The Lord’s Covenant Case Against His People

Mic 6:6-7 Israel cannot deny these gracious acts of its God. The remembrance of them calls to mind the base ingratitude with which it has repaid its God by rebelling against Him; so that it inquires, in Mic 6:6, Mic 6:7, with what it can appease the Lord, i. e. , appease His wrath. Mic 6:6. “Wherewith shall I come to meet Jehovah, bow myself before the God of the high place?

Shall I come to meet Him with burnt-offerings, with yearling calves? Mic 6:7. Will Jehovah take pleasure in thousands of rams, in ten thousands of rivers of oil? Shall I give up my first-born for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul? ” As Micah has spoken in Mic 6:3-5 in the name of Jehovah, he now proceeds, in Mic 6:6, Mic 6:7, to let the congregation speak; not, however, by turning directly to God, since it recognises itself as guilty before Him, but by asking the prophet, as the interpreter of the divine will, what it is to do to repair the bond of fellowship which has been rent in pieces by its guilt.

קדּם does not here mean to anticipate, or come before, but to come to meet, as in Deu 23:5. Coming to meet, however, can only signify humble prostration ( kâphaph ) before the divine majesty. The God of the high place is the God dwelling in the high place (Isa 33:5; Isa 57:15), or enthroned in heaven (Psa 115:3). It is only with sacrifices, the means appointed by God Himself for the maintenance of fellowship with Him, that any man can come to meet Him.

These the people offer to bring; and, indeed, burnt-offerings. There is no reference here to sin-offerings, through which disturbed or interrupted fellowship could be restored, by means of the expiation of their sins; because the people had as yet no true knowledge of sin, but were still living under the delusion that they were standing firmly in the covenant with the Lord, which they themselves had practically dissolved.

As burnt-offerings, they would bring calves and rams, not because they formed the only material, but because they were the material most usually employed; and, indeed, calves of a year old, because they were regarded as the best, not because no others were allowed to be offered, as Hitzig erroneously maintains; for, according to the law, calves and lambs could be offered in sacrifice even when they were eight days old (Lev 22:27; Exo 22:29). In the case of the calves the value is heightened by the quality, in that of the rams by the quantity: thousands of rams; and also myriads of rivers of oil (for this expression, compare Job 20:17).

Oil not only formed part of the daily minchah , but of the minchah generally, which could not be omitted from any burnt-offerings (compare Numbers 15:1-16 with ch. 28 and 29), so that it was offered in very large quantities. Nevertheless, in the consciousness that these sacrifices might not be sufficient, the people would offer the dearest thing of all, viz.

, the first-born son, as an expiation for their sin. This offer is founded, no doubt, upon the true idea that sacrifice shadows forth the self-surrender of man to God, and that an animal is not a sufficient substitute for a man; but this true idea was not realized by literal (bodily) human sacrifices: on the contrary, it was turned into an ungodly abomination, because the surrender which God desires is that of the spirit, not of the flesh.

Israel could and should have learned this, not only from the sacrifice of Isaac required by God (Genesis 22), but also from the law concerning the consecration or sanctification of the first-born (Exo 13:12-13). Hence this offer of the nation shows that it has no true knowledge of the will of its God, that it is still entangled in the heathen delusion, that the wrath of God can be expiated by human sacrifices (cf.

2Ki 3:27; 2Ki 16:3).

Mic 6:6-7 Israel cannot deny these gracious acts of its God. The remembrance of them calls to mind the base ingratitude with which it has repaid its God by rebelling against Him; so that it inquires, in Mic 6:6, Mic 6:7, with what it can appease the Lord, i. e. , appease His wrath. Mic 6:6. “Wherewith shall I come to meet Jehovah, bow myself before the God of the high place?

Shall I come to meet Him with burnt-offerings, with yearling calves? Mic 6:7. Will Jehovah take pleasure in thousands of rams, in ten thousands of rivers of oil? Shall I give up my first-born for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul? ” As Micah has spoken in Mic 6:3-5 in the name of Jehovah, he now proceeds, in Mic 6:6, Mic 6:7, to let the congregation speak; not, however, by turning directly to God, since it recognises itself as guilty before Him, but by asking the prophet, as the interpreter of the divine will, what it is to do to repair the bond of fellowship which has been rent in pieces by its guilt.

קדּם does not here mean to anticipate, or come before, but to come to meet, as in Deu 23:5. Coming to meet, however, can only signify humble prostration ( kâphaph ) before the divine majesty. The God of the high place is the God dwelling in the high place (Isa 33:5; Isa 57:15), or enthroned in heaven (Psa 115:3). It is only with sacrifices, the means appointed by God Himself for the maintenance of fellowship with Him, that any man can come to meet Him.

These the people offer to bring; and, indeed, burnt-offerings. There is no reference here to sin-offerings, through which disturbed or interrupted fellowship could be restored, by means of the expiation of their sins; because the people had as yet no true knowledge of sin, but were still living under the delusion that they were standing firmly in the covenant with the Lord, which they themselves had practically dissolved.

As burnt-offerings, they would bring calves and rams, not because they formed the only material, but because they were the material most usually employed; and, indeed, calves of a year old, because they were regarded as the best, not because no others were allowed to be offered, as Hitzig erroneously maintains; for, according to the law, calves and lambs could be offered in sacrifice even when they were eight days old (Lev 22:27; Exo 22:29). In the case of the calves the value is heightened by the quality, in that of the rams by the quantity: thousands of rams; and also myriads of rivers of oil (for this expression, compare Job 20:17).

Oil not only formed part of the daily minchah , but of the minchah generally, which could not be omitted from any burnt-offerings (compare Numbers 15:1-16 with ch. 28 and 29), so that it was offered in very large quantities. Nevertheless, in the consciousness that these sacrifices might not be sufficient, the people would offer the dearest thing of all, viz.

, the first-born son, as an expiation for their sin. This offer is founded, no doubt, upon the true idea that sacrifice shadows forth the self-surrender of man to God, and that an animal is not a sufficient substitute for a man; but this true idea was not realized by literal (bodily) human sacrifices: on the contrary, it was turned into an ungodly abomination, because the surrender which God desires is that of the spirit, not of the flesh.

Israel could and should have learned this, not only from the sacrifice of Isaac required by God (Genesis 22), but also from the law concerning the consecration or sanctification of the first-born (Exo 13:12-13). Hence this offer of the nation shows that it has no true knowledge of the will of its God, that it is still entangled in the heathen delusion, that the wrath of God can be expiated by human sacrifices (cf.

2Ki 3:27; 2Ki 16:3).

Mic 6:8 The prophet therefore proceeds in Mic 6:8 to overthrow these outward means of reconciliation with God, and reminds the people of the moral demands of the law. Mic 6:8. “They have told thee, O man, what is good, and what Jehovah requires of thee, simply to do right, and love good, and walk humbly with thy God. ” הגּיד, impersonal, “one has told,” or they have told thee, namely Moses in the law.

The opinion that Jehovah should be supplied as the subject is a very improbable one, for the simple reason that Jehovah is expressly mentioned in the second dependent clause. The use of כּי אם, nisi , as in the similar connection of thought in Deu 10:12, may be accounted for from the retrospective allusion to the gifts mentioned by the people: not outward sacrifices of any kind, but only the fulfilment of three following duties: namely, above all things, doing righteousness and exercising love.

These two embrace all the commandments of the second table, of whose fulfilment Israel thought so little, that it was addicted to the very opposite, - namely, injustice, oppression, and want of affection (vid. , Mic 2:1-2, Mic 2:8; Mic 3:2-3, Mic 3:9 ff. , Mic 6:10 ff.) There is also a third: humble walk with God, i. e. , in fellowship with God, as Israel, being a holy priestly nation, ought to walk.

Without these moral virtues, sacrificial worship was a spiritless opus operatum , in which God had no pleasure (see at 1Sa 15:22 and Hos 6:6).

Mic 6:9 But because Israel is altogether wanting in these virtues, the Lord must threaten and punish. Mic 6:9. “The voice of Jehovah, to the city it cries, and wisdom has thy name in its eye; hear ye the rod, and who appoints it! ” With these words Micah introduces the threatening and reproachful words of the Lord. קוך יהוה is not to be taken by itself, as an exclamation, “Hark!

voice of the Lord! ” as in Isa 13:4; Isa 40:6, etc. (Umbreit), but must be connected with what follows, in accordance with the accents. Whilst the prophet tells the people in Isa 40:8 what Jehovah requires, he introduces the following threat with “voice of Jehovah,” etc. , to give the greater emphasis to the reproof, by intimating that it is not his own voice, but Jehovah’s, which is speaking now.

“To the city,” i. e. , to the chief city of the kingdom, viz. , Jerusalem. The sentence which follows, and which has been explained in very different ways, has the same object. תּוּשׁיּה, a word borrowed from the Chokmah-literature (Proverbs and Job), both here and Isa 28:29, formed from ישׁ or the root ושׁי (ושׁה), in the sense of subsistentia, substantia, then mostly vera et realis sapientia (see Delitzsch on Job 26:3).

יראה שׁמך is taken by many as a relative clause, “Blessed is he who sees Thy name,” i. e. , gives heed to Thy revelation, Thy government of the universe; but if this were the sense, the relative could not have been omitted, or the infinitive ראת must have been used. תּוּשׁיּה is rather to be taken as the object, and שׁמך as the subject: Thy name sees wisdom, i.

e. , has the true wisdom of life in sight (ראה as in Gen 20:10 and Psa 66:18). There is no necessity for the conjecture יראה for יראה (Ewald and Hitzig); and notwithstanding the fact that ירא is adopted in all the ancient versions, it is unsuitable, since the thought “wisdom is to fear Thy name” would be a very strange one in this connection, unless we could paraphrase the name into “word of the person speaking.

” For other explanations, see Caspari. Hear ye, i. e. , observe, the rod, viz. , the judgment threatened by the Lord, and appointed for His rebellious nation. The reference is to the imperial power of Assyria, which Isaiah also describes in Isa 10:5, Isa 10:24, as the matteh and shēbhet by which Israel is smitten. The suffix to יעדהּ refers to שׁבט, which is construed here as a feminine; יעד denotes the appointment of an instrument of punishment, as in Jer 47:7.

Mic 6:10-12 The threatening words commence in Mic 6:10; Mic 6:10-12 containing a condemnation of the prevailing sins. Mic 6:10. “Are there yet in the house of the unjust treasures of injustice, and the ephah of consumption, the cursed one? Mic 6:11. Can I be clean with the scale of injustice, and with a purse with stones of deceit? Mic 6:12. That their rich men are full of wickedness, and their inhabitants speak deceit, and their tongue is falseness in their mouth.

” The reproof is dressed up in the form of a question. In the question in Mic 6:10 the emphasis is laid upon the עוד, which stands for that very reason before the interrogative particle, as in Gen 19:12, the only other place in which this occurs. אשׁ, a softened form for ישׁ, as in 2Sa 14:19. Treasures of wickedness are treasures acquired through wickedness or acts of injustice.

The meaning of the question is not, Are the unjust treasures not yet removed out of the house, not yet distributed again? but, as Mic 6:10 and Mic 6:11 require, Does the wicked man still bring such treasures into the house? does he still heap up such treasures in his house? The question is affirmative, and the form of a question is chosen to sharpen the conscience, as the unjust men to whom it is addressed cannot deny it.

איפת רזון, ephah of consumption or hungriness, analogous to the German expression “a hungry purse,” is too small an ephah (cf. Deu 25:14; Amo 8:5); the opposite of א שׁלמה (Deu 25:15) or א צדק (Lev 19:36), which the law prescribed. Hence Micah calls it זעוּמה = זעוּם יהוה in Pro 22:14, that which is smitten by the wrath of God (equivalent to cursed; cf. Num 23:7; Pro 24:24).

Whoever has not a full ephah is, according to Deu 25:16, an abomination to the Lord. If these questions show the people that they do not answer to the demands made by the Lord in Mic 6:8, the questions in Mic 6:11 also teach that, with this state of things, they cannot hold themselves guiltless. The speaker inquires, from the standpoint of his own moral consciousness, whether he can be pure, i.

e. , guiltless, if he uses deceitful scales and weights, - a question to which every one must answer No. It is difficult, however, to decide who the questioner is. As Mic 6:9 announces words of God, and in Mic 6:10 God is speaking, and also in Mic 6:12, Mic 6:13, it appears as though Jehovah must be the questioner here. But אזכּה does not tally with this. Jerome therefore adopts the rendering numquid justificabo stateram impiam ; but זכה in the kal has only the meaning to be pure, and even in the piel it is not used in the sense of niqqâh , to acquit.

This latter fact is sufficient to overthrow the proposal to alter the reading into piel . Moreover, “the context requires the thought that the rich men fancy they can be pure with deceitful weights, and a refutation of this delusive idea” (Caspari). Consequently the prophet only can raise this question, namely as the representative of the moral consciousness; and we must interpret this transition, which is so sudden and abrupt to our ears, by supplying the thought, “Let every one ask himself,” Can I, etc.

Instead of רשׁע we have the more definite mirmâh in the parallel clause. Scales and a bag with stones belong together; 'ăbhanı̄m are the stone weights (cf. Lev 19:36; Deu 25:13) which were carried in a bag (Pro 16:11). In Mic 6:12 the condemnation of injustice is widened still further. Whereas in the first clause the rich men of the capital (the suffix pointing back to עיר in Mic 6:9), who are also to be thought of in Mic 6:10, are expressly mentioned, in the second clause the inhabitants generally are referred to.

And whilst the rich are not only charged with injustice or fraud in trade, but with châmâs , violence of every kind, the inhabitants are charged with lying and deceit of the tongue. Leshōnâm (their tongue) is not placed at the head absolutely, in the sense of “As for their tongue, deceit is,” etc. Such an emphasis as this is precluded by the fact that the preceding clause, “speaking lies,” involves the use of the tongue.

Leshōnâm is the simple subject: Their tongue is deceit or falsehood in their mouth; i. e. , their tongue is so full of deceit, that it is, so to speak, resolved into it. Both clauses express the thought, that “the inhabitants of Jerusalem are a population of liars and cheats” (Hitzig). The connection in which the verse stands, or the true explanation of אשׁר, has been a matter of dispute.

We must reject both the combination of Mic 6:12 and Mic 6:13 (“Because their rich men, etc. , therefore I also,” etc.) , and also the assumption that Mic 6:12 contains the answer to the question in Mic 6:10, and that אשׁר precedes the direct question (Hitzig): the former, because Mic 6:12 obviously forms the conclusion to the reproof, and must be separated from what precedes it; the latter, because the question in Mic 6:11 stands between Mic 6:10 and Mic 6:12, which is closely connected with Mic 6:10, and Mic 6:12 also contains no answer to Mic 6:10, so far as the thought is concerned, even if the latter actually required an answer.

We must rather take אשׁר as a relative, as Caspari does, and understand the verse as an exclamation, which the Lord utters in anger over the city: “She, whose rich men are full,” etc. “Angry persons generally prefer to speak of those who have excited their wrath, instead of addressing their words to them. ”

Mic 6:10-12 The threatening words commence in Mic 6:10; Mic 6:10-12 containing a condemnation of the prevailing sins. Mic 6:10. “Are there yet in the house of the unjust treasures of injustice, and the ephah of consumption, the cursed one? Mic 6:11. Can I be clean with the scale of injustice, and with a purse with stones of deceit? Mic 6:12. That their rich men are full of wickedness, and their inhabitants speak deceit, and their tongue is falseness in their mouth.

” The reproof is dressed up in the form of a question. In the question in Mic 6:10 the emphasis is laid upon the עוד, which stands for that very reason before the interrogative particle, as in Gen 19:12, the only other place in which this occurs. אשׁ, a softened form for ישׁ, as in 2Sa 14:19. Treasures of wickedness are treasures acquired through wickedness or acts of injustice.

The meaning of the question is not, Are the unjust treasures not yet removed out of the house, not yet distributed again? but, as Mic 6:10 and Mic 6:11 require, Does the wicked man still bring such treasures into the house? does he still heap up such treasures in his house? The question is affirmative, and the form of a question is chosen to sharpen the conscience, as the unjust men to whom it is addressed cannot deny it.

איפת רזון, ephah of consumption or hungriness, analogous to the German expression “a hungry purse,” is too small an ephah (cf. Deu 25:14; Amo 8:5); the opposite of א שׁלמה (Deu 25:15) or א צדק (Lev 19:36), which the law prescribed. Hence Micah calls it זעוּמה = זעוּם יהוה in Pro 22:14, that which is smitten by the wrath of God (equivalent to cursed; cf. Num 23:7; Pro 24:24).

Whoever has not a full ephah is, according to Deu 25:16, an abomination to the Lord. If these questions show the people that they do not answer to the demands made by the Lord in Mic 6:8, the questions in Mic 6:11 also teach that, with this state of things, they cannot hold themselves guiltless. The speaker inquires, from the standpoint of his own moral consciousness, whether he can be pure, i.

e. , guiltless, if he uses deceitful scales and weights, - a question to which every one must answer No. It is difficult, however, to decide who the questioner is. As Mic 6:9 announces words of God, and in Mic 6:10 God is speaking, and also in Mic 6:12, Mic 6:13, it appears as though Jehovah must be the questioner here. But אזכּה does not tally with this. Jerome therefore adopts the rendering numquid justificabo stateram impiam ; but זכה in the kal has only the meaning to be pure, and even in the piel it is not used in the sense of niqqâh , to acquit.

This latter fact is sufficient to overthrow the proposal to alter the reading into piel . Moreover, “the context requires the thought that the rich men fancy they can be pure with deceitful weights, and a refutation of this delusive idea” (Caspari). Consequently the prophet only can raise this question, namely as the representative of the moral consciousness; and we must interpret this transition, which is so sudden and abrupt to our ears, by supplying the thought, “Let every one ask himself,” Can I, etc.

Instead of רשׁע we have the more definite mirmâh in the parallel clause. Scales and a bag with stones belong together; 'ăbhanı̄m are the stone weights (cf. Lev 19:36; Deu 25:13) which were carried in a bag (Pro 16:11). In Mic 6:12 the condemnation of injustice is widened still further. Whereas in the first clause the rich men of the capital (the suffix pointing back to עיר in Mic 6:9), who are also to be thought of in Mic 6:10, are expressly mentioned, in the second clause the inhabitants generally are referred to.

And whilst the rich are not only charged with injustice or fraud in trade, but with châmâs , violence of every kind, the inhabitants are charged with lying and deceit of the tongue. Leshōnâm (their tongue) is not placed at the head absolutely, in the sense of “As for their tongue, deceit is,” etc. Such an emphasis as this is precluded by the fact that the preceding clause, “speaking lies,” involves the use of the tongue.

Leshōnâm is the simple subject: Their tongue is deceit or falsehood in their mouth; i. e. , their tongue is so full of deceit, that it is, so to speak, resolved into it. Both clauses express the thought, that “the inhabitants of Jerusalem are a population of liars and cheats” (Hitzig). The connection in which the verse stands, or the true explanation of אשׁר, has been a matter of dispute.

We must reject both the combination of Mic 6:12 and Mic 6:13 (“Because their rich men, etc. , therefore I also,” etc.) , and also the assumption that Mic 6:12 contains the answer to the question in Mic 6:10, and that אשׁר precedes the direct question (Hitzig): the former, because Mic 6:12 obviously forms the conclusion to the reproof, and must be separated from what precedes it; the latter, because the question in Mic 6:11 stands between Mic 6:10 and Mic 6:12, which is closely connected with Mic 6:10, and Mic 6:12 also contains no answer to Mic 6:10, so far as the thought is concerned, even if the latter actually required an answer.

We must rather take אשׁר as a relative, as Caspari does, and understand the verse as an exclamation, which the Lord utters in anger over the city: “She, whose rich men are full,” etc. “Angry persons generally prefer to speak of those who have excited their wrath, instead of addressing their words to them. ”

Mic 6:10-12 The threatening words commence in Mic 6:10; Mic 6:10-12 containing a condemnation of the prevailing sins. Mic 6:10. “Are there yet in the house of the unjust treasures of injustice, and the ephah of consumption, the cursed one? Mic 6:11. Can I be clean with the scale of injustice, and with a purse with stones of deceit? Mic 6:12. That their rich men are full of wickedness, and their inhabitants speak deceit, and their tongue is falseness in their mouth.

” The reproof is dressed up in the form of a question. In the question in Mic 6:10 the emphasis is laid upon the עוד, which stands for that very reason before the interrogative particle, as in Gen 19:12, the only other place in which this occurs. אשׁ, a softened form for ישׁ, as in 2Sa 14:19. Treasures of wickedness are treasures acquired through wickedness or acts of injustice.

The meaning of the question is not, Are the unjust treasures not yet removed out of the house, not yet distributed again? but, as Mic 6:10 and Mic 6:11 require, Does the wicked man still bring such treasures into the house? does he still heap up such treasures in his house? The question is affirmative, and the form of a question is chosen to sharpen the conscience, as the unjust men to whom it is addressed cannot deny it.

איפת רזון, ephah of consumption or hungriness, analogous to the German expression “a hungry purse,” is too small an ephah (cf. Deu 25:14; Amo 8:5); the opposite of א שׁלמה (Deu 25:15) or א צדק (Lev 19:36), which the law prescribed. Hence Micah calls it זעוּמה = זעוּם יהוה in Pro 22:14, that which is smitten by the wrath of God (equivalent to cursed; cf. Num 23:7; Pro 24:24).

Whoever has not a full ephah is, according to Deu 25:16, an abomination to the Lord. If these questions show the people that they do not answer to the demands made by the Lord in Mic 6:8, the questions in Mic 6:11 also teach that, with this state of things, they cannot hold themselves guiltless. The speaker inquires, from the standpoint of his own moral consciousness, whether he can be pure, i.

e. , guiltless, if he uses deceitful scales and weights, - a question to which every one must answer No. It is difficult, however, to decide who the questioner is. As Mic 6:9 announces words of God, and in Mic 6:10 God is speaking, and also in Mic 6:12, Mic 6:13, it appears as though Jehovah must be the questioner here. But אזכּה does not tally with this. Jerome therefore adopts the rendering numquid justificabo stateram impiam ; but זכה in the kal has only the meaning to be pure, and even in the piel it is not used in the sense of niqqâh , to acquit.

This latter fact is sufficient to overthrow the proposal to alter the reading into piel . Moreover, “the context requires the thought that the rich men fancy they can be pure with deceitful weights, and a refutation of this delusive idea” (Caspari). Consequently the prophet only can raise this question, namely as the representative of the moral consciousness; and we must interpret this transition, which is so sudden and abrupt to our ears, by supplying the thought, “Let every one ask himself,” Can I, etc.

Instead of רשׁע we have the more definite mirmâh in the parallel clause. Scales and a bag with stones belong together; 'ăbhanı̄m are the stone weights (cf. Lev 19:36; Deu 25:13) which were carried in a bag (Pro 16:11). In Mic 6:12 the condemnation of injustice is widened still further. Whereas in the first clause the rich men of the capital (the suffix pointing back to עיר in Mic 6:9), who are also to be thought of in Mic 6:10, are expressly mentioned, in the second clause the inhabitants generally are referred to.

And whilst the rich are not only charged with injustice or fraud in trade, but with châmâs , violence of every kind, the inhabitants are charged with lying and deceit of the tongue. Leshōnâm (their tongue) is not placed at the head absolutely, in the sense of “As for their tongue, deceit is,” etc. Such an emphasis as this is precluded by the fact that the preceding clause, “speaking lies,” involves the use of the tongue.

Leshōnâm is the simple subject: Their tongue is deceit or falsehood in their mouth; i. e. , their tongue is so full of deceit, that it is, so to speak, resolved into it. Both clauses express the thought, that “the inhabitants of Jerusalem are a population of liars and cheats” (Hitzig). The connection in which the verse stands, or the true explanation of אשׁר, has been a matter of dispute.

We must reject both the combination of Mic 6:12 and Mic 6:13 (“Because their rich men, etc. , therefore I also,” etc.) , and also the assumption that Mic 6:12 contains the answer to the question in Mic 6:10, and that אשׁר precedes the direct question (Hitzig): the former, because Mic 6:12 obviously forms the conclusion to the reproof, and must be separated from what precedes it; the latter, because the question in Mic 6:11 stands between Mic 6:10 and Mic 6:12, which is closely connected with Mic 6:10, and Mic 6:12 also contains no answer to Mic 6:10, so far as the thought is concerned, even if the latter actually required an answer.

We must rather take אשׁר as a relative, as Caspari does, and understand the verse as an exclamation, which the Lord utters in anger over the city: “She, whose rich men are full,” etc. “Angry persons generally prefer to speak of those who have excited their wrath, instead of addressing their words to them. ”

Mic 6:13-15 The threat of punishment follows in Mic 6:13-16. Mic 6:13. “So also now do I smite thee incurably, laying waste because of thy sins. Mic 6:14. Thou wilt eat, and not be satisfied; and thine emptiness remains in thee; and thou wilt remove, and not save; and what thou savest I will give to the sword. Mic 6:15. Thou wilt sow, and not reap; thou wilt tread olives, and not anoint thyself with oil; new wine, and not drink wine.

” With וגם־אני the threatened punishment is represented as the consequence of, or retribution for, the sins of the people. החליתי הך: literally, I have made the smiting thee sick, i. e. , smitten thee with incurable sickness (for hechelaah, see at Nah 3:19 and Jer 30:12; and for the fact itself, Isa 1:5-6). The perfect expresses the certainty of the future. The suffix refers to the people, not of the capital only, but, as we may see from Mic 6:16, of the whole of the kingdom of Judah.

Hashmēm (an uncontracted form; see Ges. §67, Anm. 10), devastando , is attached to the preceding verb in an adverbial sense, as a practical exemplification, like the שׁבע in Lev 26:18, Lev 26:24, Lev 26:28, which Micah had in his eye at the time. For the individualizing of the punishment, which follows, rests upon Lev 26:25-26, and Deu 28:39-40. The land is threatened with devastation by the foe, from which the people flee into fortresses, the besieging of which occasions starvation.

For the fulfilment of this, see Jer 52:6 (cf. 2Ki 6:25). ישׁח, ἁπ. λεγ. , hollowness, or emptiness of stomach. ותסּג, thou mayest remove, i. e. , carry off thy goods and family, yet wilt thou not save; but even if thou shouldst save anything, it will fall into the hands of the enemy, and be destroyed by his sword (vid. , Jer 50:37). The enemy will also partly consume and partly destroy the corn and field-fruit, as well as the stores of oil and wine (vid.

, Amo 5:11). ולא תסוּך שׁמן is taken verbatim from Deu 28:40.

Mic 6:13-15 The threat of punishment follows in Mic 6:13-16. Mic 6:13. “So also now do I smite thee incurably, laying waste because of thy sins. Mic 6:14. Thou wilt eat, and not be satisfied; and thine emptiness remains in thee; and thou wilt remove, and not save; and what thou savest I will give to the sword. Mic 6:15. Thou wilt sow, and not reap; thou wilt tread olives, and not anoint thyself with oil; new wine, and not drink wine.

” With וגם־אני the threatened punishment is represented as the consequence of, or retribution for, the sins of the people. החליתי הך: literally, I have made the smiting thee sick, i. e. , smitten thee with incurable sickness (for hechelaah, see at Nah 3:19 and Jer 30:12; and for the fact itself, Isa 1:5-6). The perfect expresses the certainty of the future. The suffix refers to the people, not of the capital only, but, as we may see from Mic 6:16, of the whole of the kingdom of Judah.

Hashmēm (an uncontracted form; see Ges. §67, Anm. 10), devastando , is attached to the preceding verb in an adverbial sense, as a practical exemplification, like the שׁבע in Lev 26:18, Lev 26:24, Lev 26:28, which Micah had in his eye at the time. For the individualizing of the punishment, which follows, rests upon Lev 26:25-26, and Deu 28:39-40. The land is threatened with devastation by the foe, from which the people flee into fortresses, the besieging of which occasions starvation.

For the fulfilment of this, see Jer 52:6 (cf. 2Ki 6:25). ישׁח, ἁπ. λεγ. , hollowness, or emptiness of stomach. ותסּג, thou mayest remove, i. e. , carry off thy goods and family, yet wilt thou not save; but even if thou shouldst save anything, it will fall into the hands of the enemy, and be destroyed by his sword (vid. , Jer 50:37). The enemy will also partly consume and partly destroy the corn and field-fruit, as well as the stores of oil and wine (vid.

, Amo 5:11). ולא תסוּך שׁמן is taken verbatim from Deu 28:40.

Mic 6:13-15 The threat of punishment follows in Mic 6:13-16. Mic 6:13. “So also now do I smite thee incurably, laying waste because of thy sins. Mic 6:14. Thou wilt eat, and not be satisfied; and thine emptiness remains in thee; and thou wilt remove, and not save; and what thou savest I will give to the sword. Mic 6:15. Thou wilt sow, and not reap; thou wilt tread olives, and not anoint thyself with oil; new wine, and not drink wine.

” With וגם־אני the threatened punishment is represented as the consequence of, or retribution for, the sins of the people. החליתי הך: literally, I have made the smiting thee sick, i. e. , smitten thee with incurable sickness (for hechelaah, see at Nah 3:19 and Jer 30:12; and for the fact itself, Isa 1:5-6). The perfect expresses the certainty of the future. The suffix refers to the people, not of the capital only, but, as we may see from Mic 6:16, of the whole of the kingdom of Judah.

Hashmēm (an uncontracted form; see Ges. §67, Anm. 10), devastando , is attached to the preceding verb in an adverbial sense, as a practical exemplification, like the שׁבע in Lev 26:18, Lev 26:24, Lev 26:28, which Micah had in his eye at the time. For the individualizing of the punishment, which follows, rests upon Lev 26:25-26, and Deu 28:39-40. The land is threatened with devastation by the foe, from which the people flee into fortresses, the besieging of which occasions starvation.

For the fulfilment of this, see Jer 52:6 (cf. 2Ki 6:25). ישׁח, ἁπ. λεγ. , hollowness, or emptiness of stomach. ותסּג, thou mayest remove, i. e. , carry off thy goods and family, yet wilt thou not save; but even if thou shouldst save anything, it will fall into the hands of the enemy, and be destroyed by his sword (vid. , Jer 50:37). The enemy will also partly consume and partly destroy the corn and field-fruit, as well as the stores of oil and wine (vid.

, Amo 5:11). ולא תסוּך שׁמן is taken verbatim from Deu 28:40.

Mic 6:16 This trouble the people bring upon themselves by their ungodly conduct. With this thought the divine threatening is rounded off and closed. Mic 6:16. “And they observe the statutes of Omri, and all the doings of the house of Ahab, and so ye walk in their counsels; that I may make thee a horror, and her inhabitants a hissing, and the reproach of my people shall ye bear.

” The verse is attached loosely to what precedes by Vav . The first half corresponds to Mic 6:10-12, the second to Mic 6:13-15, and each has three clauses. השׁתּמּר, as an intensive form of the piel , is the strongest expression for שׁמר, and is not to be taken as a passive, as Ewald and others suppose, but in a reflective sense: “It (or one) carefully observes for itself the statutes of Omri instead of the statutes of the Lord” (Lev 20:23; Jer 10:3).

All that is related of Omri, is that he was worse than all his predecessors (1Ki 16:25). His statutes are the Baal-worship which his son and successor Ahab raised into the ruling national religion (1Ki 16:31-32), and the introduction of which is attributed to Omri as the founder of the dynasty. In the same sense is Athaliah, who was a daughter of Jezebel, called a daughter of Omri in 2Ch 22:2.

All the doing of the house of Ahab: i. e. , not only its Baal-worship, but also its persecution of the Lord’s prophets (1Ki 18:4; 1Ki 22:27), and the rest of its sins, e. g. , the robbery and murder committed upon Naboth (1 Kings 21). With ותּלכוּ the description passes over into a direct address; not into the preterite, however, for the imperfect with Vav rel.

does not express here what has been the custom in both the past and present, but is simply the logical deduction from what precedes, “that which continually occurs. ” The suffix attached to בּמעצותם refers to Ahab and Omri. By למען the punishment is represented as intentionally brought about by the sinners themselves, to give prominence to the daring with which men lived on in godlessness and unrighteousness.

In אתך the whole nation is addressed: in the second clause, the inhabitants of the capital as the principal sinners; and in the third, the nation again in its individual members. שׁמּה does not mean devastation here; but in parallelism with שׁרקה, horror, or the object of horror, as in Deu 28:37; Jer 25:9; Jer 51:37, and 2Ch 29:8. Cherpath ‛ammı̄ : the shame which the nation of God, as such, have to bear from the heathen, when they are given up into their power (see Eze 36:20).

This shame will have to be borne by the several citizens, the present supporters of the idea of the nation of God.

The prophet responds to the threatening of the Lord (Mic 6:9-16) in the name of the believing church with a penitential prayer, in which it sorrowfully confesses the universality of the deep moral corruption, and painfully bemoans the necessity for the visitation of God (Mic 7:1-6); after which it rises, through belief in the fidelity of God, to the confidential hope that the Lord will cause the light of His grace to rise again upon the church, which is bearing the merited punishment, and will not let its enemies triumph over it, but will procure it justice, and deeply humble the foe (Mic 7:7-13); and to this it appends a prayer fore the renewal of the former manifestations of grace (Mic 7:14). The Lord answers this prayer with the promise that He will renew for His people the wonders of the olden time (Mic 7:15-17); whereupon the prophet closes by praising the mercy and grace of the Lord (Mic 7:18-20).

Mic 7:1 That the prophet is speaking in Mic 7:1 ff. not in his own name, but in the name of the church, which confesses and bemoans its rebellion against the Lord, is indisputably evident from Mic 7:7 ff. , where, as all the expositors admit, the church speaks of itself in the first person, and that not “the existing corrupt Israelitish church,” as Caspari supposes, but the penitential, believing church of the future, which discerns in the judgment the chastising hand of its God, and expresses the hope that the Lord will conduct its conflict with its foe, etc.

The contents of Mic 7:1-6, also, do not point to the prophet in distinction from the congregation, but may be understood throughout as the confession of sin on the part of the latter. Mic 7:1. “Woe to me! for I have become like a gathering of fruit, like a gleaning of the vintage: Not a grape to eat! an early fig, which my soul desired. ” אללי, which only occurs again in Job 10:15, differs from הוי, and is “vox dolentis, gementis, et ululantis magis quam minantis” (March); and כּי is not “that,” but “for,” giving the reason for אללי.

The meaning of הייתי כאס is not, “it has happened to me as it generally happens to those who still seek for early figs at the fruit gathering, or for bunches of grapes at the gleaning of the vintage” (Caspari and others); for כּאספי קיץ does not mean as at the fruit-gathering, but like the fruit-gathering. The nation or the church resembles the fruit-gathering and gleaning of the vineyard, namely, in this fact, that the fruit-gathering yields not more early figs, and the gleaning of the vintage yields no more grapes to eat; that is to say, its condition resembles that of an orchard in the time of the fruit-gathering, when you may find fruit enough indeed, but not a single early fig, since the early figs ripen as early as June, whereas the fruit-gathering does not take place till August (see at Isa 28:4).

The second simile is a still simpler one, and is very easily explained. אספי is not a participle, but a noun - אסף the gathering (Isa 32:10); and the plural is probably used simply because of עוללת, the gleaning, and not with any allusion to the fact that the gleaning lasts several days, as Hitzig supposes, but because what is stated applies to all gatherings of fruit.

קיץ, fruit; see at Amo 8:1. אוּתה is to be taken in a relative sense, and the force of אין still extends to בּכּוּרה (compare Gen 30:33). The figure is explained in Mic 7:2 ff.

Mic 7:2-3 “The godly man has disappeared from the earth, and there is no more a righteous man among men. All lie in wait for blood, they hunt every man his brother with the net. Mic 7:3. Their hands are after evil, to make it good. The prince asks, and the judge is for reward; and the great man, he speaks the evil of his soul: and they twist it together. ” The grape and the early fig signify the good and the righteous man.

חסיד is not the God-fearing man, but, according to the context, the man who cherishes love and fidelity. אבד, not “to have perished,” but to be lost, to have disappeared. מן הארץ, not “out of the land,” but, as the parallel בּאדם shows, from the earth, out of the world. For the fact itself, compare Psa 12:2 and Isa 57:1. They all lie in wait for blood, i. e.

, not that they all go about committing murder, but simply that they set their minds upon quarrels, cheating, and treachery, that they may rob their neighbour of his means of existence, so that he must perish (cf. Mic 3:2-3; Mic 2:1-2); at the same time, even murderous thoughts are not excluded. The same thing is implied in the hunting with the net. אח, the brother, is the fellow-countryman (for this figure, compare Psa 10:9; Psa 35:7-8, etc.)

In Mic 7:3 the words from על הרע to להיטיב are not to be joined to what follows so as to form one sentence. Such a combination is not only opposed to the accents, but is at variance with the structure of the whole verse, which consists of several short clauses, and it does not even yield a natural thought; consequently Ewald proposes to alter the text (שׁואל).

הרע is hardly the inf. hiph. “to do evil,” but most likely a noun with the article, “the evil;” and the thought is therefore either “both hands are (sc. , busy) with evil,” or “both hands are stretched out to evil,” to make it good, i. e. , to carry out the evil well (היטיב as in Jer 2:33), or to give evil such a form that it shall appear to be good, or right.

This thought is then made special: the prince, the judge, and the great man, i. e. , the rich man and mighty man (Lev 19:15; 1Sa 25:2), weave a thing to make evil good. עבּת, to weave, to twist together, after עבות, twist or string. The subject to ויעבּתוּה is to be found in the three classes already named, and not merely in the judge and the great man. There is just as little reason for this limitation as for the assumption that the great man and the prince are one person.

The way in which the three twist the thing or the evil plan together is indicated in the statements of the three previous clauses. The prince asks, sc. for the condemnation of a righteous or innocent man; and the judge grants this for recompense against compensation; and the rich man co-operates by speaking havvath napshō . Havvâh in most passages is universally allowed to signify hurt, mischief, destruction; and the only question is, whether this meaning is to be traced to הוה = אוה, to breathe (Hupfeld on Psa 5:10), or to הוה, to occur, an occurrence, then specially an evil occurrence (Hengstenberg, Diss.

on the Pentateuch , vol. i. p. 252). Only in Pro 10:3 and the passage before us is havvâh said to signify desire in a bad sense, or evil lust. But, as Caspari has shown, the meaning is neither necessary nor established in either of these two passages. In Pro 10:3 the meaning aerumna activa aliisque inferenda is quite sufficient; and C. B. Michaelis has adopted it for the present passage: “The great man speaks the mischief of his soul,” i.

e. , the injury or destruction of another, for which he cherishes a desire. Nephesh , the soul as the seat of desire. הוּא is not introduced to strengthen the suffix attached to נפשׁו, “of his, yea of his soul” (Ewald, Hitzig, Umbreit); for not only are the accents against this, but also the thought, which requires no such strengthening. It is an emphatic repetition of the subject haggâdōl .

The great man weaves evil with the king and judge, by desiring it, and expressing the desire in the most open manner, and thereby giving to the thing an appearance of right.

Mic 7:2-3 “The godly man has disappeared from the earth, and there is no more a righteous man among men. All lie in wait for blood, they hunt every man his brother with the net. Mic 7:3. Their hands are after evil, to make it good. The prince asks, and the judge is for reward; and the great man, he speaks the evil of his soul: and they twist it together. ” The grape and the early fig signify the good and the righteous man.

חסיד is not the God-fearing man, but, according to the context, the man who cherishes love and fidelity. אבד, not “to have perished,” but to be lost, to have disappeared. מן הארץ, not “out of the land,” but, as the parallel בּאדם shows, from the earth, out of the world. For the fact itself, compare Psa 12:2 and Isa 57:1. They all lie in wait for blood, i. e.

, not that they all go about committing murder, but simply that they set their minds upon quarrels, cheating, and treachery, that they may rob their neighbour of his means of existence, so that he must perish (cf. Mic 3:2-3; Mic 2:1-2); at the same time, even murderous thoughts are not excluded. The same thing is implied in the hunting with the net. אח, the brother, is the fellow-countryman (for this figure, compare Psa 10:9; Psa 35:7-8, etc.)

In Mic 7:3 the words from על הרע to להיטיב are not to be joined to what follows so as to form one sentence. Such a combination is not only opposed to the accents, but is at variance with the structure of the whole verse, which consists of several short clauses, and it does not even yield a natural thought; consequently Ewald proposes to alter the text (שׁואל).

הרע is hardly the inf. hiph. “to do evil,” but most likely a noun with the article, “the evil;” and the thought is therefore either “both hands are (sc. , busy) with evil,” or “both hands are stretched out to evil,” to make it good, i. e. , to carry out the evil well (היטיב as in Jer 2:33), or to give evil such a form that it shall appear to be good, or right.

This thought is then made special: the prince, the judge, and the great man, i. e. , the rich man and mighty man (Lev 19:15; 1Sa 25:2), weave a thing to make evil good. עבּת, to weave, to twist together, after עבות, twist or string. The subject to ויעבּתוּה is to be found in the three classes already named, and not merely in the judge and the great man. There is just as little reason for this limitation as for the assumption that the great man and the prince are one person.

The way in which the three twist the thing or the evil plan together is indicated in the statements of the three previous clauses. The prince asks, sc. for the condemnation of a righteous or innocent man; and the judge grants this for recompense against compensation; and the rich man co-operates by speaking havvath napshō . Havvâh in most passages is universally allowed to signify hurt, mischief, destruction; and the only question is, whether this meaning is to be traced to הוה = אוה, to breathe (Hupfeld on Psa 5:10), or to הוה, to occur, an occurrence, then specially an evil occurrence (Hengstenberg, Diss.

on the Pentateuch , vol. i. p. 252). Only in Pro 10:3 and the passage before us is havvâh said to signify desire in a bad sense, or evil lust. But, as Caspari has shown, the meaning is neither necessary nor established in either of these two passages. In Pro 10:3 the meaning aerumna activa aliisque inferenda is quite sufficient; and C. B. Michaelis has adopted it for the present passage: “The great man speaks the mischief of his soul,” i.

e. , the injury or destruction of another, for which he cherishes a desire. Nephesh , the soul as the seat of desire. הוּא is not introduced to strengthen the suffix attached to נפשׁו, “of his, yea of his soul” (Ewald, Hitzig, Umbreit); for not only are the accents against this, but also the thought, which requires no such strengthening. It is an emphatic repetition of the subject haggâdōl .

The great man weaves evil with the king and judge, by desiring it, and expressing the desire in the most open manner, and thereby giving to the thing an appearance of right.

Mic 7:4-6 And even the best men form no exception to the rule. Mic 7:4. “Their best man is like a briar; the upright man more than a hedge: the day of thy spies, thy visitation cometh, then will their confusion follow. Mic 7:5. Trust not in the neighbour, rely not upon the intimate one; keep the doors of thy mouth before her that is thy bosom friend. Mic 7:6.

For the son despiseth the father, the daughter rises up against her mother, the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; a man’s enemies are the people of his own house. ” טובם, the good man among them, i. e. , the best man, resembles the thorn-bush, which only pricks, hurts, and injures. In ישׁר the force of the suffix still continues: the most righteous man among them; and מן before ממּסוּכה is used in a comparative sense: “is more, i.

e. , worse, than a thorn-hedge. ” The corruption of the nation has reached such a terrible height, that the judgment must burst in upon them. This thought comes before the prophet’s mind, so that he interrupts the description of the corrupt condition of things by pointing to the day of judgment. The “day of thy watch-men,” i. e. , of thy prophets (Jer 6:17; Eze 3:17; Eze 33:7), is explained in the apposition peqŭddâthekhâ (thy visitation).

The perfect בּאה is prophetic of the future, which is as certain as if it were already there. עתּה, now, i. e. , when this day has come (really therefore = “then”), will their confusion be, i. e. , then will the wildest confusion come upon them, as the evil, which now envelopes itself in the appearance of good, will then burst forth without shame and without restraint, and everything will be turned upside down.

In the same sense as this Isaiah also calls the day of divine judgment a day of confusion (Isa 22:5). In the allusion to the day of judgment the speaker addresses the people, whereas in the description of the corruption he speaks of them. This distinction thus made between the person speaking and the people is not at variance with the assumption that the prophet speaks in the name of the congregation, any more than the words “ thy watchmen, thy visitation,” furnish an objection to the assumption that the prophet was one of the watchmen himself.

This distinction simply proves that the penitential community is not identical with the mass of the people, but to be distinguished from them. In Mic 7:5 the description of the moral corruption is continued, and that in the form of a warning not to trust one another any more, neither companion (רע) with whom one has intercourse in life, nor the confidential friend ( 'allūph ), nor the most intimate friend of all, viz.

, the wife lying on the husband’s bosom. Even before her the husband was to beware of letting the secrets of his heart cross his lips, because she would betray them. The reason for this is assigned in Mic 7:6, in the fact that even the holiest relations of the moral order of the world, the deepest ties of blood-relationship, are trodden under foot, and all the bonds of reverence, love, and chastity are loosened.

The son treats his father as a fool ( nibbēl , as in Deu 32:15). “The men of his house” (the subject of the last clause) are servants dwelling in the house, not relations (cf. Gen 17:23, Gen 17:27; Gen 39:14; 2Sa 12:17-18). This verse is applied by Christ to the period of the κρίσις which will attend His coming, in His instruction to the apostles in Mat 10:35-36 (cf.

Luk 12:53). It follows from this, that we have not to regard Mic 7:5 and Mic 7:6 as a simple continuation of the description in Mic 7:2-4 , but that these verses contain the explanation of עתּה תהיה מבוּכתם, in this sense, that at the outbreak of the judgment and of the visitation the faithlessness will reach the height of treachery to the nearest friends, yea, even of the dissolution of every family tie (cf.

Mat 24:10, Mat 24:12).