The birth of the Messiah, and his rule; peace without and holiness within.—This chapter belongs together with the preceding, and presents similar characteristics. Here again we find the sequence of ideas interrupted by a passage clearly added by an after-thought (viz. Micah 5:5-6); see below.

1. Transition from the prediction of Jerusalem’s extremity during the siege to the Messianic glories in prospect

1. Now gather thyself in troops] Rather, Now thou mayest gather, &c. Assyria may marshal her hosts, may lay siege against the holy city, may violate the person of the king, but from insignificant Bethlehem a royal Deliverer shall arise.

O daughter of troops] i.e. O invading army. ‘Daughter’ is a personifying phrase, as in ‘daughter of Jerusalem’ = population of Jerusalem. Most commentators think Jerusalem itself is referred to here, the ‘troops’ being the crowds of frightened citizens, but this is contrary to usage, ‘troop’ being constantly used in a military sense.

he hath laid siege] An abrupt change of number, as in Isaiah 1:29. ‘Assyria’ is the implied subject.

smite … upon the cheek] A gross insult; comp. 1 Kings 22:24, Job 16:10, Luke 22:64.

the judge of Israel] i.e. the king (as in Amos 2:3). The phrase is chosen partly to produce a kind of paronomasia in the Hebrew with the word for ‘rod,’ and partly perhaps because Jehovah has already been called the ‘king’ of Israel (Micah 2:13). ‘Israel’ here means Judah, as in Micah 1:14 (see note).

2–4. The Messiah’s birth and world-wide rule

2. But thou, Beth-lehem Ephratah …] (See the application of this passage by the Jewish Sanhedrin in Matthew 2:6; comp. John 7:42.) To the deep abasement of the actual king the prophet, in this and the following verses, opposes the Divine glory of the ideal King. Mean as Bethlehem may be in outward appearance, it has been selected as the birthplace of the Messianic Deliverer. ‘Ephratah,’ or rather ‘Ephrathah’ (a fuller form of Ephrath), was another name for Bethlehem (1 Samuel 17:12, Ruth 1:2; Ruth 4:11, 1 Chronicles 2:50-51): its meaning (‘fruitful’) suggests that it originally belonged to the valley which leads up to Bethlehem, and which is still richly adorned with vines and olive-trees. The Septuagint rendering is peculiar, ‘And thou Bethlehem, house of Ephratah,’ which looks very much like a combination of two different renderings, which presuppose two different readings of the Hebrew text (the one, ‘And thou, Bethlehem;’ the other, ‘And thou, Beth-Ephratah’). Some scholars indeed prefer the latter reading on exegetical grounds, and suppose that the present reading of the Hebrew text is incorrect, and that lehem in Beth-lehem is an interpolation, due to a confusion between the two meanings of Ephratah. This makes a little difference in the exegesis of the passage. ‘House’ in ‘house of Ephratah’ will have to be taken in the larger sense of the word, viz. for a subdivision of the ‘thousand’ or ‘family.’ This will very well suit the following words (as generally explained), which will then contain a statement that the people or households of the district of Ephrath (see above) were not numerous enough to form a ‘thousand’ or ‘family’ by themselves. The context also shews the essential point of the prophecy to be, not that the Deliverer shall be born at Bethlehem, but that he shall belong to the Davidic family. If we retain the received reading of the Hebrew text we may refer to the analogy of Isaiah 9:1, which (when rightly translated) mentions a particular region of Palestine as in some sense the object of special favour from the Messiah: the one prediction is not more circumstantial than the other. There remains however a difficulty connected with the compound form of the name. Why Bethlehem Ephratah, and not simply Bethlehem? It is hardly enough to reply that there was another Bethlehem in the territory of Zebulun (Joshua 19:15), for the danger of confusion would be more naturally guarded against by giving the full name ‘Bethlehem-judah’ (Jdg 17:9; Jdg 19:18). Nor can we attach much weight to the remark of Delitzsch, that the prophet substitutes Ephratah for Judah, because the former name “awakens so many reminiscences from the primitive history of Israel (Genesis 35:16) and the Davidic kingdom (Ruth 4:11).” Messianic Prophecies (by Curtiss), section 45.

though thou be little …] The Hebrew text according to most scholars, requires a different rendering—art too small to be, &c. This however is not strictly in accordance with grammar, and it is very possible that the Auth. Vers. is correct; only it requires us to suppose that one of the Hebrew words in this verse (li-h’yoth) has been written twice over, and that it has thus intruded into a wrong clause.—As a matter of fact, Bethlehem was a small and unimportant place. It is omitted in the list of cities of Judah in the received Hebrew text of Joshua 15 (though, together with ten other towns, it is found in the text of the Septuagint), and also in the list, Nehemiah 11:25. It is also spoken of in John 7:42 as κώμη. Yet poor, insignificant Bethlehem was to have the honour of giving birth to the Messiah.

“O sola magnarum urbium

Major Bethlem, cui contigit

Ducem salutis cœlitus

Incorporatum gignere.”

Prudentius, Hymn. Epiph. 77.

thousands] A ‘thousand’ is another name for a ‘family’ (in the larger, technical sense of the word, = ‘clan’), see Numbers 1:16; Numbers 10:4, Joshua 22:14; Joshua 22:21, &c. Several ‘thousands’ or ‘families’ went to make up a ‘tribe.’

unto me] Rather, for me, in pursuance of my will.

whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting] The meaning of the word rendered ‘goings forth’ is doubtful. If we keep this translation, we must explain it of the revelations of Jehovah to the early Israelites and to the patriarchs. In Isaiah 9:6 one part of the great compound name of the Messiah is ‘God the Mighty One’ (or, Hero), from which we may infer that the Messiah is the permanently visible manifestation of the delivering or punishing, or, in a word, world-governing aspect of the Deity. So too in Isaiah 63:9 we are told that in ‘the days of old’ (the same phrase which is here rendered ‘everlasting’) Jehovah, or the Angel which represented Him, sympathized with the trouble of His people, and delivered them; and in Micah 5:15 of the same chapter that the attributes of Jehovah, regarded under this aspect, are ‘jealousy’ and ‘heroism’ (Auth. Vers., loosely, ‘zeal’ and ‘strength’). We can hardly be wrong in inferring that in all these passages one and the same essential aspect of Jehovah is meant, and that the Messiah may be said, in harmony with prophetic teaching, to have been revealed at intervals from the patriarchal history onwards. In favour of this translation, it may be observed that it produces a striking antithesis between the former and the latter half of the verse; ‘he shall come forth’ being a part of the same verb from which the word rendered ‘goings forth’ is derived. But it is also permissible to render this word ‘origins,’ and to explain the plural as that of ‘excellence’ or extent, just as we find ‘dominions’ for ‘dominion’ in Psalm 114:2 (literally rendered), and ‘habitations’ for ‘habitation’ in Isaiah 54:2. The passage will then become a statement either of the pre-existence of the Messiah in the eternal purposes of God (comp. Isaiah 22:11; Isaiah 37:26); or, which is more obvious and perfectly suitable to the context, of his descent from the ancient Davidic family—comp. Amos 9:11, where ‘the days of old’ evidently refer to the reign of David. (David was already three centuries behind Micah.) In the latter case, we ought to render the passage before us, Whose origin hath been from aforetime, from the days of old. There is, in fact, properly speaking, no word in Hebrew exactly answering to ‘everlasting.’ See also Micah 7:14; Micah 7:20, where Auth. Vers. rightly has, ‘the days of old.’

3. Therefore] i.e. because the deliverance of Israel is to be a work of pure grace, and to proceed from the insignificant Bethlehem. It is assumed that the family of David will have sunk down as low as that of Jesse originally was—the same anticipation which we find expressed in Isaiah 11:1, ‘There shall come forth a shoot from the stump of Jesse.’

will he give them up] Jehovah will deliver Israel into the hands of its foes.

she which travaileth] i.e. she who is to bear. Probably (though this is not quite free from doubt) this is an allusion to Isaiah’s great prophecy of Immanuel (Isaiah 7:14)—a prophecy vague, it is true, and open to various interpretations, but most likely referring to the Messiah (see on Micah 5:5).

then the remnant of his brethren shall return] Rather, and (until) the remnant of his brethren return. ‘Return’ may be taken either in a physical or in a spiritual sense. If in the former, the ‘remnant’ will mean the exiles of Israel, wherever they might be scattered, including those of the Ten Tribes; if in the latter, it will refer rather to the Judæans who had escaped in the Judgment. The return of the long-lost tribes, and the thorough conversion of his own people, were equally upon the heart of the prophet.

unto] Or (if we explain ‘return’ = ‘be converted’), with.

4. And he shall stand and feed] viz. his flock, as a shepherd. Over this restored and regenerate people the Messiah shall preside in the plenitude of Divine power. ‘Stand,’ as a shepherd amidst his flock, Isaiah 61:5.

in the majesty of the name, &c.] This is not at all an otiose feature of the description. The ‘Name’ of Jehovah is an appellation of the self-revealing aspect (one might almost say, Person) of the Godhead. Comp. Isaiah 30:27, ‘Behold, the Name of Jehovah cometh from far … his lips are full of indignation,’ &c. In fact, the Messiah, who is ‘God the Mighty One,’ may be said to be an incarnation of the Name of Jehovah.

abide] i.e. remain undisturbed in their land.

now shall he be great] ‘Now,’ from the point of view of the fulfilment of the prophecy (instead of ‘then’).

unto the ends of the earth] The Messiah’s kingdom will more than supplant Assyria’s; comp. Psalm 2:8; Psalm 72:8. Obs. how the Messianic hope developes and gathers strength in the atmosphere of Assyrian conquest.

5. the peace] Rather, Peace (peace personified). An allusion perhaps to Isaiah’s second great Messianic prophecy (Isaiah 9:6, ‘Prince of peace’). There ought to be a full stop after ‘Peace.’

when the Assyrian shall come …] This is quite correctly rendered; the prophet, speaking in the name of the people, looks forward to an Assyrian domination over the Holy Land. Many commentators unnecessarily suppose it to be a hypothetical clause—‘supposing that another Assyrian should invade our land, Israel will be able to meet him with abundance of capable leaders,’ and Castalio (Châtillon) compares the line of Virgil (Ecl. 4:34),

‘Alter erit tum Tiphys, et altera quae vehat Argo

Delectos heroas.’

seven shepherds] ‘Shepherds,’ i.e. princes; ‘seven,’ as being the perfect number. Nothing is told us of the relation of these princes to the Messiah. Comp. Isaiah 32:1.

eight principal men] ‘Eight,’ as if to say, more than enough. In the hour of need God can raise up a superabundance of capable men. ‘Principal men;’ rather, princes among men.

5, 6. These verses appear to have been added by an after-thought. Two plausible reasons may be given for the insertion. 1. It was not clear who the ‘many nations’ and ‘many peoples’ of Micah 4:11; Micah 4:13 were; the first clause of Micah 5:5 may perhaps be taken as interpreting those rather vague phrases of the Assyrians. 2. In the first gush of inspiration, the prophet had omitted the period of foreign rule over the land of Israel. Thus the picture of the Messianic time was left indistinct; by the insertion of Micah 5:5-6 this omission was rectified. The connexion is improved, if we inclose these verses in a parenthesis; it should be observed that the same vague phrase ‘many peoples’ reappears in Micah 5:7-8, indicating that these verses belonged to the original draft of the prophecy. How greatly our idea of the Biblical literature gains in distinctness by the insight we are now acquiring into the methods and processes of the prophetic writers and editors!

6. they shall waste] Lit. ‘feed off.’

the land of Nimrod] Comp. Genesis 10:11, ‘Out of that land he [Nimrod] went forth into Assyria.’ There is a special significance in the phrase, for a Hebrew could hardly help connecting Nimrod with mârad, ‘to rebel.’ Assyria was one of those ‘disobedient’ nations spoken of in Micah 5:15.

in the entrances thereof] Lit., ‘in the gates thereof.’ Comp. Nahum 3:13, ‘The gates of thy land.’

7. many people] Rather, many peoples. See Micah 4:11; Micah 4:13.

as the showers upon the grass] ‘The grass withereth, the flower fadeth’ (Isaiah 40:7) is the prophet’s exclamation on the extinction of mighty empires. But there is no inherent necessity for the death of nations; Israel is the ‘dew,’ the fertilizing rain, of the nations, as the Church is elsewhere described as their ‘salt’ (Matthew 5:13).

that tarrieth not for man] Man can neither help nor hinder the works of God in nature; and the initial reluctance of the heathen shall be no bar to the blessed influence of Israel.

7, 8. The twofold operation of the Messiah’s people.—Israel is a precious and powerful instrument given by God to mankind. In a certain sense, he is a Messiah, because specially chosen to set an example of obedience to God’s laws (Exodus 19:5-6), and to preach His religion to the Gentiles (Micah 4:2), and because the pious kernel of the nation is mystically united to Him who is preeminently the Messiah. Christ (‘the Christ’), as we know from Luke 2:34, was ‘set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel,’ and so too the people of Israel, regarded as a Messiah or Messianic agent, has a twofold influence on the neighbouring peoples, comparable on the one hand to the softly-falling, beneficent dew, and on the other to the fierce, destructive lion. (The same antithesis of figures occurs in Proverbs 19:12.)

9. An exulting address to Israel marching forth against his enemies.

Thine hand shall be …] Rather, ‘let thine hand be;’ similarly in the next clause.

10–15. The destruction of warlike implements and of idolatry

10. I will cut off thy horses …] Isaiah, too, speaks of war-horses and war-chariots as equally hateful to God with idolatry, Micah 2:7. Horses were first imported from Egypt by the worldly-minded Solomon, 1 Kings 4:26; 1 Kings 10:28-29.

11. the cities of thy land] Large towns being centres of luxury and foreign fashions. The Book of Genesis traces the foundation of cities to the first murderer Cain, Genesis 4:17.

all thy strong holds] Comp. Isaiah 2:15; Isaiah 30:25, Hosea 8:14.

12. witchcrafts] Sorcery was highly developed in Syria and Palestine; the ancient Semites brought it from their early home in Mesopotamia (see Lenormant’s Chaldean Magic). Comp. Isaiah 2:6, Numbers 22-24, Deuteronomy 18:10-13.

soothsayers] More precisely, diviners of the clouds (the clouds were much studied by the Chaldean diviners); or perhaps, cloud-makers (-falling, beneficent dew, and on the other to ths among savages, ‘rain-makers’).

13. Thy graven images … thy standing images] The former, images of wood or metal; the latter, stone pillars consecrated to a divinity. Comp. Leviticus 26:1, ‘Ye shall make you no idols nor graven image, neither rear you up a (sacred) pillar,’ Deuteronomy 16:22; Deuteronomy 27:15, Exodus 23:24. The denunciation of sacred ‘pillars’ and Ashérahs is however much more emphatic in the legislation of the Pentateuch than in Micah. The latter prophet mentions them rather as constituent parts of the corrupting civilisation imported from abroad. Isaiah (a contemporary of Micah’s) actually gives his sanction to the erection of ‘pillars’ to the true God (Isah 19:19); and Hosea (also a contemporary) merely mentions the want of sacred ‘pillars’ as among the misfortunes of the captivity, concurrently with the want of king and sacrifice (Hosea 3:4). This tolerant attitude of Isaiah and Micah is in perfect harmony with the Book of Genesis, which relates how Jacob set up and anointed the ‘pillar’ which marked out Bethel as a sanctuary. In fact, as long as ‘high places,’ or local sanctuaries, were tolerated, it was natural to tolerate ‘pillars’ with them, the ‘pillar’ being one of the traditional signs of a ‘high place.’ Isaiah lets the sanctuaries alone (though not, of course, the graven images, Isaiah 2:20, Isaiah 30:22), and with them the sacred ‘pillars;’ Micah begins to protest against both, but still gently, compared with the legislation of the Pentateuch (comp. on Micah 1:5).

14. thy groves] Rather, thy Ashçrahs. Ashçrah was a sensual Canaanitish goddess, corresponding to the feminine variety of the Assyrian Ishtar; her symbol was a wooden pillar or artificial tree.

thy cities] But the cities have been already mentioned (Micah 5:11). It is better perhaps to render thy adversaries (giving the word its Aramaic sense; or, if this be preferred, slightly altering the first letter—‘ayin into çere—to suit the general Hebrew usage). Thus we shall obtain a transition to Micah 5:15.

15. the heathen, such as they have not heard] Rather, the nations which have not been obedient. Jehovah, being the God of the whole world, is de jure ‘King of the nations’ (Jeremiah 10:7); and if the ‘nations’ have enthroned other gods in His places, and have almost forgotten Jehovah’s existence, they are still responsible to Him.