A verse by verse commentary on Micah 5 dealing with a promised ruler from Bethlehem, and then deliverance and destruction as God takes vengeance on the nations who do not obey Him.

1. MICAH 5 COMME TARY
EDITED 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 Israel’s ruler
on the cheek with a rod.
BAR ES. "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
prophet’s 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

2. 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,

3. 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.
HE RY, "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

4. 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 Messiah’s advent. His
kingdom, conquest of Jacob’s 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 ‛attâh (now) the prophet's address turns once more to the object introduced with
‛attâh 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 ‛attâh points back to Mic_4:9, and is not attached to the ve
‛attâh 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_5:1
to 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 ‛attâh, and generally throughout the entire section. Bath-gegūd, 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

5. 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 ge
dūd, an invading
troop.” The verb hithgōdēd 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 ‫ינוּ‬ ֵ‫ל‬ ָ‫ע‬ 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 mōshēl in Mic_5:2. As the Messiah is
not called king there, but mōshēl, ruler, as the possessor of supreme authority; so here
the possessor of judicial authority is called shōphēt, 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
God’s 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

6. 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
‫,התגדדי‬ etgaddi, and the noun ‫,גדוד‬ gadud, sound alike; as though he said, Thou shalt
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

7. 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 Prophet’s 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 1
This 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

8. 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

9. Jesus Christ, the judge of Israel, on the cheek. See Houbigant.
CO STABLE, "Verse 1
This 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 COMME TARY
Verses 1-15
THE KI G 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 God’s 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

10. 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 people’s 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 Sennacherib’s 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 Zion’s 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.

11. Isaiah had prospects of the fate of Jerusalem which differ quite as much. Once more
(Micah 5:1) the blockade is established. Israel’s 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 Israel’s 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 people’s 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
Messiah’s 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

12. 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 Micah’s 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 Micah’s promise of His origin among themselves with
new hope and patience, so in the Roman empire the religion of Jesus Christ was

13. 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 imrod’s 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 Micah’s 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."

14. BE SO , "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 1
God’s Enemies Are Determined To Demonstrate Their Power And To Smite
YHWH’s Anointed (Micah 5:1).
The warning of the previous verse having been ignored the nations gather their
forces for the attack on God’s 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 Micah’s 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.

15. As we know, because YHWH intervened in response to Hezekiah’s 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 Hezekiah’s 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, ἐµφραχθήσεσαι θυγάτηρ
ἐµφραγµᾷ, "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 φυλάς, "tribes," but the
other Greek translators give κριτήν.
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

16. 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.”
BAR ES. "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.

17. 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 Micah’s 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,” “Angel’s 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 Lord’s 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 Herod’s enquiries,

18. 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 God’s 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

19. 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

20. 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

21. manifestation in the flesh four thousand years after.
From everlasting - ‫עולם‬ ‫מימי‬ 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 ‫צעיר‬ 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,

22. "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

23. 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

24. 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.
HE RY, " 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 David’s line when Messiah was born is also implied

25. 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 David’s 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 Father’s 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). God’s 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 David’s 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).
Messiah’s 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 ‫ה‬ ָ ፍְ‫,ו‬ with which this new section of the
proclamation of salvation opens, corresponds to the ‫ה‬ ָ ፍְ‫ו‬ 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

26. Ephratah ('Ephrâth and 'Ephrâthâh, i.e., the fertile ones, or the fruit-fields, being the
earlier name; by the side of which Bēth-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 ‫ה‬ ָ ፍ, ‫יר‬ ִ‫ע‬ ָ‫,צ‬ and ָ‫ך‬ ְ ִ‫,מ‬ as the prophet had them in his mind when
describing the smallness of the little town, which is called κώµη in Joh_7:42. ‫יוֹת‬ ְ‫ה‬ ִ‫ל‬ ‫יר‬ ִ‫ע‬ ָ‫,צ‬
literally “small with regard to the being among the 'ălâphım of Judah,” i.e., too small to
have a place among them. Instead of the more exact ‫יוֹת‬ ְ‫ה‬ ִ‫,מ‬ ‫יוֹת‬ ְ‫ה‬ ִ‫ל‬ is probably chosen,
simply because of the following ‫יוֹת‬ ְ‫ה‬ ִ‫.ל‬
(Note: The omission of the article before ‫יר‬ ִ‫ע‬ ָ‫,צ‬ and the use of ‫יוֹת‬ ְ‫ה‬ ִ‫ל‬ instead of ‫יוֹת‬ ְ‫ה‬ ִ‫,מ‬
do not warrant the alteration in the text which Hitzig proposes, viz., to strike out
‫יוֹת‬ ְ‫ה‬ ִ‫ל‬ as erroneous, and to separate the ‫ה‬ from ‫אפרתה‬ and connect it with ‫צעיר‬ = ‫ת‬ ָ‫ר‬ ְ‫פ‬ ֶ‫א‬
‫יר‬ ִ‫ע‬ ָ ַ‫;ה‬ for the assertion that ‫יר‬ ִ‫ע‬ ָ‫,צ‬ if used in apposition, must have the article, is just as
unfounded as the still further remark, that “to say that Bethlehem was too small to
be among the 'ălaphım 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.)
'Alâphım, thousands - an epithet used as early as Num_1:16; Num_10:4, to denote the
families, mishpâchōth, 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 sârē 'ălâphım,
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
'ălâphım, 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 Archäologie, §140). Notwithstanding this smallness,
the Ruler over Israel is to come forth out of Bethlehem. ‫ן‬ ִ‫מ‬ ‫א‬ ֵ‫צ‬ֵ‫י‬ 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.” ‫י‬ ִ‫ל‬ (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. ‫ל‬ ֵ‫מוֹשׁ‬ ‫יוֹת‬ ְ‫ה‬ ִ‫ל‬ is really the
subject to ‫א‬ ֵ‫צ‬ֵ‫,י‬ the infinitive ‫יוֹת‬ ְ‫ה‬ ִ‫ל‬ being used as a relative clause, like ‫וֹת‬ ַ‫כ‬ ְ‫ל‬ in Hos_2:11,
in the sense of “who is destined to be ruler.” But instead of simply saying ‫ל‬ ֵ‫א‬ ָ‫ר‬ ְ‫שׂ‬ִ‫י‬ ‫ל‬ ֵ‫מוֹשׁ‬ ‫א‬ ֵ‫צ‬ַ‫,י‬

27. 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. ‫ל‬ ֵ‫א‬ ָ‫ר‬ ְ‫שׂ‬ִ‫י‬ ְ , not in, but over
Israel, according to the general meaning of ‫ב‬ ‫ל‬ ַ‫שׁ‬ ָ‫.מ‬ The article is omitted before mōshēl,
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 ‫וגו‬ ‫יו‬ ָ‫ּת‬‫א‬ ָ‫.וּמוֹצ‬ The
meaning of this clause of the verse depends upon our obtaining a correct view not only of
‫אוֹת‬ ָ‫,מוֹצ‬ but also of the references to time which follow. ‫ה‬ፎ ָ‫,מוֹצ‬ the fem. of ‫א‬ ָ‫,מוֹצ‬ may denote
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 ‫א‬ ָ‫מוֹצ‬ occurs most frequently, and in
which even the form ‫אוֹת‬ ָ‫מוֹצ‬ 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 ‫ם‬ ָ‫עוֹל‬ ‫י‬ ֵ‫ימ‬ ִ‫מ‬ here, since the
days of eternity cannot be called places of departure; nor is it required by the correlate
ָ‫ך‬ ְ ִ‫,מ‬ i.e., out of Bethlehem, because the idea which predominates in Bethlehem is that of
the population, and not that of the town or locality; and in general, the antithesis
between hemistich a and b does not lie in the idea of place, but in the insignificance of
Bethlehem as a place of exit for Him whose beginnings are in the days of eternity. We
take ‫אוֹת‬ ָ‫מוֹצ‬ in the sense of goings forth, exits, as the meaning “times of going forth”
cannot be supported by a single passage. Both ‫ם‬ ֶ‫ד‬ ֶ‫ק‬ and ‫ם‬ ָ‫עוֹל‬ ‫י‬ ֵ‫מ‬ְ‫י‬ are used to denote hoary
antiquity; for example in Mic_7:14 and Mic_7:20, where it is used of the patriarchal age.
Even the two together are so used in Isa_51:9, where they are combined for the sake of
emphasis. But both words are also used in Pro_8:22 and Pro_8:23 to denote the eternity
preceding the creation of the world, because man, who lives in time, and is bound to
time in his mode of thought, can only picture eternity to himself as time without end.
Which of these two senses is the one predominating here, depends upon the precise
meaning to be given to the whole verse.
It is now generally admitted that the Ruler proceeding from Bethlehem is the Messiah,
since the idea that the words refer to Zerubbabel, which was cherished by certain Jews,
according to the assertion of Chrysostom, Theodoret, and others, is too arbitrary to have
met with any acceptance. Coming forth out of Bethlehem involves the idea of descent.
Consequently we must not restrict ‫יו‬ ָ‫ּת‬‫א‬ ָ‫מוֹצ‬ (His goings forth) to the appearance of the
predicted future Ruler in the olden time, or to the revelations of the Messiah as the
Angel of Jehovah even in the patriarchal age, but must so interpret it that it at least
affirms His origin as well. Now the origin of the Angel of the Lord, who is equal to God,
was not in the olden time in which He first of all appeared to the patriarchs, but before
the creation of the world - in eternity. Consequently we must not restrict ‫ם‬ ָ‫עוֹל‬ ‫י‬ ֵ‫ימ‬ ִ‫מ‬ ‫ם‬ ֶ‫ד‬ ֶ ִ‫מ‬
(from of old, from the days of eternity) to the olden time, or exclude the idea of eternity
in the stricter sense. Nevertheless Micah does not announce here the eternal proceeding
of the Son from the Father, or of the Logos from God, the generatio filii aeterna, as the
earlier orthodox commentators supposed. This is precluded by the plural ‫,מוצאתיו‬ which
cannot be taken either as the plur. majestatis, or as denoting the abstract, or as an
indefinite expression, but points to a repeated going out, and forces us to the assumption
that the words affirm both the origin of the Messiah before all worlds and His

28. appearances in the olden time, and do not merely express the thought, that “from an
inconceivably remote and lengthened period the Ruler has gone forth, and has been
engaged in coming, who will eventually issue from Bethlehem” (Hofmann,
Schriftbeweis, ii. 1, p. 9).
(Note: We must reject in the most unqualified manner the attempts that have been
made by the Rabbins in a polemical interest, and by rationalistic commentators from
a dread of miracles, to deprive the words of their deeper meaning, so as to avoid
admitting that we have any supernatural prediction here, whether by paraphrasing
“His goings forth” into “the going forth of His name” (we have this even in the
Chaldee), or the eternal origin into an eternal predestination (Calv.), or by
understanding the going forth out of Bethlehem as referring to His springing out of
the family of David, which belonged to Bethlehem (Kimchi, Abarb., and all the later
Rabbins and more modern Rationalists). According to this view, the olden time and
the days of eternity would stand for the primeval family; and even if such a quid pro
quo were generally admissible, the words would contain a very unmeaning thought,
since David's family was not older than any of the other families of Israel and Judah,
whose origin also dated as far back as the patriarchal times, since the whole nation
was descended from the twelve sons of Jacob, and thought them from Abraham. (See
the more elaborate refutation of these views in Hengstenberg's Christology, i. p.
486ff. translation, and Caspari's Micha, p. 216ff.))
The announcement of the origin of this Ruler as being before all worlds unquestionably
presupposes His divine nature; but this thought was not strange to the prophetic mind
in Micah's time, but is expressed without ambiguity by Isaiah, when he gives the
Messiah the name of “the Mighty God” (Isa_9:5; see Delitzsch's comm. in loc.). We must
not seek, however, in this affirmation of the divine nature of the Messiah for the full
knowledge of the Deity, as first revealed in the New Testament by the fact of the
incarnation of God in Christ, and developed, for example, in the prologue to the Gospel
of John. Nor can we refer the “goings forth” to the eternal proceeding of the Logos from
God, as showing the inward relation of the Trinity within itself, because this word
corresponds to the ‫א‬ ֵ‫צ‬ֵ‫י‬ of the first hemistich. As this expresses primarily and directly
nothing more than His issuing from Bethlehem, and leaves His descent indefinite,
‫מוצאתיו‬ can only affirm the going forth from God at the creation of the world, and in the
revelations of the olden and primeval times.
The future Ruler of Israel, whose goings forth reach back into eternity, is to spring
from the insignificant Bethlehem, like His ancestor, king David. The descent of David
from Bethlehem forms the substratum not only for the prophetic announcement of the
fact that the Messiah would come forth out of this small town, but also for the divine
appointment that Christ was born in Bethlehem, the city of David. He was thereby to be
made known to the people from His very birth as the great promised descendant of
David, who would take possession of the throne of His father David for ever. As the
coming forth from Bethlehem implies birth in Bethlehem, so do we see from Mat_2:5-6,
and Joh_7:42, that the old Jewish synagogue unanimously regarded this passage as
containing a prophecy of the birth of the Messiah in Bethlehem. The correctness of this
view is also confirmed by the account in Mat_2:1-11; for Matthew simply relates the
arrival of the Magi from the East to worship the new-born King in accordance with the
whole arrangement of his Gospel, because he saw in this even a fulfilment of Old
Testament prophecies.
(Note: In the quotation of this verse in Mat_2:6, the substance is given freely from