), who represents all
the theocratic authorities; compare, _e.g._. Is. iii. 12, where the
corrupted leaders of the Theocracy present themselves to the prophet in
the person of a large child. To speak, in such a case, of a collective
noun, as is usually done, is out of place. But it may be observed that
it is not a king who is here spoken of, but, very significantly, a
judge of Israel only, probably with reference to the times before Saul,
when Israel was governed by judges. The royal dominion which, according
to the announcement in ver. 9, shall be destroyed by Babylon, shall be
restored by the Messiah only (compare v. 1 [2], iv. 8), who is not
[Hebrew: wpT iwral], but, like His great ancestor [Pg 478] David,
[Hebrew: mvwl biwral]; compare 2 Sam. xxiii. 3. There can be no doubt
that, in this connection, the _Judge_ is spoken of as distinguished
from, and contrasted with, the _King_. But even by itself, the mention
of the _Judge_ cannot but be startling. It would have been against the
object of the prophet to have mentioned any inferior persons, when
there existed a superior one; and if the _King_ was thereby denoted,
why should he have been designated thus?--It is on purpose that
[Hebrew: iwral], which is the _nomen dignitatis_ of the people, is
here chosen. It more emphatically points out the unworthiness of the
treatment, as well as the contrast between the reality and the idea in
the destinies of the nation,--a contrast, it is true, which Israel has
called forth by the preceding contrast between the reality and the idea
with regard to his conduct. Since Israel has inwardly profaned himself
by his own guilt, he is now, as a just punishment, profaned outwardly
also.--With respect, now, to the historical reference of this
disastrous announcement, its fulfilment cannot be sought for in any
other event than the invasion by the Romans. Among the sufferings of
the people, which are here described in general outlines, this is the
only one recorded in history, with the exception of those already
mentioned. Isaiah, the contemporary of Micah, likewise announced, as
early as in chap. vi., that upon those who should return from the
captivity a second judgment would be inflicted, by which the national
independence should be destroyed. This judgment is described with
remarkable clearness and distinctness by the post-exilic prophets,
inasmuch as, to them, it appeared already more in the foreground;
compare the remarks on Zech. v. and