he royal dignity and authority. Its relation to the whole of the rest
of the city, which it overlooked and commanded, and which looked up to
it with astonishment, symbolized the relation of the subjects to their
king.

Micah calls this tower the "Tower of the flock." The main reason for
this appellation must be sought in what immediately precedes, in vers.
6 and 7. As in chap. ii. 12, 13, so here also, Micah represented the
Covenant-people under the figure of a flock that was to be gathered
from its dispersion and estrangement, and protected against every
hostile attack. Could anything then be more natural than that,
continuing the image [Pg 459] which he had begun, he should call the
tower, which, to him, symbolized the family by whom, under the guidance
of the Lord, that gathering should be accomplished, the "Tower of the
flock?"[4] It is just this close connection with what precedes which
furnishes an important proof for the correctness of our explanation,
for which the way was prepared by all those expositors who, like
_Jerome_, _Theodoret_, _Cyril_, _Cocceius_, and _Paulus_ (_ueber die
Evang._ i. p. 189), understand [Hebrew: mgdl edr] as an appellative,
and regard, as the ground of the appellation, the protection and the
refuge. In the East, they look out from the towers of the flock,
whether beasts of prey or hostile bands be approaching. It is into
these that the flocks are driven, in those regions where there are no
towns and villages, as soon as danger appears; compare the proofs in
_Faber_, l.c., p. 192 ff. There was so much the stronger reason for
Micah's choosing this figurative mode of representation, as he had the
type immediately before his eyes. According to 2 Chron. xxvi. 10,
xxvii. 4, Uzziah and Jotham erected, in the woods and pasture grounds,
castles and towers for the protection and refuge of the flocks. But,
besides this main reason, there seems to have existed a secondary one
for choosing this appellation. They who adhere so firmly to the "Tower
of the flock," mentioned in Genesis, are not altogether wrong. Except
in that passage, [Hebrew: mgdl edr] nowhere occurs in precisely the
same manner as it stands here. If, then, we consider that, besides this
reference, there occur in Micah other plain references to the
Pentateuch (and very numerous they are, compared with the extent of his
prophecies; compare, _e.g._, ii. 12, 13. [vide supra], vi. 4, 5, vii.
14, where the words [Hebrew: wkni lbdd] receiv