Volume 1 — THE PROPHET MICAH. (continued 2)

Ver. 5. "For all the nations shall walk, every one in the name of their God; and we will walk in the name of the Lord our God for ever and ever."

The causal particle כי states the ground of the fact that the Lord of hosts has spoken this, and given the promise of the final safety of Israel, and of his enjoying peace after the strife, in consequence of God's exercising dominion from Zion over the whole heathen world; while this peace after the strife is then more fully described in vers. 6, 7. The lot of every people corresponds to the nature of their God. And now, how could it be otherwise, than that all other nations should be humbled, because their gods are idols, while Israel, on the other hand, is exalted and endowed with everlasting salvation and prosperity, because his God is the only true God? Is. xlv. 16, 17 is parallel: "They shall be ashamed, and also confounded, all of them; they shall go to confusion, the makers of idols. Israel is saved by the Lord, with an everlasting salvation; ye shall not be ashamed nor confounded in all eternity."—The name of the Lord" is the complex whole of His excellency which is revealed, and proved by deeds; compare Prov. xviii. 10: "The name of the Lord is a strong tower; the righteous runneth into it and is exalted." Inasmuch as the name of the Lord is to manifest itself in His dealings with His people, it represents itself as the way in which they are to walk: the prayer of the Psalmist in Ps. xxv. 5, that the Lord would lead him in His truth, forms a parallel to this; and so does also what he says in ver. 9 of the same Psalm, that "He guides the meek in judgment." But exactly corresponding is Zech. x. 12: "And I strengthen them in the Lord, and in His name shall they walk" = in the path of His name, so that the latter manifests itself in His dealings with them; compare the remarks on that passage. In favour of our exposition, moreover, is the comparison of the passage Is. ii. 5, the evidently requisite harmony of which with the passage 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 passage under review. Several interpreters explain: "They may walk, they may worship their gods. Although all nations should be idolaters, yet we, inhabitants of Judah, shall faithfully worship 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 כי 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 worshippers of the true God, while all other nations walk after their idols." But the objections to tins explanation are: (1) the circumstance 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 God'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 assemble 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 אסף has here the signification "to assemble," 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 assembled for their return to the Holy Land. Such an assembling, 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 passage, Zeph. iii. 19, which is founded upon the one under review, we find "I save" instead of "I assemble." Of such a description, the assembling under Zerubbabel was not; compare Nehem. ix. 36, 37. It can therefore come into notice only as a prelude to the true assembling.—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, which are thereby designated." The "halting," which is a condition of bodily helplessness and weakness, occurs also in Ps. xxxv. 15, and xxxviii. 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 מלך יהוה, 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 illustrated 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 God would make it manifest that He was the author of that dominion, yea, that He Himself held all the power. For, although God 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 God'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., God 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 God, 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 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 God." 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, Rosenmüller, Winer, Gesenius, De Wette) think of that Tower of the flock, in the neighbourhood of which Jacob, according to Gen. xxxv. 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 passage 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 passage 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 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 passage 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 (passus) 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 passage 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 assuming the existence of the Tower of the flock in the neighbourhood of Bethlehem, is it anything else than the assumption of a pure quid pro quo, to assert, without assigning any reason, that the "Tower of the flock" stands for Bethlehem? Rosenmüller, at least, has felt this. He makes the attempt to assign a reason: "In substituting, 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 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 assume a closer reference of the "Tower of the flock" to the Davidic family. It is only by establishing 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 passages also, described by Josephus to be very high and steep; e.g., vi. 40: τὴν ἄνω πόλιν περίκρημνον οὖσαν. 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 Archæol. 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 principal passage is Neh. iii. 25: "Opposite the tower which standeth out from the upper house of the king (appositely the Vulgate: quæ 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. xxxii. 2: "Jeremiah the prophet was shut up in the court of the prison, בחצר המטרה, which is in the house of the king of Judah;" compare Jer. xxxviii. 6, according to which the pit into which the prophet was let down, was in the court of the prison. According to these passages, 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 principal passage 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 passage, the majestic appearance which the tower afforded was still further increased by the glittering arms which covered it. Döpke 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 the hired troops of the Tyrians, "Shield 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 shields 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 circumstance 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 passage, but another castle and its tower in the lower town, supposed to have been built by Solomon. This hypothesis is refuted, moreover, by that passage 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 ship, 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 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 (über die Evang. i. p. 189), understand מגדל עדר 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 passage, מגדל עדר 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 שכני לבדד 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. xxxv. 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 assert that there is a suspicion of error and unsoundness against all those interpretations which cannot connect the "Tower of the flock" 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 passage 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 circumstance 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 κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν, 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. 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 abasement, 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 passages 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 xxxii. 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 assumptions, are removed by the following view of the matter. Mount Zion was called העפל, the Hill κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν, 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 analogies 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 passage, receives an important confirmation by Is. xxxii. 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 forsaken, hill and tower are around caves (i.e., it is only this which they have to protect) for ever, a joy of wild asses, a pasture of flocks." In this threatening of punishment, hill, עפל, and tower, בחן (properly "a watch-tower," corresponding to מגדל), 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 passage 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 ארמון 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 circumstance 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.

עדיך, "unto thee," seems here to have that emphasis which originally belongs to עד. It indicates that the object in motion really reaches its goal, while אל 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 godly, 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 God, who had promised, that He who raised the dead, would also restore the kingdom of David, which had been destroyed."

Several interpreters, e.g., Rosenmüller, connect תאתה 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 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 תאתה is indefinite. The remark which Hävernick, 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 passage: "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 passage under consideration, the compass 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 Rosenmüller), 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 God 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. ממלכת is status constr.; the ל serves, therefore, only as a circumlocution of the genitive; and it is not admissible to supply the Verb Substant. To this, moreover, there must be added the reference 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 God; 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 God.

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 circumstance contained within it an indirect consolation; for it is certain that He who causes future events to be foretold, overrules them also; and "He who sends them, can also turn them." For the greatest cause of our despondency under the cross is certainly the doubt which we entertain as to whether it really comes from God. The prophet, however, affords direct consolation also. Whensoever he speaks of any calamity, he immediately subjoins the announcement of divine deliverance. The intimation of the sufferings, in this section, differs essentially from the former ones. It is not, like these, in a threatening, but in an affectionate character; indeed, in vers. 11-13, the consolation preponderates even outwardly. From this, it is sufficiently evident, that it must have a different destination. Whilst the threatening was intended chiefly for the ungodly, it has, just as much as the preceding pure promise, the truly godly members of the Theocracy also in view, and aims at strengthening them in the manifold temptations into which they must fall, in consequence of the sufferings which always come upon them also at the same time, on account of their outward, and therefore also their inward, connection with the wicked.

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

It is a threefold suffering, joined with deliverance from it, which presents itself to the prophet in his inward vision, and which he describes accordingly. This is evident from the three-fold עתה, compare vers. 9, 11, 14, which, each time, indicates when a new scene presents itself to the prophet. This, further, appears from the different character which each one bears. In the case of the announcement in vers. 9 and 10, viz., the carrying away to Babylon, it is alone the Lord's hand which delivers His people. In the calamity described in vers. 11-13, He grants to Israel courage in war, and victory to his arms. The plans of the enemies to destroy Zion are frustrated, while in the former calamity they succeeded. In ver. 14, Zion is anew represented as sorely pressed by enemies, and captured by them. According to v. 1, which is closely connected with what precedes, the deliverance is accomplished by the Messiah, in whom the promise of the restoration of the dominion of the house of David over the daughter of Zion is fulfilled.

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

Zion, mourning at the time of the carrying away into captivity, stands before the prophet's spirit, and is addressed by him. This ought never to have been overlooked. But since, nevertheless, it has been so, we quote from the multitude of analogous instances, at least one which is altogether incontrovertible, and where the writer likewise transfers himself into the time of the captivity, viz., the passage in Hos. xiii. 9-11, which, in other respects also, shows a great resemblance to the one under consideration: "This has destroyed thee, O Israel, that thou wast against Me, against thine help. Where is now thy king? Let him deliver thee in all thy cities. And where are thy judges? Surely thou didst say: Give me kings and princes. And I gave thee a king in Mine anger, and took him away in My wrath." It is quite impossible to entertain, even for a moment, the thought that, in this passage, Hosea speaks of the real past and present, inasmuch as he prophesied before the destruction of the kingdom of the ten tribes. Micah opens his representation just with the moment that Jerusalem is captured by the enemies; and he announces to her that her sufferings are not yet at an end,—that she must wander into exile. The progress of the thought in the verse under consideration is this:—The prophet sees Zion dissolved in grief and lamentation. Full of sympathy, he asks of her the cause of this mourning,—whether, it may be, it was caused by the loss of her king; and he himself answers this question in the affirmative, because such a cause could alone account for such a grief. Now, in order fully to realize the mourning of Zion over her king, we must bear in mind that the visible head was a representative of the invisible one,—the mediator of His mercies: that hence, his removal was a token of divine anger, and an extinction of every hope of salvation. Every other king is, indeed, likewise an anointed of the Lord; but the king of Israel was so in a totally different sense. How deeply, from this point of view, the loss of the king was felt, at the time when that which is here merely the ideal present became the real present, is seen from Lam. iv. 20: "The breath of our life, the anointed of the Lord, is taken a prisoner in their pits, he of whom we said. Under his shadow we shall live among the heathen." In Zech. iv. the civil magistrates, along with the ecclesiastical authorities, appear as the greatest gift of God's grace; henceforth these two shall again be the medium through which the Lord communicates His gracious gifts to the Congregation, just as they had been before the captivity. It must further be borne in mind, that all the promises for the future were bound up with the regal institution. With its extinction, therefore, everything seemed to be lost; every prospect of a better future seemed to have disappeared. The reference in Jer. viii. 19, where the king is the Lord Himself, to the passage before us, is very beautiful, and full of deep meaning. It points out the truth, that the loss of the earthly king is a consequence of their having forced the heavenly King to withdraw from the midst of them.—The "councillor" is preeminently the king himself; compare Is. ix. 5, where Christ, in whom the Davidic dynasty is to attain to the full height of its destination, appears as the councillor in the highest sense. Other councillors, it is true, are not thereby excluded; they form, however, only a group around the king as their centre; compare Is. iii. 3.

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

The consolation begins with the words שם תנצלי only; the whole remaining part of the verse is of a mournful character. In the words, "Travail and break forth," one aspect only of the figure of the parturient woman is brought into view, viz., the pain; but not the joy following upon the pain; compare remarks on v. 2. The Imperative is thus not, as some interpreters erroneously assume, an Imper. consolationis, but an intimation that the pain would reach its height, put into the form of an exhortation to submit to it. Much more satisfactorily than by many of the later expositors, the sense of this verse has been thus fixed by Calvin: "The sum and substance is, that although God would, according to His promise, take care of the people, the faithful should have no reason from this to indulge in joy, as if they were to be exempt from all troubles; on the contrary, the prophet exhorts them that they should rather prepare themselves to undergo all kinds of misery, so that, when driven out of their own land, they should not only, like straying people, wander about in the fields, but should be driven to Babylon as into a grave. But while he thus prepares the faithful to bear the cross, he subjoins the hope of salvation, viz., that God would deliver them, and redeem them from thence out of the hands of their enemies."—The חולי resumes the preceding, where the prophet had, at the point of time where he had taken his stand, viz., the capture of the city, represented that calamity of this people, under the image of the pains of child-bearing. It thus becomes equivalent to—Thou shalt be obliged to bear, not only the pains which precede the birth, but also the highest of all pains, viz., the pains of the birth itself. What the latter are in relation to the former, that, in the view of the prophet, is the carrying away out of the Holy Land,—the expulsion from the face of God (an expulsion similar to that of Cain when he was obliged to flee from Eden), when compared to the mere capture. Hence the close connexion with what follows, by means of כי. The word וגחי (the o is, for the sake of euphony, employed instead of u; just as in ver. 13 דושי) is, by most interpreters, translated, "And lead out." But we must object to this, on the ground that גוח has always an intransitive signification only, viz., "to break forth;" and this signification is here quite suitable, more so even than the transitive; for it marks more emphatically the pain during the birth, which is here the only point: Jer. iv. 31. It is, as it were, a dissolution of the whole nature, a violent breaking of it into pieces. The "now," just as the "now" at the commencement of the description of the scene, belongs to the ideal standing-point, where the carrying away is just at hand; for this is the period of the future into which the prophet has been carried. The "dwelling in the field" is the intervening station between the "going forth" and "the coming to Babylon." In the open air, exposed to all the inclemencies of the weather (compare the expression, "Under the dew of heaven," in Dan. iv. 22, 30 [25, 33]), the prisoners were collected for the purpose of being afterwards carried away. The word עד, as well as the twofold שם, are emphatic. Irresistibly, the divine judgment advances to its last goal; but as irresistibly does divine mercy wrest from the enemies the prey which seemed to have been given to them even for ever.—The futility of all attempts to explain away the distinct prophecy of the Babylonish captivity in this passage has been shown in the Dissertations on the Genuineness of Daniel, p. 151 sqq. How even Caspari could join in these attempts, it is difficult to explain. Even he is of opinion that the prophet had expected the catastrophe to come from Asshur. Chap. v. 4, 5 (5, 6) cannot be decisive for the reference to Asshur. For the circumstance that Asshur appears there as the type of the future enemies of the kingdom of God, implies, indeed, that he occupied the first place among the enemies at the time of the prophet; but it by no means Implies that he must occupy a place in the outline of the future catastrophes of the people of God. Such a catastrophe was not to proceed from him, but rather from an enemy who had not yet at that time appeared on the scene, although his power was already germinating, as is shown by Is. xxxix. and other passages. The oppression of Judah by Asshur was indeed a heavy one; but it was transitory, and did not by any means constitute an era. From the relation in which vers. 9-14 (iv. 9-v. 1) stands to ver. 8, it sufficiently appears that the oppression by the Chaldeans must here form the commencement, although the Assyrian oppression must be added to it as an introduction and a prelude. According to this relation, the point at issue here can be only the cessation of the dominion of the Davidic family. From. Jer. xxvi. 18, 19, Caspari endeavours to prove that Micah had in view, in the first instance, the Assyrians only. But that passage of Jeremiah refers to Mic. iii. 12, where the prophecy has a general character, and where the instruments of the divine judgment are not expressly mentioned, as is the case here. On the other hand, the following arguments are opposed to the reference to the Assyrians. 1. The prophet does not mention Asshur, but Babylon. Nothing is, certainly, proved by the circumstance that, at the time of the prophet, Babylon was still under the Assyrian dominion; for Babylon comes here into consideration, not so much as a place, but as a hostile power. The place, as such, was of no consequence, and the mention of it was not required by the character of the prophecy. 2. If the announcement referred to Asshur, the result would contradict the prophecy. Caspari says, that by the repentance and conversion of the people, the fulfilment had been averted. But with such a view of prophecy, the position of the prophetic institution becomes untenable, and historically incomprehensible. The Mosaic regulation, that whosoever prophesied anything that did not take place should be punished with death, would in that case lose all practical significance; for there would always have been at hand the excuse, that by the repentance the execution of that sentence of punishment had been repealed. From the nature of the case, and from that Mosaic regulation, it follows that special announcements expressed absolutely must be fulfilled absolutely; and not a single fact in the history of prophetism stands in contradiction to this truth. Jonah's announcement to Nineveh, indeed, has been appealed to; but, in reply, we remark simply, that the words of that announcement have not been communicated to us, while we see from the result that it was conditional only. Such a decided repentance would scarcely have been called forth by it among the inhabitants of Nineveh, had repentance not been expressly declared in it as a means of deliverance. 3. Micah everywhere goes hand in hand with his contemporary Isaiah. But the latter always opposes energetically the despondency of Judah in the face of Asshur, and declares that his proud power would be broken at Jerusalem (as had been already prophesied by Hosea in i. 4-7), and that, while the kingdom of the ten tribes would be destroyed, Judah would experience the protecting hand of the Lord. Caspari contradicts himself in thus making these two men of God to differ in so essential a point. For a man like Hitzig, it may be quite befitting to say, "Micah did not possess the firm, courageous faith which was displayed by Isaiah." 4. It is quite impossible to get rid of the obvious parallelism of the passage under consideration with Is. xxxix. 6, 7, where the rising of the Babylonish empire, the destruction of the Davidic kingdom by it, and the carrying away of Judah to Babylon, are clearly and distinctly predicted. And in a number of other prophecies, Isaiah likewise declares or supposes, that that which the Assyrians threatened in vain, would at some future period, when the iniquity of the people had become full, be carried out by Babylon with her Chaldeans. It is scarcely conceivable how Caspari, acknowledging as he does the genuineness of these prophecies of Isaiah, could think of dissevering from them the prophecy now under consideration.—Declarations like that before us, where, in clear and distinct outlines, a future event is foretold one hundred and fifty years before it takes place, inflict a death-blow upon the naturalistic view of the prophetic institution, as is sufficiently evident from Hitzig's embarrassment, and from his efforts to free himself from the bands of this troublesome fact.

Ver. 11. "And now many nations assemble themselves against thee, that say: Let her be profaned, and let our eyes look upon Zion."

Israel, with its claim of being alone the people of the only true God, was a thorn in the eyes of the nations. These here burn with eager desire to prove, actually and by deeds, that this presumptuous claim was unfounded, and, by the destruction of the city, to take from it its fancied holiness, and the glory of holiness. Destruction and profanation are, in their view, inseparably connected. The contrast to the verse under review is formed by vii. 10: "And mine enemy shall see it, and shame shall come upon her who said. Where is the Lord thy God? Mine eyes shall behold her, now shall she be trodden down as the mire of the streets." The words, "Where is the Lord thy God?" entirely agree in substance with, "Let her be profaned!" But the desire of profaning Jerusalem must be conceived of as the human motive only. According to the view of Scripture generally, and of Micah particularly, all the distress of the people of God has its foundation in sin; and from the whole context, and especially from v. 2 (3), where this event also is comprehended within the time when God's people are given up, it clearly appears that, notwithstanding the happy issue, we have here before us a heavy calamity. By a new phase of sin, a new phase of judgment is brought about; and by a new phase of worldliness, a new phase of aggression by the world's power.—It is owing to a striving after variety, that the word "and" here stands before "now," while it is omitted in the third scene. It may stand, or it may be omitted, because the various catastrophes are independent of each other, and yet, at the same time, form a connected whole, as is evident from the words, "He will give them up," in v. 2 (3), by which they are connected together. The heavy oppression of Judah appears here under the form of a siege of its centre, in accordance with the scope of prophecy, which, everywhere, seeks to impart vividness and animation to the scene, by uniting into one picture that which is separated by time and space. The historical reference of the prophecy is thus very accurately stated by Calvin: "Although the Babylonish captivity has come to an end, and Israel has been restored from it, the promised kingdom shall not immediately come. Before that takes place, the neighbouring nations shall assemble themselves against Jerusalem, with the desire of profaning it, and of enjoying a pleasant spectacle. This took place under Antiochus." That to which the prophet here simply alludes, but yet in such a way that the right reference cannot possibly be mistaken (since a great hostile aggression is here described, which should happen after the people have returned from Babylon, and which is removed by the piety and courage of the people themselves; and since, after this second oppression, there follows a third, which is described in ver. 14, there certainly remains no other alternative: the times of the Maccabees are those which can alone be thought of), is further detailed by Zechariah in ix. 11 ff. At his time, the deliverance from the first calamity had already taken place; and he expressly states the names of the enemies; just as, in the prophecy under review, the authors of the first calamity are expressly named. That which is especially characteristic, and which points to the time of the Maccabees, is, moreover, the special mention of many nations, which are united in their decided hatred against Jerusalem as a city, and against Judah as the people of the Lord, taken in connection with the character of the war as a religious war in the strictest sense,—it being an attempt of heathenism to destroy the Congregation of the Lord as such. These features are found in no other catastrophe during the time between Micah and Christ. And that the aggression belongs to the period before the appearing of the Saviour, is evident from the whole context, as well as from v. 2 (3). In the time of the Maccabees, it was not with Syria alone that Judah had to do; but all the heathen nations without exception, with which Judah had any connection at that time, united themselves for a decisive stroke against the kingdom of God. Their purpose was to extirpate the whole race of Jacob, 1 Macc. v. 2. Striking remarks upon the real nature of the struggle at that period, as a struggle of faithful Judaism against Heathenism, the latter of which had gained a considerable party among the people themselves, are made by Stark, in "Gaza und die Philistäische Küste," Jena, 52, S. 481 ff. Among other things, he says: "The national distinctions in the boundaries of Palestine had by no means ceased, but continued under the general cover of the Egyptian and Syrian administration in a varied, unyielding, and hostile manner. There were the Idumeans in the whole of the south of Palestine to near Jerusalem; then, the Philistines, or when called by their cities, the Gazeans and Ashdodians; the Phœnicians, the Samaritans or Chutteans, the mixed population of Galilee, the Arabs of Perea.... As soon as the Jewish people, who, up to that time, had been altogether insignificant in a political point of view, rose against the Syrian empire, at first for their religious peculiarities, then, for their political independence, and, finally, even for the recovery of the ideal possession of their country—an idea which had been kept alive by tradition,—it could not but be that those who were naturally the supports and centres of the Syrian operations, became the objects of the hostile Jewish operations; and that the whole national portion of the population, although not Greeks, were anew inflamed by their old hatred of, and opposition to, Judaism; so that they considered that Hellenic struggle as also a national one. This period thus produced at the same time a revival of the old national struggle of the inhabitants of Palestine, modified and increased by the struggle of Hellenism with the national reaction which served as a superstructure for it." The objection, raised even by Caspari, that a prophecy of the victorious struggles in the time of the Maccabees must be strange and surprising in a prophet of the Assyrian period, will not startle those who look at the analogies—such as the prophecy in Is. vi. In the latter prophecy, first the Chaldean, and then the Roman catastrophes, are described in sharp outlines, but without any mention of the names of the instruments of punishment. It is only in reference to the executors of the first of these judgments that more distinct disclosures were given to the prophet himself at a subsequent period. The announcement in Zech. ix., where the Greeks are expressly mentioned, is, in reality, not less miraculous. According to all prophetical analogies, it is a priori probable that this detailed prophecy of the Maccabean period, and the similar one in Daniel, should have been preceded by some older prophecy which refers to the same facts, but only in general outlines, such as we have in the passage under consideration. If any doubt should still remain, it would be removed by a glance at the conflicting interpretations. Ewald and Hitzig think of the Assyrian invasion, to which vers. 9, 10, are likewise referred by them, although such a reference is in opposition to the express words of these verses,—which, for a Naturalistic tendency, are rather inconvenient. The contradiction in these two prophecies Ewald endeavours to reconcile by the evidently erroneous supposition, that the carrying away in ver. 10 must be conceived of as only a partial one,—a supposition which is invalidated by a simple comparison of iii. 12. According to Hitzig, the prophet has, in vers. 11-13, overcome the despondency expressed in vers. 9, 10, and has raised himself to confidence in God. He thus makes the prophet distinctly contradict himself in one breath,—a supposition which does not even deserve a refutation. Even if we were entirely to separate this passage from its connection, how ill does the activity here ascribed to Judah agree with the oppression by the Assyrians! This activity of Judah supposes that it has to do with many small nations. Against the great Asiatic empires, a direct and immediate interposition of the Lord is everywhere referred to. The salvation, however, which is here announced to Judah, can be only an imperfect one, and cannot go beyond what they really received at the time of the Maccabees. This is sufficiently evident from the circumstance, that it belongs to a time in which Judah has no king of the Davidic house; for him they have already lost in ver. 9, and receive again only in v. 1 (2), in Christ; and it is certain that the Davidic house was the channel through which all the true and great mercies of the Lord were bestowed upon His people.

Ver. 12. "And they know not the thoughts of the Lord, neither understand they His counsel; for He gathereth them as the sheaf for the threshing-floor."

The particle "and" is here used, where we, for the sake of a closer connection, would employ "but." The thoughts of the Lord are these,—that the sufferings, after having served their purpose as regards Zion, shall pass over to the enemies, so that they shall themselves be destroyed by Zion, while they so confidently thought to inflict destruction upon Zion. The כי introduces the reason of their not knowing the way of the Lord. If they knew it, they would not express such desire and hope; for it is they themselves whom the Lord gives over to destruction.

Ver. 13. "Arise and thresh, O daughter of Zion, for I make thine horn iron, and thy claws brass; and thou crushest in pieces many people, and I consecrate their gain unto the Lord, and their strength to the Ruler of the whole earth."

The figure is based upon the Eastern mode of threshing; compare Paulsen vom Ackerbau der Morgenl. § 40-42; Niebuhr, Reise i. S. 151; and likewise Is. xxi. 10, xli. 15; Hab. iii. 12. Strictly speaking, one characteristic only of the threshing oxen is here considered, viz., the crushing power of their hoofs. The prophet, however, extends the comparison to that also in which the bullock is formidable, even when it is not engaged in the work of threshing, viz., to its horns. On this point 1 Kings xxii. 11 may be compared, where the pseudo-prophet Zedekiah makes to himself iron horns, and thus states the import of this symbolical action: "Thus saith the Lord, With these shalt thou push Aram until it is destroyed." The first person in החרמתי has perplexed several ancient translators (Syr., Jerome), as well as many modern interpreters, who, therefore, substitute the second person for it. But it is quite appropriate. As at the beginning, where the Lord gathers the sheaf on the threshing-floor, so at the close also, the prophet declares that the victory is the work of God. It is He Himself, the true God, the Lord of the whole earth, who reminds His rebellious subjects of their true relation to Him, by vindicating to Himself a part of the good things which He bestowed upon them; just as He once did in Egypt. This thought contains the reason why, instead of the pronoun of the first person, the noun is employed; so that it is equivalent to: To Me the only God, the Lord of the whole earth. But it is altogether distorted, if the first person here be changed into the second. With respect to the import of the word, we must by no means think only of the gifts of consecration which were brought to the temple. Such a view would be necessary, only if the goods of the Covenant-people, or the Covenant-people themselves, were introduced as that which is to be consecrated. In that case we could understand, by that which is consecrated, that only which is the exclusive property of the Lord, which has been dedicated to Him exclusively, and for ever withdrawn from the use of His subjects, and which, as far as they are concerned, is as good as annihilated; compare Lev. xxvii. 28: "Everything consecrated, which any one consecrates to the Lord, of man and of beast, and of the field of his possession, shall not be sold nor redeemed; every consecrated thing is most holy to the Lord." But here, where He who consecrates is the Lord, while the goods are those of the heathen, the latter only are to be considered as being excluded from the possession, and as those in reference to whom the goods are consecrated goods; while the people of God must, on the other hand, be considered as partaking in what He has acquired. The community of goods between these two is rendered prominent in other passages also where the object required it. Thus, e.g., Joel iv. (iii.) 5, where the Phœnicians and Philistines are charged: "My silver and My gold ye have taken, and My precious things, the goodly ones, ye have carried into your palaces." That we cannot here think of the temple-treasure is evident, not only from a comparison of ver. 4, where the attempts of these nations to avenge themselves on Israel on account of former injuries, are expressly represented as attempts to take vengeance upon God, but also from history, which knows nothing of the plunder of the temple by Phœnicians and Philistines. The mention of the gain points to the male parta,—and this is the more strictly applicable, the nearer the relation is in which he who is robbed stands to the Lord of the earth. With the gain, the substance in general is lost.—The fundamental thought of the verse, which is here expressed only with an application to a special case, is that of the victory of the Congregation of the Lord over the world. This was perceived by Calvin, who strikingly demonstrates how this declaration is ever anew realized, and how its complete fulfilment is reserved only for the second coming of Christ. He has erred, however, in this, that looking only to the eternal import of the thought, he overlooked the circumstance that it is here expressed with reference to a definite event in which it was to be realized.

Ver. 14. "Who thou gatherest thyself in troops, O daughter of troops. They lay siege against us, they smite the judge of Israel with the rod upon the cheek."

A new scene presents itself to the prophet. Zion, victorious on the preceding occasion, appears here as powerless, and locked up within her walls. She is captured; and ignominious abuse is cast upon the leaders of the deeply abased people.—We need not here dwell for any length of time upon the numerous expositions of תתגדדי. There is only one, viz., "thou shalt press thyself together," which affords an appropriate contrast; while this contrast is lost when it is translated, as Hofmann does, by: "thou shalt lacerate thyself" (compare what Caspari has advanced against it). "Thou shalt press thyself together" does not, moreover, destroy the import of Hithpael, and has especially the use of the Hithp. of גדד, in Jer. v. 7, in its favour. The Hithpael in this signification is probably a Denominative of גדוד. The person addressed, the בת־גדוד, can be none other than the בת־ציון in ver. 13. For it is she who is addressed by the prophet in each of the new scenes announced by עתה, and she is, generally, the only one to whom the discourse is, throughout the whole section, addressed. The intentional paronomasia occasioned by the designation "daughter of troops," i.e., who appeared in warlike array, evidently alludes to בת־ציון, and refers to the description of Zion as a brave victorious hero, in the preceding verses. The enemy is immediately afterwards spoken of in the third person. The words, "Siege (not by any means 'a wall,' as De Wette maintains) they lay, or direct against us," clearly indicate that the pressing of themselves together, which forms a contrast with the former courageous excursions indicated by גדוד, is the consequence of fear, weakness, and hostile oppression. The words are therefore strikingly paraphrased by Justi, thus: "But now, why dost thou thus press thyself together, thou who wast accustomed to press others?" This, however, only must be kept in mind, that בת־גדוד implies an allusion to the fact that the warlike disposition continues even in the present, notwithstanding the feebleness forced upon her,—a very characteristic feature. In saying, "They lay siege against us," instead of "against thee," the prophet is carried away by his emotions to show himself as one of the people whom he sees to be oppressed by so heavy sufferings. As indicated by the word "now" also, he is, in spirit, in the midst of them. The ignominious treatment of the judge of Israel supposes that the prophet sees, in his inward vision, the capture of the city as having already taken place; for it is impossible to conceive of the judge, the soul of the city, as being outside of it. This judge of Israel is an ideal person, formed by the prophet in order that he might be able to contrast him with the Ruler of Israel in v. 1 (2), who represents all the theocratic authorities; compare, e.g.. Is. iii. 12, where the corrupted leaders of the Theocracy present themselves to the prophet in the person of a large child. To speak, in such a case, of a collective noun, as is usually done, is out of place. But it may be observed that it is not a king who is here spoken of, but, very significantly, a judge of Israel only, probably with reference to the times before Saul, when Israel was governed by judges. The royal dominion which, according to the announcement in ver. 9, shall be destroyed by Babylon, shall be restored by the Messiah only (compare v. 1 [2], iv. 8), who is not שפט ישראל, but, like His great ancestor David, מושל בישראל; compare 2 Sam. xxiii. 3. There can be no doubt that, in this connection, the Judge is spoken of as distinguished from, and contrasted with, the King. But even by itself, the mention of the Judge cannot but be startling. It would have been against the object of the prophet to have mentioned any inferior persons, when there existed a superior one; and if the King was thereby denoted, why should he have been designated thus?—It is on purpose that ישראל, which is the nomen dignitatis of the people, is here chosen. It more emphatically points out the unworthiness of the treatment, as well as the contrast between the reality and the idea in the destinies of the nation,—a contrast, it is true, which Israel has called forth by the preceding contrast between the reality and the idea with regard to his conduct. Since Israel has inwardly profaned himself by his own guilt, he is now, as a just punishment, profaned outwardly also.—With respect, now, to the historical reference of this disastrous announcement, its fulfilment cannot be sought for in any other event than the invasion by the Romans. Among the sufferings of the people, which are here described in general outlines, this is the only one recorded in history, with the exception of those already mentioned. Isaiah, the contemporary of Micah, likewise announced, as early as in chap. vi., that upon those who should return from the captivity a second judgment would be inflicted, by which the national independence should be destroyed. This judgment is described with remarkable clearness and distinctness by the post-exilic prophets, inasmuch as, to them, it appeared already more in the foreground; compare the remarks on Zech. v. and xi.; Dan. ix. The only plausible argument against this reference is this,—that the capture of the city by the Romans was subsequent to the appearance of the Messiah, and that it is, after all, the latter which forms the subject of the announcement of salvation in v. 1 (2), which, again, refers to the sufferings described in the verse before us. This argument, however, is set aside by the following considerations. 1. The prophet, indeed, designates the misery which was inflicted by those enemies upon the Covenant-people only according to its acme, viz., the siege and capture of the city; but he, nevertheless, views it in, and understands it of, its whole extent, and from its first beginnings. These, then, in so far as the Romans are concerned, fall in the time before Christ, for the Jewish people were already subjected to the Roman dominion by Pompey. 2. This alone, however, is not sufficient. If, with Vershuir (de celebri oraculo Mic. iv. 14, in the Dissert. Philol. exeg. Leuw. 1775), we confine ourselves to the capture by Pompey, we cannot, by any means, get rid of the feeling that that fulfilment does not exhaust the prophecy. But we are, on the other hand, quite entitled to add that highest point, viz., the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, along with all its still existing consequences, if only we consider, that the announcement of salvation in chap. v.—as is shown by its contents, and by its accordance with the analogy of all the Messianic prophecies—is not limited to the short period of the first appearance of Christ. That comes into consideration rather as the grain of seed only from which the tree grew up, under which all the fowls of heaven were to dwell. Hence it is, that the salvation, no less than the punishment, is a continuous one, until, at the end of the days, it appears in its glorious consummation. But if it be established that Christ is presented as the only Saviour from the calamity here described, then that calamity must still continue for those who reject Him, yea, it must still be increased. It is only by giving up their opposition that they can be delivered from the yoke which presses upon them. The election, on the other hand, is, from the very beginning, received into the communion of His kingdom, which extends over the whole world. Here, however, that which has been already remarked in reference to vers. 11-13 finds its application. The siege and capture of Zion are pre-eminently the means of representing the idea of the heavy oppression and deep abasement of Israel, and of the cessation of its political independence, although it must not upon any account be overlooked, that the natural form of the representation is, at the same time, the natural form of the realization of the idea that Judah could not be destroyed without the siege and capture of Jerusalem, its centre.

^[1] We must not by any means suppose, as has been done last of all by Caspari, that the mountains are here regarded as places of worship.

^[2] Thus does Calvin, who says: "He speaks after the manner of the prophets, who under the term 'law' used to comprehend the whole doctrine of God."

^[3] Caspari, indeed, is of opinion, that the walking in the name of the Lord is not to be considered as a merit, on account of which the salvation is granted, but as a mercy which has been bestowed upon Israel, and which forms the ground of the salvation. But this feature is not at all intimated; and we are the less at liberty to introduce it, as the walking in the name of the gods is parallel to the walking in the name of the Lord.

^[4] Caspari very properly refers here to v. 3 (4), where the Messiah, in whom the former dominion is to come to the Tower of the flock, is represented as a shepherd.

^[5] Micah's references to the Pentateuch are made the subject of a most thorough disquisition by Caspari, S. 419 ff.

CHAP. V. 1.

"And thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, too little to be among the thousands of Judah, out of thee shall come forth unto Me (one) to be Ruler in Israel; and His goings forth are the times of old, the days of eternity."

The close connection of this verse with what immediately precedes (Caspari is wrong in considering iv. 9-14 as an episode) is evident, not only from the ו copulative, and from the analogy of the near relation of the announcement of salvation to the prophecy of disaster in the preceding verse (for if the connection with ver. 14 be overlooked, the announcement of disaster contained in it remains without a corresponding consolation,—and this would be against the analogy of vers. 9, 10, 11-13); but more strikingly so from the contrast of the בישראל מושל with the שפט ישראל. The Judge of Israel in his deepest abasement, is here contrasted with the Ruler of Israel in His highest divine glory. The connection is seen also in the indication of Bethlehem's natural littleness, as contrasted with the greatness to be bestowed upon it by God. What could have induced the prophet thus strongly to point out this circumstance, had it not been that he considered Bethlehem as the type of the Jewish people in their misery, described in the preceding verse, and the miraculous elevation of the former, to be accomplished by divine omnipotence, as the pledge of a like result for the whole people? There is, moreover, a reference to the beginning of the pretended episode. In iv. 9, it was said: "There is no king in thee;" here, it is announced that from Bethlehem there comes forth a glorious Ruler in Israel. But, on the other hand, there is also a close connection with ver. 8, as has been rightly perceived by Caspari. This connection and reference are sufficiently indicated by the like form. The address to Bethlehem here corresponds with the address to "the Tower of the flock" there,—the "Ruler," מושל, here, with the "dominion," ממשלה, there. There, the dominion returns to the house of David; here, the august person is described by whom this return is effected, after the events, described iv. 9-14, have come upon the Covenant-people. That the Ruler here comes forth out of Bethlehem, corresponds with iv. 8 in so far as there the dominion returns to the Tower of the flock, to the hill of the daughter of Zion, which implies the overthrow of the Davidic kingdom, and the return of the family of David to the condition in which it lived at Bethlehem before the time of David,—which must necessarily precede its final glory.—According to Bachiene ii. 2, S. 7 ff., Bethlehem and Ephratah are to be distinguished, so that the former designates the town alone, and the latter at the same time its whole environs,—so that Bethlehem Ephratah would be equivalent to Bethlehem situated in Ephratah. But even if we were to agree with this opinion, we must not, by any means, consider the two words as standing in the stat. constr., any more than the corresponding בית־לחם יהודה in Judges xvii. 9, xix. 1, 2, 18. For as a Nomen proprium is equivalent to a noun with the article, it can never stand in the stat. constr. with another noun. We should thus be obliged to assume that, by way of brevity, common in geographical designations, both appellations were placed unconnectedly beside each other, without any indication of their relation, just as in addressing a letter, we would simply write Berlin, Prussia. But if we compare Gen. xxxv. 19, where Ephratah is simply declared to be identical with Bethlehem (אפרתה הוא בית לחם);—and if we consider that the prophet had already alluded to the contents of that chapter (compare remarks on iv. 8), and that he regards the events which formerly happened in the neighbourhood of Bethlehem as a type of those which were to take place in future;—that in ver. 2 (3) he brings the new birth which is there to happen in parallelism with one which had formerly occurred in its nearest neighbourhood, and that it is just in the account of the latter that the designation occurs,—we shall have the strongest reason for understanding here also the two names as a designation of the town, without deciding whether the above-mentioned difference, as regards other passages, be well founded or not. Interpreters commonly assert that the sole ground of the twofold designation of the place is the intention of distinguishing it from another Bethlehem in the tribe of Zebulun; compare Josh. xix. 15. But in that case, we should rather have expected the common Bethlehem Judah, instead of Bethlehem Ephratah. There can be no doubt, that the prophet, in choosing this designation, was guided by a regard to that passage in Genesis. One might also suppose that the prophet wished to allude, at the same time, to the appellative significations of these nouns, viz., "house of bread," and "field of fruit," and to lay stress upon their typical import: the place, the blessing of which, as regards temporal things, is indicated by its name, shall, at some future time, be blessed and fruitful in a higher sense. It is just in Micah, who is fond of making significant allusions to names, that such a supposition is very natural, as is shown, not only by chap. i., but also by vii. 18, where he gives an interpretation of his own name. As, however, the two names elsewhere also occur thus connected, without any attention being given to their signification, the prophet would not have omitted giving a hint upon this point. It is not the way of Scripture to make any allusions which cannot be understood with certainty. We shall, therefore, be obliged to suppose that, after the common name, the prophet mentions, in addition, the ancient name rendered sacred by memory from the time of the Patriarch, and by the authority of the most ancient documents of revelation (compare, besides Gen. xxxv. 19, Gen. xlviii. 7), in order thereby to impart greater solemnity to the discourse, and to intimate what great things he had to say of Bethlehem. In accordance with this designation by two names, is, then, the circumstance that the address is directed to Bethlehem.—The word צעיר forms an apposition to Bethlehem: "little to be," instead of, "who art too little to be." If the sense were to be, "thou art little," the אתה would not have been omitted after צעיר. The circumstance that Bethlehem is addressed as a masculine (comp. צעיר ,אתה, and ממך) may be accounted for by the prophet's viewing the town in the image of its ideal representative; compare remarks on Zech. ix. 7. In such a case, the gender may be neglected; compare, e.g., Gen. iv. 7, where sin, חטאת, appears as a masculine noun, on account of the image of a ravenous beast. Such personifications occur very frequently. Thus, nothing is more common in the Mosaic law than that Israel is addressed as one man. This has been frequently misunderstood, and, in consequence, that which refers to the whole people has been applied to the single individual. Thus it is even in the Decalogue. In Is. v. 7, the people of Judah appear as the man Judah.

The littleness of Bethlehem is sufficiently evident from the circumstance of its being left out in the catalogue of the towns of the tribe of Judah, in Joshua (compare Bachiene, § 192). This induced the LXX. to insert it in Josh. xv. 60 along with several other towns which had been omitted; and, in doing so, they were probably guided, not so much by a regard to its outward importance, as by the interest which attached to it from the recollection of an event of former times (compare Gen. xxxv.), from its being the birth-place of David, and still more, from the prophecy under consideration, by which the eyes of the whole nation were directed to this place, outwardly so unimportant. The assertion of Jerome, that the Jews omitted the name in the Hebrew text, in order that Christ might not appear as a descendant of the tribe of Judah, has received from Reland (S. 643) a more thorough refutation than it deserved. Keil, in his commentary on Joshua, has lately renewed the attempt to prove, from internal reasons, the genuineness of the addition; but, from the whole condition of the Alex. Version, it is very dangerous to trust to such arguments. The very reasons which Keil brings forward in support of the addition, are just those which might have induced the LXX. to make it. The circumstance that they added to Bethlehem the name Ephratah, plainly indicates the reason which induced them to introduce Bethlehem specially. Bethlehem is likewise omitted in the catalogue of the towns of Judah, in Neh. xi. 25 ff., and can therefore have occupied among them a very low place only, although it is mentioned in Ezra ii. 21, Neh. vii. 26. In the New Testament, it is called a mere village (κώμη, John vii. 42). Josephus, indeed, occasionally gives it the title of a town (compare Luke ii. 4, 11); but, in other passages, he designates it by χωρίον, Ant. v. 2, 8.—צעיר להיות means properly, "little in reference to being," instead of, "too little to be,"—the wider expression being used to indicate the relations of the town to the being, where we use the more limited expression.—Instead of the "thousands of Judah," שרי אלפים ought to have been employed, as it appears, in order strictly to maintain the personification. The representative of Bethlehem is too small to be numbered among the heads of Judah. Several expositors (J. D. Michaelis, Justi) have thereby been induced to point בְּאַלֻּפֵי instead of בְּאַלְפֵי. But this supposed emendation is set aside by the consideration that אַלּוּף is only the special designation of the Edomitish princes, and occurs in a general sense, only by way of Catachresis, in Zechariah, who lived at a time when the Hebrew language was nearly extinct. The most simple explanation is, that the prophet views the thousands, or the families of Judah, no less than the town Bethlehem, as ideal existences; in which case, the personification is maintained throughout. Moreover, there would not be any insurmountable difficulty in the way of supposing that the prophet had given up the personification; for these are frequently not strictly adhered to by the prophets, who constantly pass from the figure to the thing prefigured. This may be at once seen from the preceding verse, in the first clause of which, Zion appears personified as a woman, while immediately afterwards there follows, "against us."—אלף, "thousand," is frequently used for designating a family, because the number of its members usually consisted of about a thousand; compare Num. i. 16, where it is said of the twelve princes of the tribes: "Heads of the thousands of Israel are they;" Num. x. 4; Josh. xxii. 14, 21; Judg. vi. 15; 1 Sam. x. 19. On the division of Israel into thousands, hundreds, etc.—a division which existed before the time of Moses—compare what has been advanced in my Dissertations on the Genuineness of the Pentateuch, ii. p. 341 sqq. It is self-evident that the thought here is, that Bethlehem is too little to constitute a thousand by itself. Communities, however, which were not sufficiently numerous to constitute, by themselves, a generation or family, were reckoned with others, and formed with them an artificial generation, an artificial family; for the divisions of generations and families were, owing to the great significance which numbers had in ancient times, connected with numerical relations. An instance of this kind occurs in 1 Chron. xxiii. 11, 12, where it is said of four brothers that they had not sons enough, and were, for that reason, reckoned as one family only. Being merely part of a generation, Bethlehem had no place among the generations. The sense is clearly this: Bethlehem occupies a very low rank among the towns of the Covenant-people,—can scarcely show herself in the company of her distinguished sisters, who proudly look down upon her.—It is altogether a matter of course that יָצָא, "to go out," may be used also of "being born," of "descent," inasmuch as this belongs to the general category of going out; compare, e.g., 2 Kings xx. 18. We must, however, confine ourselves to the general idea of "going forth," "proceeding," and not consider Bethlehem as the father of the Messiah. In opposition to Hofmann, this is proved by Caspari, from Jer. xxx. 21: "And their governor shall proceed from the midst of them;" and from Zech. x. 4.—יֵצַא is without a definite subject. It is best to supply "one," which is evidently implied in what follows. The construction, which might otherwise appear somewhat strange, has been occasioned by the desire of making perceptible, by the very words, and their position, the contrast between the divine greatness and the natural littleness of Bethlehem:—

Thou art little to be among the thousands of Judah;— From thee shall come forth unto me, to be a Ruler in Israel.

From a place which is too little to form a single independent member of the body, the head proceeds. From this contrast appears also the reason why it is said, "Ruler in Israel," while we should have expected to hear of the Ruler of Israel κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν,—a circumstance on which Paulus lays so much stress in opposing the Messianic interpretation.—Had the prophet adopted the latter expression, not only would this contrast have been less striking, but the other also, which is likewise intended, viz., the contrast with the Judge of Israel, in the preceding verse, who loses his dignity. The prophet was, in the first instance, concerned more about the genus than the individual,—more about the idea of dominion in general, than about the mode and kind of it. The individual is, afterwards, however, partly in this verse itself, partly in the following verse, so distinctly characterized, that he cannot be by any means mistaken. Nothing more, it is true, is implied in these words, than that, at some future time, there would come forth from Bethlehem a Ruler over all Israel; and if these words stood isolated, and if it could be proved that, after the time of Micah, there came forth from Bethlehem a Ruler over all Israel, besides the Messiah—a thing which, however, cannot be proved—then, indeed, it might be questionable which of the two to choose. Caspari's exposition, "Will he come forth," has this against it, that, in the preceding verses, the Messiah was not yet spoken of, and, hence, that He cannot simply be supposed as known; and least of all—if the acquaintance with Him were to be supposed from other passages—could He have been introduced with a simple unaccented he: the היא could not have been omitted in this case. The case in iv. 8 is but little analogous, for the subject in תאתה is there an indefinite one.—לי is, by several interpreters, referred to the prophet. Thus Rosenmüller, following Michaelis, says, "To me, i.e., for my good, the prophet says, in the name of his whole people." But the reference to God is required by the contrast between human littleness and divine greatness. Calvin remarks on it: "By this word, God declares that His decree to give up the people was not such, that Tie should not be willing to restore them after some time. He therefore calls the faithful back to Himself, and reminds them of His counsel, just as if He said, 'I have indeed rejected you for a time, but not so as that I am not filled with compassion for you.'" The import of the לי, viz., that God could exalt that which was low, the believer saw, in a type, in David; and there is no doubt that the prophet was anxious indirectly to refer them to this type, and thereby to strengthen their faith in the promise, which appeared almost incredible. He (David) had been a native of the humble, little Bethlehem, the youngest among his brothers, without power, without renown. In order that the לי might become the more evident, the Lord, at his election, gave such a direction to the circumstances, that this, his natural lowliness, might be most strikingly exhibited. It was God who raised him from being a shepherd of lambs, to be a shepherd of nations.

In contrast with the Messiah's human and lowly origin. His divine and lofty dignity is prominently brought out in the last words of the verse,—a contrast similar to that in the case of Bethlehem, to which the prophet thereby refers. Here also, the prophet has so clearly expressed the contrast by the words themselves, that, upon the homines bonæ voluntatis among the interpreters of all ages, it has most forcibly impressed itself. Thus, e.g., Chrysostom, demonstratio adv. Judæos et Gentiles, quod Christus sit Deus, opp. T. V., p. 739: "He exhibits both Godhead and manhood. For in the words, 'His goings forth are from the beginning, from the days of eternity,' His existence from all eternity is revealed; while in the words, 'Shall come forth the ruler who feeds My people Israel,' His origin according to the flesh is revealed." A more minute inquiry into the meaning of these words must begin with the investigation of מוצאתיו. The greater number of interpreters agree in this, that מוצאה, the feminine form of the more common מוצא here denotes the action of the going forth. But this is opposed by the following considerations. 1. The use of the plural. Those especially who here think of the eternal going forth of the Son from the Father, cannot by any means justify it. Several among them consider it as plur. majest. Thus, e.g., do Tarnovius and Frischmuth, in the Dissert. de Nativitate Messiæ, in the remarks on this passage, Jena 1661. But although such a plural exists, indeed, in Hebrew, and many traces of it are to be found (compare my Dissertations on the Genuineness of the Pentateuch, i. p. 267 ff.), it could appear here, of course, in the suffix only, not in the noun. Others suppose that the plural stands here simply for the singular. Now, there are, it is true, three cases in which such does apparently take place:—the first, when a definite individual out of the multitude is meant,—when accordingly, not the number, but the general idea only is concerned;—the second, when a noun in the plural gradually loses its plural signification, because the etymology and original signification have become indistinct;—the third, when the plural stands for the abstract. Not one of these cases, however, is applicable here. Those interpreters have most plausibly removed the difficulty who understand מוצאתיו to be really a repeated act of going forth, and refer it to the Old Testament doctrine of the Angel of the Lord. Thus Jerome: "Because He had always spoken to them through the prophets, and became in their hands the Word of God." Tremellius and Junius: "The goings forth, i.e., the declarations and demonstrations of, as it were, a rising sun; He from the very beginning revealed and manifested Himself to all created things, by the light of His word, and the excellency of His works;Cocceius: "I cannot, however, be persuaded to believe that the plural מוצאתיו is here used without emphasis. For the Son has not gone forth from the Father, like a man from a man, who begins to exist only when he is brought forth from a man, and when he goes forth, ceases to be brought forth and to go out. In all the days of eternity, the Son proceeds from the Father, and is the eternal ἀπαύγασμα τῆς δόξης αὐτοῦ." But this circumstance is, in general, against this explanation, that the contrast with the going forth from Bethlehem, which is completed in one act, does not admit of the mention of a manifold going forth, and that, in this contrast, the arising, the origin of the existence of the Messiah, can alone be thought of; while, more specially, Jerome, Tremellius, and Junius, who, with Piscator also, limit the going forth to the relation to created things only, are contradicted by מימי עולם, by which the going forth is placed beyond the beginning of creation; and Cocceius, by the fact that the מלאך יהוה in the Old Testament, differently from the Λόγος in the New Testament, appears always as going forth from God, in relation to the world only. But although the "time of old and the days of eternity" should be considered as the place of the going forth, yet the plural cannot be explained, as is done by Caspari, from the circumstance that "a person is always descended from several;" for the transferring of such a usus loquendi to a relation, to which in itself it is not applicable, could be admitted only when it could be demonstrated to be altogether common and firmly established. But the plural might indeed, although only with some difficulty, be vindicated and accounted for from the circumstance, that two points of going forth are mentioned, which, as it were, suppose a twofold act. 2. But even if the singular were used, the explanation of the act of going forth would not be admissible. It is contrary to the idea of nouns with מ, that they could be used as nomina actionis. It is only with writers living at a time when the language was dying out, that a few instances of this erroneous use can be found. מ denotes the place where, the instrument wherewith, the time wherein, and perhaps the way and manner whereby, something is done, or is. Further—It may signify also the thing itself which is done, or is; but, in no writer of the living and flourishing language, does it ever denote the action itself. Caspari, indeed, attempts to prove that "there occurs in the older books a number, by no means inconsiderable, of nouns with מ, which undeniably denote an action;" but what he has advanced on this point requires still to be minutely sifted, and to be more closely examined; compare, e.g., on Num. x. 2, my pamphlet on "The Day of the Lord," S. 32. But we are quite satisfied with what is granted by Caspari himself (compare Ewald's Lehrbuch d. Hebr. Spr. § 160), that it is against the nature and common use of this form to denote the action. Even by this concession, a presumption is raised against the correctness of an interpretation which would ascribe to מוצא, here, and in other passages, the signification of going forth, viewed as an action. The passages quoted by Winer in favour of the signification, egressus, are the following: 1. Hos. vi. 3, where it is said of the Lord כשחר נכון מוצאו, "firm like the morning-dawn is His going forth." But מוצא is there, not the action, but the place and the time of the going forth, as is evident from the word "firm" also. 2. Ezek. xii. 4: "And thou shalt go forth at even in their sight, כמוצאי גולה." Several interpreters agree that מוצא here signifies the kind and mode of the going forth. Vatablus says, "It denotes the deportment of him who goes forth, and means, Thou shalt go forth in sorrow, and indignant." But it is better, with Hävernick, to refer it to the time: "According to the goings forth of prisoners, at the time when emigrants of this kind prefer to go forth from their places." 3. Num. xxxiii. 2: "And Moses wrote down את מוצאיהם, 'the places of their goings out.'" 4. Ps. xix. 7, it is said of the sun: מקצה השמים מוצאו, "from the end of the heaven is his going forth," which is tantamount to—The end of the heaven is the place from which he goes forth. 5. 1 Kings x. 28: ומוצא הסוסים אשר לשלמה ממצרים, which De Wette translates, "And the export of the horses which Solomon had, (was) from Egypt." But a more accurate translation is, "And the place of coming forth of the horses which Solomon had was Egypt," or, more literally still, "from Egypt,"—a concise mode of expression for, "The place from which the horses of Solomon came forth was Egypt,"—just as in the preceding example. In proof of the signification, "action of going out," Ch. B. Michaelis refers, moreover, to 2 Sam. iii. 25, where De Wette translates, "Thou knowest Abner, the son of Ner; he came to deceive thee, and to see thy going out and thy coming in, and all that thou doest." But a more accurate translation would be, "The place from which thou goest out, and to which thou art going;" compare Ezek. xliii. 11. In all other passages—and these are rather numerous—the signification "place of going out," or "that which goes out," is quite obvious. Even Caspari grants that the signification "place of going out" has, a priori, the greatest probability in its favour.—To this it may be added, that the signification "place of going out" is recommended here, even by the contrast with what precedes, inasmuch as there Bethlehem, is mentioned as the place from which the Euler in Israel is to come forth. With this place of going out, another and a higher one is contrasted. This contrast also shows us how the מן in מקדם and מימי עולם must be understood, viz., in the same manner as מן in ממך; for the evident reference of מוצאתיו to יצא לי shows that it must correspond with it. Hence the literal translation would be, "And His places of going out are from the times of old, from the days of eternity," which is equivalent to—The places from which He goes forth are the times of old, the days of eternity,—just as in the two passages, Ps. xix. 7; 1 Kings x. 28. The מן might very well have been omitted; but its insertion here has arisen chiefly from a desire to make the reference to the corresponding clause outwardly also more perceptible. This reference shows also, that the explanation of מן by præ, which was proposed by Pococke and others, is inadmissible, besides involving an absurdity, inasmuch as nothing can be before eternity; while, on the other hand, this reference alone affords a satisfactory explanation of the plural. According to it, the words, "From the time of old, from the days of eternity," contain a gradation. First, the existence of the Messiah before His birth in time, in Bethlehem, is pointed out in general; and then, in contrast with all time, it is vindicated to eternity. This could not fail to afford a great consolation to Israel. He who hereafter, in a visible manifestation, was to deliver them from their misery, was already in existence,—during it, before it, and through all eternity.