MICAH 5 COMMETARYEDITED BY GLE

PEASE

A Promised Ruler From Bethlehem

1 [a]Marshal your troops now, city of troops, for a siege is laid against us.They will strike Israels ruler on the cheek with a rod.

BARES. "Now gather thyself in troops, O daughter of troops - The daughter of troops is still the same who was before addressed, Judah. The word is almost always . used of bands of men employed in irregular, marauding, in-roads. Judah is entitled daughter of troops, on account of her violence, the robbery and bloodshed within her (Mic_2:8; Mic_3:2; etc. Hos_5:10), as Jeremiah says, Is this house which is called by My Name become a den of robbers in your eyes? (Jer_7:11, compare Mat_21:13). She then who had spoiled Isa_33:1 should now be spoiled; she who had formed herself in bands to lay waste, shall now be gathered thick together, in small bands, unable to resist in the open field; yet in vain should she so gather herself; for the enemy was upon her, in her last retreat.

This description has obviously no fulfillment, except in the infliction by the Romans. For there was no event, before the invasion by Sennacherib and accordingly in the prophets own time, in which there is any seeming fulfillment of it. But then, the second deliverance must be that by the Maccabees; and this siege, which lies, in order of time, beyond it, must be a siege by the Romans. With this it agrees, that whereas, in the two former visitations, God promised, in the first, deliverance, in the second, victory, here the prophet dwells on the Person of the Redeemer, and foretells that the strength of the Church should not lie in any human means Mic_5:8-15. Here too Israel had no king, but a judge only. Then the gathering in robber-bands strikingly describes their internal state in the siege of Jerusalem; and although this was subsequent to and consequent upon the rejection of our Lord, yet there is no reason why the end should be separated from the beginning since the capture by Titus was but the sequel of the capture by Pompey, the result of that same temper, in which they crucified Jesus, because He would not be their earthly king. It was the close of the organic existence of the former people; after which the remnant from among them with the Gentiles, not Israel after the flesh, were the true people of God.

He hath laid siege against us - The prophet, being born of them, and for the great love he bore them, counts himself among them, as Paul mourns over his brethren after

the flesh. They shall smite the judge of Israel with a rod upon the cheek. So Paul said to him who had made himself high priest, God shall smite thee, thou whited wall; for sittest thou to judge me after the law, and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the law Act_23:3. It is no longer the king (for they had said, We have no King but Caesar Joh_19:15) but the judge of Israel, they who against Christ and His Apostles gave wrong judgment. As they had smitten contrary to the law, so were the chief men smitten by Titus, when the city was taken. As they had done it, was done unto them. To be smitten on the thee, betokens shame; to smite with the red, betokens destruction. Now both shall meet in one; as, in the Great Day, the wicked shall awake to shame and everlasting contempt, and shall perish forever Dan_12:2.

CLARKE, "O daughter of troops - The Chaldeans, whose armies were composed of troops from various nations.

He (Nebuchadnezzar) hath laid siege against us; (Jerusalem ); they shall smite the judge of Israel (Zedekiah) with a rod upon the cheek - They shall offer him the greatest indignity. They slew his sons before his face; and then put out his eyes, loaded him with chains, and carried him captive to Babylon.

GILL, "Now gather thyself in troops, O daughter of troops,.... Not Jerusalem, full of people, called to draw out their forces, and fall upon the enemy besieging them, whether Chaldeans or Romans; but rather the Babylonians, whose armies were large, and their troops numerous; who are called upon by the people of God, encouraged by the foregoing prophecies, as well as by what follows, to come forth with all their forces, and muster up all their armies, and exert all the power and strength they had, thus suiting them; being assured, by the above promises, that in the issue they should prevail over all their enemies: unless the Romans should be intended, to whom this character of "daughter of troops" well agrees, of whose legions all have heard; and since the Babylonish attempt on Jerusalem, and the carrying the Jews captive into Babylon, are before predicted, with their deliverance from it, and what they should do in the times of the Maccabees; a prophecy of the Romans, or a representation of them, a gathering their troops and legions together to besiege Jerusalem, very naturally comes in here;

he hath laid siege against us; either Nebuchadnezzar, and the Chaldean army; or Vespasian with the Romans: this, according to the prophetic style, is spoken of as if actually done, because of the certainty of it;

they shall smite the judge of Israel with a rod upon the cheek; that is, either they, the besiegers, the king of Babylon and his army, when they shall have taken Jerusalem, besieged by them, shall use Zedekiah the king of Judah, and judge of Israel, and his princes and nobles, very ill, signified by this phrase; yea, in a very cruel and barbarous manner; first slaying his sons and his princes before his eyes, then putting his eyes out, binding him in chains, and carrying him to Babylon, and there laying him in a prison, Jer_52:10; or else they, the besieged, would use the Messiah, the King, Judge, and Ruler in Israel, in such a spiteful and scandalous manner; and so the Messiah was to be used by them, who according to prophecy gave his cheek to them that plucked off the hair, and hid not his face from shame and spitting; and so Jesus, the true Messiah, was smitten, both with rods, and with the palms of men's hands, and buffeted and spit upon,

Isa_50:6; and this is mentioned as a reason why Jerusalem would be encompassed with the Roman armies, and besieged by their troops and legions, and become desolate, even for their rejection and ill usage of the Messiah. Aben Ezra says, it is right in my eyes that the judge of Israel is the Messiah, or Zerubbabel; not the latter, who never was so used, but the former.

HERY, "Here, as before, we have,

I. The abasement and distress of Zion, Mic_5:1. The Jewish nation, for many years before the captivity, dwindled, and fell into disgrace: Now gather thyself in troops, O daughter of troops! It is either a summons to Zion's enemies, that had troops at their service, to come and do their worst against her (God will suffer them to do it), or a challenge to Zion's friends, that had troops too at command, to come and do their best for her; Let them gather in troops, yet it shall be to no purpose; for, says the prophet, in the name of the inhabitants of Jerusalem, He has laid siege against us; the king of Assyria has, the king of Babylon has, and we know not which way to defend ourselves; so that the enemies shall gain their point, and prevail so far as to smite the judge of Israel -the king, the chief justice, and the other inferior judges -with a rod upon the cheek, in contempt of them and their dignity; having made them prisoners, they shall use them as shamefully as any of the common captives. Complaint had been made of the judges of Israel (Mic_3:11) that they were corrupt and took bribes, and this disgrace came justly upon them for abusing their power; yet it was a great calamity to Israel to have their judges treated thus ignominiously. Some make this the reason why the troops (that is, the Roman army) shall lay siege to Jerusalem, because the Jews shall smite the judge of Israel upon the cheek, because of the indignities they shall do to the Messiah, the Judge of Israel, whom they smote on the cheek, saying, Prophesy, who smote thee. But the former sense seems more probable, and that it is meant of the besieging of Jerusalem, not by the Romans, but the Chaldeans, and was fulfilled in the indignities done to king Zedekiah and the princes of the house of David.

II. The advancement of Zion's King. Having shown how low the house of David should be brought, and how vilely the shield of that mighty family should be cast away, as though it had not been anointed with oil, to encourage the faith of God's people, who might be tempted now to think that his covenant with David and his house was abrogated (according to the psalmist's complaint, Psa_89:38, Psa_89:39), he adds an illustrious prediction of the Messiah and his kingdom, in whom that covenant should be established, and the honours of that house should be revived, advanced, and perpetuated. Now let us see,

1. How the Messiah is here described. It is he that is to be ruler in Israel, whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting, from the days of eternity, as the word is. Here we have, (1.) His existence from eternity, as God: his goings forth, or emanations, as the going forth of the beams from the sun, were, or have been, of old, from everlasting, which (says Dr. Pocock) is so signal a description of Christ's eternal generation, or his going forth as the Son of God, begotten of his Father before all worlds, that this prophecy must belong only to him, and could never be verified of any other. It certainly speaks of a going forth that was now past, when the prophet spoke, and cannot but be read, as we read it, his outgoings have been; and the putting of both these words together, which severally are used to denote eternity, plainly shows that they must here be taken in the strictest sense (the same with Psa_90:2, From everlasting to everlasting thou are God), and can be applied to no other than to him who was able to say, Before Abraham was, I am, Joh_8:58. Dr. Pocock observes that the going forth is used (Deu_8:3) for a word which proceeds out of the mouth, and is therefore very fitly used to

signify the eternal generation of him who is called the Word of God, that was in the beginning with God, Joh_1:1, Joh_1:2. (2.) His office as Mediator; he was to be ruler in Israel, king of his church; he was to reign over the house of Jacob for ever, Luk_1:32, Luk_1:33. The Jews object that our Lord Jesus could not be the Messiah, for he was so far from being ruler in Israel that Israel ruled over him, and put him to death, and would not have him to reign over them; but he answered that himself when he said, My kingdom is not of this world, Joh_18:36. And it is a spiritual Israel that he reigns over, the children of promise, all the followers of believing Abraham and praying Jacob. In the hearts of these he reigns by his Spirit and grace, and in the society of these by his word and ordinances. And was not he ruler in Israel whom winds and seas obeyed, to whom legions of devils were forced to submit, and who commanded away diseases from the sick and called the dead out of their graves? None but he whose goings forth were from of old, from everlasting, was fit to be ruler in Israel, to be head of the church, and head over all things to the church.

JAMISO, "Mic_5:1-15. The calamities which precede Messiahs advent. His kingdom, conquest of Jacobs foes, and blessing upon his people.

gather thyself in troops that is, thou shalt do so, to resist the enemy. Lest the faithful should fall into carnal security because of the previous promises, he reminds them of the calamities which are to precede the prosperity.

daughter of troops Jerusalem is so called on account of her numerous troops.

he hath laid siege the enemy hath.

they shall smite the judge of Israel with a rod upon the cheek the greatest of insults to an Oriental. Zedekiah, the judge (or king, Amo_2:3) of Israel, was loaded with insults by the Chaldeans; so also the other princes and judges (Lam_3:30). Hengstenberg thinks the expression, the judge, marks a time when no king of the house of David reigned. The smiting on the cheek of other judges of Israel was a type of the same indignity offered to Him who nevertheless is the Judge, not only of Israel, but also of the world, and who is from everlasting (Mic_5:2; Isa_50:6; Mat_26:67; Mat_27:30).

K&D, "Heb. Bib. 4:14). Now wilt thou gather in troops, thou daughter of troops; they lay siege against us; with the staff they smite the judge of Israel upon the cheek.

With atth (now) the prophet's address turns once more to the object introduced with

atth in Mic_4:9. For we may see clearly enough from the omission of the cop. Vav, which could not be left out if it were intended to link on Mic_5:1 to Mic_4:11-13, that

this atth points back to Mic_4:9, and is not attached to the veatth in Mic_4:11, for the purpose of introducing a fresh occurrence to follow the event mentioned in Mic_4:11-13. The prophecy in Mic_4:11-13 explains the ground of that in Mic_4:9, Mic_4:10, and the one in Mic_5:1 sounds like a conclusion drawn from this explanation. The explanation in Mic_4:11-13 is enclosed on both sides by that which it explains. By returning in Mic_5:1to the thoughts expressed in Mic_4:9, the prophet rounds off the strophe in 4:9-5:1 (Caspari). The words are addressed to the daughter Zion, who alone is addressed with

every atth, and generally throughout the entire section. Bath-gegd, daughter of the troop, might mean: thou nation accustomed or trained to form troops, thou warlike Zion. But this does not apply to what follows, in which a siege alone is mentioned. This

turn is given to the expression, rather for the purpose of suggesting the thought of a

crowd of people pressing anxiously together, as distinguished from gedd, an invading

troop. The verb hithgdd does not mean here to scratch one's self or make incisions (Deu_14:1, etc.), but, as in Jer_5:7, to press or crowd together; and the thought is this: Now crowd together with fear in a troop, for he (sc., the enemy) sets, or prepares, a siege

against us. In the prophet includes himself in the nation as being a member of it. He finds himself in spirit along with the people besieged Zion. The siege leads to conquest; for it is only in consequence of this that the judge of Israel can be smitten with the rod upon the cheek, i.e., be shamefully ill treated (compare 1Ki_22:24; Psa_3:8; Job_16:10). The judge of Israel, whether the king or the Israelitish judges comprehended in one, cannot be thought of as outside the city at the time when the city is besieged. Of all the different effects of the siege of the city the prophet singles out only this one, viz., the ill-treatment of the judge, because nothing shows more clearly how much misery and shame Israel will have to endure for its present sins (Caspari). The judge of Israel is the person holding the highest office in Israel. This might be the king, as in Amo_2:3 (cf. 1Sa_8:5-6, 1Sa_8:20), since the Israelitish king was the supreme judge in Israel, or the true possessor of the judicial authority and dignity. But the expression is hardly to be restricted to the king, still less is it meant in distinction from the king, as pointing back to the time when Israel had no king, and was only governed by judges; but the judge stands for the king here, on the one hand with reference to the threat in Mic_3:1, Mic_3:9, Mic_3:11, where the heads and princes of Israel are described as unjust and ungodly

judges, and on the other hand as an antithesis to mshl in Mic_5:2. As the Messiah is

not called king there, but mshl, ruler, as the possessor of supreme authority; so here

the possessor of judicial authority is called shpht, to indicate the reproach which would fall upon the king and the leaders of the nation on account of their unrighteousness. The threat in this verse does not refer, however, to the Roman invasion. Such an idea can only be connected with the assumption already refuted, that Mic_4:11-13 point to the times of the Maccabees, and no valid argument can be adduced to support it. In the verse before us the prophet reverts to the oppression predicted in Mic_4:9 and Mic_4:10, so that the remarks already made in Mic_4:10 apply to the fulfilment of what is predicted here. The principal fulfilment occurred in the Chaldaean period; but the fulfilment was repeated in every succeeding siege of Jerusalem until the destruction of the city by the Romans. For, according to Mic_5:3, Israel will be given up to the power of the empire of the world until the coming of the Messiah; that is to say, not merely till His birth or public appearance, but till the nation shall accept the Messiah, who has appeared as its own Redeemer.

CALVI, "To encourage the faithful to patience, the Prophet again reminds them that hard and severe time was nigh; for it was needful to put them in mind often of the approaching calamity, lest terror should wholly discourage them. As then there was danger from despair, the Prophet often repeats what he has already said of Gods judgment, which was then suspending over the people of Israel. And this mode and order of teaching ought to be observed. When the Prophets threaten us, or denounce the punishment we have deserved, we either become torpid, or grow angry with God, and murmur: but when they set forth any thing of comfort, we then indulge ourselves and become too secure. It is therefore necessary to connect

threatening with promises, so that we may be always ready to endure temporal evils, and that our minds, sustained by hope, may, at the same time, depend on the Lord, and recomb on him. It was for this reason that the Prophet again mentions what he had already several times stated, that the Jews would be surrounded by a siege. How do these two things agree, that the enemies, assembled together, would be like sheaves which are taken to the floor to be trodden by the feet of animals, and that the Jews would be besieged? I answer, that these things harmonize, because the temporary punishment, which God would inflict on his Church, would not prevent him to restore it again whenever it pleased him. Lest, therefore, security should creep over the minds of the godly, the Prophet designed often to remind them of that dreadful calamity which might have entirely upset them, had no support been afforded them, that is, had not God sustained them by his word.

ow then thou shalt assemble thyself, he says, O daughter of a troop The verb gadud, sound alike; as though he said, Thou shalt , etgaddi, and the noun ,he collected, O daughter of collection. The Prophet addresses Jerusalem: but we must see why he calls her the daughter of collection. Some think that by this word is designated the splendid and wealthy state of Jerusalem; as though the Prophet said, This city has been hitherto populous, but now it shall be reduced to such straits that none shall dare to go forth beyond its gates, for they shall on every side be surrounded. But the Prophet calls Jerusalem the daughter of a troop in another sense, because they were wont to occasion great troubles: as thieves agree together, and meet in troops for the purpose of committing plunder; so also the Prophet calls Jerusalem the daughter of a troop, for its citizens were wont willfully to do great evils, and like robbers to use violence. Thou then, he says, shalt now be collected; that is, thou shalt not send forth thy troops, but enemies shall assemble thee together by a severe siege, so that thou shalt contract thyself like a bundle.

There are, then, two clauses in this verse, that though the Lord resolved to help his Church, he would yet straiten her for a time, and then the Prophet shows the reason, lest they complained that they were too severely treated: You have been hitherto, he says, without a cause oppressive to others: the time then is come when the Lord will return to you your recompense. As Isaiah says

Woe to thee, plunderer! Shalt thou not also be exposed to plunder? Isaiah 33:1;

so also in this place, Ye have assembled in troops, that ye might pillage innocent men; therefore other troops shall now encircle you; nay, ye shall be beset by your own fear. The verb is in Hithpael: he says not, Thou daughter of a troop shalt be now encircled; but he says Thou shalt gather thyself.

He then adds, A siege has he set against thee. This may refer to God; but it must be understood only of enemies: for the Prophet immediately adds, They shall strive with the rod, etc. in the pleural number, They shall then strike with the rod the cheek of the judge of Israel. He means that the Jews would be subdued by their

enemies that their judges and governors would be exposed to every kind of contumely and dishonor, for to strike on the cheek is to offer the greatest indignity; as indeed it is the greatest contempt, as Demosthenes says, and is so mentioned by the lawyers. We now then perceive, that the Prophets object was to show, that the Jews in vain boasted of their kingdom and civil constitution, for the Lord would expose the governors of that kingdom to extreme contempt. The enemies then shall strike their judges even on the cheek. (141)

But there follows immediately a consolation: we hence see that the Prophet, at one time, humbles the children of God: and prepares them for enduring the cross; and then he mitigates all sorrow; yea, and makes them to rejoice in the midst of their evils. For this purpose he adds what follows

d thyself together, thou daughter of a band, Laying against us a siege: With the rod shall they strike on the cheek The judge of Israel.

The daughter of a band or a troop means a military power, which collects bands or troops for warlike purposes. It is certainly more obvious to apply this to the Babylonian power than to Jerusalem, especially as the next line, Laying against us a siege, necessarily refers to the latter.

The judge is, as Calvin seems to take it, a poetical singular for the plural. o particular person is meant, as ewcome and others seem to think, but judges in general. Ed.

COFFMA, "Verse 1This chapter concludes the middle division of the prophecy (Micah 4-6), having as its principal feature the glorious prophecy of the birth of the Christ in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2) and the triumph of the kingdom of heaven over all enemies, concluding with another reference to the vengeance and wrath of God executed upon "the nations that hearkened not."

Micah 5:1

"ow shalt thou gather thyself in troops, O daughter of troops: he hath laid siege against us; they shall smite the judge of Israel with a rod upon the cheek."

"He hath laid siege against us ..." indicates that Micah identified himself with the besieged city, hence the conclusion that it must be Jerusalem. The popular interpretation of this applies it to one of the many sieges of Jerusalem by Assyrians, Babylon, or others, supposing that the "they" who smite the cheek of the Judge of Israel were the invaders and besiegers. Despite the wide acceptance of that explanation, we cannot believe that it fills the requirement for understanding what is meant here. There is no mention here of the city being captured, unless it is inferred from the insult perpetrated against the city's Judge. But Jerusalem at that

time had a king;, and the reference of this insult to the action of ebuchadnezzar against Zedekiah is hardly indicated, nor any of the other instances of similar things that are cited. The problem lies in the word Judge (not capitalized in the ASV). "This particular title is unparalleled in the singular."[1] Christ alone is properly titled as the Judge of Israel; and we cannot resist the conviction that it refers to Christ here. The appearance of smiting of the judge in a context where the connection is not clear does not discourage this view; because there have been many different renditions of this verse, due to uncertainties in the text. The Catholic Bible renders it thus:

"ow shalt thou be laid waste, O daughter of the robber. They have laid siege against us: with a rod shall they strike the cheek of the judge of Israel."[2]There are a number of things which support the Messianic view of this verse. (1) It is very similar to a Messianic passage in Isaiah 50:6, "I gave my back to the smiters, and my cheeks to them that plucked off the hair; I hid not my face from shame and spitting." (2) The sacred evangelists of the ew Testament did not fail to record instances of this very type of humiliation inflicted upon our Lord. "Then did they spit in his face and buffet him: and some smote him with the palms of their hands, saying, Prophesy unto us, thou Christ: who is he that struck thee?" (Matthew 26:67,68, etc.). (3) The ancient commentators, and some recent ones, did not fail to see this:

The ew Testament makes it plain here that the smitten One is none other than the Christ.[3]

It is pointed out that Micah probably thought that this word regarding the smiting of Israel's Judge applied only to some affront to one of Israel's rulers; and with that we can agree perfectly; however, they are certain to fail to understand the prophecies in the word of God who interpret them only in the light of what they suppose to have been in the mind of the prophet. There are too many examples in the Bible of inspired men uttering things which they not only did not understand at all, but which it was impossible for them to understand until the meaning was later revealed to them. Peter's inclusion of the Gentiles in the gospel (Acts 2:39) had information in it that Peter would not learn until he stood in the house of Cornelius (Acts 10). We may be sure that Amos saw nothing in his prophecy of the sky's being darkened in a clear day (Amos 8:9) except the perpetual continuation of the sabbath; but how wrong he was! It must always be remembered that God gave "the words" to his inspired spokesmen. In the light of what is repeatedly revealed in the Bible, there can be no appeal from this fact of inspiration. Peter himself stated this principle very effectively in 1 Peter 1:10-12.

COKE, "Micah 5:1. ow gather thyself in troops, &c. But thou shalt be made desolate, O desolating daughter: thou shalt be surrounded by a siege; because they have smitten the judge of Israel with a rod upon the cheek. This verse should be the last of the preceding chapter, and not the first of this; for the last fate of the Jews is here terminated; who, in the re-establishment of their kingdom, having taken much spoil from the neighbouring people, shall at length perish, when they have struck

Jesus Christ, the judge of Israel, on the cheek. See Houbigant.

COSTABLE, "Verse 1This verse is the last one in chapter4in the Hebrew Bible. It continues the theme of Zion"s might.

Micah called the Israelites to prepare for war and reminded them that they had often engaged in war by referring to them as a "daughter of troops." This expression means that Jerusalem was a city marked by warfare. Jerusalem"s rich had been at war with the poor ( Micah 2:8; Micah 3:2-3; Micah 3:9-10; Micah 7:2-6), but now their external enemies would wage war against them. These enemies had laid siege against them ( 2 Kings 24:10; 2 Kings 25:1-2; Jeremiah 52:5; Ezekiel 4:3; Ezekiel 4:7; Ezekiel 5:2) and would even smite Israel"s judge on the cheek ( Micah 4:2-3), a figure for humiliating him (cf. 1 Kings 22:24; Job 16:10; Lamentations 3:30).

The judge in view appears to be King Zedekiah for the following reasons (cf. 2 Kings 25:1-7). First, according to this verse the time of this smiting is when Israel was under siege. Second, Micah 5:2-6 jump to a time in the distant future whereas Micah 5:1 describes a time in the near future (cf. "But," Micah 5:2). Third, "judge" (Heb. shopet) is different from "ruler" (Heb. moshel) in Micah 5:2 and probably describes a different individual. Micah may have chosen shopet because of its similarity to shebet, "rod." As noted earlier, Micah is famous for his wordplays. Waltke, however, believed the judge to be Messiah. [ote: Ibid, p181.]

EXPOSITOR'S BIBLE COMMETARY

Verses 1-15THE KIG TO COME

Micah 4:8 - Micah 5:1-15

WHE a people has to be purged of long injustice, when some high aim of liberty or of order has to be won, it is remarkable how often the drama of revolution passes through three acts. There is first the period of criticism and of vision, in which men feel discontent, dream of new things, and put their hopes into systems: it seems then as if-the future were to come of itself. But often a catastrophe, relevant or irrelevant, ensues: the visions pale before a vast conflagration, and poet, philosopher, and prophet disappear under the feet of a mad mob of wreckers. Yet this is often the greatest period of all, for somewhere in the midst of it a strong character is forming, and men, by the very anarchy, are being taught, in preparation for him, the indispensableness of obedience and loyalty. With their chastened minds he achieves the third act, and fulfills all of the early vision that Gods ordeal by fire has proved worthy to survive. Thus history, when distraught, rallies again upon the Man.

To this law the prophets of Israel only gradually gave expression. We find no trace of it among the earliest of them; and in the essential faith of all there was much

which predisposed them against the conviction of its necessity. For, on the one hand, the seers were so filled with the inherent truth and inevitableness of their visions, that they described these as if already realised; there was no room for a great figure to rise before the future, for with a rush the future was upon them. On the other hand, it was ever a principle of prophecy that God is able to dispense with human aid. "In presence of the Divine omnipotence all secondary causes, all interposition on the part of the creature, fall away." The more striking is it that before long the prophets should have begun, not only to look for a Man, but to paint him as the central figure of their hopes. In Hosea, who has no such promise, we already see the instinct at work. The age of revolution which he describes is cursed by its want of men: there is no great leader of the people sent from God; those who come to the front are the creatures of faction and party; there is no king from God. How different it had been in the great days of old, when God had ever worked for Israel through some man-a Moses, a Gideon, a Samuel, but especially a David. Thus memory, equally with the present dearth of personalities, prompted to a great desire, and with passion Israel waited for a Man. The hope of the mother for her firstborn, the pride of the father in his son, the eagerness of the woman for her lover, the devotion of the slave to his liberator, the enthusiasm of soldiers for their captain-unite these noblest affections of the human heart, and you shall yet fail to reach the passion and the glory with which prophecy looked for the King to Come. Each age, of course, expected him in the qualities of power and character needed for its own troubles, and the ideal changed from glory unto glory. From valor and victory in war, it became peace and good government, care for the poor and the oppressed, sympathy with the sufferings of the whole people, but especially of the righteous among them, with fidelity to the truth delivered unto the fathers, and, finally, a conscience for the peoples sin, a bearing of their punishment and a travail, for their spiritual redemption. But all these qualities and functions were gathered upon an individual-a Victor, a King, a Prophet, a Martyr, a Servant of the Lord.

Micah stands among the first, if he is not the very first, who thus focused the hopes of Israel upon a great Redeemer; and his promise of Him shares all the characteristics just described. In his book it lies next a number of brief oracles with which we are unable to trace its immediate connection. They differ from it in style and rhythm: they are in verse, while it seems to be in prose. They do not appear to have been uttered along with it. But they reflect the troubles out of which the Hero is expected to emerge, and the deliverance which He shall accomplish, though at first they picture the latter without any hint of Himself. They apparently describe an invasion which is actually in course, rather than one which is near and inevitable; and if so they can only date from Sennacheribs campaign against Judah in 701 B.C. Jerusalem is in siege, standing alone in the land, like one of those solitary towers with folds round them which were built here and there upon the border pastures of Israel for defense of the flock against the raiders of the desert. The prophet sees the possibility of Zions capitulation, but the people shall leave her only for their deliverance elsewhere. Many are gathered against her, but he sees them as sheaves upon the floor for Zion to thresh. This oracle (Micah 4:11-13) cannot, of course, have been uttered at the same time as the previous one, but there is no reason why the same prophet should not have uttered both at different periods.

Isaiah had prospects of the fate of Jerusalem which differ quite as much. Once more (Micah 5:1) the blockade is established. Israels ruler is helpless, "smitten on the cheek by the foe." It is to this last picture that the promise of the Deliverer is attached.

The prophet speaks:-

"But thou, O Tower of the Flock, Hill of the daughter of Zion, To thee shall arrive the former rule, And the kingdom shall come to the daughter of Zion. ow wherefore criest thou so loud? Is there no king in thee, or is thy counselor perished, That throes have seized thee like a woman in childbirth? Quiver and writhe, daughter of Zion, like one in childbirth: For now must thou forth from the city, And encamp on the field (and come unto Babel); There shalt thou be rescued, There shall Jehovah redeem thee from the hand of thy foes"!

"And now gather against thee many nations, that say, Let her be violate, that our eyes may fasten on Zion! But they know not the plans of Jehovah, or understand they His counsel, For He hath gathered them in like sheaves to the floor. Up and thresh, O daughter of Zion For thy horns will I turn into iron, And thy hoofs will I turn into brass; And thou will beat down many nations, And devote to Jehovah their spoil, And their wealth to the Lord of all earth".

"ow press thyself together, thou daughter of pressure: The foe hath set a wall around us, With a rod they smite on the cheek Israels regent! But thou, Beth-Ephrath, smallest among the thousands of Judah, From thee unto Me shall come forth the Ruler to be in Israel! Yea, of old are His goings forth, from the days of long ago! Therefore shall He suffer them till the time that one bearing shall have born. (Then the rest of His brethren shall return with the children of Israel.) And He shall stand and shepherd His flock in the strength of Jehovah, In the pride of the name of His God. And they shall abide! For now is He great to the ends of the earth. And Such a One shall be our Peace."

Bethlehem was the birthplace of David, but when Micah says that the Deliverer shall emerge from her he does not only mean what Isaiah affirms by his promise of a rod from the stock of Jesse, that the King to Come shall spring from the one great dynasty in Judah. Micah means rather to emphasize the rustic and popular origin of the Messiah, "too small to be among the thousands of Judah." David, the son of Jesse the Bethlehemite, was a dearer figure than Solomon son of David the King. He impressed the peoples imagination, because he had sprung from themselves, and in his lifetime had been the popular rival of an unlovable despot. Micah himself was the prophet of the country as distinct from the capital, of the peasants as against the rich who oppressed them. When, therefore, he fixed upon Bethlehem as the Messiahs birthplace, he doubtless desired, without departing from the orthodox hope in the Davidic dynasty, to throw round its new representative those associations which had so endeared to the people their father-monarch. The shepherds of Judah, that strong source of undefiled life from which the fortunes of the state and prophecy itself had ever been recuperated, should again send forth

salvation. Had not Micah already declared that, after the overthrow of the capital and the rulers, the glory of Israel should come to Adullam, where of old David had gathered its soiled and scattered fragments?

We may conceive how such a promise would affect the crushed peasants for whom Micah wrote. A Savior, who was one of themselves, not born up there in the capital, foster-brother of the very nobles who oppressed them, but born among the people, sharer of their toils and of their wrongs!-it would bring hope to every broken heart among the disinherited poor of Israel. Yet meantime, be it observed, this was a promise, not for the peasants only, but for the whole people. In the present danger of the nation the class disputes are forgotten, and the hopes of Israel gather upon their Hero for a common deliverance from the foreign foe. "Such a One shall be our peace." But in the peace He is "to stand and shepherd His flock," conspicuous and watchful. The country folk knew what such a figure meant to themselves for security and weal on the land of their fathers. Heretofore their rulers had not been shepherds, but thieves and robbers.

We can imagine the contrast which such a vision must have offered to the fancies of the false prophets. What were they beside this? Deity descending in fire and thunder, with all the other features of the ancient Theophanies that had now become much cant in the mouths of mercenary traditionalists. Besides those, how sane was this how footed upon the earth, how practical, how popular in the best sense!

We see, then, the value of Micahs prophecy for his own day. Has it also any value for ours-especially in that aspect of it which must have appealed to the hearts of those for whom chiefly Micah arose? Is it wise to paint the Messiah, to paint Christ, so much a workingman? Is it not much more to our purpose to remember the general fact of His humanity, by which He is able to be Priest and Brother to all classes, high and low, rich and poor, the noble and the peasant alike? Is not the Man of Sorrows a much wider name than the Man of Labor? Let us answer these questions.

The value of such a prophecy of Christ lies in the correctives which it supplies to the Christian apocalypse and theology. Both of these have raised Christ to a throne too far above the actual circumstance of His earthly ministry and the theatre of His eternal sympathies. Whether enthroned in the praises of Heaven, or by scholasticism relegated to an ideal and abstract humanity, Christ is lifted away from touch with the common people. But His lowly origin was a fact. He sprang from the most democratic of peoples. His ancestor was a shepherd, and His mother a peasant girl. He Himself was a carpenter: at home, as His parables show, in the fields and the folds and the barns of His country; with the servants of the great houses, with the unemployed in the market; with the woman in the hovel seeking one piece of silver, with the shepherd on the moors seeking the lost sheep. "The poor had the gospel preached to them; and the common people heard Him gladly." As the peasants of Judea must have listened to Micahs promise of His origin among themselves with new hope and patience, so in the Roman empire the religion of Jesus Christ was

welcomed chiefly, as the Apostles and the Fathers bear witness, by the lowly and the laboring of every nation. In the great persecution which bears His name, the Emperor Domitian heard that there were two relatives alive of this Jesus whom so many acknowledged as their King, and he sent for them that he might put them to death. But when they came, he asked them to hold up their hands, and seeing these brown and chapped with toil, he dismissed the men, saying, "From such slaves we have nothing to fear." Ah but, Emperor! it is just the horny hands of this religion that thou and thy gods have to fear! Any cynic or satirist of thy literature, from Celsus onwards, could have told thee that it was by men who worked with their hands for their daily bread, by domestics, artisans, and all manner of slaves, that the power of this King should spread, which meant destruction to [flee and thine empire] "From little Bethlehem came forth the Ruler," and "now He is great to the ends of the earth."

There follows upon this prophecy of the Shepherd a curious fragment which divides His office among a number of His order, though the grammar returns towards the end to One. The mention of Assyria stamps this oracle also as of the eighth century. Mark the refrain which opens and closes it.

"When Asshur cometh into our land, And when he marcheth on our borders, Then shall we raise against him seven shepherds And eight princes of men. And they shall shepherd Asshur with a sword, And imrods land with her own bare blades. And He shall deliver from Asshur, When he cometh into our land, And marcheth upon our borders."

There follows an oracle in which there is no evidence of Micahs hand or of his times; but if it carries any proof of a date, it seems a late one.

"And the remnant of Jacob shall be among many peoples Like the dew from Jehovah, Like showers upon grass, Which wait not for a man. or tarry for the children of men. And the remnant of Jacob (among nations,) among many peoples, Shall be like the lion among the beasts of the jungle, Like a young lion among the sheepfolds, Who, when he cometh by, treadeth and teareth, And none may deliver. Let thine hand be high on thine adversaries, And all thine enemies be cut off!"

Finally in this section we have an oracle full of the notes we had from Micah in The first two chapters. It explains itself. Compare Micah 2:1-13 and Isaiah 2:1-22.

"And it shall be in that day-tis the oracle of Jehovah-That I will cut off thy horses from the midst of thee, And I will destroy thy chariots; That I will cut off the cities of thy land, And tear down all thy fortresses, And I will cut off thine enchantments from thy hand, And thou shalt have no more soothsayers; And I will cut off thine images and thy pillars from the midst of thee, And thou shalt not bow down any more to the work of thy hands; And I will uproot thine Asheras from the midst of thee, And will destroy thine idols. So shall I do, in My wrath and Mine anger, Vengeance to the nations, who have not known Me."

BESO, "Micah 5:1. ow gather thyself, &c. It seems this verse ought to be joined to the foregoing chapter, as it evidently belongs to it, and not to this, which is upon a quite different subject. Thus considered, after the promises given of a restoration from the captivity into which they should be carried, and of victory over their surrounding enemies, the prophecy concludes with bidding them first expect an enemy to come against them, who should lay siege to their chief city, and carry their insolence so far as to treat the judge of Israel in the most indignant and despiteful manner, such as striking him on the cheek, or face, with a rod, or stick. This, it is likely, was fulfilled on Zedekiah, who was treated in a contumelious manner by the Chaldeans, as if he had been a common captive, 2 Kings 25:6-7. And as the singular number is often used for the plural, by the judge of Israel may be meant the judges of Israel, including their principal men, as well as the king, for they doubtless were treated no better than he was; nay, probably, still more indignantly.

PETT, "Verse 1Gods Enemies Are Determined To Demonstrate Their Power And To Smite YHWHs Anointed (Micah 5:1).

The warning of the previous verse having been ignored the nations gather their forces for the attack on Gods people.

Micah 5:1

ow will you gather yourself in troops,

O daughter of troops.

He has laid siege against us;

They will smite the judge of Israel,

With a rod upon the cheek.

The nations are still determined to attack Judah in spite of Micahs warning concerning the future. They gather themselves in troops, because they are daughters of troops, in other words that is the kind of people that they are. And thus their leader has laid siege against Jerusalem.

Their aim is to humiliate the one who is the judge of Israel. This may indicate Hezekiah. There was certainly nothing that Sennacherib wanted more to do than humiliate Hezekiah. He gloated over the fact that he had shut him up like a caged bird in Jerusalem. But the unusual term Judge may signify that the Judge of Israel is in mind, YHWH Himself. Either way they want to smite him with a rod on his cheek. The idea is of a symbol of authority being used to smite him across the cheek as a sign of his defeat, humiliation and submission.

As we know, because YHWH intervened in response to Hezekiahs prayer it did not happen immediately. Indeed His enemies were then decimated by the angel of YHWH (2 Kings 19:35). But it did occur in the days of Hezekiahs son, Manasseh (compare Micah 4:10).

But whenever it happened it would not be the end, for YHWH would eventually raise up a champion Who would accomplish His purposes.

PULPIT, "Micah 5:1

This verse is joined to the preceding chapter in the Hebrew. Jerusalem is addressed, as in Micah 4:9, Micah 4:11, not the invading army. The prophet returns to the view of the misery and humiliation expressed in that passage. Gather thyself in troops; or, thou shalt gather thyself, etc. Jerusalem must collect its armies to defend itself from the enemy. O daughter of troops. Jerusalem is thus named from the number of soldiers collected within her walls, from whence marauding expeditions were wont to set forth. Pusey considers that she is so called from the acts of violence, robbery, and bloodshed which are done within her (Micah 2:8; Micah 3:2, etc.; Jeremiah 7:11). Keil thinks the prophet represents the people crowding together in fear. It is more natural to refer the expression to the abnormal assemblage of soldiers and fugitives within the walls of a besieged city. Septuagint, , "The daughter shall be wholly hemmed in;" Vulgate, Vastaberis, filia latronis. He hath laid siege. The enemy is spoken of by an abrupt change of person (comp. Isaiah 1:29). Against us. The prophet identifies himself with the besieged people. They shall smite the judge of Israel, etc. "The judge" represents the supreme authority, whether king or other governor (Amos 2:3); but he is called here "judge," that the sacred name of king may not be spoken of as dishonoured. To smite upon the cheek is the grossest insult When Zion is thus besieged, and its rulers suffer the utmost contumely, its condition must look hopeless, Such a state of things was realized in the treatment of Zedekiah (2 Kings 25:1-30.), and in many subsequent sieges of Jerusalem. But the underlying idea is that Israel shall suffer dire distress at the hands of her enemies until Messiah comes, and she herself turns to the Lord. The LXX. translates shophet, "judge," by , "tribes," but the other Greek translators give .

BI, "Now gather thyself in troops, O daughter of troops

The Church of God

I. As militant in its character. Jerusalem is addressed as daughter of troops. As Jerusalem was a military city containing a great body of soldiers within her walls, so is the Church on earth, it is military. The life of all true men here is that of a battle; all are soldiers, bound to be valiant for the truth. They are commanded to fight the good fight, to war the good warfare. The warfare is spiritual, righteous, indispensable, personal. No one can fight the battle by proxy. Look at the Church

II. As perilous in its position. He hath laid siege against us. The dangerous condition of Jerusalem when the Chaldean army surrounded its walls in order to force an entrance, is only a faint shadow of the perilous position of the Church of God. It is besieged by

mighty hosts of errors and evil passions, and mighty lusts that war against the soul. The siege is planned with strategic skill, and with malignant determination.

III. As resulted by its enemies. They shall smite the Judge of Israel with a rod upon the cheek. Were the enemies of Christianity ever more insolent than in this age?

IV. As summoned to action. Now gather thyself in troops. The men of Jerusalem are here commanded by heaven to marshal their troops and to prepare for battle, since the enemies are outside their walls. Far more urgent is the duty of the Church to collect, arrange, and concentrate all its forces against the mighty hosts that encompass it. (Homilist.)

2 But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans[b] of Judah,out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel,whose origins are from of old, from ancient times.

BARES. "But - (And) thou, Bethlehem Ephratah With us, the chequered events of time stand in strong contrast, painful or gladdening. Good seems to efface evil, or evil blots out the memory of the good. God orders all in the continuous course of His Wisdom. All lies in perfect harmony in the Divine Mind. Each event is the sequel of what went before. So here the prophet joins on, what to us stands in such contrast, with that simple, And. Yet he describes the two conditions bearing on one another. He had just spoken of the judge of Israel smitten on the cheek, and, before Mic_4:9, that Israel had neither king nor counsellor; he now speaks of the Ruler in Israel, the Everlasting. He had said, how Judah was to become mere bands of men; he now says, how the little Bethlehem was to be exalted. He had said before, that the rule of old was to come to the tower of the flock, the daughter of Jerusalem; now, retaining the word, he speaks of the Ruler, in whom it was to be established.

Before he had addressed the tower of the flock; now, Bethlehem. But he has greater things to say now, so he pauses , And thou! People have admired the brief appeal of the murdered Caesar, Thou too, Brutus. The like energetic conciseness lies in the words, And thou! Bethlehem Ephratah. The name Ephratah is not seemingly added, in order to distinguish Bethlehem from the Bethlehem of Zabulon, since that is only named once Jos_19:15, and Bethlehem here is marked to be the Bethlehem Judah , by the addition, too little to be among the thousands of Judah. He joins apparently the usual name, Bethlehem, with the old Patriarchal, and perhaps poetic Psa_132:6 name Ephratah, either in reference and contrast to that former birth of sorrow near Ephratah Gen_35:19; Gen_48:7, or, (as is Micahs custom) regarding the meaning of both names.

Both its names were derived from fruitfulness; House of Bread and fruitfulness; and, despite of centuries of Mohammedan oppression, it is fertile still. .

It had been rich in the fruitfulness of this world; rich, thrice rich, should it be in spiritual fruitfulness. : Truly is Bethlehem, house of bread, where was born the Bread of life, which came down from heaven Joh_6:48, Joh_6:51. : who with inward sweetness refreshes the minds of the elect, Angels Bread Psa_78:25, and Ephratah, fruitfulness, whose fruitfulness is God, the Seed-corn, stored wherein, died and brought forth much fruit, all which ever was brought forth to God in the whole world.

Though thou be little among the thousands of Judah - Literally, small to be, that is, too small to be among etc. Each tribe was divided into its thousands, probably of fighting men, each thousand having its own separate head Num_1:16; Num_10:4. But the thousand continued to be a division of the tribe, after Israel was settled in Canaan Jos_22:21, Jos_22:30; 1Sa_10:19; 1Sa_23:23. The thousand of Gideon was the meanest in Manasseh. Jdg_6:15. Places too small to form a thousand by themselves were united with others, to make up the number . So lowly was Bethlehem that it was not counted among the possessions of Judah. In the division under Joshua, it was wholly omitted . From its situation, Bethlehem can never have been a considerable place.

It lay and lies, East of the road from Jerusalem to Hebron, at six miles from the capital. 6 miles, Arculf, (Early Travels in Palestine, p. 6) Bernard (Ibid. 29) Sae, wulf, (Ibid. 44) 2 hours. Maundrell, (Ibid. 455) Robinson (i. 470)). It was seated on the summit-level of the hill country of Judaea with deep gorges descending East to the Dead Sea and West to the plains of Philistia, 2704 feet above the sea . It lay on a narrow ridge , whose whole length was not above a mile , swelling at each extremity into a somewhat higher eminence, with a slight depression between . : The ridge projects Eastward from the central mountain range, and breaks down in abrupt terraced slopes to deep valleys on the N. E. and S. The West end too shelves gradually down to the valley . It was then rather calculated to be an outlying fortress, guarding the approach to Jerusalem, than for a considerable city.

As a garrison, it was fortified and held by the Philistines 2Sa_23:14 in the time of Saul, recovered from them by David, and was one of the 15 cities fortified by Rehoboam. Yet it remained an unimportant place. Its inhabitants are counted with those of the neighboring Netophah, both before 1Ch_2:54 and after Neh_7:26 the captivity, but both together amounted after the captivity to 179 Ezr_2:21, Ezr_2:2, or 188 Neh_7:26 only. It still does not appear among the possessions of Judah Neh_11:25-30. It was called a city (Rth_1:19; Ezr_2:1, with 21; Neh_7:6, with 26), but the name included even places which had only 100 fighting men Amo_5:3. In our Lords time it is called a village Joh_7:42, a city, Luk_2:4, or a strong . The royal city would become a den of thieves. Christ should be born in a lowly village. : He who had taken the form of a servant, chose Bethlehem for His Birth, Jerusalem for His Passion.

Matthew relates how the Chief Priest and Scribes in their answer to Herods enquiries,

where Christ should be born, Mat_2:4-6, alleged this prophecy. They gave the substance rather than the exact words, and with one remarkable variation, art not the least among the princes of Judah. Matthew did not correct their paraphrase, because it does not affect the object for which they alleged the prophecy, the birth of the Redeemer in Bethlehem. The sacred writers often do not correct the translations, existing in their time, when the variations do not affect the truth .

Both words are true here. Micah speaks of Bethlehem, as it was in the sight of men; the chief priests, whose words Matthew approves, speak of it as it was in the sight of God, and as, by the Birth of Christ, it should become. : Nothing hindered that Bethlehem should be at once a small village and the Mother-city of the whole earth, as being the mother and nurse of Christ who made the world and conquered it. : That is not the least, which is the house of blessing, and the receptacle of divine grace. : He saith that the spot, although mean and small, shall be glorious. And in truth, adds Chrysostom, the whole world came together to see Bethlehem, where, being born, He was laid, on no other ground than this only. : O Bethlehem, little, but now made great by the Lord, He hath made thee great, who, being great, was in thee made little. What city, if it heard thereof, would not envy thee that most precious Stable and the glory of that Crib? Thy name is great in all the earth, and all generations call thee blessed. Glorious things are everywhere spoken of thee, thou city of God Psa_87:3. Everywhere it is sung, that this Man is born in her, and the Most High Himself shall establish her.

Out of thee shall He come forth to Me that is to be Ruler in Israel -(Literally, shall (one) come forth to Me to be Ruler.) Bethlehem was too small to be any part of the polity of Judah; out of her was to come forth One, who, in Gods Will, was to be its Ruler. The words to Me include both of Me and to Me. Of Me, that is, , by My Power and Spirit, as Gabriel said, The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee, therefore also that Holy Thing which shall be born of thee, shall be called the Son of God Luk_1:35. To Me, as God said to Samuel, I will send thee to Jesse the Bethlehemite; for I have provided Me a king among his sons 1Sa_16:1. So now, one shall go forth thence to Me, to do My Will, to My praise and glory, to reconcile the world unto Me, to rule and be Head over the true Israel, the Church. He was to go forth out of Bethlehem, as his native-place; as Jeremiah says, His noble shall be from him, and his ruler shall go forth out of the midst of him Jer_30:21; and Zechariah, Out of him shall come forth the cornerstone; out of him the nail, out of him the battle-bow, out of him every ruler together Zec_10:4. Before, Micah had said to the tower of Edar, Ophel of the daughter of Zion, the first rule shall come to thee; now, retaining the word, he says to Bethlehem, out of thee shall come one to be a ruler. The judge of Israel had been smitten; now there should go forth out of the little Bethlehem, One, not to be a judge only, but a Ruler.

Whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting - Literally, from the days of eternity. Going forth is opposed to going forth; a going forth out of Bethlehem, to a going forth from eternity; a going forth, which then was still to come, (the prophet says, shall go forth,) to a going forth which had been long ago (Rup.), not from the world but from the beginning, not in the days of time, but from the days of eternity. For in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The Same was in the beginning with God. Joh_1:1-2. In the end of the days, He was to go forth from Bethlehem; but, lest he should be thought then to have had His Being, the prophet adds, His goings forth are from everlasting. Here words, denoting eternity and used of the eternity of God, are united together to impress the belief of the Eternity of God the Son. We have neither thought nor words to conceive eternity; we can only conceive of time lengthened out without end. : True eternity is

boundless life, all existing at once, or , to duration without beginning and without end and without change.

The Hebrew names, here used, express as much as our thoughts can conceive or our words utter. They mean literally, from afore, (that is, look back as far as we can, that from which we begin is still before,) from the days of that which is hidden. True, that in eternity there are no divisions, no succession, but one everlasting now; one, as God, in whom it is, is One. But man can only conceive of Infinity of space as space without bounds, although God contains space, and is not contained by it; nor can we conceive of Eternity, save as filled out by time. And so God speaks after the manner of men, and calls Himself the Ancient of Days Dan_7:9, , being Himself the age and time of all things; before days and age and time, the Beginning and measure of ages and of time. The word, translated from of old, is used elsewhere of the eternity of God Hab_1:12. The God of before is a title chosen to express, that He is before all things which He made. Dweller of afore Psa_55:20 is a title, formed to shadow out His ever-present existence.

Conceive any existence afore all which else you can conceive, go back afore and afore that; stretch out backward yet before and before all which you have conceived, ages afore ages, and yet afore, without end, - then and there God was. That afore was the property of God. Eternity belongs to God, not God to eternity. Any words must be inadequate to convey the idea of the Infinite to our finite minds. Probably the sight of God, as He is, will give us the only possible conception of eternity. Still the idea of time prolonged infinitely, although we cannot follow it to infinity, shadows our eternal being. And as we look along that long vista, our sight is prolonged and stretched out by those millions upon millions of years, along which we can look, although even if each grain of sand or dust on this earth, which are countless, represented countless millions, we should be, at the end, as far from reaching to eternity as at the beginning. The days of eternity are only an inadequate expression, because every conception of the human mind must be so.

Equally so is every other, From everlasting to everlasting Psa_90:2; Psa_103:17; from everlasting (Psa_93:2, and of Divine Wisdom, or God the Son, Pro_8:23); to everlasting Psa_9:8; Psa_29:10; from the day Isa_43:13, that is, since the day was. For the word, from, to our minds implies time, and time is no measure of eternity. Only it expresses pre-existence, an eternal Existence backward as well as forward, the incommunicable attribute of God. But words of Holy Scripture have their full meaning, unless it appear from the passage itself that they have not. In the passages where the words, forever, from afore, do not mean eternity, the subject itself restrains them. Thus forever, looking onward, is used of time, equal in duration with the being of whom it is written, as, he shall be thy servant forever Exo_21:6, that is, so long as he lives in the body. So when it is said to the Son, Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever Psa_45:6, it speaks of a kingdom which shall have no end. In like way, looking backward, I will remember Thy wonders from old Psa_77:12, must needs relate to time, because they are marvelous dealings of God in time. So again, the heavens of old, stand simply contrasted with the changes of man Psa_68:34. But God of old is the Eternal God Deu_33:27. He that abideth of old Psa_55:20 is God enthroned from everlasting In like manner the goings forth here, opposed to a going forth in time, (emphatic words being moreover united together,) are a going forth in eternity.

The word, from of old, as used of being, is only used as to the Being of God. Here too then there is no ground to stop short of that meaning; and so it declares the eternal going-forth, or Generation of the Son. The plural, goings forth, may here be used, either as words of great majesty, God, Lord, Wisdom, (that is, divine Pro_1:20; Pro_9:1) are plural; or because the Generation of the Son from the Father is an Eternal Generation, before all time, and now, though not in time, yet in eternity still. As then the

prophet saith, from the days of eternity, although eternity has no parts, nor beginning, nor from, so he may say goings forth, to convey, as we can receive it, a continual going-forth. We think of Eternity as unending, continual, time; and so he may have set forth to us the Eternal Act of the Going Forth of the Son, as continual acts.

The Jews understood, as we do now, that Micah foretold that the Christ was to be born at Bethlehem, until they rejected Him, and were pressed by the argument. Not only did the chief priests formally give the answer, but, supposing our Lord to be of Nazareth, some who rejected Him, employed the argument against Him. Some said, Shall Christ come out of Galilee? Hath not the Scripture said, that Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was? Joh_7:41-42. They knew of two distinct things: that Christ was:

(1) to be of the seed of David; and

(2) out of the town of Bethlehem.

Christians urged them with the fact, that the prophecy could be fulfilled in no other than in Christ. : If He is not yet born, who is to go forth as a Ruler out of the tribe of Judah, from Bethlehem, (for He must needs come forth out of the tribe of Judah, and from Bethlehem, but we see that now no one of the race of Israel has remained in the city of of Bethlehem, and thenceforth it has been interdicted that any Jew should remain in the confines of that country) - how then shall a Ruler be born from Judaea, and how shall he come forth out of Bethlehem, as the divine volumes of the prophets announce, when to this day there is no one whatever left there of Israel, from whose race Christ could be born?

The Jews at first met the argument, by affirming that the Messiah was born at Bethlehem on the day of the destruction of the temple ; but was hidden for the sins of the people. This being a transparent fable, the Jews had either to receive Christ, or to give up the belief that He was to be born at Bethlehem. So they explained it, The Messiah shall go forth thence, because he shall be of the seed of David who was out of Bethlehem. But this would have been misleading language. Never did man so speak, that one should be born in a place, when only a remote ancestor had been born there. Micah does not say merely, that His family came out of Bethlehem, but that He Himself should thereafter come forth thence. No one could have said of Solomon or of any of the subsequent kings of Judah, that they should thereafter come forth from Bethlehem, any more than they could now say, one shall come forth from Corsic, of any future sovereign of the line of Napoleon III., because the first Napoleon was a Corsican; or to us, one shall come out of Hanover, of a successor to the present dynasty, born in England, because George I. came from Hanover in 1714.

CLARKE, "But thou, Beth-lehem Ephratah - I have considered this subject in great detail in the notes on Mat_2:6, to which the reader will be pleased to refer. This verse should begin this chapter; the first verse belongs to the preceding chapter.

Bethlehem Ephratah, to distinguish it from another Beth-lehem, which was in the tribe of Zebulun, Jos_19:15.

Thousands of Judah - The tribes were divided into small portions called thousands; as in our country certain divisions of counties are called hundreds.

Whose goings forth have been from of old - In every age, from the foundation of the world, there has been some manifestation of the Messiah. He was the hope, as he was the salvation, of the world, from the promise to Adam in paradise, to his

manifestation in the flesh four thousand years after.

From everlasting - miyemey olam, From the days of all time; from time as it came out of eternity. That is, there was no time in which he has not been going forth-coming in various ways to save men. And he that came forth the moment that time had its birth, was before that time in which he began to come forth to save the souls that he had created. He was before all things. As he is the Creator of all things, so he is the Eternal, and no part of what was created. All being but God has been created. Whatever has not been created is God. But Jesus is the Creator of all things; therefore he is God; for he cannot be a part of his own work.

GILL, "But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah,.... But though Jerusalem should be besieged and taken, and the land of Judea laid waste, yet, before all this should be, the Messiah should be born in Bethlehem, of which this is a prophecy, as is evident from Mat_2:4; the place is called by both the names it went by, to point it out the more distinctly, and with the greater certainty, Gen_35:19; the former signifies "the house of bread", and a proper place for Christ to be born in, who is the bread of life; and it has the name of the latter from its fruitfulness, being a place of pasture, and as we find it was at the time of our Lord's birth; for near it shepherds were then watching over their flocks; and it is here added, to distinguish it from another Bethlehem in the tribe of Zebulun, Jos_19:15; from which tribe the Messiah was not to come, but from the tribe of Judah; and in which this Bethlehem was, and therefore called, by Matthew, Bethlehem in the land of Judah; as it appears this was, from Rth_1:1; and from the Septuagint version of Jos_15:60, where, as Jerom observes, it was added by the Greek interpreters, or erased out of the Hebrew text by the wickedness of the Jews: the former seems most correct;

though thou be little among the thousands of Judah; this supplement of ours is according to Kimchi's reading and sense of the words; which, in some measure, accounts for the difference between the prophet and the Evangelist Matthew, by whom this place is said to be "not the least", Mat_2:6, as it might, and yet be little; besides, it might be little at one time, in Micah's time, yet not little at another time; in Matthew's; it might be little with respect to some circumstances, as to pompous buildings, and number of inhabitants, and yet not little on account of its being the birth place of great men, as Jesse, David, and especially the Messiah: or the words may be rendered with an interrogation, "art thou little?" &c. (d); thou art not: or thus, it is a "little thing to be among the thousands of Judah" (e); a greater honour shall be put upon thee, by being the place of the Messiah's birth. Moreover, Mr, Pocock has shown out of R. Tanchum,

both in his commentary on this place, and elsewhere (f), that the word signifies both "little" and "great", or of great note and esteem. The tribes of Israel were divided into tens, hundreds, and thousands, over which there was a head or prince; hence, in Matthew, these are called "the princes of Judah", Mat_2:6;

yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; not Hezekiah, who very probably was now born at the time of this prophecy; nor was he born at Bethlehem, nor a ruler in Israel, only king of Judah: nor Zerubbabel, who was born in Babylon, as his name shows, was governor of Judah, but not of Israel; nor can it be said of him, or any mere man, what is said in the next clause: but the Messiah is intended, as the Targum, Jarchi, and Kimchi confess, and other Jewish writers. The Targum is,

"out of thee shall come forth before me the Messiah, that he may exercise dominion over Israel.''

Jarchi's note is,

"out of thee shall come forth unto me Messiah, the son of David;''

and so he says, "the stone which the builders refused", &c. Psa_118:22; plainly suggesting that that passage also belongs to the Messiah, as it certainly does. Kimchi's paraphrase is,

"although thou art little among the thousands of Judah, of thee shall come forth unto me a Judge, to be ruler in Israel, and this is the King Messiah.''

And Abarbinel (g), mentioning those words in Mic_4:13; "arise, and thresh, O daughter of Zion", observes,

"this speaks concerning the business of the King Messiah, who shall reign over them, and shall be the Prince of their army; and it is plain that he shall be of the house of David: and it is said, "O thou, Bethlehem Ephratah", which was a small city, in the midst of the cities of Judah; and "although thou art little in the thousands of Judah, out of thee shall come forth unto me" a man, a ruler in Israel, "whose goings forth are from the days of old"; the meaning is, the goings forth of the family of that ruler are from the days of old; that is, from the seed of David, and a rod from the stem of Jesse, who was of Bethlehem Judah.''

So Abendana (h), a more modern Jew, paraphrases the words thus,

"out of thee shall come forth unto me a Judge, that is to be ruler in Israel, and this is the King Messiah; for because he is to be of the seed of David, from Bethlehem he will be.''

To which may be added R. Isaac (i), who, having cited this passage, observes, and, he, the ruler in Israel, is the King Messiah, who shall come forth from the seed of David the king; who was of Bethlehem Judah, as in 1Sa_17:12. Wherefore Lyra, having quoted Jarchi, and given his sense of the passage, remarks, hence it is plain that some Catholics, explaining this Scripture of King Hezekiah, "judaize" more than the Hebrews. Though some of them object the application of it to Jesus, who they say ruled not over Israel, but Israel over him, and put him to death; which it is true they did; but God exalted him to be a Prince, as well as a Saviour, unto Israel, notwithstanding that, and declared him to be Lord and Christ; besides, previous to his death, and in the land of Israel, he gave abundant proof of his power and rule over universal nature, earth, air, and sea; over angels, good and bad; and over men and beasts: all creatures obeyed him; though indeed his kingdom is not of this world, but of a spiritual nature, and is over the spiritual Israel of God; and there is a time coming when he will be King over all the earth. Now out of Bethlehem was the King Messiah, the ruler in Israel, to come forth; that is, here he was to be born, as the phrase signifies; see Gen_10:14; and here our Jesus, the true Messiah, was born, as appears from Mat_2:8; and this is not only certain from the evangelic history, but the Jews themselves acknowledge it. One of their chronologers (k) affirms that Jesus the Nazarene was born at Bethlehem Judah, a parsa and a half from Jerusalem; that is, about six miles from it, which was the distance between them: and

even the author of a blasphemous book (l), pretending to give the life of Jesus, owns that Bethlehem Judah was the place of his nativity: and it is clear not only that the Jews in the times of Jesus expected the Messiah to come from hence, even both the chief priests and scribes of the people, who, in answer to Herod's question about the place of the Messiah's birth, direct him to this, according to Micah's prophecy, Mat_2:4; and the common people, who thought to have confronted the Messiahship of Jesus with it, Joh_7:41; but others also, at other times. The tower of Edar being a place near to Bethlehem Ephratah, Gen_35:19; Jonathan ben Uzziel, in his Targum of Gen_35:19, says of the tower of Edar, this is the place from whence the King Messiah shall be revealed in the end of days; nay, some of them say he is born already, and was born at Bethlehem. An Arabian, they say (m), told a Jew,

"the King Messiah is born; he replied to him, what is his name? he answered, Menachem (the Comforter) is his name; he asked him, what is his father's name? he replied, Hezekiah; he said to him, from whence is he? he answered, from the palace of the king of Bethlehem Judah.''

This same story is told elsewhere (n), with some little variation, thus, that the Arabian should say to the Jew,

"the Redeemer of the Jews is both; he said to him, what is his name? he replied, Menachem is his name; and what is his father's name? he answered, Hezekiah; and where do they dwell? (he and his father;) he replied, in Birath Arba, in Bethlehem Judah.''

These things show their sense of this prophecy, and the convictions of their minds as to the births of the Messiah, and the place of it. The words "unto me" are thought by some to be redundant and superfluous; but contain in them the glory and Gospel of the text, whether considered as the words of God the Father; and then the sense is, that Christ was to come forth in this place in human nature, or become incarnate, agreeably to the purpose which God purposed in himself; to the covenant made with him, before the world was; to an order he had given him as Mediator, and to his promise concerning him; and he came forth to him, and answered to all these; as well as this was in order to do his will and work, by fulfilling the law; preaching the Gospel; doing miracles; performing the work of redemption and salvation; by becoming a sacrifice for sin, and suffering death; and likewise it was for the glorifying of all the divine perfections: or whether as the words of the prophet, in the name of the church and people of God, to and for whom he was born, or became incarnate; he came forth unto them, to be their Mediator in general; to be the Redeemer and Saviour of them in particular; to execute each of his offices of Prophet, Priest, and King; and to answer and fill up all relations he stands in to them, of Father, Brother, Head, and Husband;

whose goings forth have been of old, from everlasting; which is said of him, not because his extraction was from David, who lived many ages before him; for admitting he was "in him, in his loins", as to his human nature, so long ago, yet his "goings forth" were not from thence: nor because he was prophesied of and promised very early, as he was from the beginning of the world; but neither a prophecy nor promise of him can be called his "going forth"; which was only foretold and spoken of, but not in actual being; nor because it was decreed from eternity that he should come forth from Bethlehem, or be born there in time; for this is saying no more than what might be said of everyone that was to be born in Bethlehem, and was born there: nor is this to be understood of his

manifestations or appearances in a human form to the patriarchs, in the several ages of time; since to these, as to other of the above things, the phrase "from everlasting" cannot be ascribed: but either of his going forth in a way of grace towards his people, in acts of love to them, delighting in those sons of men before the world was; in applying to his Father on their account, asking them of him, and betrothing them to himself; in becoming their surety, entering into a covenant with his Father for them, and being the head of election to them, receiving all blessings and promises of grace for them: or else of his eternal generation and sonship, as commonly interpreted; who the only begotten of the Father, of the same nature with him, and a distinct person from him; the eternal Word that went forth from him, and was with him from eternity, and is truly God. The phrases are expressive of the eternity of his divine nature and person; Jarchi compares them with Psa_72:17; "before the sun was, his name was Jinnon"; that is, the Son, the Son of God; so as the former part of the text sets forth his human birth, this his divine generation; which, cause of the excellency and ineffableness of it, is expressed in the plural number, "goings forth". So Eliezer (o), along with the above mentioned passage in the Psalms, produces this to prove the name of the Messiah before the world was, whose "goings forth were from everlasting", when as yet the world was not created.

HERY, " What is here foretold concerning him.

(1.) That Bethlehem should be the place of his nativity, Mic_5:2. This was the scripture which the scribes went upon when with the greatest assurance they told Herod where Christ should be born (Mat_2:6), and hence it was universally known among the Jews that Christ should come out of the town of Bethlehem where David was, Joh_7:42. Beth-lehem signifies the house of bread, the fittest place for him to be born in who is the bread of life. And, because it was the city of David, by a special providence it was ordered that he should be born there who was to be the Son of David, and his heir and successor for ever. It is called Bethlehem-Ephratah, both names of the same city, as appears Gen_35:19. It was little among the thousands of Judah, not considerable either for the number of the inhabitants or the figure they made; it had nothing in it worthy to have this honour put upon it; but God in that, as in other instances, chose to exalt those of low degree, Luk_1:52. Christ would give honour to the place of his birth, and not derive honour from it: Though thou be little, yet this shall make thee great, and, as St. Matthew reads it, Thou art not the least among the princes of Judah, but upon this account art really honourable above any of them. A relation to Christ will magnify those that are little in the world.

JAMISO, "Beth-lehem Ephratah (Gen_48:7), or, Beth-lehem Judah; so called to distinguish it from Beth-lehem in Zebulun. It is a few miles southwest of Jerusalem. Beth-lehem means the house of bread; Ephratah means fruitful: both names referring to the fertility of the region.

though thou be little among though thou be scarcely large enough to be reckoned among, etc. It was insignificant in size and population; so that in Jos_15:21, etc., it is not enumerated among the cities of Judah; nor in the list in Neh_11:25, etc. Under Rehoboam it became a city: 2Ch_11:6, He built Beth-lehem. Mat_2:6 seems to contradict Micah, thou art not the least, But really he, by an independent testimony of the Spirit, confirms the prophet, Little in worldly importance, thou art not least (that is, far from least, yea, the very greatest) among the thousands, of princes of Judah, in the spiritual significance of being the birthplace of Messiah (Joh_7:42). God chooses the little things of the world to eclipse in glory its greatest things (Jdg_6:15; Joh_1:46; 1Co_1:27, 1Co_1:28). The low state of Davids line when Messiah was born is also implied

here.

thousands Each tribe was divided into clans or thousands (each thousand containing a thousand families: like our old English division of counties into hundreds), which had their several heads or princes; hence in Mat_2:6 it is quoted princes, substantially the same as in Micah, and authoritatively explained in Matthew. It is not so much this thousand that is preferred to the other thousands of Judah, but the Governor or Chief Prince out of it, who is preferred to the governors of all the other thousands. It is called a town (rather in the Greek, village), Joh_7:42; though scarcely containing a thousand inhabitants, it is ranked among the thousands or larger divisions of the tribe, because of its being the cradle of Davids line, and of the Divine Son of David. Moses divided the people into thousands, hundreds, fifties, and tens, with their respective rulers (Exo_18:25; compare 1Sa_10:19).

unto me unto God the Father (Luk_1:32): to fulfil all the Fathers will and purpose from eternity. So the Son declares (Psa_2:7; Psa_40:7, Psa_40:8; Joh_4:34); and the Father confirms it (Mat_3:17; Mat_12:18, compare with Isa_42:1). Gods glory is hereby made the ultimate end of redemption.

ruler the Shiloh, Prince of peace, on whose shoulders the government is laid (Gen_49:10; Isa_9:6). In 2Sa_23:3, He that ruleth over men must be just, the same Hebrew word is employed; Messiah alone realizes Davids ideal of a ruler. Also in Jer_30:21, their governor shall proceed from the midst of them; answering closely to out of thee shall come forth the ruler, here (compare Isa_11:1-4).

goings forth ... from everlasting The plain antithesis of this clause, to come forth out of thee (from Beth-lehem), shows that the eternal generation of the Son is meant. The terms convey the strongest assertion of infinite duration of which the Hebrew language is capable (compare Psa_90:2; Pro_8:22, Pro_8:23; Joh_1:1). Messiahs generation as man coming forth unto God to do His will on earth is from Beth-lehem; but as Son of God, His goings forth are from everlasting. The promise of the Redeemer at first was vaguely general (Gen_3:15). Then the Shemitic division of mankind is declared as the quarter in which He was to be looked for (Gen_9:26, Gen_9:27); then it grows clearer, defining the race and nation whence the Deliverer should come, namely, the seed of Abraham, the Jews (Gen_12:3); then the particular tribe, Judah (Gen_49:10); then the family, that of David (Psa_89:19, Psa_89:20); then the very town of His birth, here. And as His coming drew nigh, the very parentage (Mat_1:1-17; Luk_1:26-35; Luk_2:1-7); and then all the scattered rays of prophecy concentrate in Jesus, as their focus (Heb_1:1, Heb_1:2).

K&D, "The previous announcement of the glory to which Zion is eventually to attain, is now completed by the announcement of the birth of the great Ruler, who through His government will lead Israel to this, the goal of its divine calling. Mic_5:2. And thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, too small to be among the thousands of Judah, out of thee will He come forth to me who will be Ruler over Israel; and His goings forth are from the olden

time, from the days of eternity. The $#, with which this new section of the

proclamation of salvation opens, corresponds to the $# in Mic_4:8. Its former government is to return to Zion (Mic_4:8), and out of little Bethlehem is the possessor of this government to proceed, viz., the Ruler of Israel, who has sprung from eternity. This thought is so attached to Mic_5:1, that the divine exaltation of the future Ruler of Israel is contrasted with the deepest degradation of the judge. The names Bethlehem

Ephratah ('Ephrth and 'Ephrthh, i.e., the fertile ones, or the fruit-fields, being the

earlier name; by the side of which Bth-lechem, bread-house, had arisen even in the patriarchal times: see Gen_35:19; Gen_48:7; Rth_4:11) are connected together to give greater solemnity to the address, and not to distinguish the Judaean Bethlehem from the one in Zebulun (Jos_19:15), since the following words, among the thousands of Judah, provide sufficiently for this. In the little town the inhabitants are addressed; and this

explains the masculines ,$#, and as the prophet had them in his mind when ,,

describing the smallness of the little town, which is called in Joh_7:42. ,

literally small with regard to the being among the 'lph5m of Judah, i.e., too small to

have a place among them. Instead of the more exact , is probably chosen,

simply because of the following .

(Note: The omission of the article before , and the use of instead of , do not warrant the alteration in the text which Hitzig proposes, viz., to strike out

= and connect it with from as erroneous, and to separate the

if used in apposition, must have the article, is just as , for the assertion that ;9unfounded as the still further remark, that to say that Bethlehem was too small to

be among the 'laph5m of Judah is incorrect and at variance with 1Sa_20:6, 1Sa_

20:29, since these passages by no means prove that Bethlehem formed an 'eleph by itself.)

'Alph5m, thousands - an epithet used as early as Num_1:16; Num_10:4, to denote the

families, mishpchth, i.e., larger sections into which the twelve tribes of Israel were

divided (see the comm. on Num_1:16 and Exo_18:25) - does not stand for sr'lph5m, the princes of the families; since the thought is simply this, that Bethlehem is too small

for its population to form an independent 'eleph. We must not infer from this, however, that it had not a thousand inhabitants, as Caspari does; since the families were called

'lph5m, not because the number of individuals in them numbered a thousand, but because the number of their families or heads of families was generally somewhere about a thousand (see my biblische Archologie, 140). Notwithstanding this smallness,

the Ruler over Israel is to come forth out of Bethlehem. does not denote descent here, as in Gen_17:6 for example, so that Bethlehem would be regarded as the father of the Messiah, as Hofmann supposes, but is to be explained in accordance with Jer_30:21, A Ruler will go forth out of the midst of it (cf. Zec_10:4); and the thought is simply

this, Out of the population of the little Bethlehem there will proceed and arise. (to me) refers to Jehovah, in whose name the prophet speaks, and expresses the thought that this coming forth is subservient to the plan of the Lord, or connected with the promotion of His kingdom, just as in the words of God to Samuel in 1Sa_16:1, I have provided me a King among his sons, to which Micah most probably alluded for the

purpose of showing the typical relation of David to the Messiah. is really the

subject to , the infinitive being used as a relative clause, like

Micah gives the sentence the turn he does, for the purpose of bringing sharply out the contrast between the natural smallness of Bethlehem and the exalted dignity to which it

would rise, through the fact that the Messiah would issue from it. A, not in, but over

Israel, according to the general meaning of ,The article is omitted before mshl .because the only thing of primary importance was to give prominence to the idea of

ruling; and the more precise definition follows immediately afterwards in The .meaning of this clause of the verse depends upon our obtaining a correct view not only of

may denote , the fem. of ,E .but also of the references to time which follow ,the place, the time, the mode, or the act of going out. The last meaning, which Hengstenberg disputes, is placed beyond all doubt by Hos_6:3; 1Ki_10:28; Eze_12:4,

and 2Sa_3:25. The first of these senses, in which occurs most frequently, and in

which even the form is used in the keri in 2Ki_10:27, which is the only other

passage in which this form occurs, does not suit the predicate here, since the days of eternity cannot be called places of departure; nor is it required by the correlate

i.e., out of Bethlehem, because the idea which predominates in Bethlehem is that