Micah 5:1

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

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

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

"Now 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 New 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 New 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.