Micah 5:2-4

The Messiah’s birth and reign, 2-4.

Closely connected with the deliverance will be the appearance of the Messianic king, though it is not stated or implied that he will accomplish it. Chapter 4 contains four separate Messianic sections, but in Micah 5:2, the prophet introduces for the first time the person of the Messianic king; and he does so in the form of an apostrophe to Beth-lehem. The new king is to be of the dynasty of David and is to be born in the ancient home of David. With this promise should be compared Micah 4:7, where Jehovah announces that he himself will rule over the restored remnant; but in spite of this essential difference there is a connection between the promise in Micah 5:2 ff., and that of Micah 4:6-8. In Micah 4:8, it is promised that the dominion shall return to Zion; Micah 5:2, introduces the person who is to rule in Zion as Jehovah’s representative.

Beth-lehem Ephratah The second more accurately with R.V., “Ephrathah”; LXX. reads, “And thou, Beth-lehem, house of Ephrathah,” which is thought by some to be an erroneous combination of two originally distinct readings, the one “And thou, Bethlehem,” the other “And thou, Beth-Ephrathah,” and the same combination is thought to be reflected in the Hebrew phrase. Of the two names only one is thought to be original, but there is a difference of opinion as to which one; some thinking that it is “ Beth-lehem,” more that it is “Beth-Ephrathah.” The other is thought to be an explanatory gloss, which at first was put in the margin, but in time was accidentally transferred into the text. Those who consider “Beth-Ephrathah” original think that “Beth-lehem” was added to explain the less common name; those who make “Beth-lehem” the original think that “Beth-Ephrathah” was added to distinguish this Beth-lehem from a city in the territory of Zebulun bearing the same name (Joshua 19:15). If the two words represent an erroneous combination of two originally distinct names, one of these explanations may be correct; but what is there to prove that such a combination exists? Beth-lehem is the well-known home of David, about five miles south of Jerusalem (1 Samuel 20:6).

The other word, “Ephrathah,” and its derivatives occur several times in the Old Testament in connection with Beth-lehem; but in the great majority of the cases Beth-lehem and Ephrathah are not, as is frequently assumed, synonymous; for the latter denotes the district in which the former is located (1 Samuel 17:12; Ruth 1:2; Ruth 4:11; 1 Chronicles 2:50, etc.); only rarely do the two appear to be identical (Genesis 35:16; Genesis 35:19). But if Ephrathah is the name of the district in which Beth-lehem is located, the combination found in the Hebrew text becomes perfectly natural Beth-lehem which is situated in the district of Ephrathah. Why the name of the district is added it may be impossible to determine; it may have been to distinguish this Beth-lehem from the one in Zebulun, or, as has been suggested, “to give greater solemnity to the address,” or for purely rhythmical reasons. Whatever the reason, it certainly seems unnecessary to consider either name a later addition.

Though thou be little among the thousands of Judah R.V., “which art little to be among.… “ The difference in translation does not affect the sense. The thought is not “which art too small,” for that would require a different construction in Hebrew; besides, Bethlehem was one “among the thousands” of Judah, though it was small and insignificant when compared with some other towns. “Thousands” is equivalent to “family” (Judges 6:15) in the broader, technical sense of “clan.” Though Beth-lehem was an unimportant place among the clans of Judah, out of it is to come one who is destined to be a ruler in Israel.

Unto me In accord with my will, for the purpose of carrying it to completion.

Whose goings forth have been [“are”] from of old, from everlasting R.V. margin, “from ancient days.” The last word does not mean eternity in the now commonly received sense of that word (see on Joel 3:20). In Isaiah 63:9, the identical expression, translated “days of old,” refers to the early history of Israel (compare Micah 7:20); in Micah 7:14, and Amos 9:11, to the time of David. Hence it is precarious to interpret this passage as teaching the premundane existence of the Messiah. It is much more likely that the prophet is thinking here of the descent of the Messianic king from the dynasty of David, and that the words refer to David’s day. Some think that the expression would not be used of a period less than three centuries in the past; hence they understand it of the patriarchal period, meaning that the pedigree of the Messianic king may be traced back to patriarchal times, even to Abraham. If Amos 9:11, comes from Amos (see pp. 215ff.) the difficulty which is responsible for the last-mentioned view vanishes, for Amos is even earlier than Micah (compare also Micah 7:14). No difficulty is felt by those who assign the passage to the postexilic period, for by that time the interval elapsed had become sufficiently long to warrant the use of the term in referring to the time of David. All the interpretations mentioned thus far assume that “goings forth” is equivalent to “origin,” and that the prophet is thinking of the genealogy of the promised king.

There are those, however, who hold that “goings forth” does not mean “origin,” that the prophet is not thinking of the genealogy of the king, but that he has in mind the numerous manifestations of Jehovah in the nation’s past history. If so, none of the above interpretations can be correct. These interpreters take as their starting point Isaiah 63:9. Jehovah had, in the very beginning, selected Israel for a sublime work. But all the prophets bewail Israel’s stubbornness, and they represent Jehovah as interfering, again and again, either in his own person, or in the person of the “angel of Jehovah,” or in some other manner, in order to prepare the nation for its lofty mission. Of such “goings forth” the prophets knew; therefore, these interpreters reason, is quite probable that Micah intended to identify the appearance of the Messianic king with the “goings forth” of Jehovah in the past. “From time inconceivable,” says Hoffmann, “the ruler who will finally proceed from Beth-lehem has been going forth and coming; for, since it is he to whom tends the history of mankind, of Israel, of the Davidic house, all advances in the same (that is, all significant epochs in this history) are beginnings of his coming, are goings forth of the second son of Jesse.”

With a New Testament writer such an identification would be quite natural, not so with an eighth century prophet. On the whole, the view that sees here a reference to the Davidic descent of the Messianic king is most satisfactory.

The natural continuation of Micah 5:2 is Micah 5:4, where the activity of the Messianic king is described. Between the two verses stands one that seeks to explain the connection between the present calamity and the future exaltation. There may not be conclusive evidence for denying the verse to Micah, but there can be no doubt that it is out of place where it now stands, and it certainly has some marks of a later date. It should be removed from its present position for the following reasons: (1) Micah 5:4 is the continuation of Micah 5:2; (2) the subject of “he will give up” (Micah 5:3) must be Jehovah, but in Micah 5:2 Jehovah speaks of himself in the first person, and in Micah 5:4 the third person refers to the Messianic king; (3) Micah 5:3, is dependent on Micah 4:10, but the author of Micah 5:3, misunderstood Micah 4:10, by taking it too literally; (4) the reference to the “return,” no matter how interpreted, is strange in this connection.

Therefore Because such great and blessed events are coming, the surrender of Israel to affliction can only be temporary.

Until the time that she which travaileth hath brought forth That event will mark the end of the distress. Undoubtedly a reference to Micah 4:9-10, where the distress of Jerusalem is likened to the anguish of a woman in travail. But Micah 4:10, contains no thought of Zion herself bringing forth a child, or being in the anguish of childbirth; that is a thought added by the author of this passage. Zion will bring forth; the child, the author says, is to be identified with the “ruler” of Micah 5:2. There is no warrant for identifying “she which travaileth” with Mary, the mother of Jesus, as if this were a direct prediction of the birth of Jesus. It is not impossible that the author was acquainted with Isaiah 7:14.

The birth of the child will mark, on the one hand, the end of pain and distress; on the other, the dawn of peace and prosperity.

Then When the ruler is born.

Shall return This might mean that they shall return from exile, or that they shall return to Jehovah in obedience and love (compare Isaiah 10:20-21). The latter must be meant if Micah 5:3 is in its original place, for the context knows nothing of an exile, but the language is in favor of the other interpretation (see below for a third meaning).

Remnant [“residue”] of his brethren Those in Zion who escape judgment. Since the ruler of Zion is the offspring of Zion, its inhabitants (see on Hosea 2:2) are his brothers.

Unto the children of Israel If this is the right translation neither of the above interpretations of “shall return” can be correct; instead, 3b must be understood as promising a reunion of north and south (see on Hosea 1:11; compare Isaiah 11:13). R.V. margin suggests a different translation (compare Jeremiah 3:18) “with the children of Israel”; that is, the residue of Judah and the children of Israel shall return together, either in a spiritual sense or from the exile. Either translation gives good sense.

Micah 5:4 describes the activity of the new ruler, who is represented, in accord with a common Semitic custom, as a shepherd shepherding his flock.

Stand Like a shepherd in the midst of his flock (Isaiah 61:5).

Feed Not only provide nourishment, but in general “give a shepherd’s care.”

In the strength of Jehovah He will be endowed with strength from Jehovah, that he may defend his sheep against wolves and robbers (John 10:11-12).

In the majesty of the name of Jehovah The name of Jehovah is Jehovah in manifestation (see on Micah 4:5; Amos 2:7; compare A.B. Davidson, The Theology of the Old Testament, pp. 36ff.). The majesty of the name of Jehovah is the majesty or splendor in which Jehovah manifests himself upon earth. The same splendor will show itself in the activity of the divinely appointed ruler.

Under this shepherd’s care the people will live in peace and felicity.

They The subjects.

Shall abide Equivalent to shall abide in peace and safety; no one can harm them (compare Hosea 2:18; Isaiah 9:7; Isaiah 11:6-9).

Now Refers not to the time of speaking, but to the time when the shepherd will exercise his shepherding care.

Shall he be great unto the ends of the earth This may mean that his power and authority will extend over the whole earth, but in view of Micah 5:5, which implies that some nations will rise up against his kingdom, it is better to understand it as meaning that his reputation will spread far and wide, so that other nations will hesitate to attack his people. If they should dare to do it he can easily overthrow them before they can do any harm.

The first sentence of Micah 5:5 is a part of this section.

And this man shall be the peace The promised ruler will be peace personified; from him it will spread over the whole promised land, and ultimately the whole world will be benefited by it (Ephesians 2:14). The expression “comprehends in one pregnant and blissful word what the Messiah’s coming signifies for his people and the world generally.” There may be an allusion to “Prince of peace” (Isaiah 9:6), a part of a prophecy delivered in connection with the Syro-Ephraimitish crisis in 735-734.