The Pulpit Commentary — Micah — Section 96

explain cle&rly the p&th of righteousness and peace, and yet neglect 1~ B&laam may prophesy; Deml\8 may preach ; Judas may cast out devils; but "I never knew you • d_epart. from me ~e that --:ork iniq~ity I" Or if we regard the questions as proposed: t,Jther by the DRtrnn convicted of sm (vers. 1--5), or by any one sin-stricken soul we learn the flame truths. It is the old controversy~ older than Ba,l&k, between God° nnd man, as to the grounds of ma.n's &ccepta.nce with God and the essential requirements from ma.n by God. We see- I. ANxxous QUESTION'S. (Vers. 6, 7.) These questions remind us of: 1, Man'B iense of disf,a,nce from God. He is not consciously wa.lking " with God," like Enoch; ., before God," like Abraha.m. 2. His conviction that Jui cannot come to God by any right or merit of his own. " Wherewith?" He cannot come just as he is, empty- banded. He he.s no right of entry to the court of the Divine King. 3. .And that if he co~ at all he must "bow," as an inferior, consciot.i11 of absolute ·dependence. , This "consciousness of absolute dependence" (Schleierm!Mlher's definition of religion), which is shared by a.a intelligent creatures, is intensified by the conscionsneBB of sin•, .. Sin has as its shadow guilt, and the brighter the light the clearer a.nd darker the sba.dow. .That shadow projects itself into the mysterious future. A sense of desert of punishment· and .. a certain fearful looking for of judgment" are the attendants of sin, though there may be no meltings of godly sorrow from a sense of its base ingratitude. Thus sin is the great sep&rater; man feels it; God decla.res it (Isa. lix. 1, 2). Hence there follow suggestive inquiries as to the means by which acceptance with God may be:0bta.ined. Shall they be "burnt offerings"? There was a germ of truth in this thought (cf. 2 Sam. xxiv. 24). Burnt offerings were entirely devoted to God. They might be precious in quality, like" ea.Ives of a year-0ld," or multiplied in quantity (" thousands of rams," etc.). These burnt offerings were designed to denote God's right to our entire snrrender, but could be no substitute for that surrender. They might be signs of eager desire for acceptance, though at a. high price. But in themselves they could bring no sense of access to God and of peace with him. Then comes the suggestion of a sacrifice infinitely more costly (" my firstborn," eto.). To a. parent a child's life is more precious than his own. lf the sinner can be forgiven and accepted only at such a price, shall it be paid? Terror-stricken, deluded consciences have answered," Yes;" but the peace has not come. While some of these proposals a.re detesta.ble to God, a.11 0f them a.re worthless. Unless the man himself is right with God, no sacrifice ca.n avail. Yet many would rather sacrifice health, life, wife, child, than give up sin which iB the great separater. Sinful man can ask such anxious questions a.a these, but he cannot answer them. His suggestions land him in deeper guilt, or a.t the best leave him in bla.nk despair. II. REABBURING ANSWERS. (Ver. 8.) These come from God himself. Every frag- ment of gospel-news of good, is news from God. It wa.s given not now for the first time. God had spoken at 61lndry times a.nd in divers manners by Moses a.nd the ea.rlier prophets. All previous revelations of Law and gra.ce were mea.ns of showing men "' what is good." In rega.rd to man himself, God from the beginning ha.s testified that his only real "good" is real godliness. This was the sum of his requirements (see Deut. L 12, 13, etc.). He did not seek for something from themselves, but for themselves and for the fruit of his Spirit within them. There were false ·methods by which "that which is good" wa.s sought, such as heathen sacrifices and austerities. There were inadequate methods, such as God's own a.ppointed system of sacrifices a.nd 1ervicee, when emptied of the spirit of self-surrender they were designed to foster a.nd of the teaching they contained of the need of "better sacnftces " (Heh. ix. 23). These ~ymbolical educational sacrifices were but part of a process which wa.s to issue in ma.n's acceptance by God, that thus man might render to God what he required, and might know and "prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God" (cf. Heh. x. 1-10, 19-25). Looking closely at ver. 8, we see a summing up of both Law and gospel L " To do jfJ,Stly." Elementary morality is here linked with a.II that is Divine. To do justly is not only to do what is just, but because it is just, and with a.n earnest :l.esire to he right with God. The "righteousness" which "the righteous Lord loveth" (Ps. xi. 7) is more than the outward act. And yet these most elementary acts of righteousness were neglected by many then (vers. 10-12 end eh. vii. 3) as well as now, wuo riroposed anxiouB questions a.bout their acceptance with God or even professed to -CH, VI, 1-lG.) THE BOOK OF MICAH. 9'J