John Calvin on Micah 6:11

Shall I justify? etc. האזכה. It is not true what Henderson says, that the verb זכה is not used transitively. See Psalm 73:13; Proverbs 20:9 Jerome renders the phrase, numquid approbabo? Our own version is no doubt correct. — Ed. This verse is connected with the last, and is added as an explanation. For God having come forth as a Judge, now shows what sort of Judge he is, even one who is not biased by favor, who does not change his judgment, who shows no respect of persons. But men, for the most part, greatly deceive themselves, when they transform God according to their own will, and promise to themselves that he will be propitious to them, provided they only make false pretensions to him. God then here declares, that he differs widely from earthly judges, who now incline to one side and then to another, who are changeable, and often deviate from the right course: but, on the contrary, he says here, Shall I justify wicked balances? shall I justify weights of fraud, or deceitful? that is, “Shake off all those delusions by which ye are wont to deceive yourselves; for I do not change either my nature or my purpose; but according to the true teaching of my Law, I will punish all the wicked without any respect of persons: wherever wickedness and iniquity are found, there punishment will be inflicted.”

We now then understand how these two verses harmonize together. God shows that he will be a judge, and then, that he differs from men, who often change, as it has been said, in their decisions.

I will mention another meaning, which will perhaps be preferred by some. The question, after the manner of the Hebrews, may be taken as an affirmation, as though he had said, that within a short time, (for עוד, oud, means sometimes a short time,) the treasures of iniquity would not be found, for they would be taken away: then follows a confirmation, for frauds and robberies by false measures and deceitful weights could not escape God’s judgment. The meaning then would be, that as God must necessarily, according to his own office, punish thefts, it cannot be that he will suffer men, who cheat by false weights to continue always unpunished. It now follows —

Micah 6:12

12. For the rich men thereof are full of violence, and the inhabitants thereof have spoken lies, and their tongue is deceitful in their mouth.

12. Quia (sic enim verto; nam qui putant esse relationum, frigide exponunt, cujus divites ejus impleverunt rapinis; potius est, quia There is nothing in what goes before for which a reason is given here: hence this אשר cannot be rendered as here proposed. It is an instance of a peculiarity in Hebrew, when a double pronoun is used. Literally it is, “Which the rich men of hers;” the reference is to the city mentioned in verse 9. Grotius, Newcome, and Henderson, render the words thus, “Whose rich men,” etc. The Welsh is very nearly the same, which no more than the Hebrew can with propriety be literally rendered in English or in the learned languages, — Yr hon y mae ei chyvoethogion yn llawn trais — The which her rich men are full of violence. But this mode of speaking has a more distinct and fuller reference to what is gone before than the simple relative “whose:” the connection is made more evident. — Ed. nam אשר saepe loco causalis particulae accipitur, quia ergo) divites ejus impleverunt (vel seipsos, vel domos suas, subaudiendum est) חמס, rapina (vel, violentia;) et incolae ejus locuti sunt fallaciam, et lingua eorum fallax (vel, fraudulenta) in ore ipsorum.