strophe to
come from Asshur. Chap. v. 4, 5 (5, 6) cannot be decisive _for_ the
reference to Asshur. For the circumstance that Asshur appears there as
the type of the future enemies of the kingdom of God, implies, indeed,
that he occupied the first place among the enemies [Pg 469] at the time
of the prophet; but it by no means Implies that he must occupy a place
in the outline of the future catastrophes of the people of God. Such a
catastrophe was not to proceed from him, but rather from an enemy who
had not yet at that time appeared on the scene, although his power was
already germinating, as is shown by Is. xxxix. and other passages. The
oppression of Judah by Asshur was indeed a heavy one; but it was
transitory, and did not by any means constitute an era. From the
relation in which vers. 9-14 (iv. 9-v. 1) stands to ver. 8, it
sufficiently appears that the oppression by the Chaldeans must here
form the commencement, although the Assyrian oppression must be added
to it as an introduction and a prelude. According to this relation, the
point at issue here can be only the cessation of the dominion of the
Davidic family. From. Jer. xxvi. 18, 19, _Caspari_ endeavours to prove
that Micah had in view, in the first instance, the Assyrians only. But
that passage of Jeremiah refers to Mic. iii. 12, where the prophecy has
a general character, and where the instruments of the divine judgment
are not expressly mentioned, as is the case here. On the other hand,
the following arguments are opposed to the reference to the Assyrians.
1. The prophet does not mention Asshur, but Babylon. Nothing is,
certainly, proved by the circumstance that, at the time of the prophet,
Babylon was still under the Assyrian dominion; for Babylon comes here
into consideration, not so much as a place, but as a hostile power. The
place, as such, was of no consequence, and the mention of it was not
required by the character of the prophecy. 2. If the announcement
referred to Asshur, the result would contradict the prophecy. _Caspari_
says, that by the repentance and conversion of the people, the
fulfilment had been averted. But with such a view of prophecy,
the position of the prophetic institution becomes untenable, and
historically incomprehensible. The Mosaic regulation, that whosoever
prophesied anything that did not take place should be punished with
death, would in that case lose all practical significance; for there
would always have been at hand the exc