Sam. v. 9: "And David dwelt in the castle and called it the City of David, and built it round about"), a tower jutted prominently out, and afforded a majestic sight. It is frequently mentioned in Scripture. The princ.i.p.al pa.s.sage is Neh. iii. 25: "Opposite the tower which standeth out from the upper house of the king (appositely the Vulgate: _quae eminet de domo regis excelsa_) in the court of the prison;" compare ver. 26, where the tower standing out, and elevated far above the king's castle, is likewise spoken of.

Concerning the words, "In the court of the prison," we obtain some information from Jer. x.x.xii. 2: "Jeremiah the prophet was shut up in the court of the prison, ???? ?????, which is in the house of the king of Judah;" compare Jer. x.x.xviii. 6, according to which the pit into which the prophet was let down, was in the court of the prison.

According to these pa.s.sages, the court of the prison formed, agreeably to the customs of the East, part of the royal castle on Zion; and it was in this court that the tower rose. The other princ.i.p.al pa.s.sage is in the Song of Solomon iv. 4: "Thy neck is like the tower of David built for arms; a thousand bucklers are hanging on it, all arms of heroes." According to this pa.s.sage, the majestic appearance which the tower afforded was still further increased by the glittering arms which covered it. _Dopke_ and others think of the armour of conquered heroes; but that we must rather think of the armour of David's own heroes, appears from Ezek. xxvii. 10, 11, where it is said of [Pg 458] the hired troops of the Tyrians, "s.h.i.+eld and helmet they hanged up in thee," and is confirmed by the constant designation of David's faithful ones, as _his heroes_; compare Song of Sol. iii. 7: "Threescore heroes stand around the bed of the king, of the heroes of Israel;" and 1 Chron. xii. 1: "These were among the heroes, helpers in the war." The expression in the Song of Solomon iv. 4, "All s.h.i.+elds of the heroes,"

indicates that the armour of all those who were received into the number of the heroes, was hung up on that tower, as an outward sign of this reception, as a kind of diploma of it. The circ.u.mstance that this tower, which is certainly quite identical with the tower mentioned by Nehemiah, is called the tower of David, refutes the supposition of _Clericus_, on Nehemiah, _l.c._, according to which, it is not the castle of David or Zion which is spoken of in that pa.s.sage, but another castle and its tower in the lower town, supposed to have been built by Solomon. This hypothesis is refuted, moreover, by that pa.s.sage itself, inasmuch as the castle is there designated as the upper, or high one.

Now, it is this tower which Micah considers as the symbol of the Davidic house; and in so doing, he follows the example of the Song of Solomon, where it is the symbol of the lofty elevation of Israel, the centre and life-blood of which was the Davidic family. It scarcely needs any lengthened demonstration to show how well suited it was for this signification, how very naturally it represented the thing signified. It was indeed the most elevated part of the castle, the main-mast, as it were, of the s.h.i.+p, which, since the elevation of the Davidic family to the royal dignity, had been for centuries, and was still to be, the seat of the Davidic race. Its height was a symbol of the royal dignity and authority. Its relation to the whole of the rest of the city, which it overlooked and commanded, and which looked up to it with astonishment, symbolized the relation of the subjects to their king.

Micah calls this tower the "Tower of the flock." The main reason for this appellation must be sought in what immediately precedes, in vers.

6 and 7. As in chap. ii. 12, 13, so here also, Micah represented the Covenant-people under the figure of a flock that was to be gathered from its dispersion and estrangement, and protected against every hostile attack. Could anything then be more natural than that, continuing the image [Pg 459] which he had begun, he should call the tower, which, to him, symbolized the family by whom, under the guidance of the Lord, that gathering should be accomplished, the "Tower of the flock?"[4] It is just this close connection with what precedes which furnishes an important proof for the correctness of our explanation, for which the way was prepared by all those expositors who, like _Jerome_, _Theodoret_, _Cyril_, _Cocceius_, and _Paulus_ (_uber die Evang._ i. p. 189), understand ???? ??? as an appellative, and regard, as the ground of the appellation, the protection and the refuge. In the East, they look out from the towers of the flock, whether beasts of prey or hostile bands be approaching. It is into these that the flocks are driven, in those regions where there are no towns and villages, as soon as danger appears; compare the proofs in _Faber_, l.c., p. 192 ff.

There was so much the stronger reason for Micah's choosing this figurative mode of representation, as he had the type immediately before his eyes. According to 2 Chron. xxvi. 10, xxvii. 4, Uzziah and Jotham erected, in the woods and pasture grounds, castles and towers for the protection and refuge of the flocks. But, besides this main reason, there seems to have existed a secondary one for choosing this appellation. They who adhere so firmly to the "Tower of the flock,"

mentioned in Genesis, are not altogether wrong. Except in that pa.s.sage, ???? ??? nowhere occurs in precisely the same manner as it stands here.

If, then, we consider that, besides this reference, there occur in Micah other plain references to the Pentateuch (and very numerous they are, compared with the extent of his prophecies; compare, _e.g._, ii.

12, 13. [vide supra], vi. 4, 5, vii. 14, where the words ???? ????

receive light from Num. xxiii. 9 only[5]); and still more, if we consider that, in v. 1 (2), the appellation Bethlehem Ephratah is likewise taken from Gen. x.x.xv. 19, and that it is in ver. 21 of the same chapter that the "Tower of the flock" is mentioned,--we shall certainly not be guilty of trifling, if we a.s.sert that there is a suspicion of error and unsoundness against all those interpretations which cannot connect the "Tower of the flock" [Pg 460] in Micah with that which is spoken of in Genesis. But the explanation which we have given is not liable to this charge. For why should not Jacob, and the tower which he built for the protection of his literal flocks, serve the prophet as a type and substratum for the relation of a spiritual Shepherd? We must not overlook the truth, that the main and secondary reasons which we have adduced, do not stand beside each other, but run into each other,--are related to each other as the general and particular. For the reason why the prophet had specially in view the "Tower of the flock" which had been built by Jacob was certainly this only: that it partook of the nature of all such towers of the flocks.

The _tertium comparationis_ is not thereby changed; the figure is only more individualized, and, therefore, more striking and impressive. A reference to the pastoral life of the Patriarchs is certainly one of the reasons of the frequent use of images taken from pastoral life. In a different way, _Hitzig_ endeavours to come to the same result. He supposes that the "Tower of the flock" mentioned in Genesis was not situated in the neighbourhood of Bethlehem, but is identical with the tower of the castle on Zion, and of the castle of Millo which David already found existing, and which was only more strongly fortified by him and by Solomon, 2 Sam. v. 9; 1 Kings ix. 15, 24, xi. 27. The figure of the "Tower of the flock" was so much the more appropriate in the pa.s.sage under consideration, as the founder of the royal dynasty had been, for a long time, a shepherd of the lambs, before he was elected to be a shepherd of the people, and had thus himself prefigured his future relation--a circ.u.mstance to which allusion is frequently made in Scripture itself; compare 2 Sam. v. 2, vii. 8; 1 Chron. xi. 2; Ps.

lxxviii. 70-72.

After having thus ascertained what is to be understood by the "Tower of the flock," there can be no great difficulty in explaining the "hill of the daughter of Zion." The daughter of Zion is Zion itself, personified, and represented as a virgin; and if her hill be spoken of, what else can be meant, than Mount Zion in the more restricted sense--the Mount ?at? ??????, before which Akra and Moriah are changed into plains? We have thus a most appropriate relation of the two appellations to each other,--the tower of the flock being the particular, and the hill of the daughter of Zion, the general. [Pg 461]

_Further_,--We obtain the most perfect harmony and agreement with the last words of the verse. The hill which, morally and physically, commands the daughter of Zion, is the same which obtains dominion over the daughter of Jerusalem. _Finally_,--We see the most striking contrast with iii. 12, and the most admirable connection with iv. 1-7, in which, everywhere, Mount Zion is spoken of, and the exaltation is described which, after its deep abas.e.m.e.nt, it shall obtain in the future, by the flowing of the heathens to it, and by the dominion of the Lord to be there exercised.

It is only in appearance that our explanation is contradicted by pa.s.sages of the Old Testament, and of _Josephus_, where _Ophel_ is mentioned as a particular place; compare _Bachiene_ 2. 1, -- 76; _Hamelsveld_ 2, S. 35 ff. The supposition of several interpreters, that this _Ophel_ is some particular hill (compare, _e.g._, _Vitringa de Templo Ezech._ L. i. c. iii. p. 159, and his _Commentary on Isaiah_ x.x.xii. 13), has already been invalidated by _Reland_ (p. 855), and _Faber_ l.c., p. 347, who rightly remark, that _Josephus_, in enumerating the hills of Jerusalem, makes no mention of _Ophel_, but speaks always only of the place _Ophel_. All the difficulties, however, which stand in the way of the other a.s.sumptions, are removed by the following view of the matter. Mount Zion was called ????, the Hill ?at?

??????, and this word became, by and by, a _nomen proprium_, and, in this state, as well as in its transition to the _nomen proprium_, was used without the Article. From this it followed--and numerous a.n.a.logies everywhere occur--that the foot of the mountain, the place where it was connected with the lower part of the temple-mountain by means of a deep valley, acquired this name in preference, and received it, as it were, as a _nomen proprium_. At this foot of Zion--and hence over against the temple, and near it--dwelt the Nethinim, the temple servants, Neh. iii.

26; and _Josephus_ says, that the wall surrounding Mount Zion extended on the east side to the place which was called _Ophel_, and ended at the eastern porch of the temple (_de Bell. Jud._ vi. 6).

The view which we have taken, not only of _Ophel_, but of this whole pa.s.sage, receives an important confirmation by Is. x.x.xii. 13, 14: "Upon the land of My people come up thorns and briars, for they shoot up in all the houses of joy, in the joyous city. For palaces are forsaken, tumult of the city is [Pg 462] forsaken, _hill_ and _tower_ are around caves (_i.e._, it is only this which they have to protect) for ever, a joy of wild a.s.ses, a pasture of flocks." In this threatening of punishment, _hill_, ???, and _tower_, ??? (properly "a watch-tower,"

corresponding to ????), are joined, just as in Micah's promise; and this is a certain proof of the unsoundness of all those explanations which would sever the two in Micah. Perhaps there is, in that pa.s.sage of Isaiah, the addition of a third object, standing in the middle between the two, viz., the castle of the king which was situated on Zion, and of which the highest and strongest part was formed by the tower. There seems, at least, to be better ground for understanding this by ????? than the temple, as is done by _Vitringa_. It will, nevertheless, be better to understand the palace collectively, and to view it as being parallel to the houses of joy in ver. 13. So much is, at all events, evident, that here also, _Ophel_ cannot be understood of the lowest part of Mount Zion, inasmuch as it had nothing distinguished about it that could account for its being mentioned in this context; and to this, the circ.u.mstance of its being connected with the tower, must, moreover, be added. _Faber_, l.c., has convincingly proved, that _Ophel_, in the stricter sense, neither had, nor could have, any fortifications.

????, "unto thee," seems here to have that emphasis which originally belongs to ??. It indicates that the object in motion really reaches its goal, while ?? originally expresses only its direction towards the goal. It points to all the obstacles which seem to render it impossible for the dominion to reach its goal, and represents them as such as shall be overcome by divine omnipotence. This is quite in accordance with the scope of the whole representation, which _Calvin_ thus appositely points out: "The prophet endeavours to confirm the faith and hope of the G.o.dly, that they might look forward to the distant future, and not dwell only upon the present destruction; that they might rather believe that the matter was in the hands of G.o.d, who had promised, that He who raised the dead, would also restore the kingdom of David, which had been destroyed."

Several interpreters, _e.g._, _Rosenmuller_, connect ???? immediately with what follows: "The kingdom shall come and attain." But, in opposition to this, there are not only the _accents_ (_Michaelis_; "The _Athnach_ is intended to keep the mind [Pg 463] of the reader in suspense for some time, and to direct his attention to what follows"), but also the change of the tenses, which is intended just to prevent this connection, and the weak sense which would be the result, inasmuch as one of the verbs would be a pleonasm. It must rather be supposed, therefore, that the subject in ???? is indefinite. The remark which _Havernick_, in his _Commentary on Daniel_, S. 386, makes on the omission of the indefinite subject, is here fully applicable, although he himself makes a wrong application of it to that pa.s.sage: "The indefinite subject," he says, "has a special emphasis. By the omission of the definite idea, it is, as it were, left to the reader to supply everything possible (in the pa.s.sage under consideration, the compa.s.s of all that is glorious), for which the writer cannot find language."

The "first," _i.e._, former, or ancient "dominion," refers to the splendid times under David and Solomon; but, at the same time, it supposes a period when the dominion is altogether taken away from the dynasty of David. Such a period had already been announced by the prophet, in his first discourse, inasmuch as it is implied in the carrying away of all Judah into captivity; and still more distinctly in iii. 12, according to which, Zion, the seat of the Davidic dominion, is to be ploughed as a field. This announcement, with the express mention of the king, returns in ver. 9, and, contrasted with It, the announcement of the restoration of the Davidic dominion in v. 1 (2).

The last words of the verse are, by many expositors (_Calvin_, _Michaelis_, and _Rosenmuller_), translated thus: "And the kingdom, I say, shall belong to the daughter of Jerusalem;" so that Jerusalem would here be, not the _object_, but the _subject_ of dominion. The sense, according to this explanation, is best brought out by _Calvin_: "The prophet here distinctly mentions the daughter of Jerusalem, because the kingdom of Israel had obscured the glory of the true kingdom. The prophet hence testifies, that G.o.d was not unmindful of His promise, and would so arrange it that Jerusalem should recover its lost dignity, and the whole people be gathered unto one body." But this explanation must be rejected on philological grounds. ????? is _status constr._; the ? serves, therefore, only as a circ.u.mlocution of the genitive; and it is not admissible to supply the Verb Substant. To this, moreover, there must be added the reference [Pg 464] to what precedes. The dominion over the daughter of Jerusalem is to come to the tower which commands the daughter of Zion, not, by any means, to the daughter of Zion herself. The prophet makes Jerusalem to represent the kingdom of G.o.d; and, in so doing, he probably has regard to the relation of Zion and of the king's castle to the town, by which was symbolized the relation which the Davidic dynasty occupied to the kingdom of G.o.d.

CHAP. IV. 9-14.

At the close of the last chapter, the prophet had announced severe judgments. In the verses immediately preceding, he had given glorious promises. In that which follows, he now combines these two elements; and it is only in chap. v. that the promise again appears, purely, and by itself. The judgments are thus introduced into the middle of the proclamation of salvation, in order that the faithful might thus be preserved from forming any vain hopes, which, if not confirmed by the result, are apt to be exchanged for much deeper despondency. But this same circ.u.mstance contained within it an indirect consolation; for it is certain that He who causes future events to be foretold, overrules them also; and "He who sends them, can also turn them." For the greatest cause of our despondency under the cross is certainly the doubt which we entertain as to whether it really comes from G.o.d. The prophet, however, affords _direct_ consolation also. Whensoever he speaks of any calamity, he immediately subjoins the announcement of divine deliverance. The intimation of the sufferings, in this section, differs essentially from the former ones. It is not, like these, in a threatening, but in an affectionate character; indeed, in vers. 11-13, the consolation preponderates even outwardly. From this, it is sufficiently evident, that it must have a different destination. Whilst the threatening was intended chiefly for the unG.o.dly, it has, just as much as the preceding pure promise, the truly G.o.dly members of the Theocracy also in view, and aims at strengthening them in the manifold temptations into which they must fall, in consequence of the sufferings which [Pg 465] always come upon them also at the same time, on account of their outward, and therefore also their inward, connection with the wicked.

A glance at the great catastrophes, which were to precede the appearance of Christ, was here just in its proper place. In the preceding context, the prophet had mentioned the restoration of the former dominion. Here, he describes how the dominion is lost ("There is no king in thee," ver. 9), and what shall happen during the period of this loss. He then further details, in v. 1 (2) sq., in what manner the dominion is to be restored.

It is a threefold suffering, joined with deliverance from it, which presents itself to the prophet in his inward vision, and which he describes accordingly. This is evident from the three-fold ???, compare vers. 9, 11, 14, which, each time, indicates when a new scene presents itself to the prophet. This, further, appears from the different character which each one bears. In the case of the announcement in vers. 9 and 10, viz., the carrying away to Babylon, it is alone the Lord's hand which delivers His people. In the calamity described in vers. 11-13, He grants to Israel courage in war, and victory to his _arms_. The plans of the enemies to destroy Zion are frustrated, while in the former calamity they succeeded. In ver. 14, Zion is anew represented as sorely pressed by enemies, and captured by them.

According to v. 1, which is closely connected with what precedes, the deliverance is accomplished by the Messiah, in whom the promise of the restoration of the dominion of the house of David over the daughter of Zion is fulfilled.

Ver. 9. "_Now why dost thou raise a cry? Is there no king in thee, or is thy councillor gone? For pangs have seized thee as a woman in travail._"

Zion, mourning at the time of the carrying away into captivity, stands before the prophet's spirit, and is addressed by him. This ought never to have been overlooked. But since, nevertheless, it has been so, we quote from the mult.i.tude of a.n.a.logous instances, at least one which is altogether incontrovertible, and where the writer likewise transfers himself into the time of the [Pg 466] captivity, viz., the pa.s.sage in Hos. xiii. 9-11, which, in other respects also, shows a great resemblance to the one under consideration: "This has destroyed thee, O Israel, that thou wast against Me, against thine help. Where is now thy king? Let him deliver thee in all thy cities. And where are thy judges?

Surely thou didst say: Give me kings and princes. And I gave thee a king in Mine anger, and took him away in My wrath." It is quite impossible to entertain, even for a moment, the thought that, in this pa.s.sage, Hosea speaks of the real past and present, inasmuch as he prophesied before the destruction of the kingdom of the ten tribes.

Micah opens his representation just with the moment that Jerusalem is captured by the enemies; and he announces to her that her sufferings are not yet at an end,--that she must wander into exile. The progress of the thought in the verse under consideration is this:--The prophet sees Zion dissolved in grief and lamentation. Full of sympathy, he asks of her the cause of this mourning,--whether, it may be, it was caused by the loss of her king; and he himself answers this question in the affirmative, because such a cause could alone account for such a grief.

Now, in order fully to realize the mourning of Zion over her king, we must bear in mind that the visible head was a representative of the invisible one,--the mediator of His mercies: that hence, his removal was a token of divine anger, and an extinction of every hope of salvation. Every other king is, indeed, likewise an anointed of the Lord; but the king of Israel was so in a totally different sense. How deeply, from this point of view, the loss of the king was felt, at the time when that which is here merely the _ideal_ present became the _real_ present, is seen from Lam. iv. 20: "The breath of our life, the anointed of the Lord, is taken a prisoner in their pits, he of whom we said. Under his shadow we shall live among the heathen." In Zech. iv.

the civil magistrates, along with the ecclesiastical authorities, appear as the greatest gift of G.o.d's grace; henceforth these two shall again be the medium through which the Lord communicates His gracious gifts to the Congregation, just as they had been before the captivity.

It must further be borne in mind, that all the promises for the future were bound up with the regal inst.i.tution. With its extinction, therefore, everything seemed to be lost; every prospect of a better future seemed to have disappeared. The reference in [Pg 467] Jer. viii.

19, where the king is the Lord Himself, to the pa.s.sage before us, is very beautiful, and full of deep meaning. It points out the truth, that the loss of the earthly king is a consequence of their having forced the heavenly King to withdraw from the midst of them.--The "councillor"

is preeminently the king himself; compare Is. ix. 5, where Christ, in whom the Davidic dynasty is to attain to the full height of its destination, appears as the councillor in the highest sense. Other councillors, it is true, are not thereby excluded; they form, however, only a group around the king as their centre; compare Is. iii. 3.

Ver. 10. "_Travail and break forth, O daughter of Zion, like a woman who bringeth forth; for now shalt thou go forth out of the city, and thou dwellest in the field, and comest till to Babylon: there shalt thou be delivered, there the Lord shall redeem thee out of the hand of thine enemies._"

The consolation begins with the words ?? ????? only; the whole remaining part of the verse is of a mournful character. In the words, "Travail and break forth," one aspect only of the figure of the parturient woman is brought into view, viz., the pain; but not the joy following upon the pain; compare remarks on v. 2. The Imperative is thus not, as some interpreters erroneously a.s.sume, an _Imper.

consolationis_, but an intimation that the pain would reach its height, put into the form of an exhortation to submit to it. Much more satisfactorily than by many of the later expositors, the sense of this verse has been thus fixed by _Calvin_: "The sum and substance is, that although G.o.d would, according to His promise, take care of the people, the faithful should have no reason from this to indulge in joy, as if they were to be exempt from all troubles; on the contrary, the prophet exhorts them that they should rather prepare themselves to undergo all kinds of misery, so that, when driven out of their own land, they should not only, like straying people, wander about in the fields, but should be driven to Babylon as into a grave. But while he thus prepares the faithful to bear the cross, he subjoins the hope of salvation, viz., that G.o.d would deliver them, and redeem them from thence out of the hands of their enemies."--The ???? resumes the preceding, where the prophet had, at the point of time where he had taken his stand, viz., the capture of the city, represented that calamity of this [Pg 468]

people, under the image of the pains of child-bearing. It thus becomes equivalent to--Thou shalt be obliged to bear, not only the pains which precede the birth, but also the highest of all pains, viz., the pains of the birth itself. What the latter are in relation to the former, that, in the view of the prophet, is the carrying away out of the Holy Land,--the expulsion from the face of G.o.d (an expulsion similar to that of Cain when he was obliged to flee from Eden), when compared to the mere capture. Hence the close connexion with what follows, by means of ??. The word ???? (the _o_ is, for the sake of euphony, employed instead of _u_; just as in ver. 13 ????) is, by most interpreters, translated, "And lead out." But we must object to this, on the ground that ??? has always an intransitive signification only, viz., "to break forth;" and this signification is here quite suitable, more so even than the transitive; for it marks more emphatically the _pain_ during the birth, which is here the only point: Jer. iv. 31. It is, as it were, a dissolution of the whole nature, a violent breaking of it into pieces. The "now," just as the "now" at the commencement of the description of the scene, belongs to the _ideal_ standing-point, where the carrying away is just at hand; for this is the period of the future into which the prophet has been carried. The "dwelling in the field" is the intervening station between the "going forth" and "the coming to Babylon." In the open air, exposed to all the inclemencies of the weather (compare the expression, "Under the dew of heaven," in Dan. iv.

22, 30 [25, 33]), the prisoners were collected for the purpose of being afterwards carried away. The word ??, as well as the twofold ??, are emphatic. Irresistibly, the divine _judgment_ advances to its last goal; but as irresistibly does divine _mercy_ wrest from the enemies the prey which seemed to have been given to them even for ever.--The futility of all attempts to explain away the distinct prophecy of the Babylonish captivity in this pa.s.sage has been shown in the _Dissertations on the Genuineness of Daniel_, p. 151 sqq. How even _Caspari_ could join in these attempts, it is difficult to explain.

Even he is of opinion that the prophet had expected the catastrophe to come from a.s.shur. Chap. v. 4, 5 (5, 6) cannot be decisive _for_ the reference to a.s.shur. For the circ.u.mstance that a.s.shur appears there as the type of the future enemies of the kingdom of G.o.d, implies, indeed, that he occupied the first place among the enemies [Pg 469] at the time of the prophet; but it by no means Implies that he must occupy a place in the outline of the future catastrophes of the people of G.o.d. Such a catastrophe was not to proceed from him, but rather from an enemy who had not yet at that time appeared on the scene, although his power was already germinating, as is shown by Is. x.x.xix. and other pa.s.sages. The oppression of Judah by a.s.shur was indeed a heavy one; but it was transitory, and did not by any means const.i.tute an era. From the relation in which vers. 9-14 (iv. 9-v. 1) stands to ver. 8, it sufficiently appears that the oppression by the Chaldeans must here form the commencement, although the a.s.syrian oppression must be added to it as an introduction and a prelude. According to this relation, the point at issue here can be only the cessation of the dominion of the Davidic family. From. Jer. xxvi. 18, 19, _Caspari_ endeavours to prove that Micah had in view, in the first instance, the a.s.syrians only. But that pa.s.sage of Jeremiah refers to Mic. iii. 12, where the prophecy has a general character, and where the instruments of the divine judgment are not expressly mentioned, as is the case here. On the other hand, the following arguments are opposed to the reference to the a.s.syrians.

1. The prophet does not mention a.s.shur, but Babylon. Nothing is, certainly, proved by the circ.u.mstance that, at the time of the prophet, Babylon was still under the a.s.syrian dominion; for Babylon comes here into consideration, not so much as a place, but as a hostile power. The place, as such, was of no consequence, and the mention of it was not required by the character of the prophecy. 2. If the announcement referred to a.s.shur, the result would contradict the prophecy. _Caspari_ says, that by the repentance and conversion of the people, the fulfilment had been averted. But with such a view of prophecy, the position of the prophetic inst.i.tution becomes untenable, and historically incomprehensible. The Mosaic regulation, that whosoever prophesied anything that did not take place should be punished with death, would in that case lose all practical significance; for there would always have been at hand the excuse, that by the repentance the execution of that sentence of punishment had been repealed. From the nature of the case, and from that Mosaic regulation, it follows that special announcements expressed absolutely must be fulfilled absolutely; and not a single fact in the history of prophetism [Pg 470]

stands in contradiction to this truth. Jonah's announcement to Nineveh, indeed, has been appealed to; but, in reply, we remark simply, that the words of that announcement have not been communicated to us, while we see from the result that it was conditional only. Such a decided repentance would scarcely have been called forth by it among the inhabitants of Nineveh, had repentance not been expressly declared in it as a means of deliverance. 3. Micah everywhere goes hand in hand with his contemporary Isaiah. But the latter always opposes energetically the despondency of Judah in the face of a.s.shur, and declares that his proud power would be broken at Jerusalem (as had been already prophesied by Hosea in i. 4-7), and that, while the kingdom of the ten tribes would be destroyed, Judah would experience the protecting hand of the Lord. _Caspari_ contradicts himself in thus making these two men of G.o.d to differ in so essential a point. For a man like _Hitzig_, it may be quite befitting to say, "Micah did not possess the firm, courageous faith which was displayed by Isaiah." 4.

It is quite impossible to get rid of the obvious parallelism of the pa.s.sage under consideration with Is. x.x.xix. 6, 7, where the rising of the Babylonish empire, the destruction of the Davidic kingdom by it, and the carrying away of Judah to Babylon, are clearly and distinctly predicted. And in a number of other prophecies, Isaiah likewise declares or supposes, that that which the a.s.syrians threatened in vain, would at some future period, when the iniquity of the people had become full, be carried out by Babylon with her Chaldeans. It is scarcely conceivable how _Caspari_, acknowledging as he does the genuineness of these prophecies of Isaiah, could think of dissevering from them the prophecy now under consideration.--Declarations like that before us, where, in clear and distinct outlines, a future event is foretold one hundred and fifty years before it takes place, inflict a death-blow upon the naturalistic view of the prophetic inst.i.tution, as is sufficiently evident from _Hitzig's_ embarra.s.sment, and from his efforts to free himself from the bands of this troublesome fact.

Ver. 11. "_And now many nations a.s.semble themselves against thee, that say: Let her be profaned, and let our eyes look upon Zion._"