Woe to them that devise iniquity, and work evil upon their beds! when the morning is light, they practise it, because it is in the power of their hand.
THE PROPHET OF THE POOR
Micah 2:1-13; Micah 3:1-12WE have proved Micah’s love for his countryside in the effusion of his heart upon her villages with a grief for their danger greater than his grief for Jerusalem. Now in his treatment of the sins which give that danger its fatal significance, he is inspired by the same partiality for the fields and the folk about him. While Isaiah chiefly satirizes the fashions of the town and the intrigues of the court, Micah scourges the avarice of the landowner and the injustice which oppresses the peasant. He could not, of course, help sharing Isaiah’s indignation for the fatal politics of the capital, any more than Isaiah could help sharing his sense of the economic dangers of the provinces; {Isaiah 5:8} but it is the latter with which Micah is most familiar and on which he spends his wrath. These so engross him, indeed, that he says almost nothing about the idolatry, or the luxury, or the hideous vice, which, according to Amos and Hosea, were now corrupting the nation.
Social wrongs are always felt most acutely, not in the town, but in the country. It was so in the days of Rome, whose earliest social revolts were agrarian. It was so in the Middle Ages: the fourteenth century saw both the Jacquerie in France and the Peasants’ Rising in England; Langland, who was equally familiar with town and country, expends nearly all his sympathy upon the poverty of the latter, "the poure folk in cotes." It was so after the Reformation, under the new spirit of which the first social revolt was the Peasants’ War in Germany. It was so at the French Revolution, which began with the march of the starving peasants into Paris. And it is so still, for our new era of social legislation has been forced open, not by the poor of London and the large cities, but by the peasantry of Ireland and the crofters of the Scottish Highlands. Political discontent and religious heresy take their start among industrial and manufacturing centers, but the first springs of the social revolt are nearly always found among the rural populations.
Why the country should begin to feel the acuteness of social wrong before the town is sufficiently obvious. In the town there are mitigations, and there are escapes. If the conditions of one trade become oppressive, it is easier to pass to another. The workers are better educated and better organized; there is a middle class, and the tyrant dare not bring matters to so high a crisis. The might, of the wealthy, too, is divided; the poor man’s employer is seldom at the same time his landlord. But in the country power easily gathers into the hands of the few. The laborer’s opportunities and means of work, his home, his very standing-ground, are often all of them the property of one man. In the country the rich have a real power of life and death, and are less hampered by competition with each other and by the force of public opinion. One man cannot hold a city in fee, but one man can affect for evil or for good almost as large a population as a city’s, when it is scattered across a countryside.
This is precisely the state of wrong which Micah attacks. The social changes of the eighth century in Israel were peculiarly favorable to its growth. The enormous increase of money which had been produced by the trade of Uzziah’s reign threatened to overwhelm the simple economy under which every family had its croft. As in many another land and period, the social problem was the descent of wealthy men, land-hungry, upon the rural districts. They made the poor their debtors, and bought out the peasant proprietors. They absorbed into their power numbers of homes, and had at their individual disposal the lives and the happiness of thousands of their fellow-countrymen. Isaiah had cried. "Woe upon them that join house to house, that lay field to field, till there be no room" for the common people, and the inhabitants of the rural districts grow fewer and Isaiah 5:8. Micah pictures the recklessness of those plutocrats - the fatal ease with which their wealth enabled them to dispossess the yeomen of Judah.
The prophet speaks:-
"Woe to them that plan mischief, And on their beds work out evil! As soon as morning breaks they put it into execution, For-it lies to the power of their hands!"
"They covet fields and-seize them, Houses and-lift them up. So they crush a good man and his home, A man and his heritage."
This is the evil-the ease with which wrong is done in the country! "It lies to the power of their hands: they covet and seize." And what is it that they get so easily-not merely field and house, so much land and stone and lime: it is human life, with all that makes up personal independence, and the security of home and of the family. That these should be at the mercy of the passion or the caprice of one man-this is what stirs the prophet’s indignation. We shall presently see how the tyranny of wealth was aided by the bribed and unjust judges of the country; and how, growing reckless, the rich betook themselves, as the lords of the feudal system in Europe continually did, to the basest of assaults upon the persons of peaceful men and women. But meantime Micah feels that by themselves the economic wrongs explain and justify the doom impending on the nation. When this doom falls, by the Divine irony of God it shall take the form of a conquest of the land by the heathen, and the disposal of these great estates to the foreigner.
The prophet speaks:-
"Therefore thus saith Jehovah: Behold I am planning evil against this race, From which ye shall not withdraw your necks, Nor walk upright: For an evil time it is! In that day shall they raise a taunt-song against you And wail out the wailing ("It is done"); and say, We be utterly undone: My people’s estate is measured off! How they take it away from me! To the rebel our fields are allotted. So thou shalt have none to cast the line by lot In the congregation of Jehovah."
No restoration at time of Jubilee for lauds taken away in this fashion! There will be no congregation of Jehovah left!
At this point the prophet’s pessimist discourse, that must have galled the rich, is interrupted by their clamor to him to stop.
The rich speak:-
"Prate not, they prate, let none prate of such things! Revilings will never cease! O thou that speakest thus to the house of Jacob, Is the spirit of Jehovah cut short? Or are such His doings? Shall not His words mean well with him that walketh uprightly?"
So the rich, in their immoral confidence that Jehovah was neither weakened nor could permit such a disaster to fall on His own people, tell the prophet that his sentence of doom on the nation, and especially on themselves, is absurd, impossible. They cry the eternal cry of Respectability: "God can mean no harm to the like of us! His words are good to them that walk uprightly-and we are conscious of being such. What you, prophet, have charged us with are nothing but natural transactions." The Lord Himself has His answer ready. Upright indeed! They have been unprovoked plunderers!
God speaks:-
"But ye are the foes of My people, Rising against those that are peaceful; The mantle ye strip from them that walk quietly by, Averse to war! Women of My people ye tear from their happy homes, From their children ye take My glory forever. Rise and begone-for this is no resting-place! Because of the uncleanness that bringeth destruction. Destruction incurable."
Of the outrages on the goods of honest men, and the persons of women and children, which are possible in a time of peace, when the rich are tyrannous and abetted by mercenary judges and prophets, we have an illustration analogous to Micah’s in the complaint of Peace in Langland’s vision of English society in the fourteenth century. The parallel to our prophet’s words is very striking:-
"And thanne come Pees into parlement and put forth a bille, How Wronge ageines his wille had his wyf taken. "Both my gees and my grys his gadelynges feccheth; I dar noughte for fere of hym fyghte ne chyde. He borwed of me bayard he broughte hym home nevre, Ne no ferthynge therefore or naughte I couthe plede. He meynteneth his men to marther myne hewen, Forstalleth my feyres and fighteth in my chepynge, And breketh up my bernes dore and bereth aweye my whete, And taketh me but a taile for ten quarters of ores, And yet he bet me ther-to and lythbi my mayde, I nam noughte hardy for hym "uneth to loke.’"
They pride themselves that all is stable and God is with them. How can such a state of affairs be stable! They feel at ease, yet injustice can never mean rest. God has spoken the final sentence, but with a rare sarcasm the prophet adds his comment on the scene. These rich men had been flattered into their religious security by hireling prophets, who had opposed himself. As they leave the presence of God, having heard their sentence, Micah looks after them and muses in quiet prose.
The prophet speaks:-
"Yea, if one whose walk is wind and falsehood were to try to cozen "thee, saying, "I will babble to thee of wine and strong drink, then he might be the prophet of such a people."
At this point in chapter 2 there have somehow slipped into the text two verses (Micah 2:12-13), which all are agreed do not belong to it, and for which we must find another place. They speak of a return from the Exile, and interrupt the connection between Micah 2:11 and the first verse of chapter 3 (Micah 3:1). With the latter Micah begins a series of three oracles, which give the substance of his own prophesying in contrast to that of the false prophets whom he has just been satirizing. He has told us what they say, and he now begins the first of his own oracles with the words, "But I said." It is an attack upon the authorities of the nation, whom the false prophets flatter. Micah speaks very plainly to them. Their business is to know justice, and yet they love wrong. They flay the people with their exactions; they cut up the people like meat.
The prophet speaks:-
"But I said, Hear now, O chiefs of Jacob, And rulers of the house of Israel: Is it not yours to know justice? Haters of good and lovers of evil, Tearing their hide from upon them."
(he points to the people)
"And their flesh from the bones of them; And who devour the flesh of my people, And their hide they have stripped from them And their bones have they cleft, And served it up as if from a pot, Like meat from the thick of the caldron! At that time shall they cry to Jehovah, And He will not answer them; But hide His face from them at that time, Because they have aggravated their deeds."
These words of Micah are terribly strong, but there have been many other ages and civilizations than his own of which they have been no more than true. "They crop us," said a French peasant of the lords of the great Louis’ time, "as the sheep crops grass." "They treat us like their food," said another on the eve of the Revolution. Is there nothing of the same with ourselves?
While Micah spoke he had wasted lives and bent backs before him. His speech is elliptic till you see his finger pointing at them. Pinched peasant faces peer between all his words and fill the ellipses. And among the living poor today are there not starved and bitten faces-bodies with the blood sucked from them, with the Divine image crushed out of them? Brothers, we cannot explain all of these by vice. Drunkenness and unthrift do account for much; but how much more is explicable only by the following facts! Many men among us are able to live in fashionable streets and keep their families comfortable only by paying their employs a wage upon which it is impossible for men to be strong or women to be virtuous. Are those not using these as their food? They tell us that if they are to give higher wages they must close their business, and cease paying wages at all; and they are right if they themselves continue to live on the scale they do. As long as many families are maintained in comfort by the profits of businesses in which some or all of the employees work for less than they can nourish and repair their bodies upon, the simple fact is that the one set are feeding upon the other set. It may be inevitable, it may be the fault of the system and not of the individual, it may be that to break up the system would mean to make things worse than ever-but all the same the truth is clear that many families of the middle class, and some of the very wealthiest of the land, are nourished by the waste of the lives of the poor. Now and again the fact is acknowledged with as much shamelessness as was shown by any tyrant in the days of Micah. To a large employer of labor who was complaining that his employees, by refusing to live at the low scale of Belgian workmen, were driving trade from this country, the present writer once said: "Would it not meet your wishes if, instead of your workmen being leveled down, the Belgians were leveled up? This would make the competition fair between you and the employers in Belgium." His answer was, "I care not so long as I get my profits." He was a religious man, a liberal giver to his Church, and he died leaving more than one hundred thousand pounds.
Micah’s tyrants, too, had religion to support them. A number of the hireling prophets, whom we have seen both Amos and Hosea attack, gave their blessing to this social system, which crushed the poor, for they shared its profits. They lived upon the alms of the rich, and flattered according as they were fed. To them Micah devotes the second oracle of chapter 3, and we find confirmed by his words the principle we laid down before, that in that age the one great difference between the false and the true prophet was what it has been in every age since then till now-an ethical difference; and not a difference of dogma, or tradition, or ecclesiastical note. The false prophet spoke, consciously or unconsciously, for himself and his living. He sided with the rich; he shut his eyes to the social condition of the people; he did not attack the sins of the day. This made him false - robbed him of insight and the power of prediction. But the true prophet exposed the sins of his people. Ethical insight and courage, burning indignation of wrong, clear vision of the facts of the day-this was what Jehovah’s spirit put into him, this was what Micah felt to be respiration.
The prophet speaks:-
"Thus saith Jehovah against the prophets who lead my people astray, Who while they have aught between their teeth proclaim peace, But against him who will not lay to their mouths they sanctify war! Wherefore night shall be yours without vision, And yours shall be darkness without divination; And the sun shall go down on the prophets, And the day shall darken about them; And the seers shall be put to the blush, And the diviners be ashamed: All of them shall cover the beard, For there shall be no answer from God. But I am full of power by the spirit of Jehovah, and justice and might, To declare to Jacob his transgressions and to Israel his sin."
In the third oracle of this chapter rulers and prophets are combined-how close the conspiracy between them! It is remarkable that, in harmony with Isaiah, Micah speaks no word against the king. But evidently Hezekiah had not power to restrain the nobles and the rich. When this oracle was uttered it was a time of peace, and the lavish building, which we have seen to be so marked a characteristic of Israel in the eighth century, was in process. Jerusalem was larger and finer than ever. Ah, it was a building of God’s own city in blood! Judges, priests, and prophets were all alike mercenary, and the poor were oppressed for a reward. No walls, however sacred, could stand on such foundations. Did they say that they built her so grandly, for Jehovah’s sake? Did they believe her to be inviolate because He was in her? They should see. Zion-yes, Zion-should be ploughed like a field, and the Mountain of the Lord’s Temple become desolate.
The prophet speaks:-
"Hear now this, O chiefs of the house of Jacob, And rulers of the house of Israel, Who spurn justice and twist all that is straight, Building Zion in blood, and Jerusalem with crime! Her chiefs give judgment for a bribe,"
"And her priests oracles for a reward, And her prophets divine for silver; And on Jehovah they lean, saying: ‘Is not Jehovah in the midst of us? Evil cannot come at us.’ Therefore for your sakes shall Zion be ploughed like a field, And Jerusalem become heaps, And the Mount of the House mounds in a jungle."
It is extremely difficult for us to place ourselves in a state of society in which bribery is prevalent, and the fingers both of justice and of religion are gilded by their suitors. But this corruption has always been common in the East. "An Oriental state can never altogether prevent the abuse by which officials, small and great, enrich themselves in illicit ways." The strongest government takes the bribery for granted, and periodically prunes the rank fortunes of its great officials. A weak government lets them alone. But in either case the poor suffer from unjust taxation and from laggard or perverted justice. Bribery has always been found, even in the more primitive and puritan forms of Semitic life. Mr. Doughty has borne testimony with regard to this among the austere Wahabees of Central Arabia. "When I asked if there were no handling of bribes at Hayil by those who are nigh the prince’s ear, it was answered, ‘Nay.’ The Byzantine corruption cannot enter into the eternal and noble simplicity of this people’s (airy) life, in the poor nomad country; but (we have seen) the art is not unknown to the subtle-headed Shammar princes, who thereby help themselves with the neighbor Turkish governments." The bribes of the ruler of Hayil "are, according to the shifting weather of the world, to great Ottoman government men; and now on account of Kheybar, he was gilding some of their crooked fingers in Medina." Nothing marks the difference of Western government more than the absence of all this, especially from our courts of justice. Yet the improvement has only come about within comparatively recent centuries. What a large space, for instance, does Langland give to the arraigning of "Mede," the corrupter of all authorities and influences in the society of his day! Let us quote his words, for again they provide a most exact parallel to Micah’s, and may enable us to realize a state of life so contrary to our own. It is Conscience who arraigns Mede before the King:-
"By ihesus with here jeweles youre justices she shendeth, And lith agein the lawe and letteth hym the gate, That leith may noughte have his forth here floreines go so thikke, She ledeth the lawe as hire list and lovedays maketh And doth men lese thorw hire love that law myghte wynne, The mase for a mene man though he mote hit cure. Law is so lordeliche and loth to make ende, Without presentz or pens she pleseth wel fewe. For pore men mowe have no powere to pleyne hem though the smerte; Suche a maistre is Mede amonge men of gode"
The Prophet does not here speak only against the Israelites, as some think, who have incorrectly confined this part of his teaching to the ten tribes; but he, on the contrary, (in discharging his office, addresses also the Jews. He refers not here to idolatry, as in the last chapter; but inveighs against sins condemned in the second table. As then the Jews had not only polluted the worship of God, but also gave loose reins to many iniquities, so that they dealt wrongfully with their neighbors, and there was among them no attention to justice and equity, so the prophet inveighs here as we shall see, against avarice, robberies, and cruelty: and his discourse is full of vehemence; for there was no doubt such licentiousness then prevailing among the people, that there was need of severe and sharp reproofs. It is at the same time easy to perceive that his discourse is mainly directed against the chief men, who exercised authority, and turned it to wrong purposes.
Woe, he says, to those who meditate on iniquity, and devise (78) evil on their beds, that, when the morning shines, they may execute it Here the Prophet describes to the life the character and manners of those who were given to gain, and were intent only on raising themselves. He says, that in their beds they were meditating on iniquity, and devising wickedness. Doubtless the time of night has been given to men entirely for rest; but they ought also to use this kindness of God for the purpose of restraining themselves from what is wicked: for he who refreshes his strength by nightly rest, ought to think within himself, that it is an unbecoming thing and even monstrous, that he should in the meantime devise frauds, and guiles, and iniquities. For why does the Lord intend that we should rest, except that all evil things should rest also? Hence the Prophet shows here, by implication, that those who are intent on devising frauds, while they ought to rest, subvert as it were the course of nature; for they have no regard for that rest, which has been granted to men for this end, — that they may not trouble and annoy one another.
He afterwards shows how great was their desire to do mischief, When it shines in the morning, he says, they execute it He might have said only, They do in the daytime what they contrive in the night: but he says, In the morning; as though he had said, that they were so heated by avarice, that they rested not a moment; as soon as it shone, they were immediately ready to perpetrate the frauds they had thought of in the night. We now then apprehend the import of the Prophet’s meaning.
He now subjoins, For according to their power is their hand As אל, al, means God, an old interpreter has given this rendering, Against God is their hand: but this does not suit the passage. Others have explained it thus, For strength is in their hand: and almost all those well-skilled in Hebrew agree in this explanation. Those who had power, they think, are here pointed out by the Prophet, — that as they had strength, they dared to do whatever they pleased. But the Hebrew phrase is not translated by them; and I greatly wonder that they have mistaken in a thing so clear: for it is not, There is power in their hand; but their hand is to power. The same mode of speaking is found in Pro 3:0, and there also many interpreters are wrong; for Solomon there forbids us to withhold from our neighbor his right, When thine hand, he says, is for power; some say, When there is power to help the miserable. But Solomon means no such thing; for he on the contrary means this, When thine hand is ready to execute any evil, abstain. So also the Lord says in Deu 28:0,
“When the enemy shall take away thy spoils,
thy hand will not be for power;”
that is, “Thou wilt not dare to move a finger to restrain thy enemies; when they will plunder thee and rob thee of thy substance, thou wilt stand in dread, for thy hand will be as though it were dead.” I come now to the present passage, Their hand is for power: (79) the Prophet means, that they dared to try what they could, and that therefore their hand was always ready; whenever there was hope of lucre or gains the hand was immediately prepared. How so? Because they were restrained neither by the fear of God nor by any regard for justice; but their hand was for power, that is, what they could, they dared to do. We now then see what the Prophet means as far as I can judge. He afterwards adds —
(78) Literally, work; but פעל means to work not only with the hands, but also with the mind; and hence, to contrive, to devise, to machinate. Henderson has “fabricate,” while Newcome, less suitably, retains the word, “work.” Marckius justly observes, that the working here is not external but internal, the framing, the setting in order, the preparation of evil in the mind. The Prophet points out here that source from which outward evils proceed. What numberless schemes, both good and evil, are concocted and arranged by men on their beds! “They set their wits on work to invent ways of accomplishing their desire. They devise iniquity with a great deal of cursed art and policy; they plot how to do it effectually, and yet so as not to expose themselves. This is called working evil; they are working it in their heads.” — Henry.
(79) The original is, כי יש-לאל ידם Marckius after having referred to Calvin’s version, says, that he prefers that of Junius and Tremelius which is as follows: “Quum est in potestate manus ipsoram — When it is in the power of their hand,” כי is taken as an adverb of time. The phrase is found in four other places, — Gen 31:29; Deu 28:32; Neh 5:5; and Pro 3:27. So that to render אל here “God,” as it is done by the Septuagint, Theodoret, and Jerome, and some others, must be wrong. כי is rendered “because” both by Newcome and Henderson, but not so suitably as to the sense. — Ed.
Micah confirms here what is contained in the former verse; for he sets forth the alacrity with which the avaricious were led to commit plunder; nay, how unbridled was their cupidity to do evil. As soon as they have coveted any thing, he says, they take it by force. And hence we gather, that the Prophet, in the last verse, connected wicked counsels with the attempt of effecting them; as though he had said, that they indeed carefully contrived their frauds, but that as they were skillful in their contrivances, so they were not less bold and daring in executing then.
The same thing he now repeats in other words for a further confirmation, As soon as they have coveted fields, they seize them by force; as soon as they have coveted houses they take them away; they oppress a man and his house together; (80) that is, nothing escaped them: for as their wickedness in frauds was great, so their disposition to attempt whatever they wished was furious. And well would it be were there no such cruel avarice at this day; but it exists every where, so that we may see, as in a mirror, an example of what is here said. But it behaves us carefully to consider how greatly displeasing to God are frauds and plunders, so that each of us may keep himself from doing any wrong, and be so ruled by a desire of what is right, that every one of us may act in good faith towards his neighbors, seek nothing that is unjust, and bridle his own desires: and whenever Satan attempts to allure us, let what is here taught be to us as a bridle to restrain us. It follows —
(80) This verse presents an instance of parallelism not uncommon, in which the first and the last line correspond, and the second and the third; as will be seen in the following version: —
And they covet fields and forcibly seize them,
And houses, and they take themaway;
Yea, they oppress the young man and his house,
And the old man and his inheritance.
There must be some distinction between גבר, which I render, “the young man,” and איש, rendered above, “the old man.” The first means, robust, strong; and the second is a common term for man, but sometimes signifies a husband, and also a man in years. We may, indeed in harmony with the passage, consider the first as meaning a householder, and the latter as signifying a husbandman. The fields in the first line are the same with the inheritance in the last: and houses and a house are mentioned in the two intervening lines. — Ed.
The Prophet shows now that the avaricious were in vain elevated by their frauds and rapacity, because their hope would be disappointed; for God in heaven was waiting his time to appear against them. Though they had anxiously heaped together much wealth, yet God would justly dissipate it altogether. This is what he now declares.
Behold, he says, thus saith Jehovah, I am meditating evil against this family (81) There is here a striking contrast between God and the Jews, between their wicked intentions and the intentions of God, which in themselves were not evil, and yet would bring evil on them. God, he says, thus speaks, Behold, I am purposing; as though he said, “While ye are thus busying yourselves on your beds, while ye are revolving many designs while ye are contriving many artifices, ye think me to be asleep, ye think that I am all the while meditating nothing; nay, I have my thoughts too, and those different from yours; for while ye are awake to devise wickedness I am awake to contrive judgment.” We now then perceive the import of these words: it is God that declares that he meditates evil, and it is not the Prophet that speaks to these avaricious and rapacious men; and the evil is that of punishment, inasmuch as it is the peculiar office of God to repay to all what they deserve, and to render to each the measure of evil they have brought on others.
Ye shall not, he says, remove your necks from under it. Since hypocrites always promise to themselves impunity, and lay hold on subterfuges, whenever God threatens them, the Prophet here affirms, that though they sought every escape, they would yet be held bound by God’s hand, so that they could not by any means shake off the burden designed for them. And this was a reward most fully deserved by those who had withdrawn their necks when God called them to obedience. They then who refuse to obey God, when he requires from them a voluntary service, will at length be drawn by force, not to undergo the yoke, but the burden which will altogether overwhelm them. Whosoever then will not willingly submit to God’s yoke, must at length undergo the great and dreadful burden prepared for the unnamable.
Ye will not then be able to withdraw your necks, and ye shall not walk in your height. He expresses still more clearly what I have referred to, — that they were so elated with pride, that they despised all threatening and all instruction: and this presumption became the cause of perverseness; for were it not that a notion of security deceived men, they would presently bend, when God threatens them. This then is the reason why the Prophet joins this sentence, ye shall no more walk in your height; that is, your haughtiness shall then surely be made to succumb; for it will be a time of evil He means, as I have said, that those who retain a stir and unbending neck towards God, when he would lay on them his yoke, shall at length be made by force to yield, however rebellious they may be. How so? For they shall be broken down, inasmuch as they will not be corrected. The Prophet then adds —
(81) The word משפחה, family, no doubt designates the people of Israel, so called, either for their descent from the same father, or for their adoption by God as his people, designed to live in subjection to him as a family to its head. — Ed.
The verse is in broken sentences; and hence interpreters vary. But the meaning of the Prophet appears to me to be simply this, In that day they shall take up a proverb against you; that is, it will not be an ordinary calamity, but the report concerning it will go forth every where so that the Jews will become to all a common proverb. This is one thing. As to the word משל, meshil, it is taken, we know, for a weighty saying, and in the plural, weighty sayings, called by the Latins, sentences (sententias) or sayings, (dicta,) and by the Greeks, apophthegmata. αποφθεγματα, But these sayings were thus called weighty by the Hebrews, because he who elevated his style, made use especially of figurative expressions, to render his discourse nobler and more splendid. (82) Hence many render this word, enigmas. It accords well with the Prophet’s meaning, to suppose, that proverbial sayings would spread every where respecting the Jews, especially as calamities were usually described in a plaintive song. They shall then mourn over you with lamentable mourning. But this ought to be referred to the fact, — that the calamity would be every where known. It yet seems that this sentence is applied afterwards to the Jews themselves, and not unsuitably. But it is an indefinite mode of speaking, since the Prophet speaks not of one or two men, but of the whole people.
They shall then mourn in this manner, Wasted, we have been wasted: the portion of my people has he changed — (it is the future instead of the past) — He has then changed the portion of my people This may be applied to God as well as to the Assyrians; for God was the principal author of this calamity; he it was who changed the portion of the people: for as by his blessing he had long cherished that people, so afterwards he changed their lot. But as the Assyrians were the ministers of God’s vengeance, the expression cannot be unsuitably applied to them. The Assyrian then has taken away the portion of my people And then he says, How has he made to depart, or has taken away, or removed from me, (literally, to me,) to restore, — though שבב, shibeb, may be from the root שוב, shub, it yet means the same, — How then has he taken away from us to restore our fields he divides, that is, which he has divided; for the relative אשר, asher, is understood and there is also a change of time. Now as the discourse, as I have said, is in broken sentences, there are various interpretations. I however think that the Prophet simply means this — How as to restoring has he taken away our fields, which he hath divided? that is, How far off are we from restitution? for every hope is far removed, since the Lord himself has divided among strangers our land and possession; or since the enemies have divided it among themselves; for it is usual after victory, for every one to seize on his own portion. Whether then this be understood of the Assyrians, or rather be referred to God, the meaning of the Prophet seems clearly to be this, — that the Jews were not only expelled from their country but that every hope of return was also taken away, since the enemies had parted among themselves their inheritance, so that they who had been driven out, now in vain thought of a restitution. (83) But I read this in the present time; for the Prophet introduces here the Jews as uttering this lamentation, — “It is now all over with us, and there is no remedy for this evil; for not only are we stripped of all our property and ejected from our country, but what has been taken away by our enemies cannot be restored to us, inasmuch as they have already parted our possessions among themselves, and every one occupies his own portion and his own place, as though it were his own inheritance. We have therefore to do, not only with the Assyrians in general, but also with every individual; for what every one now occupies and possesses he will defend, as his rightful and hereditary possession.”
Some conjecture from this verse, that the discourse belongs rather to the Israelites, who were banished without any hope of return; but no necessity constrains us to explain this of the Israelites; for the Prophet does not declare here what God would do, but what would be the calamity when considered in itself. We have indeed said already in many places, that the Prophets, while threatening, speak only of calamities, desolations, deaths, and destructions, but that they afterwards add promises for consolation. But their teaching is discriminative: when the Prophets intend to terrify hypocrites and perverse men, they set forth the wrath of God only, and leave no hope; but when they would inspire with hope those who are by this means humbled, they draw forth comfort to them even from the goodness of God. What is here said then may fitly and really be applied to the Jews. It follows —
(82) Very similar is the description of משל by Lowth in his Praelections; he describes it as that style which is sententius, figurative, and sublime — Sententiosum, figuratum, et sublime docendi genus He says also that the word means often a saying, anaxiom, a short sentence compactly formed — est quoevis sententia sive axioma scite graviterque dictum, paucis concinnatum, et ad γνωμων firmam compositum , 1Sa 24:14, Prael. 4. And this is evidently its meaning here, — a common saying, everywhere known. — Ed.
(83) Most commentators agree as to the general meaning of this verse, which is clearly stated here: but their versions differ. Newcome, following the Septuagint, renders the verbs in the first and second lines in a passive sense, but Henderson gives them an active meaning, supplying “one” as the nominative case, i.e., the person, who utters the lamentation afterwards mentioned. The two last lines are the most difficult. Marckius has this version, —
Quomodo subtraxit mihi!
Avertenti agros nostros distribuit !
That of Junius and Tremelius is essentially the same, only the verbs are put in the present tense. Newcome’s rendering is this, —
How hath he withdrawn it form me!
To an apostate he hath divided our fields!
To call the king of Babylon an apostate, seems incongruous, as it cannot be applied to any one but who has turned away from true religion. The most obvious and literal rendering is that given by Marckius, with the exception of the tense. I offer the following version of the whole verse, with no alteration in the text, except the supplying of a ו before אמר which is found in several MSS., —
In that day shall be taken up concerning you a proverb,
And lament a lamentation will the oppressed,
And say will the desolate, —“We are destroyed,
The portion of my people he changes;
How he takes away from me!
To the alienator of my fields he divides them!
It is a proverb, a common saying, and a lament, that would be uttered, as the Prophet foretells, at the time of the expulsion of the people from the land, when it would be taken possession of by their enemies. — Ed.
Here the Prophet concludes his discourse respecting God’s design to cleanse Judea from its perverse and wicked inhabitants, that it might no longer be the inheritance of one people. For the land, we know, had been given to the posterity of Abraham, on the condition, that it was to be held by them as an heritage: and we also know, that a line was determined by lot whenever the year of Jubilee returned, that every one might regain his own possession. The Prophet now testifies that this advantage would be taken away from the Jews, and that they would hereafter possess the land by no hereditary right; for God, who had given it, would now take it away.
There shall not then be one to cast a line by lot in the assembly of Jehovah. And he seems here to touch the Jews, by calling them the assembly of Jehovah. He indeed adopted them, they were the people of God: but he intimates that they were repudiated, because they had rendered themselves unworthy of his favor. He therefore, by calling them ironically the assembly of Jehovah, denies that they rightly retained this name, inasmuch as they had deprived themselves of this honor and dignity. It now follows —
Here the conciseness of the expressions has made interpreters to differ in their views. Some read thus, Distill ye not, — they will distill; that is, the Jews speak against the prophets, and with threats forbid them, as with authority, to address them. The Hebrew word, distill, means the same as to speak; though at the same time it is applied more commonly to weighty addresses than to such as are common and ordinary. If any understands, they will distill, or speak, of the Jews, then the Prophet points out their arrogance in daring to contend with God’s prophets, and in trying to silence and force them to submission. We indeed find that ungodly men act thus, when they wish to take away the liberty of teaching from God’s prophets; for they resist as though they themselves were doubly and treble prophets. So also in this place, Distill ye not, that is, the Jews say, Let not the servants of God prophesy. But some think that a relative is understood, Distill ye not for them who distill; as though he had said, that ungodly men would not bear God’s prophets and thus would prevent and restrain them, as much as they could, from speaking. Others make this distinction, Distill ye not, — they shall distill; as though the Jews said the first, and God the second. Distill ye not, — this was the voice of the ungodly and rebellious people, who would cast away from them and reject every instruction: but God on the other side opposed them and said, Nay, they shall distill; ye forbid, but it is not in your power; I have sent them: though ye may rage and glamour a hundred times, it is my will that they should proceed in their course.
We hence see how various are the explanations: and even in the other part of the verse there is no more agreement between interpreters: They shall not distill; respecting this clause, it is sufficiently evident, that God here intimates that there would be now an end to all prophecies. How so? Because he would not render his servants a sport, and subject them to reproach. This is the true meaning: and yet some take another view, as though the Prophet continued his sentence, They shall not distill, lest the people should receive reproaches; for the ungodly think, that if they close the mouths of the prophets, all things would be lawful to them, and that their crimes would be hid, in short, that their vices would not be called to an account; as though their wickedness was not in itself sufficiently reproachful, were God to send no prophets, and no reproof given. No doubt, profane men are so stupid as to think themselves free from every reproach, when God is silent, and when they put away from themselves every instruction. Hence some think, that this passage is to be understood in this sense. But I consider the meaning to be that which I have stated; for he had before said, Distill ye not who distill; that is, Ye prophets, be no longer troublesome to us; why do you stem our ears? We can no longer bear your boldness; be then silent. Thus he expressly introduced the Jews as speaking with authority, as though it was in their power to restrain the prophets from doing their duty. Now follows, as I think, the answer of God, They shall not distill, that he may not get reproaches: Since I see that my doctrine is intolerable to you, since I find a loathing so great and so shameful, I will take away my prophets from you: I will therefore rest, and be hereafter silent. — Why? “Because I effect nothing; nay, I subject my prophets to reproaches; for they lose their labor in speaking, they pour forth words which produce no fruit; for ye are altogether irreclaimable. Nay, as they are reproachfully treated by you, their condition is worse than if they were covered with all the disgrace of having been criminal. Since then I subject my prophets to reproach I will not allow them to be thus mocked by you. They shall therefore give over, they shall prophesy no longer. (84) ”
But the Lord could not have threatened the Jews with any thing worse or more dreadful than with this immunity, — that they should no more hear anything which might disturb them: for it is an extreme curse, when God gives us loose reins, and suffers us, with unbridled liberty, to rush as it were headlong into evils, as though he had delivered us up to Satan to be his slaves. Since it is so, let us be assured that it is an awful threatening, when he says, They shall not distill, lest they should hereafter become objects of reproach.
(84) Newcome, apparently on the authority of the Septuagint, joins a part of the last verse to this, and gives this rendering,—
In the congregation of Jehovah prophesy not, O ye that prophesy:
They shall not prophesy to these:
For he shall remove from himselfreproaches.
The last line he applies to the true prophet, that he would not subject himself to disgrace by exercising his office. Henderson’s version is the following: —
Prophesy not; those shall prophesy
Who will not prophesy of these things:
Reproaches are incessant.
This is viewed as being altogether the language of the people, interdicting the true prophets, specifying those whom they approved, and deprecating the reproaches cast upon them by the true prophets. Another version, which is materially adopted by Calvin, is admitted by our Author as not unsuitable, but he prefers the one given above. The main objection is to the last line, which in the original is this, —
לא יׂג כלמות
The last word is plural, and means reproaches; and the verb יסג is in the third person of the future tense, and may be derived either from סוג, to recede, to depart, or from גסג, to remove, both in a transitive and intransitive sense. Having an objective case, it cannot be the first verb, and must be the second in its transitive meaning. Then the rendering is, He will not, or let him not, or let none remove reproaches. This being the literal rendering of this sentence, we must now consider what version of the former part will correspond best with it. It is that no doubt adopted by Calvin, though the last clause cannot admit of the meaning he attaches to it. The people say, “Prophesy ye not who prophesy;” God answers, “They shall not prophesy to these;” and then the Prophet adds, speaking of God, “He will not remove reproaches;” that is, he will not remove them by his prophets with the view of amending their reproachful conduct.
The last clause is evidently viewed as an anomalous construction by Henderson; for he renders it as though the plural noun were the nominative case to the verb in the singular number, and this because the latter precedes the former. There may be instances of this in Hebrew, but it is by no means a common usage; though it be so in the Welsh language, which in so many of its peculiarities is very much like Hebrew. This sort of construction is the ordinary one in that language: a plural noun has commonly a verb in the singular number, when placed before it. This sentence in Welsh would be exactly the same as in Hebrew—(lang. cy) Nid ymadawa gwaradwyddiadau The noun in the plural number is the nominative case to the preceding verb, which is in the singular number, and the verb too is in the future tense, and is yet understood as having the meaning of the present tense. — Ed.
The Prophet now reproves the Israelites with greater severity, because they attempted to impose a law on God and on his prophets and would not endure the free course of instruction. He told us in the last verse, that the Israelites were inflated with so much presumption, that they wished to make terms with God: “Let him not prophesy” they said, as though it were in the power of man to rule God: and the Prophet now repeats, Is the Spirit of Jehovah straitened? as though he said, Ye see the intent of your presumption, and how far it proceeds; for ye wish to subject God’s Spirit to yourselves and to your own pleasure. The prophets doubtless did not speak of themselves, but by the bidding and command of God. Since then the prophets were the organs of the Holy Spirit, whosoever attempted to silence them, usurped to himself an authority over God himself, and in a manner tried to make captive his Spirit: for what power can belong to the Spirit, except he be at liberty to reprove the vices of men, and condemn whatever is opposed to God’s justice? When this is taken away, there is no more any jurisdiction left to the Holy Spirit. We now then see what the Prophet means in this place: he shows how mad a presumption it was in the Israelites to attempt to impose silence on the prophets, as though they had a right to rule the Spirit of God, and to force him to submission.
Is the Spirit of Jehovah straitened? And this mode of speaking ought to be noticed, for it possesses no ordinary emphasis; inasmuch as the Prophets by this reproof; recalls the attention of these perverse men to the author of his teaching; as though he had said, that the wrong was not done to men, that war was not carried on with them, when instruction is prohibited, but that God is robbed of his own rights and that his liberty is taken away, so that he is not allowed to execute his judgment in the world by the power of his Spirit.
And farther, the Prophet here ironically reproves the Israelites, when he says, O thou who art called the house of Jacob, is the Spirit of Jehovah reduced to straits? For if heathens, who have never known the teaching of religion, and to whom no heavenly mysteries have been revealed, had said, that they would have nothing to do with the prophets, it would have been much more endurable; for what wonder would it be for ignorant men to repudiate all instruction? But it was monstrous for the Israelites, who gloried in the name of God, to dare to rise up so rebelliously against the prophets: they always boasted of their own race, as though they surpassed all the rest of the world, and were a holy nations separated from all others. Hence the Prophet says, “Ye wish to be called the house of Jacob; what is your excellency and dignity, except that you have been chosen by God to be his peculiar people? If then you have been habituated to the teaching of God, what fury and madness it is, that you cannot bear his prophets, but wish to close their mouths?” We now then see the point of this irony, when the Prophet says that they were called the house of Jacob He seems at the same time to intimate, in an indirect way, that they were a spurious race. As they were called by other prophets, Amorites and Sodomites: even so in this place the Prophet says, “Ye are indeed the house of Jacob, but it is only as to the name.” They were in reality so degenerated, that they falsely pretended the name of the holy patriarch; yea, they falsely and mendaciously boasted of their descent from holy men, though they were nothing else but as it were rotten members. Inasmuch then as they had so departed from the religion of Abraham and of other fathers, the Prophet says, “Thou art indeed called what thou art not.”
He afterwards adds, Are these his works? Here he brings the Israelites to the proof, as though he said, How comes it, that the prophets are so troublesome and grievous to you, except that they sharply reprove you, and denounce on you the judgment of God? But God is in a manner forced, except he was to change his nature, to treat you thus sharply and severely. Ye boast that you are his people, but how do you live? Are these his works? that is, do you lead a life, and form your conduct according to the law laid down by him? But as your life does not in any degree correspond with what God requires, it is no wonder that the prophets handle you so roughly. For God remains the same, ever like himself; but ye are perfidious, and have wholly repudiated the covenant he has made with you. Then this asperity, of which ye are wont to complain, ought not to be deemed unjust to you.
He then subjoins, Are not my words good to him who walks uprightly? Here the Prophet more distinctly shows, why he had before asked, Whether their works were those of the Lord; for he compares their life with the doctrine, which on account of its severity displeased them; they said that the words of the prophets were too rigid. God here answers, that his words were gentle and kind, and therefore pleasant, that is, to the pious and good; and that hence the fault was in them, when he treated them less kindly than they wished. The import of the whole then is, that the word of God, as it brings life and salvation to man, is in its own nature gracious, and cannot be either bitter, or hard, or grievous to the pious and the good, for God unfolds in it the riches of his goodness.
We hence see that God here repudiates the impious calumny that was cast on his word; as though he had said, that the complaints which prevailed among the people were false; for they transferred the blame of their own wickedness to the word of God. They said that God was too severe: but God here declares that he was gentle and kind, and that the character of his word was the same, provided men were tractable, and did not, through their perverseness, extort from him anything else than what he of himself wished. And the same thing David means in Psa 18:0, when he says that God is perverse with the perverse: for in that passage he intimates, that he had experienced the greatest goodness from God, inasmuch as he had rendered himself docile and obedient to him. On the contrary, he says, God is perverse with the perverse; that is, when he sees men obstinately resisting and hardening their necks, he then puts on as it were a new character, and deals perversely with them, that is, severely, as their stubbornness deserves; as for a hard knot, according to a common proverb, a hard wedge is necessary. We now then perceive the meaning of this passage, that God’s words are good to those who walk uprightly; that is they breathe the sweetest odour, and bring nothing else but true and real joy: for when can there be complete happiness, except when God embraces us in the bosom of his love? But the testimony respecting this love is brought to us by his word. The fault then is in us, and ought to be imputed to us, if the word of God is not delightful to us.
Some expound this whole passage differently, as though the Prophet relates here what was usually at that time the boast of the Israelites. They hence think that it is a narrative in which he represents their sentiments; (narrationem esse mimiticam;) as though the Prophet introduced here the ungodly and the rebellious animating one another in their contempt of God’s word, O thou who art called the house of Jacob, is the Spirit of Jehovah straitened? Hypocrites, we know, are so blind and intoxicated by a false confidence, that they hesitate not heedlessly to abuse all the favors of God. As then God had conferred a great excellency on his people, they thus emboldened one another, — “Are we not the children and posterity of Abraham? What will it avail us to be a holy and chosen race, and the peculiar people of God, and a royal priesthood, if we are to be thus unkindly treated? We find that these prophets shamefully reprove us: where is our dignity, except we show that we have more privileges than other nations?” These interpreters therefore think the meaning to be this, — that they make a show of their own privileges, that they might with more liberty reject every instruction, and shake off every yoke. And when it is said, Is the Spirit of God diminished? these interpreters regard this as meaning, that they were satisfied with the solemn promise of God, and that as they were a holy race, they now superciliously despised all the prophets, — “Is the Spirit of God dead, who was formerly the interpreter of the everlasting covenant, which God made with us? Has he not testified that we should be to him a holy and elect people? Why then do ye now attempt to reduce to nothing this sacred declaration of the Holy Spirit, which is inviolable?” It is then added, Are these his works? “Ye talk of nothing but of threats and destruction; ye denounce on us numberless calamities: but God is beneficent and kind in his nature, patient and merciful; and ye represent him to us as a tyrant; but this view is wholly inconsistent with the nature of God.” And, in the last place, God subjoins, as these interpreters think, an exception, — “All these are indeed true, if faithfulness exists among you, and the authority of my word continues; for my words are good, but not to all without any difference: be upright and sincere, and ye shall find me dealing kindly, gently, tenderly, and pleasantly with you: then my rigor will cease, which now through my word so much offends and exasperates you.”
This meaning may in some measure be admitted; but as it is hard to be understood, we ought to retain the former, it being more easy and flowing. There is nothing strained in the view, that the Prophet derides the foolish arrogance of the people, who thought that they were sheltered by this privilege, that they were the holy seed of Abraham. The Prophet answers that this titular superiority did not deprive God of his right, and prevent him to exercise his power by the Spirit. “O thou then who art called the house of Jacob; but only as far as the title goes: the Spirit of God is not reduced to straits. But if thou boastest thyself to be the peculiar people of God, are these thy works the works of God? Does thy life correspond with what he requires? There is no wonder then that God chastises you so severely by his word, for there is not in you the spirit of docility, which allows the exercise of his kindness.” (85)
But though the Prophet here upbraids the ancient people with ingratitude, yet this truth is especially useful to us, which God declares, when he says that his word is good and sweet to all the godly. Let us then learn to become submissive to God, and then he will convey to us by his word nothing but sweetness, nothing but delights; we shall then find nothing more desirable than to be fed by this spiritual food; and it will ever be a real joy to us, whenever the Lord will open his mouth to teach us. But when at any time the word of the Lord goads and wounds, and thus exasperates us, let us know that it is through our own fault. It follows —
(85) Newcome, adopting האמר, as found in four MSS., renders the first part of the verse as the language of the people, though not in the sense of those referred to by Calvin. His version is as follows: —
Doth the house of Israel [Jacob] say,
“Is the Spirit of Jehovah straightened?
Are these his doings?”
“Straightened,” i.e., confined to a few, such as Micah. And by “doings,” he means the judgments before announced. Henderson regards the “doings,” or, as he renders them, “operations,” in the same light, though he views the words as spoken by the Prophet, and renders the first line thus, —
What language, O house of Jacob!
The first word, האמור, as it is in our text, is viewed by Henderson, as well as by Marckius, as a passive participle, signifying what is said or spoken, and the ה prefixed is considered as a note of exclamation. But the objection made to our common version is not valid, that אמר in Niphael, when it means being called or named, has uniformly an ל after it, for we have an instance to the contrary in Jer 7:32, עוד התפח ולא-יאמר, “and it shall no more be called Tophet.” — Ed.
As the words of the Prophet are concise, they contain some obscurity. Hence interpreters differ. First, as to the word אתמיל, atmul, some think it to be one word, others divide it into את, at and מול, mul, which means, over against, opposite; and they regard it of the same import with ממול, which immediately follows. But as the repetition would be frigid, the Prophet no doubt intended that it should be taken here in its proper sense, and its meaning is yesterday. But this time is not strictly taken by the Hebrews, for they take yesterday as meaning the past time, even when many years have elapsed. I have therefore rendered it formerly, which suits this place. There is also another difference as to the sense of the text, for some think that this אתמול, atmul, is to be joined to the verb קומם, kumum; but it is rather to be connected with the word עמי, omi, My people formerly There is another diversity, that is, as to the term אויב, avib, for some apply it to God, and others to the people; that they rose up or stood one against another. For this verb is explained in two ways: some view it as a verb neuter, They stand against the enemy; and others render it, They rise up against the enemy; and this second meaning is most approved, and harmonizes best with the context.
I will now refer to what I consider to be the real meaning. The Prophet, in the first place, says, that the people were formerly under the power and government of God, but that now they were become wholly alienated from him. Formerly, then, it was my people, as though God now renounced all friendship with them. “I have hitherto owned you as my people, but hereafter I shall have nothing to do with you, for the whole authority of my word is by you entirely abolished; ye have violated your faith: in short, as you have destroyed my covenant, ye have ceased to be my people; for whatever favor I have conferred on you, you have deprived yourselves of it by your wickedness; and though I have adopted you, yet your wickedness now strips you of this privilege.” This is one thing.
It then follows, They have risen up as against an enemy. I consider a note of likeness to be here understood. The Prophet says simply, Against an enemy have they risen up; but I regard the meaning to be, that they had risen up as against an enemy; that is that they had made God, their best father, their enemy, inasmuch as they had by their crimes provoked his displeasure. (86) He then confirms this truth by saying, that they practiced robberies among themselves. We indeed know that hypocrites ever hide themselves under their religious rites, and spread them forth as their shield whenever they are reproved. Hence the Prophet says, that they were not to be deemed the people of God for spending their labors on sacrifices, for they were at the same time robbers, and plundered innocent men.
The garment of comeliness, he says, or, the garment and the cloak, (about such words I do not labor much,) they take away from those who pass by securely; (87) that is from all who are peaceable. For when there is a suspicion of war, or when a traveler does any mischief, he rightly deserves to be punished. But the Prophet says here, that they were robbed, who passed by securely as though they were in a safe country. “When travelers fear nothing, ye strip them of their garments, as though they were returning from war: as they are wont, when war is over, to seize on spoils wherever found, and no one can keep his own; so now, during peace, ye take to yourselves the same liberty, as though all things were exposed to plunder, and ye were in a hostile country, lately the scene of warfare.”
We now then perceive the meaning of the Prophet. He first intimates that the people were now rejected by God, for they had rendered themselves, by their most abandoned life, wholly unworthy of his benefits; and at the same time he reproves their ingratitude that having been the people of God, they choose to make war with him rather than to observe the covenant which he had made for their safety; for it was a most shameful wickedness in them, since they had been chosen from the whole world to be a peculiar people, to prefer going to war with God rather than to live quietly under his protection. And that they did rise up against God he proves, for they gave themselves up to robberies; they plundered, even during times of peace, which circumstance greatly aggravated their wickedness. It now follows —
(86) Newcome gives the same meaning to this part of the line, though another to the former part,—
But of old my people hath risen up as an enemy.
Henderson’s version is the same. The word rendered “of old” means “yesterday,” and expresses often past time indefinitely. It is once rendered “of old,” Isa 30:33; but in other places, “heretofore,” “in times past;” but “formerly,” or “of late,” would be the most suitable expression in this passage. — Ed.
(87) The literal rendering of these two lines may be given thus:—
From off the garment the mantle ye shall strip
From those who pass by securely, returning from war.
Or the last words, שובי מלחמה, “averters of war,” may designate people of a peaceable disposition, and “war” may be taken for strife or contention; then the rendering would be, “who turn away from contention.” Newcome, on the authority of one MS., which has שבי, gives this version, “captives of war,” which seems unsuitable to this passage. Marckius renders the phrase thus, aversi belli, seu, a bello , “turning away from war,” or, “shy of war.” This view evidently comports best with the context. — Ed.
He proceeds with the same subject, that they refrained from no acts of injustice. It was indeed a proof of extreme barbarity not to spare women and children, for they are both weak and helpless. Their sex exempts women from violence, and their age, children. (88) Even in wars, women, and also children, escape in safety. We hence see that the Prophet, by stating a part for the whole, proves here that the people had addicted themselves to cruelty really barbarous; they were not restrained from exercising it, no, not even on women and children. Since it was so, it follows, that their boast of being the chosen people was vain and fallacious.
House of delights he ascribes to the women who, being the weaker sex, prefer being at home and in the shade, rather than going abroad. The more necessary it was that their recesses should remain safe to them. Now, what was taken away from the children, God calls it his ornament; for his blessing, poured forth on children, is the mirror of his glory: he therefore condemns this plunder as a sacrilege. The word לעולם, laoulam, designates the continuance of their crimes, as though he had said, that they were cruel without ever showing any repentance. Now it follows —
(88) This verse presents several anomalies. We have “women” and the verbs in the plural, and then “house,” “her delights,” and “her children.” It may be thus rendered, —
The women of my people ye drive away,
Eachfrom the house of her delights;
From off her children ye take away my ornament forever.
The word rendered in our version “flory,” is הדר, which means ornament, beauty. Piscator says, pulchras vestes quas Deus illis donavit — “the beautiful garments which God gave them.” God claimed the land of Canaan and all its blessings as his own. They took these away without restoring them according to the law. Henderson justly observes, that “ornament” is to be taken “collectively for the ornamental clothes which they wore, and with which they had been provided by Jehovah.” — Ed.
Here again the Prophet checks the foolish confidence of the people. The land of Canaan, we know, had been honored by God with the distinction of being a rest; yea God called it, not only the rest of the people, but also his own rest,
‘I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest,’
(Psa 95:11.)
The land of Canaan then was a sort of rest, hidden under the wings of God; for the Lord had assigned it as an inheritance to his chosen people. As God then dwelt in that land, and had also given it to the children of Abraham, that they might rest there in safety, and as this was also one of the blessings contained in the Law, hypocrites said, pursuing their usual course of falsely and groundlessly claiming to themselves the favors of God, that they could not be thence expelled, and that those Prophets were falsifiers who dared to change any thing in God’s covenant. This is the reason why the Prophet now says,
Arise, depart; this is not your rest. “False confidence,” he says, “deceives you, as ye think that ye are inseparably fixed in your habitation. God indeed has made such a promise, but this condition was added, — If ye will stand faithful to his covenant. Now ye are become covenant-breakers: ye think that he is fast bound to you; all the cords are loosened; for as ye have perfidiously departed from the Law of God, there is now no reason for you to think that he is under any obligation to you. There is then no ground for you to boast of being a holy people; you have indeed the name, but the reality has ceased to be: therefore arise and depart: but to sit still securely and proudly will avail you nothing, for God will now drive you afar off: and I now declare to you that you must arise and depart, for ye cannot rest in this land against the will of God: and God will now thrust you out of it.” We now perceive the real meaning of the Prophet.
He afterwards adds, For it is polluted; he will scatter you with violent scattering (89) Here again he vindicates God from their calumny and ungodly murmurings. We indeed know how difficult it was to bring down that people, who were steeped in so great a perverseness. And we find that the Prophet had a hard contest with the hypocrites, for the multitude had ever this language in their mouths, — What! is it of no moment that God has favored us with so many and so remarkable promises? Is our adoption nothing but a mockery? Has he in vain given us this land by an hereditary right? Since then hypocrites thus brought forward their privileges in opposition to God, and yet abused them, it was necessary to convince them to the contrary, and this is what the Prophet does here, — “Ye call,” he says, “this land your rest, but how do you rest in it? God has commanded you to observe the Sabbath, for he dwells among you to sanctify you: but ye live disorderly, and carry on war with God himself: have not your pollutions obliterated that holy rest, which has been enjoined on you by God? Ye then see that this change has happened through your fault, that is, that God has ceased to call this land, as he was wont formerly to do, your and his own rest. It is not then your rest; he will therefore scatter you with violent or strong scattering: Ye in vain promise to yourselves rest in this land, since ye carry on war with God, and cease not to provoke his wrath against you.” It follows —
(89) The original is תחבל וחבל נמרף, which, according to Parkhurst, is, “It is bound;” that is, bound over to punishment, “and the bond is grievous;” or, as it may be rendered, strong; which is only found in Niphal in two other places, 1Kg 2:8; Job 6:25. In the first it is rendered, grievous, — “a grievous crime,” and in the second, forcible, — “How forcible are the right words!”
But most others attach the idea of corruption and destruction to חבל : and Newcome takes the verb here in a passive sense, and gives this rendering of the distich, —
“Because it is polluted, it shall be destroyed,
And the destruction shall be great.”
Some render the verb actively, “It,” i.e. the land, “shall destroy you,” a reference being made, as it is thought, to what is said in Lev 18:25. The version of Marckius is this, —
“ Quando quidem impuritas corrumpet,
Et corruptio acris .” —
Seeing that impurity will destroy it,
And a violent destruction.
The previous word טמאה is here taken as a noun. But the most literal, and the most satisfactory, is the rendering of Newcome. — Ed.
The Prophet points out here another vice by which the people were infected — that they wished to be soothed with flatteries: for all the ungodly think that they are in a manner exempt from God’s judgment, when they hear no reproof; yea they think themselves happy, when they get flatterers, who are indulgent to their vices. This is now the disease which the Prophet discovers as prevailing among the people. Jerome sought out a meaning quite different here, as in the former verses; but I will not stop to refute him, for it is enough to give the real meaning of the Prophet. But as before he rendered women, princes, and thus perverted entirely the meaning, so he says here, I would I were a vain Prophet, that is, walking in vanity, and mendacious; as though Micah said “I wish I were false in denouncing on you the calamities of which I speak; for I would rather announce to you something joyful and favorable: but I cannot do this, for the Lord commands what is different.” But there is nothing of this kind in the words of the Prophet. Let us then return to the text.
If a man walks in the spirit, and deceitfully lies, (90) etc. Almost all interpreters agree in this, — that to walk in the spirit, is to announce any thing proudly and presumptuously; and they take spirit for wind or for deceits. But I doubt not, but that to walk in the spirit was then a common mode of speaking, to set forth the exercise of the prophetic office. When therefore any one was a Prophet, or one who discharged that office, or sustained the character of a teacher, he professed himself to have been sent from above. The Prophets were indeed formerly called the men of the spirit, and for this reason, because they adduced nothing from themselves or from their own heads; but only delivered faithfully, as from hand to hand, what they had received from God. To walk in the spirit then means, in my view, the same thing as to profess the office of a teacher. When therefore any one professed the office of a teacher, what was he to do? “If I,” says Micah, “being endued with the Spirit, and called to teach, wished to ingratiate myself with you, and preached that there would be an abundant increase of wine and strong drink, all would applaud me; for if any one promises these things, he becomes the prophet of this people.”
In short, Micah intimates that the Israelites rejected all sound doctrine, for they sought nothing but flatteries, and wished to be cherished in their vices; yea, they desired to be deceived by false adulation to their own ruin. It hence appears that they were not the people they wished to be deemed, that is, the people of God: for the first condition in God’s covenant was, — that he should rule among his people. Inasmuch then as these men would not endure to be governed by Divine power, and wished to have full and unbridled liberty, it was the same as though they had banished God far from them. Hence, by this proof, the Prophet shows that they had wholly departed from God, and had no intercourse with him. If there be then any man walking in the spirit, let him, he says, keep far from the truth; for he will not otherwise be borne by this people. — How so? Because they will not have honest and faithful teachers. What is then to be done? Let flatterers come, and promise them plenty of wine and strong drink, and they will be their best teachers, and be received with great applause: in short, the suitable teachers of that people were the ungodly; the people could no longer bear the true Prophets; their desire was to have flatterers who were indulgent to all their corruptions.
(90) Perhaps a more literal rendering would be thus,—
If a man, the follower of the spirit and of deception,
Speaks falsely, “I will prophesy to thee of wine and of strong drink,”
He then becomes the prophet of this people.
To walk after, or to follow, “the wind,” as some render רוח, seems by no means proper. The phrase means the same as “the man of the spirit” in Hos 9:7 Newcome changes the whole form of the passage, though not the meaning, except in one instance. Guided by the Syriac version, Houbigant and the Septuagint, without the sanction of any MS., he gives this version, —
If a man, walking in the spirit of falsehood and lies,
Prophesy unto thee for wine and for strong drink,
He shall be the prophet of this people.
He puts “for wine,” etc., and not “of wine:” but the latter rendering is much more suitable to the context. — Ed.
The exposition of this passage is twofold. The greater part of interpreters incline to this view, — that God here promises some alleviation to the Israelites, after having sharply reproved them, and threatened them with utter ruin. They therefore apply this passage to the kingdom of Christ, as though God gave hope of a future restoration. But when I narrowly weigh every thing, I am, on the contrary, forced to regard these two verses as a commination, that is, that the Prophet here denounces God’s future vengeance on the people. As, however, the former opinion is almost universally received, I will briefly mention what has been adduced in its favor, and then I shall return to state the other meaning, which I prefer.
It is suitable to the kingdom of Christ to say, that a people who had been dispersed should be gathered under one head. We indeed know how miserable a dispersion there is in the world without him, and that whenever the Prophets speak of the renovation of the Church, they commonly make use of this form of expression, that is, that the Lord will gather the dispersed and unite them together under one head. If then the passage be referred to the kingdom of Christ, it is altogether proper to say, that God by gathering will gather the whole of Jacob. But a restriction is afterwards added, that no one may extend this restoration to the whole race of Abraham, or to all those who, according to the flesh, derived their descent from Abraham as their father: hence the word שארית, sharit, is laid down. Then the whole of Jacob is not that multitude, which, according to the flesh, traced their origin from the holy Patriarchs, but only their residue. It then follows, I will set them together as the sheep of Bozrah, that is, I will make them to increase into a large, yea, into an immense number; for they shall make a tumult, that is, a great noise will be made by them, as though the place could not contain so large a number. And they explain the next verse thus, — A breaker shall go before them, that is, there shall be those who, with a hand, strong and armed, will make a way open for them; inasmuch as Christ says that the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, (Mat 11:12) they then mean that the people will have courageous leaders, whom nothing will stop from breaking through, and that they will also lead the whole people with them. They shall therefore go forth through the gate, and their king shall pass through. This also well agrees with the kingdom of Christ. For whenever God declares that he will be propitious to his Church, he at the same time adds, that he will give a king to his people; for their safety had been placed in that kingdom, which had been erected by the authority and command of God himself. It is therefore a common thing, and what occurs everywhere in the Prophets, that God would give a king from the seed of David to his people, when it would be his will to favor them with complete happiness. Thus they understand that a king shall pass on before them, which is the office of a leader, to show them the way. And Jehovah shall be at their head; that is, God himself will show himself to be the chief king of his people, and will ever defend by his help and grace those whom he adopts as his people.
But I have already said that I more approve of another. exposition: for I see not how the Prophet could pass so suddenly into a different strain. He had said in the last verse that the people could endure no admonitions, for they only desired flatteries and adulation. He now joins what I have lately referred to respecting the near judgment of God, and proceeds, as we shall see, in the same strain to the end of the third chapter: but we know that the chapters were not divided by the Prophets themselves. We have therefore a discourse continued by the Prophet to the third chapter; not that he spoke all these things in one day; but he wished to collect together what he had said of the vices of the people; and this will be more evident as we proceed. I will now come to the words.
Gathering, I will gather thee, the whole of Jacob; collecting, I will collect the remnant of Israel. God has two modes of gathering; for he sometimes gathers his people from dispersion, which is a singular proof of his favor and love. But he is said also to gather, when he assembles them together to devote and give them up to destruction, as we say in French, Trousser; and this verb is taken elsewhere in the same sense, and we have already met with an instance in Hosea. So, in the present passage, God declares that there would be a gathering of the people, — for what purpose? Not that being united together they might enjoy the blessings of God, but that they might be destroyed. As then the people had united together in all kinds of wickedness, so God now declares, that they should be gathered together, that the one and the same destruction might be to them all. And he adds, the remnant of Israel; as though he said, “Whatever shall remain from slaughters in wars and from all other calamities, such as famine and pestilence, this I will collect, that it may be wholly destroyed.” He mentions the remnant, because the Israelites had been worn out by many evils, before the Lord stretched forth his hand at last to destroy them.
He afterwards subjoins, I will set them together as the sheep of Bozrah; that is, I will cast them into one heap. Bozrah was a city or a country of Idumea; and it was a very fruitful place, and had the richest pastures: hence Isa 34:0, in denouncing vengeance on the Idumeans, alludes at the same time to their pastures, and says, “God will choose for himself fat lambs and whatever is well fed, and will also collect fatness, for the Lord has a sacrifice in Bozrah.” So also, in this place, the Prophet says, that the Jews, when collected together as it were into a bundle, shall be like the sheep of Bozrah. And he further adds, as the sheep in the middle of the sheepfolds, though some render it, leading: דבר, daber, sometimes means to lead; but I see no reason why it should be drawn so far from its meaning in this connection. I take it as signifying a sheepfold, because sheep are there collected together. Some interpreters consider that a siege is referred to here, that is, that God would confine the whole people within cities, that they might not be open to the incursions of enemies; but I extend the meaning much wider, namely, that God would gather the people, in order at last to disperse them. I will then gather them, as I have already said,Je vous trousserai; as the sheep of Bozrah in the middle of the sheep fold; and there shall be a noise on account of their number; that is, “Though ye now glory in your number, this will avail you nothing; for I shall be able to reduce you all to strait, so that you may, as ye deserve, perish together.”
It follows, Ascend shall a breaker before them; that is, they shall be led in confusion; and the gate shall also be broken, that they may go forth together; for the passage would not be large enough, were they, as is usually done, to go forth in regular order; but the gates of cities shall be broken, that they may pass through in great numbers and in confusion. By these words the Prophet intimates, that all would be quickly taken away into exile. And they shall go forth, he says through the gate, and their king shall pass on before if them The Prophet means here, that the king would be made captive; and this was the saddest spectacle: for some hope remained, when the dregs of the people had been led into Chaldea; but when the king himself was led away a captive, and cast into prison, and his eyes pulled out, and his children slain, it was the greatest of misery. They were wont to take pride in their king, for they thought that their kingdom could not but continue perpetually, since God had so promised. But God might for a time overturn that kingdom, that he might afterwards raise it anew, according to what has been done by Christ, and according to what had been also predicted by the Prophets. “Crosswise, crosswise, crosswise, (transversa) let the crown be, until its lawful possessor comes.” We then see that this, which the Prophet mentions respecting their king, has been added for the sake of amplifying.
He afterwards adds, Jehovah shall be at the head of them; that is, He will be nigh them, to oppress and wholly to overwhelm them. Some consider something to be understood, and of this kind, that Jehovah was wont formerly to rule over them, but that now he would cease to do so: but this is too strained; and the meaning which I have stated seems sufficiently clear, and that is, — that God himself would be the doer, when they should be driven into exile, and that he would add courage to tyrants and their attendants, in pursuing the accursed people, in order to urge on more and more and aggravate their calamities and thus to show that their destruction vault happen through his righteous judgment. We now then understand the real meaning of the Prophet. (91) Now follows —
(91) Calvin is not singular in his view of this passage. Scott takes the same view, while Henry regards the passage as containing a promise, and so do Marckius, Newcome, and Henderson. But some have considered the words as those of the false prophets, referred to in the eleventh verse, and that Micah answers them in the next chapter. There is no sufficient ground for this opinion. Of those who regard the passage as including a promise, some apply it to the restoration from the Babylonian captivity, and others to spiritual restoration by the gospel. But the passage, viewed by itself, and in its connection with the next chapter, bears evidently the appearance of a commination: there are especially two words which manifestly favor this view, — תהימנה and הפרף; both are taken generally, if not uniformly, in a bad sense. The first means to tumultuate, to be turbulent and riotous, to be clamorous and noisy; the second signifies to demolish, to break through, to destroy, and in every instance in which it is found as a personal noun, it means a destroyer or a robber. — See Psa 17:4; Eze 18:10; Dan 11:14. The first is a verb in the second person plural of the future tense, and in the feminine gender, because of the comparison made in the former lines to sheep and a flock. The verbs in the 12th verse are all in the future tense, and the two first in the 13th are in the past, according to what is common in prophecies, but must be rendered as futures. I propose the following version of the passage, —
12. Gathering, I will gather Jacob, the whole of thee;
Assembling, I will assemble the residue of Israel;
Together will I set them as the sheep of Bozrah,
As a flock in the midst of its fold; —
Ye shall be more noisy than men.
13. Ascend shallthe breaker in the sight of them,
— they shall break through,
And pass the gate, yea, they shall go forth through it,
